an hour before the president added a single word on the ellipse. you did not hear that fact during the hours and hours of the house managers presentations, did you? when the president spoke, what did he call for? he called for a rally attendees to peacefully and patriotically make their voices heard and to walk down pennsylvania avenue to cheer on members of congress. president trump went on for more than an hour to come in at 111, and why is this important? because of all the events that i'm about to describe, they all occurred before president trump two remarks concluded. at12:119 p:m., remarks concluded. at 12:49 p:m., the first barriers at the us capitol grounds were pushed over in the crowd into the restricted area. at 11:05 p:m., acting defence secretary christopher miller received open source reports of demonstrator movements to the us capitol. at 1:09 p:m., us capitol police chief stephen son called the house and senate sergeant at arms telling him he won emergency declared. and he one of the national guard called. she the point, given the timeline of events, the criminal that the capital were not there at the ellipse to even hear the presidents words. they were more than a mile away engaged in their preplanned assault on this very building. this is a preplanned assault, make no mistake, and that is a critical fact. watch this.— mistake, and that is a critical fact. watch this. does anyone in this chamber _ fact. watch this. does anyone in this chamber honestly _ fact. watch this. does anyone in this chamber honestly believe . fact. watch this. does anyone in i this chamber honestly believe that but for— this chamber honestly believe that but for the conduct or president trump, — but for the conduct or president trump, that that charge article of impeachment that attack at the capitol— impeachment that attack at the capitol would've occurred? does anybody — capitol would've occurred? does anybody believe that? it capitol would've occurred? does anybody believe that?— capitol would've occurred? does anybody believe that? it was not a spontaneous _ anybody believe that? it was not a spontaneous decision _ anybody believe that? it was not a spontaneous decision by _ anybody believe that? it was not a spontaneous decision by a - anybody believe that? it was not a spontaneous decision by a bunch l anybody believe that? it was not a | spontaneous decision by a bunch of protesters — spontaneous decision by a bunch of protesters to — spontaneous decision by a bunch of protesters to go _ spontaneous decision by a bunch of protesters to go up _ spontaneous decision by a bunch of protesters to go up to _ spontaneous decision by a bunch of protesters to go up to capitol- spontaneous decision by a bunch of protesters to go up to capitol hill. i protesters to go up to capitol hill. and storm — protesters to go up to capitol hill. and storm capitol— protesters to go up to capitol hill. and storm capitol hill. _ protesters to go up to capitol hill. and storm capitol hill. this- protesters to go up to capitol hill. and storm capitol hill. this was. protesters to go up to capitol hill. | and storm capitol hill. this was all planned _ and storm capitol hill. this was all planned out — and storm capitol hill. this was all planned out-— planned out. how much of it was tanned? planned out. how much of it was planned? strategized _ planned out. how much of it was planned? strategized ahead - planned out. how much of it was planned? strategized ahead of i planned out. how much of it was - planned? strategized ahead of time? getting _ planned? strategized ahead of time? getting some evidence they have seen that indicates— getting some evidence they have seen that indicates that _ getting some evidence they have seen that indicates that there _ getting some evidence they have seen that indicates that there was _ getting some evidence they have seen that indicates that there was some - that indicates that there was some level of— that indicates that there was some level of planning. _ that indicates that there was some level of planning.— that indicates that there was some level of planning. there appears to be premeditation. _ level of planning. there appears to be premeditation. fbi _ level of planning. there appears to be premeditation. fbi internal- be premeditation. fbi internal re ort be premeditation. fbi internal report the _ be premeditation. fbi internal report the day _ be premeditation. fbi internal report the day before - be premeditation. fbi internal report the day before the - be premeditation. fbi internal. report the day before the scene be premeditation. fbi internal- report the day before the scene when of a violent war at the capital. the fbi issued a _ of a violent war at the capital. the fbi issued a warning of a quote more at the _ fbi issued a warning of a quote more at the capital. the fbi issued a warning of a quote more at the capital-— at the capital. the fbi one law enforcement _ at the capital. the fbi one law enforcement agencies - at the capital. the fbi one law enforcement agencies about i at the capital. the fbi one law i enforcement agencies about this specific— enforcement agencies about this specific attack. _ enforcement agencies about this specific attack. be _ enforcement agencies about this specific attack. be ready... - enforcement agencies about this specific attack. be ready... 1title. specific attack. be ready... we develo specific attack. be ready... develop some intelligence specific attack. be ready...“ develop some intelligence that a number of individuals were planning to travel to the dc area with intentions to cause violence with that we immediately shared that information.— that we immediately shared that information. i, , ., ., ., information. they pushed out of that information. they pushed out of that information through _ information. they pushed out of that information through this _ information. they pushed out of that information through this structure. i information through this structure. it was _ information through this structure. it was immediately disseminated and briefed through our command post operations to all levels of law enforcement.— enforcement. the fbi says to pipelines _ enforcement. the fbi says to pipelines discovered - enforcement. the fbi says to pipelines discovered near - enforcement. the fbi says to pipelines discovered near the capital— pipelines discovered near the capital onjanuary six pipelines discovered near the capital on january six are placed at the night _ capital on january six are placed at the night before. new capital on january six are placed at the night before.— capital on january six are placed at the night before. new video appears to show a present _ the night before. new video appears to show a present suspected - the night before. new video appears to show a present suspected of- to show a present suspected of planning — to show a present suspected of planning pipe _ to show a present suspected of planning pipe bombs _ to show a present suspected of planning pipe bombs near- to show a present suspected of planning pipe bombs near the. to show a present suspected of. planning pipe bombs near the us capitol— planning pipe bombs near the us capitol the — planning pipe bombs near the us capitol the night— planning pipe bombs near the us capitol the night before. - planning pipe bombs near the us capitol the night before. the- planning pipe bombs near the us capitol the night before.- planning pipe bombs near the us capitol the night before. capitolthe night before. the fbi to assess the bombs _ capitolthe night before. the fbi to assess the bombs for _ capitolthe night before. the fbi to assess the bombs for plaintiff - capitolthe night before. the fbi to assess the bombs for plaintiff the l assess the bombs for plaintiff the night before the c between 730 and 8:30 p:m.. latte night before the c between 730 and 8:30 :m.. ~ night before the c between 730 and 8:30 p:m--— 8:30 p:m.. we were planted at the day before- — 8:30 p:m.. we were planted at the day before. and _ 8:30 p:m.. we were planted at the day before. and i'll _ 8:30 p:m.. we were planted at the day before. and i'll goes _ 8:30 p:m.. we were planted at the day before. and i'll goes to - 8:30 p:m.. we were planted at the day before. and i'll goes to the - day before. and i'll goes to the idea of premeditation. - day before. and i'll goes to the idea of premeditation. in - idea of premeditation. coordination. this was a idea of premeditation.“ coordination. this was a plant assault, — coordination. this was a plant assault, going after. —— a planned assault _ assault, going after. —— a planned assault to— assault, going after. -- a planned assault. ., . , assault, going after. -- a planned assault. ., ., , , ., assault, going after. -- a planned assault. ., . , , ., ., assault. to answer the question of the house manager, _ assault. to answer the question of the house manager, does - assault. to answer the question of the house manager, does anybody believe this would've occurred but for the speech from donald trump, i do. all of these facts make clear that the january six weeks did not cause the rights, the president did not cause the riots, and he need to explicitly or implicitly encouraged the use of violence but in fact call for peaceful exercise of every american approximate first amendment right to peacefully assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. in other words, the brain to break standard is not made out. the house manager has admitted many facts are not known, even speaker pelosi admitted not knowing the real cause of the violence which he called for a 9/11 style commission to examine the facts and causes that led to the violence. on the screen is speaker pelosi proximate call for the 9/11 commission. let's touch now on the second absurd incomplete allegation in the house managers single article. president trump phone call to georgia secretary of state surreptitiously recorded, by the way, included multiple attorneys and others on the call. let me point out the very obvious fact that the house managers ignored. the private call that was made public by others cannot really be the basis to claim that the president intended to incite a riot because he did not publicly disclose the contents of the call. how could he have hoped to use this call to invite his followers if he had no intent to make the conversation public and indeed had nothing to do with the being secretly recorded. the house manager told you that the president demanded that the georgia secretary of state fine just over 11,000 votes. the word find, like so many others house managers highlighted has taken completely out of context. and the word find did not come out of thin air. based on an analysis of publicly available voter data, the ballot rejection rate in georgia in 2016 was approximately 6.24%, and even though approximately 6.24%, and even though a tremendous amount of new first—time mail—in ballots were included in the 2020 count, the georgia rejection rate in 2020 was a mere four tenths of 1%. a drop off from 6.42% 2.4%. president trump one of the signature verification to be donein of the signature verification to be done in public. how can a request for signature verification is to be donein for signature verification is to be done in public be a basis for a charge for inciting a riot? with that background, it is clear that president trump off my comments in the use of the word "find" were solely related to his concerns of the inexplicable dramatic drop in georgia's ballot rejection rates. let's examine how the word find was used throughout that conversation. mr trump proximate first use of the word was as follows," we think that if you check the signatures, a real check of the signatures going back in fulton county, you will find at least a couple hundred thousand of four signatures of people who have been forged." and we are quite sure thatis been forged." and we are quite sure that is going to happen. president trump also used the word as follows, "now why aren't we doing signature and why can't it be open to the public? and why can't we have professionals do it instead of rank amateurs who will never find anything and don't want to find anything? they don't want to find, you know, they don't want to find anything. someday, you'll tell me the reason why, because i don't understand your reasoning, but someday you will tell me the reason why, but why don't you want to find?" president trump echoed his previous sentiments again in the context of pursuing a legitimate and robust investigation into the lack of signature verification for mail and and absentee ballots. " and why can't we have professionals do it instead of rank amateurs will never find anything and don't want to find anything? they don't want to find anything. " they don't want to find anything, someday you will tell me why, because i don't understand your reasoning but someday you will tell me why, but why don't you want to find? we can go through signature verification and will find hundreds of thousands of signatures and you can let us do it and the only way you can do that as you know is to go to the past, but you didn't do that in cobb county, you just look at one page compared to another, the only way you can do it signature verification is to go from one and compare to two years ago, four years ago, six years ago, or even one. you will find that you have many different signatures, but in fulton county, where they dumped ballots, you'll find that you have that are even signed you have many forgeries." mr trump continued to use the word find throughout the conversation. each and every time in the context of his request, that mr nmecha to undertake a signature verification review and his concerns and generally with ballot integrity. —— mr raffensperger. and his reported electoral deficit come here are a few examples. " but why wouldn't you want to find the right answer, brad? instead of keep saying that the numbers are right, because those numbers are so wrong. another example. we think that if you check the signatures, a real check of the signatures, going back in fulton county, you'll find at least a couple hundred thousand of forged signatures of people who have been forged and we are quite sure that it is going to happen." moreover, there was nothing untoward with president trump or any other candidate now speaking with elite election officer of a state. that is why the georgia secretary of state took a call along with members of his team, one of whom decided to record it in relation to the press. the only reason this conversation is being discussed in this chamber is because once again, the media and the democratic i distorted the true conversation to mislead you and the american public. we have a complete lack of evidence for the articles of impeachment presented by the house managers. so why are we here? politics. their goal is to eliminate a political opponent. to substitute theirjudgement for the will of a political opponent. to substitute their judgement for the will of the voters. theirjudgement for the will of the voters. ~ , , ., theirjudgement for the will of the voters. ~ , ,., ., theirjudgement for the will of the voters. , ., ,, ., voters. why bother with a senate trial of donald _ voters. why bother with a senate trial of donald trump? _ voters. why bother with a senate trial of donald trump? he - voters. why bother with a senate trial of donald trump? he is - voters. why bother with a senate trial of donald trump? he is no l trial of donald trump? he is no longer— trial of donald trump? he is no longer president. is trial of donald trump? he is no longer president. is it trial of donald trump? he is no longer president.— trial of donald trump? he is no longer president. is it to keep them from ever running _ longer president. is it to keep them from ever running again? _ longer president. is it to keep them from ever running again? to - longer president. is it to keep them from ever running again? to make | from ever running again? to make sure he can _ from ever running again? to make sure he can ever— from ever running again? to make sure he can ever run _ from ever running again? to make sure he can ever run for— from ever running again? to make sure he can ever run for office - sure he can ever run for office again~ — sure he can ever run for office aaain. ., ~' , sure he can ever run for office aaain. ., ,, , ., again. to keep him from running aaain. again. to keep him from running again- donald — again. to keep him from running again. donald trump _ again. to keep him from running again. donald trump would - again. to keep him from running again. donald trump would not i again. to keep him from running i again. donald trump would not be able to run — again. donald trump would not be able to run again. _ again. donald trump would not be able to run again. barring - again. donald trump would not be able to run again. barring him - again. donald trump would not be | able to run again. barring him from runnina able to run again. barring him from running again- _ able to run again. barring him from running again. this _ able to run again. barring him from running again. this qualifying - running again. this qualifying count. disqualify _ running again. this qualifying count. disqualify him - running again. this qualifying count. disqualify him from i running again. this qualifying i count. disqualify him from ever runnina count. disqualify him from ever running from — count. disqualify him from ever running from office _ count. disqualify him from ever running from office again. - running from office again. disqualified from running for office again~ _ disqualified from running for office again it— disqualified from running for office aaain. , disqualified from running for office aain, , ., disqualified from running for office aaain. _, , ., again. it is about focusing and he can never run _ again. it is about focusing and he can never run again. _ again. it is about focusing and he can never run again. remove - again. it is about focusing and he | can never run again. remove him again. it is about focusing and he - can never run again. remove him from ever running — can never run again. remove him from ever running for— can never run again. remove him from ever running for office _ can never run again. remove him from ever running for office again. _ can never run again. remove him from ever running for office again. never - ever running for office again. never be able to run _ ever running for office again. never be able to run for— ever running for office again. never be able to run for office _ ever running for office again. never be able to run for office again. - ever running for office again. never be able to run for office again. too | be able to run for office again. too bad a former— be able to run for office again. bad a former president from be able to run for office again.- bad a former president from running again _ bad a former president from running again if— bad a former president from running aaain. ., �* ., , , bad a former president from running aaain. .,�* ., , , , again. if we don't have priest is credited, again. if we don't have priest is credited. he — again. if we don't have priest is credited, he will— again. if we don't have priest is credited, he will get _ again. if we don't have priest is credited, he will get reelected. | again. if we don't have priest is i credited, he will get reelected. -- credited, he will get reelected. —— to ban— credited, he will get reelected. —— to ban a _ credited, he will get reelected. —— to ban a former— credited, he will get reelected. —— to ban a former president. - credited, he will get reelected. —— to ban a former president. —— - credited, he will get reelected. —— to ban a former president. —— if. credited, he will get reelected. ——| to ban a former president. —— if we don't _ to ban a former president. —— if we don't ban _ to ban a former president. —— if we don't ban this— to ban a former president. —— if we don't ban this president _ to ban a former president. —— if we don't ban this president come - to ban a former president. —— if we don't ban this president come he i don't ban this president come he will get _ don't ban this president come he will get reelected. _ don't ban this president come he will get reelected. the _ don't ban this president come he will get reelected.— will get reelected. the goal is to eliminate a _ will get reelected. the goal is to eliminate a political— will get reelected. the goal is to eliminate a political opponent, l will get reelected. the goal is to | eliminate a political opponent, to substitute theirjudgement for eliminate a political opponent, to substitute their judgement for the will of the voters. members of the senate, our country needs to get back to work. i know that you know that. but instead, we are here, the majority party promised to unify and deliver a more covid—19 relief. but instead, they did this. we will not take most of our time today, us of the defence, in the hopes that you will take back his hours and use them to get delivery of covid—19 relief to the american people. let us be clear, this trial is about far more than president trump. it is about silencing and banning the speech, the majority does not agree with. it is about cancelling 75 million trump voters. in criminalising political viewpoints. that is what this trial is a really about. it is the only x essential issue before us. it asked for constitutional cancel culture the takeover in the united states senate. i'm going to allow cancelling and banding and silencing to be sanctioned and this body? to the democrats, who view this is a moment of opportunity, i married you instead to look to the principles of free expression and free speech. i hope truly that the next time you are in the minority, you don't find yourself in this position. to the republicans in the chamber, i ask when you are next in the majority, please resist what will be an overwhelming temptation to do this very same thing to the opposing party. members of the senate, this concludes the formal defence of the 45th president of the united states to the impeachment article filed by the house of representatives. i understand there is a procedure in place for questions, and we await them there after we will close on behalf of president trump. mr president, will yield the rest of our time. president, will yield the rest of ourtime. i president, will yield the rest of our time. ., r' president, will yield the rest of our time. . ., ., , president, will yield the rest of ourtime. . ., ., , , our time. i ask unanimous consent would take — our time. i ask unanimous consent would take a _ our time. i ask unanimous consent would take a 15 _ our time. i ask unanimous consent would take a 15 minute _ our time. i ask unanimous consent would take a 15 minute recess. - our time. i ask unanimous consent | would take a 15 minute recess. the senate will — would take a 15 minute recess. the senate will stand in recess. that i senate will stand in recess. that was ltruce _ senate will stand in recess. that was bruce castor, _ senate will stand in recess. that was bruce castor, one _ senate will stand in recess. that was bruce castor, one of - senate will stand in recess. was bruce castor, one of mr senate will stand in recess— was bruce castor, one of mr trump's defence we first from three today, they are taking a 15 minute break and we will either hear from more of the team or it we will perhaps start to see the start of some questions. just to remind you what has been said and this impeachment trial. they said that he did not incite the 6th of january right they said that he did not incite the 6th ofjanuary right in which the capital building was invaded by protesters. his team had indicated that it would take no more than four hours in total, far less than the 16 hours in total, far less than the 16 hours that are actually allocated to them. so so far, they have hit the three hour mark, just over three hours, but we will see more from the senate floor shortly. but essentially arguing on a number of points, due process,, freedom of speech, that is the first amendment and also the law regarding donald trump's speech ofjune the 6th. let's listen back to some of what donald trump's legal team said. in his opening remarks, michael vanderveen dismissed the house managers evidence. this is what he said. to claim that the president in any way wished, desired or encouraged lawless or violent behaviour is a preposterous and monstrous lie. in fact, the first two messages the president sent via twitter once the incursion of the capital began were, stay peaceful and no violence, because we are the party of law and order. michael van der veen also asked whether the word �*fight�* was off limits. a boxer fighting with a boxerfighting with his hand tied behind his back. members of congress fighting. rudy being rudy. these are the metaphor rhetorical uses of the word fight. we all know that, right? suddenly, the word fight is off limits? spirits the hypocrisy and false indignation. —— despair s. it is a term used over and over and over again by politicians on both sides of the aisle. and of course, the democrat house managers know that the word fight has been used figuratively and political speech forever. he also said the impeachment process was unconstitutional. not only is this impeachment case preposterously wrong on the facts, no matter how much he in a motion is injected by the political opposition, it is also plainly unconstitutional. in effect, congress would be claiming that the right to disqualify a private citizen no longer a government official from citizen no longer a government officialfrom running for citizen no longer a government official from running for public office. this will transform the solomon impeachment process into a mechanism for asserting congressional control on which private citizens are and are not allowed to run for president. in short, this unprecedented effort is not about democrats opposing political violence. not about democrats opposing politicalviolence. it not about democrats opposing political violence. it is about democrats trying to disqualify the political opposition. it is constitutional cancel culture. michael van der veen defended donald trump on the grounds of the first amendment for freedom of speech, saying mr trump had �*enhanced' rights as the president. you must reject this invitation to ignore the first amendment. it is anti—american, and would set a dangerous precedent forever. the law has developed over the years to clearly establish elected officials have the right to engage in protected speech. mr trump is not just a guy on the street or a guy at a bar. or a just a guy on the street or a guy at a bar. ora fire just a guy on the street or a guy at a bar. or a fire chief or a police officer. all analogies given by the house managers, the sideways analogies are wrong. mr chuck was an elected official and there is an entire body of law supreme court landmark cases supporting the conclusion that mr trump actually has enhanced free—speech rights because he is an elected official. these cases are ignored by the house managers and law professors. and that to his total intellectual dishonesty. we can cross live to our correspondent barbara plett usher on capitol hill: you have been following the trial today. clarify on the first point, is that it from the defence team for today? was that they ks? yes. that was the case- _ today? was that they ks? yes. that was the case. your _ today? was that they ks? yes. that was the case. your right _ today? was that they ks? yes. that was the case. your right to - today? was that they ks? yes. that was the case. your right to ask i today? was that they ks? yes. that was the case. your right to ask that| was the case. your right to ask that question because it was very short, especially compared to the two days of the democrats case for the prosecution and we did know that mr trump two lawyers would not take the full 16 hours that they have been allocated and would wrap up before even one day i was over but has been a brief and succinct defence and had also been interspersed with a number of video montages, some of them played more than one time, so they played more than one time, so they played inasmuch audiovisual as they could. of course the audiovisual used by the democrats was very much about the ride itself, none of those pictures were used in this defence, it was more about democrats and things they had said and presented them in a way to say they were incremented tory but the answer to your question is that that is the end of the defence and now we have questions from the senators, four hours allotted for that.— hours allotted for that. could you lease hours allotted for that. could you please take _ hours allotted for that. could you please take us — hours allotted for that. could you please take us to _ hours allotted for that. could you please take us to the _ hours allotted for that. could you please take us to the main i hours allotted for that. could you please take us to the main point| hours allotted for that. could you i please take us to the main point of their defence?— please take us to the main point of their defence? sure. they very much an ued their defence? sure. they very much argued that — their defence? sure. they very much argued that mr _ their defence? sure. they very much argued that mr trump's _ their defence? sure. they very much argued that mr trump's speech i their defence? sure. they very much argued that mr trump's speech was. their defence? sure. they very much | argued that mr trump's speech was a regular political rhetoric, so his comments about fighting like hell and his aggressive statements or something that all politicians use. and to demonstrate that, they play this video montage of democrats using exactly those words and that is one of the montages they played several times. is one of the montages they played severaltimes. i is one of the montages they played several times. i think the word fight was played more than 200 times. so they really made their point on that one. they also accuse the democrats of selectively editing their videos to incriminate mr trump, pointing out that if they did include the one time he said the march should be peaceful and patriotic, so that phrase come his statement that the march should be peaceful as it was mentioned a few times in the defence case. they also accuse the democrats of acting out of political hatred and they said that the democrats had always wanted to go after mr trump and again that they used a montage of democratic statements and in one case all the times the democrats since 2017 had said that we should impeach president trump and also using some of the times when they'd used some of the times when they'd used some of the times when they'd used some of the violent language as well. with regards to mr trump. basically saying that the democrats were being hypocritical and politically vindictive. now, in terms of the legal side of it, they argued that mr trump did legal side of it, they argued that mrtrump did not legal side of it, they argued that mr trump did not get due process, that this was with a snap impeachment, it had taken place only one week after the event and therefore i had not got to the regular procedures of calling and hear witnesses and preparing documents and things and giving mr trump time to reply. they argued as she heard in those clips that he had the right to the first amendment protection of free speech, that as an elected official, especially he should be given that right and that as i mentioned earlier, what he was doing was using his aggressive language figuratively and in a political way and that the democrats were worried about fighting that so should his and he spent some time of this because the democrats have argued that it is interactive free—speech that the constitution does have curves and what is allowed, especially if you are inciting political violence which is of course they argued. and at the end there, some of the things that the final lawyer was saying that there was evidence that violence in there was evidence that violence in the attack had been preplanned, and therefore is that is the case, mr trump could not have incited it with the swedes. and again, mixing several times that what the democrats were trying to do was consult mr trump and cancel the votes of his supporters rather than bringing forward some sort of judicial process to protect american democracy. you judicial process to protect american democra . ., ., ., ., democracy. you mentioned a few of the video montages, _ democracy. you mentioned a few of the video montages, there - democracy. you mentioned a few of the video montages, there was i democracy. you mentioned a few of the video montages, there was a i democracy. you mentioned a few of| the video montages, there was a lot of fight and talk during their case today. let's listen to one of those. we still have a fight on our hands. fight— we still have a fight on our hands. fight hard — we still have a fight on our hands. fight hard for the changes of americans are demanding. get in the fight, _ americans are demanding. get in the fight, winning the fight, fighting. use everv— fight, winning the fight, fighting. use every tool possible to fight for this change. we will fight. we will fight _ this change. we will fight. we will fight. fighting hard. serious about fighting _ fight. fighting hard. serious about fighting. fight. get out and fight back _ fighting. fight. get out and fight back. problems we called them out it and we _ back. problems we called them out it and we fight back. i'm in this fight! — and we fight back. i'm in this fight! i— and we fight back. i'm in this fight! iam— and we fight back. i'm in this fight! i am fighting, and we fight back. i'm in this fight! lam fighting, i and we fight back. i'm in this fight! i am fighting, i am fighting to get— fight! i am fighting, i am fighting to get in— fight! i am fighting, i am fighting to get in this fight. get it in this fight! _ to get in this fight. get it in this fight! get— to get in this fight. get it in this fight! get in this fight! fighting, we all— fight! get in this fight! fighting, we all need to be in the fight. we can see we all need to be in the fight. - can see elizabeth warren right now. she wasn't the only one who featured in this video. it went on for one minute 40 seconds. did it work in their favour? minute 40 seconds. did it work in theirfavour? it minute 40 seconds. did it work in their favour?— their favour? it is difficult to answer that _ their favour? it is difficult to answer that question i their favour? it is difficult to l answer that question because their favour? it is difficult to i answer that question because i their favour? it is difficult to - answer that question because i think that the results of the votes, i think that is one of the reasons the defences so short that they understand that the republican votes for acquittal are there and they had done some consulting with some of the republican senators about the case, so in that sense whether it affects the outcome or not, no, i don't think it will. if it impacts public opinion? perhaps. difficult to say now. with the democrats have argued is that mr trump's comments come his political rhetoric, the kind of political rhetoric we just saw they have use came out of a particular context and he came out of a context of a him for at least six months questioning the fairness of the election and questioning the results of the election in creating a narrative that had been stolen and then putting those words into a context it in that context they were incendiary. this is what the defence lawyers would not accept, so they try to make an equivalence between political rhetoric used by the democrats and that of mr trump without accepting the broader context without we will see what sort of response there is from the court of public opinion as i said, i don't think it will make much of a difference in the court of the senate. it is democrats he once had various reactions, some of them laughed a little bit, some of them fidgeted as they watch. it did go on for quite a long time. so i may have been they expected something of this nature. but i don't know that it would really make a difference in the final result. just would really make a difference in the final result.— would really make a difference in the final result. just talking about how the sense _ the final result. just talking about how the sense of _ the final result. just talking about how the sense of their _ the final result. just talking about how the sense of their case, i the final result. just talking about how the sense of their case, they | how the sense of their case, they spent a lot of analysis referring to it as what about it? take us to that. what about is a means what about you? what about the thing you said? i think with those videos were pretty much along those lines. democrats what about the things you said about fight? what about the things you said about impeachment and they had another video montage which showed many democrats calling for mr trom's impeachment shortly after he was elected. another big whataboutism was his attempt to make an equivalence between the violence that took place during protests of black lives matter over the summer and then using the statements of democratic officials who were supporting the protests to draw an equivalence to say they were supporting violence so what about that? that was a number of

Related Keywords

Donald Trump , Violence , Capitol , Protesters , Law And Order , M , Party , 3 , 13 , Case , Defence Lawyers , Us , Impeachment Trial , Coverage , World , U , Pbs , Timeline , Video Show , Capital Reflection Pool , Police Security Camera , 11 , 15 , Capital , Stage , Assembling , Onjanuary Six , Criminals , 115 , Six , Fact , Word , Ellipse , House Managers Presentations , Rally Attendees , Voices , Pennsylvania Avenue , Events , Members , Congress , 111 , Two , Area , At12 , Remarks , Crowd , Barriers , Us Capitol Grounds , 49 , 119 , 12 , Us Capitol , House , Christopher Miller , Demonstrator Movements , Us Capitol Police Chief Stephen Son , 09 , 05 , 1 , United States Senate , Point , Sergeant , Arms , Guard , Emergency , Criminal , One , Assault , Words , Presidents , Trump , Chamber , Anyone , Conduct , Mistake , Charge Article , Watch This , It , Attack , Impeachment , Bunch , Storm Capitol Hill , Decision , Storm Protesters , Capitol Hill , Anybody , Storm Capitol , Evidence , Planning , Premeditation , Level , Strategized , Planned Out , Fbi , Warning , Law , More , Quote , Enforcement Agencies , Scene , The Day , War , Law Enforcement Agencies , Agencies , Premeditation , Law Enforcement , Report , Be Premeditation , Re Ort Be Premeditation , Information , Number , Intelligence , Intentions , Individuals , 1title , Dc , Pipelines , Enforcement , Structure , Night Before Capital , Information , Levels , Operations , Command Post , Video , Pipe Bombs , Bombs , Plaintiff , Planning Pipe , Planning Pipe Bombs , Plaintiff Capitolthe , Us Capitol The Night Before , L , Capitolthe Night , M Latte Night , M Night , Of , 30 , 730 , 8 , Question , House Manager , Of Premeditation , Plant Assault , Coordination , Does Assault , Facts , Speech , All , Use , Rights , Riots , Exercise , Amendment , Government , Brain , Standard , Redress Of Grievances , Commission , Cause , Led , Speaker Pelosi , 9 11 , Call , Screen , Speaker , Proximate , Way , Georgia Secretary Of State , Phone Call , Article , Allegation , The Call , House Managers , Others , Basis , Attorneys , Riot , Contents , Followers , Conversation , Georgia , Nothing , Intent , Context , Find , Managers , Votes , Secretary Of State , Air , 11000 , Analysis , Ballot Rejection Rate , Voter Data , Amount , 2016 , 6 24 , Count , Ballots , Mail , Rejection Rate , Tenths , Drop Off , 2020 , Four , Signature Verification , Public , Donein , Request , 2 4 , 6 42 , Comments , Concerns , Charge , Background , Drop , Mr , Ballot Rejection Rates , Signatures , People , Check , Fulton County , Anything , Professionals , Amateurs , Don T , Now Why Aren T We Doing Signature , Reasoning , Reason , Lack , Sentiments , Investigation , Absentee Ballots , Tell Me Why , Hundreds , Thousands , It Signature Verification , Another , Cobb County , Page , Forgeries , Nmecha , Electoral , Raffensperger , Ballot Integrity , But Why Wouldn T , Signature Verification Review , Examples , Answer , Numbers , Keep , Brad , Example , Candidate , Team , Elite Election Officer , The Press , State , Relation , Democratic , Media , House Of Representatives , Articles , Voters , Goal , Will , Opponent , Substitute Theirjudgement , Judgement , Politics , President Trial , President , Office , Running , Bother , Office Aaain , It Trial , He Voters , Running Aaain , Would Again , Run Again , Donald Again , He , Runnina , Qualifying , Him Again , Him Running Again , Office Aain , Priest , Don T Ban , He Again , Office Again Bad A , Ban A , We Don T Ban , Country , Reelected , Relief , Covid , 19 , Defence , Most , Delivery , Hopes , Majority , 75 Million , Essential Issue , Criminalising Political Viewpoints , Constitutional Cancel Culture The Takeover , Body , Opportunity , Silencing , Banding , Free Speech , Expression , Principles , Position , Minority , Republicans , Temptation , Thing , Questions , Place , Procedure , President Of The United States , Impeachment Article , 45 , Rest , Behalf , Consent , Recess , Bruce Castor , Ourtime , R , Break , Start , Three , 6th , 6th Ofjanuary , 6th Of January , 6 , 16 , Due Process , Points , Mark , Floor , Freedom Of Speech , Speech Ofjune The 6th , Michael Van Der Veen , Lie , Behaviour , Incursion , Were , Twitter , Messages , Everv Fight , Limits , Boxer Fighting , Hand , Back , Boxerfighting , Rudy Being , Metaphor , Hypocrisy , Spirits , Uses , Politicians , Course , Term , Sides , Indignation , False , Aisle , Despair S , Impeachment Process , Matter , Opposition , Motion , Effect , Government Official , Citizen , Running For Public Office , Officialfrom , Solomon , Control , Citizens , Effort , Mechanism , Politicalviolence , Culture , First Amendment For Freedom Of Speech , Invitation , Grounds , Precedent , Guy , Officials , Street , Bar , Police Officer , Fire Chief , Ora Fire , Analogies , Chuck , Law Supreme Court Landmark Cases , Official , Cases , Conclusion , Law Professors , Intellectual Dishonesty , Ks , Yes , Barbara Plett Usher , Defence Team , Lawyers , Right , Prosecution , Some , Video Montages , Democrats , Audiovisual , None , Pictures , Itself , Ride , Things , Senators , End , Incremented Tory , Lam Fighting , Rhetoric , Ued , Hell , Times , Montages , Statements , Video Montage , Something , Severaltimes , Time , Videos , 200 , Statement , Phrase , Montage , Hatred , 2017 , Language , Regards , Side , Snap Impeachment , Event , Terms , Mrtrump , Witnesses , Protection , Calling , Procedures , Documents , Doing , Figuratively , Constitution , Lawyer , Curves , The End , Swedes , Preplanned , Democracy , Few , There Democracy , Lot , Process , Sort , American Democra , Supporters , Judicial Process To Protect American Democracy , Fight , Hands , Changes , Americans , Problems , Change , Tool , Fighting , Iam , The Only One , Need , Elizabeth Warren , 40 , Favour , Results , Theirfavour , Sense , Acquittal , Defences , Consulting , Outcome , Opinion , Kind , Election , Narrative , Fairness , Equivalence , Difference , Court , Court Of Public Opinion , Response , Reactions , Bit , Nature , Go On , Result , Means , Lines , Trom , Attempt , Big Whataboutism , Protests , Lives , Summer ,