one speech, this was a deliberate purposeful effort by donald trump over many months that resulted in well-organized mom attack. .. >> and prove that donald trump knew every detail of what would and on january the sixth. raven held deadly the attack would become. but he did know. as he looked out in that sea of thousands in front of him, some wearing body armor and helmets. and others carrying weapons and the result would be violent. the evidence is overwhelming demonstrate this. a few points on this.

donald trump knew the people he was inciting. leading up to january the sixth . and he saw the violence they were capable of. he had a pattern and practice of raising and encouraging supporters of violence . and never condemning it. it is not a coincidence that the same people, the proud boys, the organizer of the trump caravan and the supporters and speakers at the second million mega march. they all showed up on january the sixth. and donald trump the heavier was different. this was not just a comment by official or a politician fighting for a cost per unit this was months of cultivating invasive people who work violent and praising that violence and then leading them and that violence in that range straight to this congress where he knew his vice president was presiding. and donald trump had warnings about the crowd in front of him on january 6th . there were

detailed posts on line of attack plan. and all enforcement worn these postwar real threats and even made arrest in the days leading up to the attack. there were credible reports that any would be armed and ready to attack the capital. despite these credible warnings, a serious threats to our capital, when the crowd was standing in front of the president, ready to take orders and attack. he said, we are going to the capital and we fight, we fight like heck and if you do not find the kick, you're not going to have a country anymore. here's a short clip. >> give me a name. [inaudible]. >> proud boys, stand back and stand by. it. [inaudible]. ♪ ♪♪

>> is this something. do you see the way that our people were protecting this bus yesterday. [applause]. they had hundreds, saying trump and the american flag. [inaudible]. >> we promise that the gop would not do everything in their power that we would destroy gop. [inaudible]. it has to happen. we are going to destroy the gop. >> destroy the gop. >> because you will never take back our country with weakness. you have to show strength and be

strong. [inaudible]. >> senators, the violence on january the sixth was demonstrably foreseeable . trump even said so himself. at six oh 1:00 p.m., the day of the attack. the last thing that he said before he went to sleep. quote, these are the things that happened. he foresaw this and he admitted as much. brings me to my final point, the insurrectionist . defense counsel has suggested these people came here on their own. the defense states that the insurrectionist so forth their own accord and own reason they're being criminally prosecuted. it is true that some insurrectionist are being prosecuted. but it is not true that they did so of their own accord and for their own reasons. the evidence is clear the exact

opposite. they did this for donald trump. and his invitation and his direction and his command. they said this before the attack. and during the attack and they said it after the attack. leading up to january the sixth and post after post, the president supporters confirmed this was for donald trump. it was at his direction. one report added that if congress illegally certifies biden, trump would have absolutely no choice but to demand thus to stormed the capital. and killed, beat them up for it. they even say publicly and openly and probably, that president trump would help them the national guard. so all they would have to do is overwhelm 2000 capital police officers. during his speech on january the sixth, trump supporters chanted his words back to him. they been lied and tweeted his

commands . and during the, insurrectionist at the capital chanted, donald trump's words from his tweets. in his rallies in the speech of the sixth. they held signs that said and chanted, fight for trump. stop the steal and they run is tweets over bullhorns and amplifying his demands. in another riser, while live streaming the insurrection from the capital said he will be happy, we are fighting for trump. and what is more of the insurrectionist were not hiding. they believed they were following the orders from our commander-in-chief. they felt secure enough in the legitimacy of their actions to take selfies. in the post photos and videos on social media. and after the attack, the riots are after ryan turk confirmed this as well. general ryan who was later excused for her role in the insurrection said, i thought it

was following my president. he thought we were following what we were called to do. and president trump requested that we be obesity on the sixth grade and we became clear the 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 say for a second, that they are going to get away with this today. they have another thing coming. because today, and today is just the beginning. they have not seen a resistance until they have seen a patriot fight for their country. >> the parties will withhold.

the parties will withhold. in the evidence for the record is closed. and it describes the scope of those things into evidence as those referenced in trial. the evidence is not permitted in the closing argument. in the references to such new evidence will be stricken. [inaudible]. >> mr. president, the statement was in evidence in the slide was much . so we will withdraw the slide. but the statement was in evidence. they told you themselves, they were following the president's orders.

and he will see something clearly, donald trump knew who these people were. as the slide shows, the people he cultivated to violence and he praised them were all there on january the sixth in the proud boys and donald trump told to stand back and stand by in september of 2020, he organized the caravan the toy drive biden campaign bus off of the road. katrina pearson, the speaker at the second million mega march. they were all there.

[background sounds]. >> the video you are about to see is in record. correction, the record date included appropriately, the last video. so we will keep that in the record and i will keep it in my closing remarks. [inaudible]. [background sounds].

[background sounds]. [background sounds].

[inaudible]. [inaudible].

>> the u.s. senate because once again in the impeachment trial against the former president donald trump . defense lawyers for the president and former president, objected to enter claiming the house impeachment managers are including new evidence in the closing argument. one of them shouted out this is crooked. during closing arguments. let's watch.

[inaudible]. >> the senators will take their seats . the senate will be in order. the senate may continue. >> thank you mr. president. i to say of all of the trials i have been a part of, this is

certainly one of them. [laughter]. as the slide show, the people he cultivated his violence he praised were all there on january the sixth . the proud boys who donald trump told to stand back and standby in september of 2020, the organizer of the trump caravan that tried to drive the biden campaign bus off of the road. and katrina pearson the speaker at the second million mega march. they were all there. here's one final clip. also submitted in the record. [inaudible]. >> senator, some of the insurrectionist are facing criminal charges. donald trump was acting as our commander-in-chief and he was our president. he used his office and the authority and command to incite an attack.

and when congress in the constitution were under attack, he abandoned it is duties. he violated his oath in failing to preserve and protect and defend. that is why we are here. because the president of the united states, donald j trump and cited and directed thousands of people to attack the legislative branch. he knew what his supporters were capable of. he has sent them down pennsylvania avenue. not on any old date. but on the day that we were certifying the election results as they were banking on our doors, he failed to defend us. because this is what he wanted. he wanted to remain in power. and for that crime against the republic, he must be held accountable. senators, the insurrectionist still listening. before income i must admit until we were preparing for this trial, i did not know the extent of any of these facts . i witness the horror but i did not know. i did not know how to deliver it

it was and how he invested in it and how any times he and cited his supporters with these lies. how carefully and consistently he incited them there violence on january the sixth. and while any of us may have tuned out his rallies, i also did not know the extent that his followers were glistening. they were hanging on his every word. and honestly, i did not know how close the mob came to their violent end. there were steps away from all of us. the death toll could've been much higher. but for the bravery of men and women who protected us rated the now we know. we know the bravery of people like officer goodman and all of the men and women of the capitol police. of the custodians who have pride in the sense of duty in their work, they cleaned up shattered glass. and splintered wood and blood stained floors. we know the sacrifice of life

and limb. we know what donald trump did and we know when he failed to do. though it is difficult to bear witness and face the reality of what happened in these holes, what happens if we do not confront these facts . what happens if there is no accountability. for those who say that we need to get past this, we need to come together and unify. if we do not set this right, we call it what it was, the highest of constitutional crimes by the president of the united states. the past will not be the 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

that no one person here among us is remembered. and yet, what we do here, what is being asked of each of us here in this moment will be remembered. history is found us. i ask that you not look the other way. >> now we bring up rep. joe neguse. >> mr. president, distinguished senators did there is a novel old quote from henry clay, son

of kentucky and courtesies of the small and trivial character of the ones that strike us in a grateful and appreciating heart. and i want to say on behalf of all of the house managers that we are grateful for the courtesies. that you have extended to us and the presidents council. during the course of this trial. you have heard my colleague manager dean go through the overwhelming evidence makes clear that he must be convicted and disqualified for his high crimes. i'm not going to repeat that evidence is, it speaks for itself. earlier in this trial, you might recall. i mentioned my expectations. the president trump's lawyers do everything they could to avoid discussing the facts of this case. and i can understand why. the evidence that all of us

presented the manager dean has summarized. it's . devastating. so rather than address it the president has offered up distractions and excuses anything but actually try to defend against the facts. they said things like president trump is now a private citizens of the criminal justice system can deal with them or that we haven't done a clear standard. they talked a lot about due process. all politicians say words like fight. i like to take a minute to explain why each of those distractions are precisely that. they are distractions . and why they do not event in any way, the senate from convicting president trump . number one, every president is one day a

private citizen. so the argument that president trump has left office, he should not be impeached for conduct committed he was in office read it does not make sense. why would the constitution included impeachment power at all of the criminal justice system serves as a suitable alternative. once the president leaves office. it would not. impeachment is a remedy separate and apart from the criminal justice system and for good reason. the presidency, when 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 form. it would be unwise to suggest

that going forward, the only appropriate response to constitutional offenses committed by president are criminal charges when the president returned to private life. that is not the kind of political system and any of us want. and it's not the kind of constitutional system that the framers intended. it is true that we have cited criminal statute of illness of incitement because again, this is not a criminal trial. it is not a criminal case. president trump is charged with a constitutional offense. and you are tasked with determining whether or not he commanded that high crime as understood by our framers. so the relevant question, which president trump's lawyers would have you ignore, would our

framers had considered a president inciting a violent mob. to attack our government while seeking to stop the certification of our election. would've they considered that an impeachable offense. who among us, really thinks the answer to that is no. third, the due process. just to be absolutely clear, the house the sole power of impeachment determines what the process of like in the house and the senate. they do the same for the trial. during this trial, the president has counsel. they have argued very vigorously on his behalf. we had a full presentation of evidence, adversarial presentation, motions.

the president was invited to testify and he declined. the president was invited to provide evidence and he declined. you cannot claim that there is no due process your old participate in the process. and we know this case is not one that requires a complicated legal analysis. if you all well, you all lived it . we lived it as managers. our country lived it. the president in public view right out in the open and cited a violent mob. a mob that temporarily police stopped us from certifying an election. if there were ever an exit of circumstance, this is it. and number four. we all know that president trump's defense as we predicted,

spent a lot of time, comparing his conduct two of the politicians using words like fight. and of course you saw hours of the video. as i said on thursday, we trust you to know the difference. because what you will not find in those video montages is any of those speeches and those remarks culminating in a violent insurrection on our nations capital. that is the difference. the president spent months in fighting his supporters to believe that the election had been stolen from him or from them. that was not true. he summoned the mob and assembled the mobs and when the violence erupted, he did nothing to stop it read instead,

inciting it further. senators, all of these arguments offered by the president have one fundamental ring in common. just one. they have nothing to do with whether or not actually whether or not the president incited this attack. they have given you a lot of distractions so they do not have to defend what happened here on that terrible day. and they do that because they believe those distractions will work. thank you will ignore the president's conduct instead of confronting him. i think they are wrong. some of you know this already. i am the youngest member of our manager team read by quite a few years.

[laughter]. so perhaps, a bit naïve but i just do not believe that. i really don't. i don't believe their effort will work. and here's what because i know with this body, it i know what it is capable of. i may not have with instead, but i have read about it in history books. i have seen the cspan footage. the archives and sometimes for hours and, yes, i have actually done that in the history of our country in those books in the states. 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. i figuratively. literally. where you also attend where i stand.

in 1964, this body with the help of senators like john sherman cooper and so any others, this body secured passage of the civil rights act. we made the decision to enter world war ii from this chamber. we have certainly had our struggles. but we have always risen to the occasion when it mattered the most. not by ignoring justice or cowering to the bullies but by doing the right thing and trying to do the right thing. and that is why so any nations around the world aspire to be like america. we stand up to dictators and autocrats because america is a guiding light for them. they do so, they look to us because we have been a guiding light, a north star in these moments.

because people who sat in your chairs, when confronted with choices that define us, they 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 that i stood up, i mentioned that i was the son of immigrants like any of you. in any sinners graciously approached me after my presentation and asked me where my parents were from. i told those who asked my folks were from east africa. in 1986, this body considered a bill to override president reagan's veto . of the legislation imposing sanctions on south africa during - and to senators, who sit in this room, one democrat and one republican.

they voted to override that veto. that vote was not about gaining political favor. in fact it was made despite potentially losing political favor. and i have to imagine that vote was cast like the decisions before it because there are moments that transcended party politics. and they 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. folks who are watching today's proceedings may not know this. but the house members like me and manager raskin and others are not allowed in the senate floor without express permission. no one is. certainly the senators are aware of that. this floor is sacred.

it is one of the reasons why i like so any of you are so offended to see desecrated by that mob. and to see those insurrectionist diminishing and devaluing and disrespecting these halls that i have held in such - because of those rules that i just mentioned. this will be the only time that i have the privilege to stand before you like this. when the trial is over, i will go back to being not impeachment manager but it is a house. the trial will end. and will resume our lives in our work. but for some, there will be no end. no end. to the pain of what happened on january 6th. the officers struggled to recover from the injuries they sustained to protect us.

they struggled to recover today. the families continue to mourn those who they lost on that terrible tragic day. i was struck yesterday by the defense counsels continued references to hate. one of my favorite quotes from doctor martin luther king jr. one of sustained me and i suspected sustained you during times of diversity. that hate is too great of a burden to bear. this trial was not born from hatred. far from it. it is born from love of country. our country. it is our desire to maintain it.

our desire to see america at its best. and in those moments that i spoke of, civil rights act, and 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 of january 7th, and her refusal to let our republic be threatened and taken down by a violent mob will go down in history as one of those moments. and i believe that this body can rise to the occasion once again today. by convicting president trump and defending your republic. and the stakes could not be

higher. because, the cold hard truth as to what happened on january 6, can happen again. i fear like any of you do, that the violence that we saw on that terrible day may be just the beginning. we have shown you the ongoing risks and the extremist groups to grow more emboldened every day. senators, this could not be the beginning. it can't be the new normal. it house to be the end. and that decision is in your hand.

>> senators, my daughter said something to me last night that stopped me cold and brought me up. the kids have been very moved by all of the victims of the violence in the officers and their families. it last night, she said she was really sorry for the kids of a man who said goodbye to his children before he left home to come and join trump's actions. and the father and told them that their dad might not be coming home again they might never see him again. in other words, he was expected violence and he might die. and that shook me.

hannah said, how can the president put families in a situation and then just run away from the whole thing. that shook me. and i was filled with self-reproach because my first saw the line about your father going to washington, you might not see him again. i just thought about it like a prosecutor. i can manager. i thought what damning evidence there was. the people are expecting this violence. that our protest was called by the united states president. in saying that there final goodbyes to their children. but hannah, my dear hannah thought of it if you will forgive me, like a patriot. someone who just lost her brother does not want to see any of the kids in america go through that kind of agony and

grief read when i tell you all three of my kids, are better than me. you know that i am not engaged in idle flattery. maybe some of you feel the same way about your kids. they are literally better people than me. they are better than me. and hannah saw through the legalities of the situation. she saw through the politics politics of the situation all of the way to the humanity. and the morality of the situation. that was one of the most patriotic things. the children of the insurrectionist. even the violent and dangerous ones. they are our children as well. they are americans. we must recognize and exercise

these crimes against our nation and then we must take care of our people and our children and their hearts and their minds. it is hard to be human. any of the capital and police officers and guards men's and women were beaten up by the mobs, they also have kids. you remember an officer, who had a heart attack after being roughed up for hours by the mob. they begged for his life telling the insurrectionist, and he had four daughters. not just about broke my heart all over again. we talked about this for a long time outside. the kids felt terrible that other kids fathers and mothers were pulled into this nightmare by president of the united states. senators, we have proved to betrayal of this country and the constitution and we have proved he briefed and had betrayed his oath of office.

the starkly thing to recognize now is that he is even betraying the mobs. he told them that he would march with them. and he did not. they believed that the president was right there with them somewhere in the crowd fighting the fantasy conspiracy. to steal the election in the country. they thought they were one big team working together. and he told them their great journey together was just beginning. and now there are hundreds of criminal prosecutions getting going. all of the country. people are getting set to say goodbye to members of the family. in the president contacted them, solicited them and invited them and incited them, the president has suddenly gone quiet and dark. nowhere to be found. he cannot be troubled to come here to tell us what happened. and tell us why this was

patriotic and the constitutional thing to do. senators, this trial in the final analysis is not about donald trump. the country in the world know who donald trump is. this trial is about who we are. who we are. my friends said sometimes the truth is like a second chance. we got the chance here. with the truth. we still believe in the separation of powers, president trump tried to sideline a run over it after this branch of government. for the will of the people at the state level. the people's choice. this case is about whether our country commands a peaceful nonviolent, transfer of power to

guarantee the sovereignty of the people. are we going to defend the people who defend us. not dishonor them with metals as you rightfully did yesterday . but actually backed them up against savage barbaric insurrectionary violence. will we restore the honor of our capital and the people who work here. will we be a democratic nation that the world looks to for understanding democratic values and practices and constitutional government and the rights of women and men. while the senate will they condone the president of the united states and citing a violent attack on our chambers, our offices, our staff and officers who protect us. when you see the footage of officer hodges stuck in the door literally being tortured by the

mob. the government did that, that would be torture. we when we see that footage in these shouting for agony for dear life. it's almost unwatchable. in the vice president of the united states escaped a violent mob that entered this capital building, seeking to hang him and calling him out traitor, traitor, traitor. and then when they shut down the counting of the electoral college votes. is this the future you imagined for our kids. is it totally appropriate as we have been told. as cheney said, it is the greatest betrayal the presidential oath of office in the history of our country. and we cannot handle this together as a people. all of us. and forgetting the lines of party and ideology and

geography. if we cannot handle this, how will we conquer the other crises of our day. is this america. is this what we want to bequeath to her children and grandchildren. i was never a great sunday school student. but one line always stuck with me from the book of exodus, both beautiful and haunting. even as a kid. after i asked with the words meant. thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil. the officer who got called the n word 15 times, spent hours with his colleagues battling insurrectionist who had metal poles baseball bats and hockey sticks and hairspray and confederate battle plagues. he posed the right question to the senate and to all of us.

is this america. to your senators, that will be up to you. whatever committees that you are on and whatever became of washington to do and work on. from defense to agriculture to energy to aerospace to healthcare. this is almost certainly how you will be remembered by history. that might not be fair. but none of us can escape the demands of history and destiny right now. our reputations and or legacies will be intertwined with what we do here. and with how you exercise your oath to do impartial justice. i know and i trust you will do impartial justice. driven by your meticulous attention to the overwhelming facts of the case in your love

for our constitution which i know flows in your heart. namesake, the times and found us, is this america. what kind of america would we be. it is now literally in your hands. god speed to the senate of the united states. it and we reserve any remaining time. >> the house has reserved 28 minutes. [inaudible]. >> proceed.

>> i am talking, it will not be salon . before i start, my prepared closing i really want to clean up a few things from the mess that was the closing of the house managers. i do not want to run my closing because i think that ending is . good. they started off by misstating the law. then they started off by misstating the intent of our stipulation. what we did today, was stipulate to an article that was published in the magazine and apparently they have had for weeks according to the documents they produced today. but for some reason, this morning and popped up with it. the stipulation was that they can put that hand. we did not stipulate to its contents for truthfulness. and they tried to portray that

in their closing and the stipulation was read into the record. in the proponents of that conversation. the real ones denied it to content. it is ferocity. with respect to and i'm not going to talk much about the torture analysis of our wars started off. or the truly sideways analogies that were used with fires. what i do want to talk about is the doctoring of evidence. first of all, they sent us our evidence on tuesday, the ninth at 2:32 p.m. by e-mail. i was in this room trying the case already when they sent their evidence to process. they used evidence that was flat

wrong two or three weeks ago and had to withdraw it . they tried to use it again today. they try to use evidence they had never presented in the case. in their closing arguments. that is a very desperate attempt by a prosecuting team. there were nine of them. i prosecuting team that's now that their case has collapsed. their closing did not mentioned one piece of law. they did not talk about the constitution once. they did not talk about the first amendment and its application . they did not talk about due process and how it applies to this proceeding. for my client.

the basic rule of any court, is that when you close a plate in her case out. you closing the fax number admitted in the trial. as a basic fundamental visible of due process and fairness. and that was violently reached 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. what took place here on january 6 was a grave tragedy over the course of this trial. you have heard no one on either side of this debate argue that the infiltration of the capital was anything less than a heinous act on the home of american democracy. all of us starting with my clients are deeply disturbed by the graphic videos that have been shown in recent days of the capital attack. the entire team have repeatedly condemned the violence and lawbreaking that occurred on january 6th and the strongest possible terms that we have advocated. then everybody be found and punished to the maximum extent of the law. yes the question before us is

not whether there was a violent insurrection of the capital on that point everyone agrees. based on the explicit text of the impeachment trial, whether mr. trump engaged in incitement of violence and even insurrection against the united states and that question, they have posed in their article of impeachment, it has to be set up against the law of this country. no matter how much truly horrifying footage that 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 not innocent of the charges against him. despite all of the video played,

and no point in the 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 did not happen. he engaged no language of incitement whatsoever on january following the election. no unbiased person honestly reviewing the transcript of mr. trump's speech on this could possibly believe that he was suggesting violence. he explicitly told the crowd that he expected the protest outside of the capitol to be peaceful and patriotic.

they claim that is not enough. and 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 better. it is the words. the simpering court rule 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 explicitly or implicitly call for the words. they call for lawlessness or violence. whether the speech determining ning whether the speech was intended to provoke the lawlessness. and whether the violence was the likely result of the word itself. they fail on all three prongs targeted the claim that

mr. trump gave his speech encouraging his supporters to go attack the capitol and has been repeated so often uncritically without any examination of the underlying fact that the american listening at home, but probably be surprised to learn it is not true. and furthermore, some of the people in this room followed mrd tweets in the weeks leading up to january 6 very closely. we know that he was trying to ferment an insurrection during this time. because no one from the speaker of the house or the mayors of washington dc, behaved in the fashion consistent with the belief that violence is being advocated for. mr. trump did not spend the weeks prior to january 6 inciting violence, he spends weeks pursuing his election challenge to the court system and other legal procedures exactly as the constitution and the congress prescribed.

to believe based on the evidence, that you have seen the mr. trump actually wanted and indeed willfully incited an insurrection to overthrow the u.s. government would be absurd. the gathering on january 6 was supposed to be 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 engaged in truly horrible behavior but as we now know, those actors were preplanned and premeditated and acted even before the speech was completed two which is the basis of the article of impeachment. it was preplanned and premeditated by french 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 canceled culture and the number one political opponent taking neutral statements, commonplace political rhetoric, removing words in fact from context and ascribing to them the most sinister intentions possible. their story was based not on evidence but on this year personal and political things. the flimsy theory of incitement that you have heard from the house managers could be used to impeach, indict, or expel countless other political

leaders. any leading figures in other parties have engaged in far more in january and dangerous rhetoric. and we played some of them. i'm not going to replay it . you also the evidence freedom not going to replay and mob scene. i don't want to give this people another platform, anymore view from the american people as to what they did. they should be canceled. democrat politician spent months prior to january 6, attacking the very legitimacy of our nation's most cherished institutions and traditions. they did not just question the integrity of one election. they challenged the integrity of our entire nation. everything from our founding fathers, our constitution declaration of independence, law enforcement officers in the

united states military. they said that our society was rooted in hatred. they been said that america deserved a reckoning. as you heard yesterday drought this summer, the democrat leaders including the current president and vice president repeatedly made comment that provided moral comfort mobs attacking police officers. during that time, any officers across the country were injured. as we all know, to sheriffs deputies los angeles where shot at.blank range. members of this very body have been endangered. the senators maine and kentucky and most points in between have been harassed by mobs. last august, the left leaned mob and senator rand paul and his

wife as they left the white house. they had to be rescued by police. for months, our federal courthouse in portland was placed under seat by violence in our chris who attacked while enforcement officers daily and repeatedly and try to set fire to the building. speaker pelosi did not call the violence 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 through bricks and bottles and secret service agents. they set fire to an historic structure and breached the security and infiltrate the treasury grounds. when my clients administrations sent in the national guard to

secure the nation's capitol. the city violent democrat leaders demanded that the forces be withdrawn of targeted the washington dc mayor said the presence of the national guards was the front of the safety of the district. it must be fully investigated whether political leadership here in washington dc, took an inadequate and irresponsible force posture on january 6th 2 their commitment to the 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 off establishing an appropriate security perimeter and prevent the white house from potential wally being overrun. ... ...

last year joe biden, vice president harris took over to condemn the extreme as riots were occurring daily, as businesses were being ramshackle. as neighborhoods were being burned. as a bombs were exploding. they repeatedly refused to tell their violent supporters to stand down. some even suggested 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 continued to do it

over and over again. she later said that those folks were 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 sixth. it is a hypocrisy. it is a hypocrisy that the house managers have laid at the feet of this chamber. the house managers suggest in this recent -- that this recent history is irrelevant to the current proceedings. but not only as a democrat behavior surrounding last year's riley highly relative

as a precedent. and does not only revealed the dishonesty and sincerity of this entire endeavor. it also has crucial contacts that should inform the understanding of the events that took place on january 6. many of the people infiltrated the capitol took pictures of themselves and posted them on social media. to sum it seems, they thought that it was all a game. they apparently believed violent mobs, disruption of property, rioting, assaulting a 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 it was not for 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 angry frustrated marginalized people were entitled to blowoff steam like that. let me be very clear, there can be no excuse of the depraved action of the rioters here at the capitol or anywhere else across this country. one 100% is guilty of crimes should have lengthy prison sentences for their shameful conduct. this has raised the questions about words, actions or consequences as a nation we will ask ourselves how did we arrive at this place were rioting in pillaging become commonplace? i submit to you that it was

month after month of political leaders and media personalities, blood thirsty for ratings, glorifying civil unrest and condemning the reasonable law enforcement measures that are required to quell violent mobs. hopefully we can all leave this chamber and uniform agreement that all rioting, all rioting is bad. 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 a mayhem and violence when they are committed? houston democrats went to different standards. one for themselves and one for their political opposition.

they have carried out a grossly unconstitutional effort to punish mr. trump for protected first amendment speech. it is an egregious violation of his constitutional rights. since he uttered not a single word encouraging violent this action can only be seen as an effort to censor disfavored political speech and discriminate against this approved viewpoints. it is an un- precedented action with the potential to do grave and the 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 urging their supporters to fight when we showed you those videos not because we think you should be forcibly removed from office for 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 the house a democrats had invented an entirely new legal standard. in fact they 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 elected officials is protected speech while any speech made by republican elected officials is not protected.

the creation of the raskin doctrine actually reveals the weakness of house managers case. elected officials, we reviewed this in depth yesterday, under supreme court precedent would and bond, and when the way bond did not burn his draft card comment he still has it was part of his defense. but in bond and award, 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 is the majority party at the time. why would the house managers make up their own legal standard? i will 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 is the complete opposite over the law. we have shown you without contradiction that is wrong. they also know they cannot satisfy the three part test of brandenburg.

it was elucidated in the bible believers case. there is 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 pre-meditated by a group of lawless actors that must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. but it proves that his words are what set this into motion. what was the incitement? with no ability, 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 is downright scary. what type of precedent would

be said if the senate did vote to convict. can congress now ignore supreme court precedents on the contours of protected free speech? will congress be permitted to continually make up their own legal standards and apply those new standards to elected officials speech? this would allow congress to use the awesome impeachment power as a weapon to impeach their fellow colleagues in the opposing party. this is not a precedent that this senate and set here today. if the senate endorses a house democrats 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 the most unfair and flagrantly unconstitutional proceeding on the history of the united states senate. for the first time in history, congress has asserted the right to try and punish a former president who is a private citizen. nowhere in the constitution in the power enumerated or implied. congress has no authority, no rights, and no business holding a trial of citizen trump rate let alone a to deprive him of fundamental civil rights. there is mention of a january exception argument. a 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 did it. the january exception is a red herring, it is nonsense. because of federal, state, and local authorities can investigate. there january exception always expires on january 20. house democrats and this is deeply unfair trial have shamefully trampled every tradition, norm, and standard of due process. in a way i have never ever seen before. mr. trump was given no right to review the so-called evidence against him at

trial. he was given no opportunity to question his propriety. he was given no chance to engage in fact-finding. much of it was introduced by the house was on verified, second or third hand reporting cribbed from a biased news media including stories based on anonymous sources whose identities are not even known to them let alone my client. they manufactured and doctored evidence. so much so that they had to withdraw it. we only had -- we have the evidence after we started the trial. they went on for two days. so in the evening i was able to go back and take a really close look at the stuff. myself and mr. castor, ms. bateman and mr. brennan we all looked hard and looked at

the evidence, for volumes of books and little tiny print. we literally had 12 or 14 hours to really look at the evidence before we had to go on. and just in that short time of looking at the evidence we saw them fabricating twitter accounts produce all the masked man sitting at the desk with the "new york times" there. i will be looked closely we found 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 is the way it should be done here in the

senate of the united states of america. fraud, flat out fraud. where i come from and the courts that i practice in, there are very harsh repercussions for what they polled in this trial. as we have shown the house managers were caught creating false representation of tweets. manipulating videos and introducing into the record completely discredited lies such as people hoax as factual

evidence. most of the house and managers have said and shown it would be and admissible in any respectable court of law. they were not trying at case, they were telling a political tale, a fable. any patently false one at that. house democrats have denied due process and rush the impeachment because they know a fair trial would reveal mr. trump's innocence of the charges against him. the more actual evidence that comes out, the clearer it is this was a pre-planned in paris meditated attack which is in no way language and cited. because their cases so weak the house managers have taken a kitchen sink approach to the opposing the single article of the patient they allege mr. trump incited the violence for they allege he abused power by attempting to pressure georgia secretary of

state roethlisberger to undermine the results of the 2020 election. and they allege to gravely and endanger the democratic system by interfering with the peaceful transition of power. these 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 sitting on impeachment trials provides in pertinent part that an article of impeachment shall not be divisible thereon. why is that? because the article at issue here alleges multiple wrongs in the single article.

it would be impossible to know if two thirds of the member agreed on the entire article. or just on parts of it as a basis for a vote to convict. based on this alone the senate must vote to acquit mr. trump. you've got to at least obey your own rules if it's not the constitution you'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 long-standing political vendetta against mr. trump by the opposition party. as we have shown democrats were obsessed with impeaching mr. trump from the very beginning of his term. the house of democrats to impeach him in his first year. they tried to impeach him in the second year.

they did impeach him in his third year. and they him again in his fourth year. and now they have conducted a phony impeachment show trial when he is a private citizen out of office. this haste fully and unconstitutional circuses 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 miner outsider from the midst into shame, demesne, silence, and demonizes supporters. in the desperate hope they will never, ever pose and looked oriole challenge.

we heard one of the congressman on the screen, if you don't impeach him he might be elected again. that is the fear. that is what is 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 they prove that case or not. they did not do that, you've got to ask yourself why. they know the senate rules, they got them and so did i. why did they do it? because they haven't investigated, first of all. but also what they found out is they were preparing all of this, they couldn't do it. so if they threw as much and as they could and made as many bold, bald allegations as they could, then maybe two thirds of you would fall for it. that is why the rules don't allow it to go that way. due process, i have exhausted that subject. it is 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 amendments, the actual facts of this case. there were no words of incitement. foregrounds nobody to tell you which ground you get to pick and nobody gets to tell you how many grounds to consider. senators, do not let house democrats take this crusade any further. the senate does not have to go down this dark path of

anonymity and division. you do not have to indulge the impeachment lusts, the dishonesty and the hypocrisy. it is time to bring this unconstitutional political theater to an end. there 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 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. >> mr. president. senators, i understand i am have around 27 minutes for it i will all of that perhaps five back to you. there are just a few things i need to address. so in an extraordinary and perhaps on precedented act of on my part will resist the opportunity to rebut every single false and illogical thing you just heard. and i'm going to build to return to perhaps 22 or 23 minutes. a few points.

one comment we've definitely made some 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 this was not an insurrection. and said impeachment managers were outrageous in using the word insurrection. today, council and closing statements that was a violent insurrection and he denounced it but i was certainly love to see president trump also call it a violent insurrection and denounce it to. i believe although i do not have a verbatim text that counsel called for long sentences for the people who were involved pretty again i would love to hear that come from the president as well. the distinguished counsel complains that there is no precedent with the developed body of law the senate has for impeaching and convicting a president who incites violent

insurrection against the congress and the government of the united states. well i suppose that is true because it never occurred to any other president of the united states from george washington to john adams to thomas jefferson to james mattis, to james monroe, to abraham lincoln, to ronald reagan, to george w. bush to barack obama to incite a violent insurrection against the union. you are right, we've got no precedent for that. and so they think that is somehow a mark in their favor. that is a score for them that this senate has to be the first one to define incitement of violent insurrection against the union. and so, the gentleman puts it on me. he says inciting a president for committing incitement to violent insurrection against the union is a new raskin doctor bereaved tried to

convince them that there are well-known principles and elements of incitement which we have talked to you about at nausea. and this is an intrinsically inherent stacked based judgment. but if that is the raskin doctrine that a president of the united states cannot incite violent insurrection against the union and the congress and i embrace it and i take it as an honor. most law professors never even get a doctor named after them. i will accept that. and finally, the council goes back julian bond's case. think of the final the best argument is pathetically weak as it is is really about the first amendment. remember they keep talking about stifling president trump's speech. someone told me whenever speeches ever been stifled he says exactly what he wants whenever he wants. if and when you convicting for incitement, of insurrection he

will continue to say whatever he wants. but on that day remember they before yesterday was interference with the delivery predicament absolutely bizarre everyone knows he will not spend one minute in prison or jail from conviction on these charges. it is a civil remedy to protect all of us. to protect the entire country, our children, our constitution, our future. that is what impeachment, trial, conviction are all about. are all about. julian bond, you see julian bonds of forgiving. most people say don't even respond to this but i've got to respond to this. julian bond was a civil rights activist who decided to go into politics like the people in this room, like all of us who are in politics. and they tried to keep him out. he was a member of sncc the

student nonviolent coordinating committee which really launched the voting rights movement in america. the great story that bob moses tells in his book called radical equations. he was a graduate student, mathematics at harvard pretty went down the mississippi. you know why? he saw picture the "new york times" of the black civil rights protesters, college students i think in north carolina he saw them on the cover of the "new york times" there sitting in at the lunch be looked at the picture and said they looked way that i felt. they look the way i felt. he said he had to go south to mississippi. then the launch the voting rights movement that's where the phrase one person one vote comes from. is not invented by the supreme court for their go door-to-door to try to register people to vote. anyway, julian bond was part of that movement.

the student nonviolent coordinating committee, non- violent. it was the end and it was the memes, not violence but he ran for the state legislature in georgia. a path other civil rights activists followed like our great late beloved colleague john lewis who is in our hearts today. and when he got elected they wanted to try to keep confirming sworn into the georgia legislature. and so they said the student nonviolent coordinating committee's a position against the vietnam war, we are not going to admit you because you took a position against the vietnam war. and the supreme court in its wisdom said you cannot prevent someone from swearing an oath to become a member of a legislative body because of a position that they took our group they were part of took before they got sworn in, that's exact opposite of donald trump. he got elected to office.

he swore an oath to the constitution to preserve, protect and defend the constitution. he served as president for four years right up until the end when he wanted to exercise his rights under the imaginary january exception. and he incited a violent mob and insurrection to come up here. we all know what happened. he is being impeached and convicted for violating his oath of office that he took. he is not been prevented from taking his oath in the first place. the first amendment is on our side. he tried to overturn the will of the people, the voice of the people. he lost that election by more than 7 million votes. some people don't want to admit it, counsel for the president could not admit the election is over. in answer to the question from the distinguished from vermont he refused to answer that he said it was irrelevant. despite all the evidence you've heard about the big lie and how that set the stage for his incitement of the

insurrectionary violence against us. first amendment, our side. we are defending the bill of rights. we are defending the constitutional structure. we are defending the separation of powers but we are defending the u.s. senate of the u.s. house. against a president who acted no better than the marauder and member of the moabite sightedness 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. >> mr. raskin. >> mr. president. suspect the majority leaders recognize. >> mr. president, the senate is now ready to vote on the article of impeachment. and after is done, we will adjourn the court of impeachment.

select the clerk or the article of impeachment. [silence] article one incitement of insurrection. the senate will be in order. suspect the constitution provides a house of

representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment and that the president shall be removed from office on on peach before and conviction of treason, bribery or other crimes and misdemeanors. further, section iii 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. and his conduct while president of the united states and him violation of his constitutional oath, faithfully to execute the office of the president of the united states and to the best of his ability preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the united states and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care of the laws be faithfully executed. donald john trump engage in high crimes and misdemeanors by inciting violence against the government of the united states in that on january 6,

2021 pursued it to the 12th amendment of 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 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't -- that we won this election and we won it by a landslide. he also willfully made the statements that incontext encouraged and foreseeably resulted in lawless action at the capitol such as if you don't fight like hell you are not going to have a country

anymore. that is incited by president trump, members of the crowd he had addressed in an attempt to among other objectives and divert the joint sessions solemn because additional duty to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election, on lawfully breached and vandalized the. injured and killed law enforcement personnel, embers of congress the vice president and congressional personnel and engage in other violent deadly destructive and seditious acts. president trump's conduct on january 6, 2021 while in his prior efforts to subvert them struck the results of the 2020 presidential election. those prior efforts include a phone call on january 2, 2021 which president trump urges secretary of state of georgia, brad ratzenberger to find enough votes to overturn the georgia presidential election results and threatened security ratzenberger if he failed to do so.

and all of this president trump gravely indigenous security of the united states and institutions of government pretty threaten the integrity of the democratic system, interfere with the peaceful transition of power and imperiled a coequal branch of government. he therefore betrayed his trust as a present to the manifest injury of the people of the united states. wherefore, donald john trump, biceps conduct has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security, democracy and the constitution if allowed to remain in office. ed has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-government and the rule of law. donald john trump thus warns impeachment and trial, removal from office, disqualification from and hold in enjoy any honor office of trust in the united states and demand that donald john trump should be put to answer the accusations as set forth in this article.

in such proceedings, examinations, trials and judgments might be thereupon had agreeable to law and justice. subject each senator when his or her name is called will stand in his or her place. and they will vote guilty or not guilty as required by rule 23 of the senate rules of impeachment. article one section iii of the constitution regarding the vote required for conviction of impeachment provides no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present. the clusters on the article of impeachment. senators howe say you? is responded donald dom trump guilty or not guilty? a roll call vote is required and the clerk called the role.

ms. baldwin guilty. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] mr. booker mr. booker, guilty. mr. boozman. >> not guilty. >> mr. boozman not guilty. mr. braun. mr. braun not guilty.

mr. brown. mr. brown guilty. mr. burr, mr. burr guilty. ms. cantwell. miss cantwell, guilty. mrs. capito. mrs. capito not guilty. mr. cardin. mr. cardin guilty. mr. carper. mr. carper guilty. mr. casey. mr. casey, guilty. mr. cassidy. mr. cassidy guilty. ms. collins. ms. collins guilty. mr. coons. mr. coons, guilty.

mr. cornyn. mr. cornyn not guilty. ms. cortez master. ms. cortez master guilty. mr. cotton, mr. cotton not guilty. mr. cramer, mr. cramer not guilty. mr. crapo. mr. crapo not guilty. mr. cruz. mr. cruz not guilty. mr. daines. mr. daines not guilty. miss duckworth. miss duckworth guilty. mr. durbin. mr. durbin guilty. ms. ernst. ms. ernst, not guilty.

mrs. feinstein. mrs. feinstein guilty. missus fischer. missus fischer not guilty. mrs. jill brad. mrs. jill a brand guilty. mr. graham. mr. graham not guilty. mr. grassley. mr. grassley not guilty. mr. hagerty. mr. hagerty not guilty. miss hassan. ms. hassan guilty. mr. harley, mr. hawley, not guilty. mr. heinrich. esther heinrich guilty. esther hickenlooper. mr. hickenlooper guilty. miss her row no.

miss her row no guilty. mr. hoeven. mr. hoeven not guilty. ms. hite smith, mrs. hite smith not guilty. mr. and half. mr. inhofe not guilty. mr. johnson. mr. johnson not guilty. mr. kaine. mr. kaine guilty. mr. kelly. mr. kelly guilty. mr. kennedy. mr. kennedy not guilty. mr. king. mr. king guilty. mr. klobuchar. ms. klobuchar guilty. stir a lankford.

mr. lankford not guilty. mr. leahy, mr. leahy guilty. mr. lee. mr. lee not guilty. mr. lujan. mr. lujan guilty. miss lummus. miss lummus not guilty. mr. manchin, mr. manchin guilty. mr. markey. mr. markey guilty. mr. marshall. mr. marshall not guilty. mr. mcconnell. mr. mcconnell not guilty. mr. menendez. mr. menendez guilty. mr. merkley. mr. merkley guilty. mr. moran.

mr. moran not guilty. miss murkowski. miss murkowski guilty. mr. murphy. mr. murphy guilty. mrs. marie pillard mrs. murray guilty. mr. ossoff. mr. ossoff guilty. mr. padilla guilty. mr. paul. mr. paul not guilty. mr. peters. mr. peterson guilty. mr. portman. mr. portman not guilty. mr. reed. mr. reed guilty. mr. risch. mr. risch not guilty. mr. romney.

stir romney guilty. ms. rosen. ms. rosen guilty. mr. rounds. mr. brown's not guilty. mr. rubio. mr. rubio not guilty. mr. sanders. mr. sanders guilty. mr. sasse. mr. sasse guilty. mr. schatz. mr. schatz guilty. mr. schumer. mr. schumer guilty her. mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of florida not guilty. mr. scott of south carolina. mr. scott of south carolina not guilty. mrs. shaheen. mrs. shaheen guilty. mr. shelby. esther shelby not guilty. miss sinema, miss sinema guilty. miss smith. smith ms. smith guilty.

miss stabenow. miss tabet out guilty. mr. sullivan. mr. sullivan not guilty. mr. tester. mr. tester guilty. mr. thune. mr. thune not guilty. mr. tillis. mr. tillis not guilty. mr. toomey. mr. toomey guilty. mr. tupper ville. mr. tupper ville not guilty. mr. van hollen. mr. van hollen guilty. mr. warner, mr. warner guilty. mr. warnock mr. warnock lt. miss warren. ms. warren guilty. mr. whitehouse. mr. whitehouse guilty. mr. wicker. mr. wicker not guilty.

mr. wyden. mr. wyden guilty. mr. young. mr. young not guilty. [silence] [inaudible]

the yeas are 57. the nays are 43. two thirds of the senators not having pled guilty, the senate judges respondent donald john trump former president of the united states is not guilty as charged with the article of impeachment, residing office or directs a judgment to be entered in accordance to the judgment of the center of a transcendent as false the senate having tried donald john trump, former president of the united states in 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 that the said donald john trump that he is hereby acquitted of the charge in said article. >> mr. president. >> the majority leaders recognize space be back mr. president i senate order to the desk. >> in the clerk a report. to back ordered that be directed to communicate to the secretary of state as provided by rule 23 of the rules and procedure and practice in the senate when setting on impeachment trials and also to the house of representatives the judgment of the said in the case of donald john trump and transmit a certified copy of the judgment to each. >> without objection the order will be entered. >> majority leader. >> mr. president i move that the senate, sitting as a court of impeachment on the article against donald john trump

adjourn. >> without objection the motion is agreed to, the senate sitting as a court of impeachment stands adjourn. connive order please. the presiding or the acting sergeant-at-arms will escort the house managers out of the senate chamber. order. [silence] [silence]

[background noises] >> mr. president perry's black majority leader breaks back mr. president can we have order? >> the senate is not an order, the senate will be in order. >> mr. president ask unanimous consent the senate in it. morning business with senators to speak therein up the ten minute each. >> with objection so ordered. the senators seek recognition. the senator from new york, majority leader. >> mr. president, the case of donald trump's second impeachment trial was open.

mr. president can we have order please? >> the senator is right, the senate is not an order. the senate will be in order. the senate will be in order. please take your conversations off the floor. >> thank you, mr. president. the case of donald trump's second impeachment trial was open and shut. president trump told a lie, a big lie that the election was stolen and that he was the rightful winner. he laid the groundwork for this big lie in the months before the election party told the big lie on election night. and he repeated the big lie more than 100 times in the weeks "after words". he summons his supporters to washington, assembled them on the ellipse, wit them into a frenzy and directed them at the capitol. and then he watched as the violence unfolded and the capitol was breached. his own vice president flynn

for his life and president trump did nothing. none 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 impelled a mob to violently prevent the peaceful 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 than the generations of american patriots who gave their lives to defend our form

of government. this was the most egregious violation of the presidential oath of office and textbook example, a classic example of an impeachable offense worthy of the constitution's most severe remedy. in response to the incontro deal fact of donald trump's guilt the senate was subject to a feeble and sometimes incomprehensible defense of the former president. unable to dispute case on that merits a former presidents council treated us to partisan vitriol, false equivalence and outright falsehoods. we heard the roundly debunked jurisdictional argument that the senate cannot try a formal at fisher. a position that would meet any president could simply resigned to avoid accountability for in impeachable offense. a position which in effect would render the 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 to violence was protected by 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 that quote germany should attack the united states on long island, we left it undefended we expect congress would have considered that in impeachable offense. finally, the defense counsel said that president trump was not directly responsible for the violence of the capitol.

quote his words were merely a metaphor but his directions were suggestions in the violent mob was 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. the president trump and not told his supporters to march to the capitol, if he had not implored them to come to washington on january 6 in the first place, if he had not repeatedly lied to them the election was still in their countries been taken from them, the attack would not have happened, could not have happened. january 6 would not have happened but for the actions of donald trump. he is what the republican leader of the senate said, the mob that perpetrated the failed insurrection was on

january 6 was provoked by president trump. you want another word for provoked? how about insight. 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. january 6 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 the presidential nominee and standardbearer. just look at what has happened.

look at what republicans have been forced to defend. look at what republicans have chosen to forgive. the former president tried to overturn the results of a legitimate election provoked an assault on our own government. well over half the senate conference decided to condone it. the most despicable act that any president has ever committed and the majority of republicans cannot summons 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 shows trump. they chose trump. it should be a weight on their conscience today. and it shall be a weight in

the future. as condemnable as the decision was, it is true was the largest and most partisan vote in any presidential impeachment trial in american history. i saluted those republican patriots who did the right thing. it wasn't easy we know that. let their votes be a message to the american people. because my fellow americans at this nation is going to long endure, we as a people cannot sanction the former president because lying of the election is acceptable, and instigating a mob against the government is considered admissible, if encouraging political violence becomes the norm, it will be open season, open season on

our democracy. and everything will be up for grabs by whoever has the biggest clubs, the sharpest spears, the most powerful guns. by not recognizing the heinous crime that donald trump committed against the constitution, republican senators have not only risked the potential he invited the danger that was just visited upon us. so let me say this, despite the results of the vote on donald trump's conviction in the court of impeachment. : : even though the republican senators prevented the senate from disqualifying donald trump

. offense under these united states. there is no question that donald trump has disqualified himself. and i hope and i pray and i believe that the american people will make sure of that. and if donald trump ever stands for public office again, after everything that we have seen this week. i hope and i pray and i believe that he will meet the unambiguous rejection by the american people. six hours after the attack on january 6, after the carnage and mayhem was shown on every television screen an america president trump told us the supporters to remember this day forever. i asked the american people, to heed his words. remember that day forever. but not for the reasons the former president intended. remember the panic, and the

voices and over the radio dispatch. the pounding of fists and flags at the chamber doors. remember the solitary gunshots and remember the hateful and racist and confederate flags flying through the halls of our union . remember the screams of the body officers rush between the on going mob in his body trapped in the breach. and remember, three capitol police officers who lost their lives. and remember that those writers actually succeeded in delaying congress from certifying the elections. remember how close our democracy came to ruin. my fellow americans, remember that day, january 6th, forever. the final terrible legacy of the

45th president of the united states and undoubtedly our worst. that is live on, a stain on donald john trump, that can never never be washed away. mr. president, on monday, we will recognize president day. part in the commemoration in the senate will be the annual reading of washington's farewell address. aside from winning the revolutionary war, i considered is greatest contribution to americans civil life and had nothing to do with the words he spoke at the example that it said. washington's farewell address established full-time, no one is right to the office of the presidency. that it belonged to the people

targeted what an amazing agassi . what an amazing gift to the future generations. the knowledge of this country will always be greater than one person . even our most renowned. that is why members of both parties take turns leading washington's address once a year into the record to blood the common attachment to selflessness at the core of the democratic system. this trial was about final tax our president who represents a very antithesis of our first president . talk to place one man before the entire country himself. in but the records show, before god, history and solo we swear to the constitution that there was only one correct verdict in this trial. guilty. and i pray, and while justice

was not in this trial, will be carried forward by the american people who above any of us, in his chamber. and they determine the destiny of our great nation. >> mr. president. >> the republican leader . >> january 6th was a disgrace. american citizens attacked their own government. these terrorism to try to stop us, specific piece of domestic business that they did not like. the fellow americans bloodied

our own police. they stormed the senate floor. the try to hunt down the speaker of the house. in chanted about murdering the vice president. they did this because they had been fed wild falsehoods. by the most powerful man on earth. he was angry because he lost an election. president trump's actions preceded the riots for a disgraceful dereliction of duty. the house accuses the former president of incitement. there is a specific term from the criminal law and let me just put that aside for a moment and

reiterate something i said weeks ago. there is no question. the president trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. there is no question about it. the people started this building believed they were acting on the relations and instructions of their president. and having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements and conspiracy theories. and the defeated president kept shouting into the largest megaphones on the planet earth. the issue is not only the

president and temperance language on january 6, is not just his endorsement remarks and which an associate urged that trial by combat. it was also the entire manufactured atmosphere of looming catastrophe, the increasingly wild this rated better reverse landslide election. it somehow being stolen. and from the secret coup by are now president. defending the presence rise to bring a complaint to the legal system. the legal system spoke. in electoral college spoke. as i stood up and said clearly

of the time, that election was settled. then just really opened that new chapter and more unfounded things . the free world cannot spend weeks thundering the shadowy forces that are stealing our country and family, remain surprised. when people believe them and do reckless things. sadly, any politicians sometimes make overheated comments or use of force we saw that. that unhinged listeners might take literally. but that was different. that is different from what we saw. this was a crescendo of conspiracy theories orchestrated

by a president outgoing president who seem determined that either the wood overturn the voters decision for else torch our institutions way out. the unconscionable behavior did not end when the ballots actually began. our next president claims he thought might happen that day. whatever reaction he says he meant to produce. by the afternoon, we know he was watching the same live television as the rest of us. some of was assaulting the capitol in his name.

these criminals were carrying his banners and hanging his flags . and screaming their loyalties to him. it was obvious. that only president trump quoted this. he was the only one who good . and others publicly begged him to do so. loyal allies frantically called the administration. the president did not act swiftly. he did not do his job. he did not take steps so that federal law could be faithfully executed. in order restored no. instead, according to public reports, he watched television

family. as the chaos unfolded. he was pressing his game to overturn the election. even after is clear to any reasonable observer that vice president pence was in serious danger, carrying trump banners was the mob and beating cops. in reaching the parameters. president cindy for the treat, attacking his own vice president. now predictably and forcibly under the circumstances, members of the mob seemed to interpret this as a further inspiration to lawlessness and violence.

not surprisingly. later, even when the president did halfheartedly begin calling for peace, he did not call right away the rights to ends. he did not tell the mob to depart until even later. and even then, with the police officers bleeding and broken glass covering the company force, he kept repeating that election flies and praising the criminals. and recent weeks, our ex- presidents associates have tried to use 74 million americans who voted to reelect him, as a kind of human shield against criticism. using the 74 million who voted

for him as a human shield against criticism. his awful behaviors was assaulting to the voters. that's absurd deflection . 74 million americans did not invade the capitol. hundreds of rioters, did. 74 million americans did not engineer the campaign of disinformation and the readiness that provoked it. one person did it. just one. i made my view of this episode very plain. but our system of government gave the senate a specific task

the constitution gives us a particular role. his body is not invited to act as the nations overarching moral tribunal. were not free to work backwards from whether the accused party might personally deserve some kind of punishment. our nation's first constitutional scholar justice. as explained nearly 200 years ago, the process of impeachment and conviction is a narrow tool for a narrow purpose. he's like this limited tool exist to secure the state against gross official

misdemeanors. that is, to protect the country from government officers. if president trump were still in office, i would carefully consider whether the house managers proved their specific charge. by the strict criminal standards, the president speech probably was not insightful. however, in context of impeachment, the senate might've decided this was acceptable toward and for the reckless actions the proceeded riots. but in this case, the question is moot because former president trump is constitutionally not

eligible for conviction. this is a close question. no doubt. donald trump was the president when house voted. the not with the house chose to deliver papers. scholars argue both sides of this jurisdictional question. the text is legitimately ambiguous. i respect my colleagues who reached either conclusion. but after intense reflection, i believe the best constitutional rating shows that article to, section four, exhaust the set of persons who can legitimately be impeached tried or convicted.

mr. president, as the missus vice president and civil officers. we have no power to convict and disqualify a former officeholder who is now a private citizen. here is article two, section four. in a quote. the president, the vice president, and all civil officers of the united states shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of, treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. everybody basically agrees that the second half of the sentence exhaust the legitimate grounds for conviction. the debates around the constitution's framing made that

abundantly clear. congress cannot . for reasons besides those . and fellows of the list of persons in the same sentence is also exhausted. there is no reason why one list would be exhausted with the other would not. article two, section four must limit both why impeachment and conviction can occur and to home. and to whom. it fit does not limit the powers, it has no leverage at all. the house, has sole power of impeachment. in the senate's sole power to try the impeachment would create an unlimited circular logic in our congress men a private

citizen from federal office. that's an incredible claim. but the argument house managers, it seems that that's what the making. it's absolute unqualified jurisdictional power prayed that was quote. and that was very honest because there is no limiting principle in the constitutional text that would empower the senate to convict former officers that was not also let them convict and any private citizen. that's an absurd end result which no one subscribes. article two, section four must have forged and tells us that the president, vice president and civil officers may be impeached and convicted. donald trump is no longer the

president. likewise, the provisions state that officers subject to impeachment and conviction shall be removed from office if convicted . shall be removed from office if convicted. as the justice explains, the senate upon conviction is bound in all cases to enter a judgment of removal from office. removal is mandatory upon conviction. clearly, he explains that mandatory cannot be applied to somebody was left office. the entire process revolved around removal. if removal becomes possible, convicted becomes insensible .

does seem counterintuitive that they can elude the senate convictions by resignation or expiration of term . and argument we heard made by the managers. this underscores the impeachment was never meant to be the final form for american justice. never meant to be the final forum for american justice. impeachment, conviction and removal. they are a specific intra- governmental safety valve. it is not criminal justice system or individual accountability as the paramount goal. indeed, justice specifically

reminded that while former officials were not eligible for impeachment are conviction, they were in this is extremely important, still liable to be tried and punished in the ordinary travails of justice. put another way, in the language of today, president trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office. as an ordinary citizen. unless the statute of limitations has run out, he still liable for everything he did while he is in office. he did not get away with anything yet. not yet. live a justice system in this country. we have civil litigation. and former president not immune from being accountable for me there one.

i believe the senate was right not to grab power that the constitution does not give us. and not entertaining some sham process to try to outrun the loss of jurisdiction. it took both sides more than a week to produce their pretrial briefs. speaker pelosi is on scheduling decisions and conceded what president biden publicly confirmed. this verdict before inauguration day was never possible. this has any dispiriting time. the senate has done our duty. the framers dialogue held up again. on january 6, we returned to her

post and be certified the election. we were not intimidated. we finished the job. and since then, we resisted the climate to defy our own constitutional guardrails. in hot pursuit of a particular outcome. refuse to continue a cycle of recklessness most training our own constitutional boundaries in response. the senate's decision today does not condone anything that happened on or before that terrible day. simply shows that the senators did with the former president

failed to do. what are constitutional duties first. >> senator from maryland . >> thank you mr. president. i take this time to explain why i voted to convict former president of the united states, donald trump. of the articles of impeachment presented by the house of representatives in regards to the excitement of insurrection. throughout his presidency, donald j trump has violated his oath of office. to preserve and protect the constitution of the united states. there are any examples that i could give of how he violated his oath of office. i could also cite the basis of the first articles of

impeachment that were tried last year. as violating his oath of office. but the most egregious violations of his oath of office took place in his incitement of insurrection that occurred the attack on this capitol on january the sixth. but it started before january 6. seeds were planted a long time ago. even before the november elections. where president trump pointed out, when the polls are showing that he might lose in the election, that he would refuse to acknowledge that he would accept the election results. if you lost. he did not say that once before in the november elections. he said in on several occasions . rigged election . talked about the fraudulent election . he talked about the election being taken away from us.

with no evidence of voter fraud. one of the key provisions of our constitution, of our democracy is the peaceful transition of power. donald trump call that into question. prior to november 3rd election. and then came the november 3rd elections. and shortly thereafter, joe biden, was declared to be the winner. light. because he had the most votes. the most populous votes, over 7 million . bleak was declared the winner because of the electoral votes . 306 - 232. and by the way, the stimulatory help margin that donald trump on four years earlier in which donald trump call the landslide.

then came the legal challenges by president trump . did not accept the electoral votes when they declared an election. and he has his right to contest elections in the court asking for a counselor asking for challenges. but in every one of these cases, he could not establish widespread fraud that would've change the results in any one of the states. let a: enough changes change the outcome of the election. but did he stop after he was denied any and all of those legal challenges . the answer is no need he further contested by trying to inappropriately interfere with state election officials and state public officials. he was urging them to take action to change the certifications results.

now we have any examples during this period of time, he was talking about a fraudulent election, stolen election all the different things by raising questions as to the legitimacy of the voices of the people of this nation. we have so any examples for this interference. but we actually have a tape of his conversation with the georgia secretary of state. we all heard it argued we heard how the president tried to intimidate and threaten the secretary of state of georgia argued in order to change the certified election results from the votes of the people of georgia. clear examples about president trump violated his oath of office to protect and defend the constitution of the united states. but that was not the end of it. he went to his department of

justice, his department of justice, not the department of justice of the united states of america. let's remember that the department of justice and found no widespread corruption in fact they had determined one of the wrist and least problem elections that we have had. they did not stop president trump from trying to intimidate in order is department of justice to conduct an additional investigation to find fraud. and to overturn the will of the people. and once again, violating his oath. to protect and defend the constitution of the united states or its he continued it to do this contrary to his constitutional obligations. corrupt elections, stop that steel. rigged elections, tremendously

flawed. all words used after the november 3rd election. he knew what he was saying was a law life. he knew there was no wind spread fraud. but he continued to use the office of the presidency and his voice to promote the big lie. he knew his followers would believe it . he knew he could convince his loyal followers to believe that this was a rigged election, a stolen election. it was compromising our democracy was the with the role of the people determines who are leaders are . and he knew his followers would be motivated to action. he knew he could motivate them, his followers. he put himself before the nation. and before his responsibility as president of the united states. he put his own self interest

above his responsibility under the constitution of the united states and to the people of this nation. and then he summoned his loyal bio and following to washington on january 6. he knew they would come. he knew dangerous people were in the group and he knew the proud boys were there which he sent directly to stand back and stand by. he knew they were ready for violent action needed within he had cited the mob to action on january 6. we saw the videos. of the impeachment trial. and we will never surrender. we will never concede we will stop the steal. the stolen election. all the words he was using during the entire 2020 election cycle would . particularly

thought it was going to lose. but that most damning part of the presence violation of the oath of office most serious part is what he did and did not do. after saying the violence corrupt. in the united states capitol. therefore the capitals penetrated after we saw the violence being committed. where we kneel that the members of congress were endangered. the people who work here were endangered. the people who are in the capitol, all of the people were at danger. we all saw that. and the of the united states knew about it. and he did nothing. he did nothing to stop the violence. he could have called off his loyalists . and told them to get out of the capitol and he did

not do that. he could've said in the national guard in order to protect aspirated he did not do that. and he never condemned the participants in this mob that penetrated the capitol for what they did. i will summarize my feeling about that by agreeing with rep. liz cheney, the conference chair is sitting on the floor of the house. the me just quote for a statement. the president of the united states amended this mob, assembled this mob and lit the flame of this attack. everything that follows was his doing. none of this would've happened without the president. the president could immediately and forcefully intervened to stop the violence. he did not. there has never been a greater betrayal by a president of the united states of this office and his oath to the constitution. i agree with that.

president trump violated his oath of office to protect and defend the constitution of the united states. he violated that . let's take a look at what he did do. after knowing the violence that occurred. history of two - 24. this was after the vice president had been removed from presiding in the chamber after he knew the violence and taking that was taking place in the capitol of the united states . and he was aware of all of that and they knew that he had checked on the operations the house and in the senate. that there was violence taking place in the capitol. and that's vice president with the target of that attack . and he tweeted it 2:24 p.m., mike pence, and according president. he did not have the courage to do what he should have done to

protect our country. inflaming the movie more to violence. every new it was a violent circumstance. and then the violence had taken place and we heard the record of the impeachment trial to date, when congress in the report majority leader in part with these conversations. the house of representatives gives the president . we need help, send the guards, take care of us. and then, president trump said something like, well it is not my supporters that some left wing group created and later mccarthy says, where was the president . these are your supporters who are doing this. and what did the leader say, what did the president say.

i guess these people are more upset about the election than you are. and here we have the members of congress in harm's way. and the president is talking about the support for those who are causing the violence. putting his own interest above the safety of the people that he is sworn to protect as commander-in-chief. and then at the end of the day about 6:00 o'clock, he sent out a tweet. it really sums up about what these people were doing. they killed people in the capitol. they hurt people. they stole property. the damaged property. they invaded the capitol of the united states. they hurt law enforcement officers. they hurt our democracy. how does the president some of

the day. he said these are the things that happen when a secret landslide victory is still unceremoniously and viciously stripped away. from great patriots. new have been badly and unfairly treated for so long. go home and in peace, remember this day forever. repeating the big lie for saying that the date was a day of celebration window was one of the most bleak dark days in the history of our nation. that is what president trump did rather than bringing in the national guard and rather than telling people to go home. rather than being concerned about the safety of the vice president and the members of

congress. as the president of the united states should have been doing paredes violated his oath of office over and over and over again. it clearly establishes that he incited an insurrection against our country and that the facts was based less was brought to us by the house of representatives, has been proven. the purpose of impeachment, is not just the accountability to the president. but also to protect her constitution. in the make sure this conflict never happens again. no one is above the law including the president of the united states . everyone who was responsible for the insurrection that occurs on january 6th should be held accountable. those who broke into the capitol and cause harm and damage to the president of the united states, coincided violence. that's why he voted to convict

president trump of the articles of impeachment from siding an insurrection the spy would've voted to disqualify him from ever holding an office of trust again. and with that, i yield the floor >> can i ask that the entire statement be put in the record . >> there is no objection. >> mr. president . >> the senator from maine. >> thank you rated hallmark of our american democracy is the peaceful transfer of power after the voters choose their leader . in america, we accept the election results even if our candidate does not prevail.

if the candidate believes there is broad, the courts can hear and they can decide those issues. otherwise the authority to govern is in the duly elected official. mr. president, on january 6th, this congress gathered in the capitol, to count the votes of the electoral college pursuant to the process set forth in the 12 amendment to the constitution. at the same time, a mob stormed the capitol and determined to stop congress from carrying out our constitutional duties. mr. president, that attack was not a spontaneous outbreak of

violence. rather it is the culmination of a steady stream of provocations by president trump that were aimed is overturning of the results of the presidents election. the president unprecedented efforts to discredit the election results, did not begin on january 6. rather, he planted the seeds of doubt any weeks before the votes were cast on november 3rd. he repeatedly told his supporters that only rigged election could cause him to lose. that's again, president trump to undermine public confidence in the presidential election unless

he won. early in the morning of novembes continue to be counted, president trump claimed victory and asserted that the democrats were trying to steal the election. on november 8, the day after several media outlets and declared joe biden the apparent winner based on state-by-state results. president trump tweeted that this was a stolen election. with that, mr. president, the post election campaigns could change the outcome began. over the ensuing days and months, the president distorted the votes of the election, continuing to claimed that he had 140 while court after court,

through out his lawsuit and states continued to certify their results. president trump's falsehoods convinced a large number of americans that he had one. and that they were being treated. the president also embarked on an incredible effort to pressure state election officials to change the results in their states . the most egregious example of hard on january 7th. in an extraordinary on-call. president trump could be heard alternating between lobbying, intimidating and threatening the election officials in georgia.

i just want to find 11780 votes he stated. seeking the exact number of votes needed to change the outcome in that state. despite the presidents pleasing threats, the georgian officials refused to yield to the presidents pressure. and as his state officials and others faced. in december, president trump post election campaign. he became focused on january 6th grade the day the congress was scheduled to count the electoral college vote. although this counting is a ceremonial and administrative, is nevertheless a

constitutionally mandated final step in the electoral college in the process. in this must occur before a new president can be inaugurated. and on december 19th, president trump tweeted to his supporters, the big protest in dc on january 6th. be there. it will be wild. in response, some of his campaign supporters changed the date for protest and they originally had scheduled to occur after the inauguration. to happen instead on january 6th. having failed to persuade the courts in the state election officials, president trump next

began to pressure vice president rent. t is his role under the 12 amendment to overturn the election. and the president met with vice president pence and then increase the pressure by tweeting hours later. if the vice president comes through for us we will win the presidency. that's what his tweets said. vice president pence however refused if we in from hilda. he issued a public letter and january 6th grade making clear that his oath could support and defend the constitution would prevent him from unilaterally - which electoral votes should be counted in which should not.

during his speech. ungenerous x-rated president trump kept up that drumbeat of pressures on vice president pence. in front of the large agitated crowds, he urged the vice president to stand up for the good of our constitution. i hope he has the courage to do what he has to do. president trump concluded. mr. president, rather than facilitating the peaceful transfer of power, president trump was telling the vice president pence to ignore the constitution and refuse to count the certified votes.

he would also further agitate the crowds. directing them to march to the capitol. in this situation, context was everything. tossing a lit match into a pile of dry leaves. that is very different from tossing it into a pool of water . and on january 6, the atmosphere among crowd outside of the white house was highly combustible. largely the result of an ill wind blowing from washington for the past two months. president trump had stoked his contempt with a steady barrage of false claims . the election had been stolen from him. the allegedly responsible

officials were denigrated and ridiculed by the president . with predictable results that his supporters beauty of this are officials they proceeded to be president trump's reelection. as an . [inaudible]. that set the stage for the storming of the capitol. for the first time in more than 200 years. nearly 30 minutes after the capitol first came under attack, members of congress, law enforcement and everyone else here in the capitol way to the in vain for the president to

unequivocally condemn the violence. and tell is misguided supporters to leave the capitol. rather than demand an answer to the violence, president trump expresses his frustrations once again the vice president had not stopped the certification as he emerged . shortly after the vice president was swept away from this very chamber to avoid the mobs, chanting, hanging mike pence. president trump tweeted that mike pence did not have the courage to do what should've been done. instead of preventing the

situation, president trump created one. and rather than defend the constitutional transfer of power, he incited an insurrection with the purpose of preventing that transfer of power from occurring. whether by design or by virtue as a reckless disregard was the consequences of his actions. president trump subordinating the interests of the country to zone selfish interest. it bears significant responsibility for the invasion the capitol. mr. president, this impeachment trial is not about any single

word uttered by president trump on january 6th, 2021. it is instead about president trump's failures to obey the elf and he swore on january 20th, 2017. his actions interfered with peaceful transition of power, the hallmark of our constitution and our american democracy. where an abuse of power and constitution the grounds for conviction. there were two arguments that have been made against conviction the deserve comments. the first is, that this was a snap impeachment.

that the house failed to hold hearings, conduct an investigation and to interview witnesses. and that is true. without a doubt, the house should have been more thorough. it should have compiled a more complete effort. nevertheless, the record is clear that the president trump abused his power and violated his oath to uphold the constitution. and tried almost every means in his power to prevent the peaceful transfer of authority to the newly elected president. second, is the contention that

the amendment protects the presidents rights to make any sort of outrages and full flames, no matter the consequences. but madam president, the first amendment was not designed and is never been construed by any court in the impeachment and conviction of the violations of his oath of office and by summoning and inciting a mob. to threaten other officials of their constitutional obligations. my vote in this trial stems from my own oath and duty to defend

the constitution of the united states. the abuse of power and betrayal of his oath, by president trump meets the constitutional standards of high crime and misdemeanors. and for those reasons, i voted to convict donald j trump. thank you madam president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. a. >> will call the role. >> ... ...

very proud of the exceptional hard work of these managers who worked through the night, many nights over several weeks to make this case to the senate and to the union. as to -- i want to say it one word about the thing about witnesses. we were able to get treated as live under oath testimony for the statement of our colleague, we were able to get a stipulation to that and get into evidence today by asking her as a witness. if you listen to mitch mcconnell and eight

republicans who are now hurriedly explaining why they voted not to convict, all of them are hinging it on a legal argument, jurisdictional or some other legal argument that could never be overcome by any number of witnesses. we could have 5000 witnesses and mitch mcconnell will be making the same speech. when he is asserting is the senate never has jurisdiction over a former president. for reasons i do not need to belabor a big party trial was about this, we reject that completely. i was totally, the belknap case, the text of the constitutional, the original intent of the constitution. the original understanding of the constituted the is unprecedented and so on. in any event, the point is note number of witnesses demonstrating donald trump continued to insert right the insurrectionist even after the

instruction of the capitol would convince them for they would could not be convinced there hinging on a matter of law which we thought we settled back on tuesday of course when the senate elected to exercise jurisdiction and reject that constitutional argument. it is what it is. mitch mcconnell clearly feels that donald trump remains a huge problem for the republican party. even if he has been disgraced in the eyes of the country. that is not my jurisdiction and i really don't have anything to say about that. they will have to deal the political dynamics of their own parties. so, we did get donald trump to at least admit he is a former president now. that is a good news. he's not asserting now is still a president. they are recognizing at least in a defective sense the legitimacy of this presidential election which of course president bided one by

7 million votes in by a margin of 30622 in 30 to an electoral college. with that i will close my remarks and the questions are open for any of us. i'm going to share the podium with my distinguished colleagues. [inaudible] reporter: of the motions by the republicans that voted down the random paul motion. the stick on the constitutionality. [inaudible] what's to say if they played harder on witnesses to provide. [inaudible] you could not of grown the number of republican. expect someone else want to take a shot at that if i address that anybody else? >> listen, we heard from the minority leader, mitch mcconnell, that we have proven the case. he said specifically the house

managers have proven the facts of the case. and before we started yesterday, we knew, when we rested we rested with overwhelming evidence as to the facts of this case. these jurors were also witnesses to the crime for they knew specifically what was happening. and then, we found additional information about herrera beutler. which we on yesterday evening, we decided that we would go after. and we got it. we got that information. to further amplify what we had already proven their in court. there is no other additional witnesses that were friendly to us that were not there on the screen. the body cameras of the capitol police officers but how much more residents but that had given to them than the actual seeing the day of the insurrection?

individuals that others of us would've liked to call like the president who we invited is in fact a defendant and does not have to testify. other individuals who may have been there with the president were not friendly witness to us and would have required subpoenas and months of litigation. they're still litigating impeachment one year later. we have shown this president is a disgrace to our company check country. mitch mcconnell said that brady centers have decided to hang their hats on jurisdictional grounds is not based in evidence not based on the facts. they'll have to be judged for that. we have done our duty to the american people. that ought. we met let me introduce speaker pelosi welcome to you next. >> had not been my intention to come to this press availability however tempting

it would be to sing the praises of our house managers. on behalf of not only the house of representatives, on behalf of the american people. and i have to say personally on behalf of my grandchildren, i do great hope and inspiration from each and every one of you. we cannot be prouder of your patriotic presentations, the clarity in which you presented and again inspiration you have been to so many people. so i thank you for that. my c of them reminds me we recruit candidates for office we see them self recruiting we always say, they say i could be the president of my university or i could be the president of my hospital department or this or that. so i have to think about whether want to run for

congress. we say we don't want anybody without options. not us while we are looking to you to run because you have options for that should not be a reason for you not to run. but what we saw in that senate today was a cowardly group of republicans who apparently have no options because they were afraid for the institution they served. imagine it would be vandalized so many bad ways i won't even go into here. they would not respect their institution. that the president of the senate, mike pence, hang mike pence was the chant and they just dismiss that, why? because maybe they can't get another job. what is so important about any one of us?

what is so important about the political survival of any one of us that is more important than our constitution that we take an oath to defend. the reason i came over say listen to mitch mcconnell. mitch mcconnell, who when this distinguished group of house managers were gathered on january 152 deliver the articles of impeachment were told it cannot be received because mitch mcconnell had shut down the senate. was would keep it shut down until right before the inauguration. for him to get up there and make this indictment against the president and then say but i can't vote for it because it's after-the-fact. the fact that he established, the fact that he established

that it could not be delivered before the inauguration. now he think about january 6, between january 6 and january 20 you are only talking about just under two weeks, a day under two weeks. so, the big lie, stop the still the big lie you talk about, stop the steel was the momentum for getting these people there on the sixth for they honestly believe, for whatever reason may be too much social media whatever, what social media that movie, why they were thinking that is true that the election was not legitimate, whatever the reason the president told them. so okay that is the sixth. a week later we impeach in the house, thank you to those of you who participated right away, jamie raskin, ted lieu, and david sicily.

they had all written up and ready to go. bipartisan lien past the house and two days later ready with a case to take to the senate. oh we can't receive it. and they're supposed to receive it in the next day start the trial. so for mitch mcconnell who created the situation work could not have been heard before the 20th or even begun before the 20th in the senate to say all the things he said, oh my gosh about donald trump and how horrible he was and is part and then say but, the time that the house chose to bring it over. no we did not choose, you chose not to receive it.

i think that's really important spirit again, it doesn't matter. as jamie and others have told us, you can have the case after the person is out of office. it is an elementary discussion. the senate rules in that way an honorary precedent on this but it did not matter except it was not the reason that he voted the way he did. it was the excuse that he used. and so that is why it's important as a very important feat. but chuck schumer's speech was remarkable in laying it all out. he was inspired by all of you because you raise the level of all of this to such a place of patriotism and knowledge of our country, our history and what we owe our children. again we always say honoring the tradition of our founders, worthy of the sacrifice of our

men and women in uniform and respecting the aspirations of our children. they did all of that. and the distinguished league manager said earlier on this presidential weekend our sense of patriotism is stirred on we are called upon in a stronger way. so i want to thank them. i want to thank stacey plaskett, thank you madeley dean, thank you very much joe neguse, thank you eric swalwell, thank you david cicilline, thank you ted lieu, thank you very much mr. lead manager on all of this. we just could not be prouder. i've been hearing for my grandchildren who are very sad that justice was not done. but, by 15 votes the senate

voted to convict, a good bipartisan statement about what has happened. would not have been accomplished without your brilliant presentation. so i thank you for that and i will yield the floor. i think all of you as i leave it. >> think if your confidence and as for is going to go out next to scott would you take the next one? reporter: focus for the speaker she had a comment on. [inaudible] was still liable criminally or civilly for everything you did in office? do you think now the justice department of the state of journey general for legal? >> even hedged on that. never when he talked about incitement. he said this role is at a level. who's hedging all over the place. i didn't know if it was for donors or what.

but whatever it was it was a very disingenuous speech. and i said that regretfully because i always want to be able to work with the leadership of the other party. i think our country needs a strong republican party produce very important. for him to try to have it every which way. we will be going forward to make sure this never happens again in terms of what were to investigate and evaluate what causes this both in terms of the motivation but also in terms of the security that we have to have us we move forward, recognizing how inflaming even some of our elected officials attending. i defer to all the distinguished lawyers. [inaudible] rick is venture an option?

>> it's light with the constitution. that let's everybody off the hook. it let's everybody off the hook. oh these cowardly senators who could not face up to what the president did. and what was at stake for our country are now going to have a chance to give a little slap on the wrist. we censure people for using stationary for the wrong purpose. we don't censure people for inciting insurrections that kills people in the capitol. >> yes. reporter: [inaudible] from the congressman deposition possible into other depositions. [inaudible] statement in the trout records prodigious try to reach out to her at all? and then separately, the white house indirectly or directly

of any involvement? >> you know what, i don't want to -- we tried this case as aggressively as we could all the law and on the facts. we did everything that we could pretty got the presidents lawyers exactly what we wanted. it was entering into the evidentiary record buyer statement for mark colleague congressman buetler. i got to read that before the country that became part of the case it became an important part of our case. again we could've had 500 witnesses and it would not have overcome the kinds of arguments being made by mitch mcconnell and other republicans who were hanging their hats on the claim that it was somehow unconstitutional to try a former president. or that the first amendment somehow gave him a right to an right wrists erection against the union.

were going to have to live with those arguments that they made. we think we overwhelmingly approved our case for the mitch mcconnell statement shows we overwhelmingly approved our case. in all that might have happened if we had bargain for ten witnesses, ten witnesses on their site, the first person they said they wanted to bring up and to cross-examine is nancy pelosi break they would've turned the whole thing into a circus. we conducted it with legal seriousness and decorum. and you saw the conduct of the lawyers on the other side. and you know what donald trump's track record is purdue not going to allow them to turn into a farce. reporter: [inaudible] back biting to raise her comments sooner? [inaudible] >> the first time jaisol the

statement was yesterday. that statement was released yesterday. you know, what is interesting is the premise on these questions is somehow that we failed to prove the facts of the case may think in the eyes of the entire world and the country we overwhelmingly prove the facts of the case. and senator mcconnell just conceded that, that is not the issue. you've got to talk to the 43 senators were basically saying no amount of facts would have made any difference to them. they did not think the president was subject to the jurisdiction of the senate. that was the argument you just heard mitch mcconnell make. i mean forgive me for reacting strongly to that, that seems to me to it be a bizarre conclusion to these events to say that somehow if he would've just had one more witness mitch mcconnell would've come over to our site just listen to his words. yes. reporter: [inaudible]

the white house tell you they wanted to explore? >> i never spoke to anyone from the white house, to present by or anyone in the white house and i made the call. you want to blame somebody, you know. maybe a thinker trying to understand >> remember we get into a situation like this, look if we had needed any witnesses to make our case they would have gotten always with a six-week trial or an eight week trial or whatever part we did it we overwhelmingly proved our case. senator cottle the leader of the republicans in the senate just conceded that. new one on the facts. [inaudible] vitek it was two things we had to do, right? >> we had to first have a motion for witnesses.

which we did we were supposed to do it. which was after the prosecution and defense made their case. we made a motion to allow for witnesses. and then after that we requested one witness. the republicans, the council for the former president said he was going to bring 100 witnesses. we got the essence of what we wanted which was the statement of congresswoman jaime herrera beutler. the defense got nothing. i think what you are making is a lot and dismissing the incredible evidence of havoc, mayhem, and what this president had done over a period of months to bring destruction to our democracy by talking about if you had two or three more witnesses what was going to happen. submit one thing i would add, remember there is a reason the request for witnesses comes at

the conclusion of the case. we had an opportunity to see the former presidents council and decided whether we need to provide additional witnesses. don't forget our case was filled with dozens of witnesses with video, statements and recordings. it was only last night we learned about this new information. we got the bests of both worlds without that testimony in the record before the jury without any risk associated with the rate that's important to remember for this is a congresswoman who repeats a telephone call between kevin mccarthy and the former president of the united states in which kevin mccarthy's pleading for help saying help us we are under attack. the president first tries to blame another group, and tivo says no mr. president these are your supporters. we are in danger here. he said well kevin, maybe they care more about the election than you do. that came before the senate jury to the statement that mr. raskin reid priddy got the evidence in that we wanted to present that was a victory for

us. >> the defendant president donald job john trump was let off on a technicality. that's what you heard mitch mcconnell say that they let him off of what they at least to be a procedural issue which was because of the constitutionality of the matter they could not proceed to the substance. that final interpretation both on the liberal side and the conservative side strongly disagrees with that assessment. but they let him off on a technicality. he also heard mitch mcconnell go up there and say essentially that we overwhelmingly approved our case. that substantively donald trump is guilty of inciting insurrection. and it has been for all of us and honor to work and a solemn honor to work on this case. even though we did not get the seven votes, this is been the

most bipartisan vote for impeachment and conviction ever. and we know that we spoke the truth on the senate floor. and the american people by and large have agreed with us. and one final remark on all of this, this episode from january 6 on has been very taxing on the american people. >> now i ask unanimous consent the secretary be authorized to include statements of senators explaining the roads even given or submitted during the legislative sessions of the senate through march 1 along with the full record of the senates proceedings and the filings by the parties in the senate document printed under the supervision of the secretary of the senate that will complete the documentation of the senate's handling of these impeachment proceedings. >> without rejection rates may ask unanimous consent the senate procedure the consideration of senate rez 62 submitted earlier today. >> the clerk report.

scenic that resolution 62 congratulating >> 61. >> senate resolution 60 when honoring the life and agassi of the honorable george pretre scholz pre->> asking as consent the resolution be agreed to the preamble be agreed to in the motion. >> without objection the senate will proceed. >> i asking as consent the resolution be agreed to the preamble be agreed to in the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. >> without objection. ask unanimous consent met and present the consent estimate the senate procedure the consideration set should be earlier today. >> the clerk report >> senate religion 62 can gradually tampa bay buccaneers as a loyal fans of the tampa bay buccaneers for becoming super bowl lv champions >> without

objection the senate will proceed. >> ask unanimous consent that resolution be agreed to the preamble be agreed to the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate? >> without objection. >> ask unanimous consent notwithstanding coming in turn of the set the present the senate the president pro tem in the majority and minority be authorized to make appointments to commissions or into parliamentary conferences authorized by law by concurrent action of the two houses or by order of the senate. >> without objection price back asking as consent on friday, february 19, from 10:00 a.m. until 11:00 a.m. committees be authorized to report legislative and executive matters. >> without objection. >> that a president i ask unanimous consent the appointment at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. >> without objection for hvac asking and its content consent at time determined on tuesday, february 23 notwithstanding rule 22 the senate proceed to executive session the senate

proceed to the immediate consideration of thomas j bill's sector the secretary of agriculture. further, that there be 20 minutes for debate equally divided between the two leaders are the designees in the senate but without intervening action or debate of the nomination. and that if confirm the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the present be immediately notified for senates action. >> without objection. >> i moved to proceed to executive calendar -- executive session to consider calendar number ten. scenic the question on the motion. all those in favor say jen five, all opposed no. yeas appear to have it jump i do have. the motion is agreed to. the clerk report. >> nomination, department of state, linda thomas refilled louisiana to the representative of the united states of america to the

united nations and the representatives united states of america and the security council of the united nations. meka send a closure motion to the desk. >> the clerk report the motion to invoke. >> with the undersigned centers in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on calendar number ten, linda thomas greenfield of louisiana to be the representative of the united states of america to the united nations with the rank and status of the ambassador extraordinary and potentially airy and the representative at the united states of america and the security council of the united nations. signed by 18 senators as followed. >> asked and set the reading of the names be way. speak without objection brace meka now move to proceed to legislative session. we met question is on the motion. all this and favors ai. all opposed no. the motion is agreed to pay >> i moved to proceed to

executive session to consider calendar number 11. >> question is on the motion. those in favor all opposed no. the clerk report the nomination. the nomination department of state, linda thomas greenfield of louisiana the representative united states of america to the session of the general assembly of the united nations. >> or was i, i am lost. motion to the desk. >> the clerk report. >> motion we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby bring to a close the debate on calendar number 11, linda thomas greenfield of louisiana to be representative at the united states of america to the sessions of the general assembly of the united

nations. 518 senators as followed without objection. i ask unanimous consent the senate complete its business today that it adjourned to then convene for pro forma sessions only with no business being conducted on the following dates and times the following each session the senate adjourned until the next pro forma session tuesday february 16 at 10:00 a.m., friday for every 19th at 10:15 a.m. i further asked that when the

senate adjourns on friday february 19 and next convene at 3:00 p.m. monday every 22nd. further that following the prayer in legs the morning our b depicts byard, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day in the senate would be recognized to deliver washington's farewell address is provided of the previous order. following his remarks morning business because the senate proceed to executive session to consider the thomas greenfield nomination is provided of the previous order. >> without objection. >> and there's no further business to come before the senate i ask a standard adjourned under the previous order. >> the senate stands adjourned until february 16 at 10:00 a.m. and with at the senate has adjourned their business for the day. after voting 57 -- 43 to acquit the former present one

charge of inciting insurrection on january 6. the votes were ten shy of the 67 they needed to find the former president guilty. your reaction to the trial and the votes coming up. republicans (202)748-8921. democrats (202)748-8920. and all others call it (202)748-8922. before we get to your thoughts the president's defense team went to the cameras after the vote took place, here's what they had to say. >> thank you all for coming thank you all for coming to difficult period of time for our country mr. van der veen

and other members of the team are extraordinarily gratified that the united states senate they want to protect their constitutional way of life and not go down the road of endless impeachments. mike. >> how are you any questions? to make a statement? spirit i don't want to make a statement we had a really good case. >> on the senate floor right now known. possible for provoking the event how do you grapple folks in your party. [inaudible] >> i don't grapple with anybody but we finished the grappling in that room and we slam them down on the mat and when this case.

there is no grappling anymore we won, not guilty. reporter: kevin mccarthy's of that phone call? >> they should've got burden of proof is on them it is somewhat confusing to us that this conversation was of such a great import why was it only brought to our attention today and formed the basis for most of the closing that the house managers made. if this is centerpiece of their case, it should've been front and center from the beginning pretty kind of think yesterday their case was destroyed and they needed to throw a hail mary pass. fell in the in zone i'm caught. reporter: and awed. >> were not privilege to discuss anything we talk about with the president. reporter: when you make of seven republicans.

[inaudible] how do you feel that affected by both parties. [inaudible] >> a win is a win. with respect to mr. mcconnell, we are not sore winners. reporter: read the president statement. >> president trump to spout the following statement, went to first think my team of dedicated lawyers and others for their tireless work upholding justice in defending truth. my deepest thanks as well to all united states senators and members congress who stood proudly for the constitution. we offer beer for the sacred legal principles of the heart of our country. our scarce constitutional republic was found on the impartial rule of law to indispensable safeguard for our liberties, our rights and our freedoms. it is a sad commentary on our times that one political party in america is given a free pass to denigrate the rule of

law, defame law enforcement, shear mobs, excused writers of political vengeance and persecute blacklist, cancel and suppress all people and viewpoints with whom which they disagree. i always have and always will be a champion for the unwavering rule of law, the heroes of law enforcement and the right of americans to peacefully and honorably debate the issues of the day without malice and without aid. this is been yet another phase of the greatest witchhunt and our country paid no presidents ever gone through anything like it. and it continues because our opponents cannot forget the elbow 75 million people, the highest number ever for a sitting president who voted with us just a few short months ago. i also want to convey my gratitude to the millions of decent, hard-working, law-abiding god and country loving citizens have bravely supported these important principles in these very difficult and challenging

times. our historic, patriotic and beautiful movement to make america great again his only just begun. in the months ahead i have much to share with you and i look forward to continuing our incredible journey together to achieve american greatness for all of our people. there's never been anything like it. we have so much work ahead of us and soon we will emerge with a vision for a bright, radiant, and limitless american future. together there's nothing we cannot accomplish. we remain a one people, one family one glorious nation under god puts our responsibility to preserve this magnificent inheritance for our children and generations of american succumb. may god bless all of you. god forever bless the united states of america. that's an president trump i imagine will be hearing a lot more from him in the coming days, thank you. reporter: [inaudible] >> you know what is really important, which is probably the most important thing that came out of this.

this country needs to cool the temperature. we need to unite as people. there are so many common priorities that we all share, that face this country and a really important way. this team of trial lawyers are simply that. we are trial lawyers not politicians. we are not on the left side, the bright side, or any sighted altered we had a constitutional duty to defend our client it would that to the best of our abilities. but what i want to say, and i wanted to convey in there, was that our country needs to face the business in front of it with all seriousness and purpose, love and peace in our hearts. and move the ball forward so this great nation can get as strong as possible in the face of this pandemic. it is absolutely crucial that

this country move forward in unity. put away the partisan backlash back and forth. and do everything that we can to find justice every day in our lives. thank you. reporter: [inaudible] reporter: i know you mentioned a win was a win at. [inaudible] [background noises] [background noises] move interview over here. let me say one thing for anybody who is here. the media has got to stop. the media is feeding the anger of both sides.

that main stream media, the right media, the left media i don't care what media it is. that media is feeding the division in this country. they are blood thirsty for ratings. when i watched the news, i watched one channel and it is one world pretty watch another channel and it's a totally different world. and it is time that the media went back to integrity in their reporting, on biased notice in their coverage and work to cool the temperature in this country instead of always trying to ratchet it up. and i think it is their obligation to do that starting right now. back after a freedom of the press as a first amendment right as well. the whole idea for having freedom of the pressure and freedom of speech is to encourage robust debate. civil debates, civil robust

debates not contentious debates. that's the point we're trying to make during the trial. >> former president dawdled trumps impeachment lawyers claiming victory there after the senate voted 57 -- 43 to acquit the former president. it was a five day trial. and seven republicans joined all 50 democrats in a guilty vote. but ten shy of the 67 that they needed. the republican senators that voted with the democrats included senator richard burr of north carolina, was retiring in 2022. senator cassidy senator bill cassidy of louisiana and

senator susan collins of maine republican and michalski, mitt romney of utah and ben sasse of nebraska along with pennsylvania's senator patrick toomey. they along with democrats voted guilty in this trial. we want to get your reaction to it this evening. david and rich on, michigan what did you think? >> caller: i've been dialing in retailing since noon eastern time, thanks for letting me speak here. if you look from a wide angle we knew the president's lawyer, he was looking at this like a law. a matter of the constitution. and the managers, it is a political show. actually think they won the political show but of course since it was political they did not get two thirds.

but also it is important what everybody ignored was there were about a million people there on the mall. okay? few wins in. even raskin said trump says what ever he whenever he wants. now if trump what to go in he would've said okay, let's go into the capitol, let's take it. did he say that? no he didn't. they are making it sound like he failed because of the police there. we come to find out who set that up. this was preplanned. because there were very few capitol police there. you even saw pictures were they were opening barriers to let people win. some of the pictures of some of the people they were actually behind the ropes and stuff taking pictures.

we knew nt 4.0 was there. >> david did you listen to senate majority leader mitch mcconnell after the vote was taken to the senate floor? did you listen to him say after he voted to acquit, he condemned the former president saying he showed a disgraceful derelict of duty, dereliction of dirty. and he is morally responsible for what happened. the chinese government gave many assurances of chinese shipping company. kind have to put that in perspective. we have to think of why there is so much fierce anger at trump. we know he was for term limits. all these democrats and republicans they did not want him in. spent going to leave it there and get another joint voice. nancy and ohio democratic collar democratic collar.

>> caller: first about donald trump is a very dangerous man, very dangerous. he has been stoking racism, violence, hate. he is very vindictive and narcissistic. i am not even sure if he doesn't realize that he lost the election. however, the way he was raised by sociopathic father was if you lose or fail it is a sign of weakness. and donald trump would never show weakness. so sometimes in the books i've read about him, if he says something over and over and over again, eventually he actually believes it. some of the basket with the trial in the vote. >> caller: heard mitch mcconnell. i was very pleased that he got up he was indeed guilty of what happened, but then he

went ahead and said it was unconstitutional for the senate to convict in. that's the case why did 50 people vote for guilty then? split nansen getting a caddie let's get candy and from maryland a republican. go ahead kenny. hello. sue and what if you make of the votes. >> caller: came out right fragile think it ever should have went to where went to britain never should've went to trial. i do believe the constitution does not allow for that. i do believe that people lie to that capitol for all responsible for themselves i hold donald trump responsible anybody else but each individual person there. that's the problem in our society but it's always

somebody else's fault whenever we do something wrong. we never step up and hold ourselves accountable. so i think everything went great for the president. >> okay kenny. as we showed you earlier, the president's defense team went to talk to reporters after the votes. crystal hayes with usa today noted they were very happy as they got into the subway here in the capitol after they talk to reporters, van der veen, michael van der veen laughed and said quote were going to disney world and this bumped another member of trumps team, a reporter for bill clarke, roll call reporter shows a picture there two of them the air with a fist about. let's go to dwight in pennsylvania, dwight your term. >> caller: all right, i do think they had enough evidence to impeach. i am not sure why the

republican senators don't have the guts to vote their conscience. which i don't believe they did. not sure the hold donald trump has on them being he is no longer president. there is one statement that echoes in my mind on things necessary for the triumph of evil is for a few good men to do nothing. and that's what the republican senators did. >> host: when you make of your center patrick toomey? i'm very proud of him for voting his conscience on this issue. >> host: to meet writing guilty a lawless attempt to retain power by president was one of the fears of the impeachment authorities in the u.s. constitution in phoenix,

arizona democratic collar, hi frederick. >> caller: hi how are you doing? i want to speak a little bit about michael speak soon it's all over he stands for the camera like it's a joke. he speaks of unity per he was the most divisive lawyers that came up every time he spoke and made statements towards the defense. there was no unity there. you know as well as in his closing arguments, the media is reporting the facts three talks about the media should be not so on one side pretty look to one and you look at that. i believe media are fair in their reporting part he just does not like what they are

saying about his client. sue and fedor caddie think the impeachment managers did? >> caller: truly believe the house impeachment managers did their job. i truly believe that they proved their case. as mitch mcconnell said was really disingenuous. i agree with that lead attorneys for that leader of the house managers. when he said he is disingenuous and the only reason they voted to find donald trump not guilty is based on procedural rules. sue and art frederick thank you. jacob who writes for inside election tweets out a little history force, vote to convict a present or former president in an impeachment trial, andrew johnson's impeachment trial in 1868 was 35 guilty covid 19 not guilty on both counts. in the clinton impeachment trial on the first counts of

lying under oath it was 45 -- 55. on the second count of obstructing of justice, it was 50 -- 50. president trump's first impeachment trial on the first account it was 48 -- 52:00 p.m. the second count 47 -- 53. on this second impeachment trial once again the former president is acquitted 57 -- 43. in paterson new jersey a republican, >> here right, so it's a complete kangaroo courts. only seven republicans in the whole court noted not guilty against trump is totally crazy. i was actually helping new jersey and new york would follow is very disappointed on my end.

sue and emily and at virginia. emily your term. >> caller: you thank you for all you do. the fact that 43 senators voted not guilty despite the fact they thought there colleagues in harm's way moments away from being injured or worse is just absolutely devastating. they are or into 1 million people at that march on the sixth of were not 100,000. so on whose behalf are the voted not guilty for? that a few constituents who still subscribe to these beliefs it's incredibly heartbreaking. history will not look kindly on the people. it's not about self accountability the folks that marched in did so on the voices of other. they have to be accountable for their own actions. you can't yell fire in the movie theater and expect no repercussions and that's exactly what president trump

did. you can't incite violence like this they will notes her own choice to do that. that somehow it works and you're the president. stuart all right emily for his part minority leader mitch mcconnell said had the president still be in office he probably would've considered whether to convict the former president. trump is constitutionally in eligible for a senate trial chad a fox news. then from cnn fact checked mitch mcconnell could have allowed a trial of donald trump who still president and mcconnell still majority leader. he decided not to bring the senate back. cnn, chris says schumer had wanted to use a 2004 emergency reconvening authority to bring the senate back early to begin the trial before the president left office. but he needed a sign off from mcconnell declined. chris with rollcall news. now you will note the house voted to impeach the president on january 13.

between january 13 and generate 20th of a new president was sworn into office you had seven days. this trail, this week took five days, compare that to president bill clinton's impeachment trial, five weeks, 37 days is telling that that lasted. it was 83 days in 1868 for president andrew johnson. john and syracuse, new york, democratic call hi john. >> caller: hi. i was calling because i think donald trump did exactly what he said he was going to do. excited to shoot down someone and get away with it and that's what he did. splints he think he prove that? >> caller: yes. sue and wendy republican in arizona. >> caller: hi thanks for taking my call. i would just like to touch on the inciting part of all of

this. and i would like to say that i have always been more incited by the democratic party and by anything trump ever did. nancy pelosi's actions and words have moved me toward the republican party or than anything else. she has no respect for any opinion other than hers. and i think justice was served today. i don't particularly want to be flying a chinese flag in my yard anytime soon. very happy today, thank you. but kate mike in virginia. michael is your reaction to the vote? >> caller: my reaction as we are seeing the tragic fulfillment of a prophecy. that was warned against by george washington and his farewell address to the nation about what would happen to our nation if political parties became too powerful. it had the aggregation of too

much power in the hands of too few going back to something a hypocrisy masquerading as a democracy. and we have seen that throughout the last several presidential terms, starting with ronald reagan up to the present. partisanship has become an retention of power by the parties has been more important than a business of the people. this has been demonstrated many, many times throughout the last 30 plus years. the problem we run into, is you have -- is demonstrated by the citizens united verdict. you have darker money, you have powerful people who want to maintain power. and their only concern is maintaining that power.

those people who have basically been purchased by this dark money on both sides of the aisle. both sides are equally guilty of this. we need to go back, this is involved with this event, this vote this impeachment all of what has occurred because of the fact that it has become common knowledge that scared people are easily manipulated. and what is happening is people putting on a shout like a street fight so that the people behind the scenes can do it they are going to and everyone is distracted. stuart okay mike and gwen good alexander in pennsylvania, the credit color alexandria. >> yes the way i feel about this time, i was disappointed

he was not convicted. somewhat delighted there's at least seven republicans who voted this time versus the one and the previous impeachment. sue and the one being mitt romney the last time around. >> caller: when it comes to the senate i have a hard time believing that any of them actually don't really think and know that he is guilty. they know per they are all smart people. the house is a different story. but the senate is darn well what trump is about and what he has been about this whole time. they are all bad faith actors. so really, it seems to me that seven of them have a conscience maybe. or maybe that seven of them are in the position where they can do something like that. they can make that vote and it is not going to hurt them politically. marsha blackburn of alabama, she voted. i'm sorry tennessee. she votes, right?

she votes on why she's going to be fine she votes no. sue and what about senator cassidy of louisiana? open loss that collar. let's read statements from some of these republicans who voted to convict. laura reports for bloomberg news a quote from senator cassidy in his statement a constitution and country more important than any one person. i voted to convict president trump because he is guilty. and then rebecca of the wall street journal says of senator richard burr on his vote to convict, by what he did and what he did not do, president trump violated his oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the united states. and mitt romney put out a statement, tweeted it outside after careful consideration perspective counsel's arguments i concluded

president trump is guilty of the charge made by the house. he attempted to correct the election base pressuring the secretary of state of georgia. president trump had the against to summons his supporters to washington on generally 63 did this despite the obvious abode on threats of violence that day. president trump also violated his oath of office by failing to protect the capitol, the vice president, now in the capitol each and every one of these conclusions compels me to it support conviction. michael would you think of the vote? >> yes, the seven that voted against trump they can bend over and kiss it goodbye. it's a trump ian party. with democratic call them demon rats, they are so scared of donald trump? i don't know why they are afraid. but they will keep pushing and