The Senate Becomes jurors and the case in front of them they witnessed. Incitement of insurrection spurring a hoard of radical right wing terrorists to breach the capitol. The mayhem left five dead that day, including u. S. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick in one of the darkest days in modern history for americas democracy. The trial starts with debate and then a vote on whether the proceeding against the former president is constitutional. A source says citizen trump is telling former aides and advisers that hes convinced the senate will acquit him. The former president s lawyers tha have dismissed the impeach. As political theater, and a system gone awry. They call this the logical and heinous conclusion of a monthslong campaign by donald trump and his allies, including some accomplices, To Cast Doubt on the election results. They say the president has no defense and the evidence of his misconduct is overwhelming. Todays historic trial, the first time a former president faces impeachment, and the first time a president faces a second impeachment. Well follow strict rules that have been agreed upon by both parties, the Impeachment Managers and President Trumps defense team. Pamela brown joins us. Pamela, explain how today will play out. Reporter jake, today is about the constitutionality of this trial. Youll have four hours of debate on the constitutionality. As you point out, republicans on the trump team have argued that it is unconstitutional to try to have this trial because trump is now a private citizen, and then you have the democrats, the Impeachment Managers, who have argued this is about accountability. The constitution allows trump to be held accountable for his actions inciting the riot while he was president. Youll hear that debate today, and then there will be a simple Majority Vote to proceed. We do expect it to proceed after that vote. And then and go ahead. No, go ahead. Youll have the Impeachment Managers and trumps team presenting, four hours of presenters. Four hours of senators questions. Those are written questions, and if witnesses are requested, a twohour debate and a vote. Still unclear from those Impeachment Managers, and then up to four hours of closing arguments, jake. To our panel, this might be a little familiar because we went through a similar process last year. Walk us through some of the significant differences. There are a lot of di differences. First of all, this is historic, as you pointed out in the opening that there is an Impeachment Trial for a former president. In 2020, the breakdown was different. You had 15 republicans and 40 senators in the public, and look, now its 5050. The articles were different. Abuse of power, obstruction. This time just one article, incitement of insurrection. A big difference youll also notice this time around is who is presiding over it. Last time presiding over it, chief justice john roberts. And this time well have chief Justice Patrick leahy presiding. So there are things different with this Impeachment Trial. They need 67 votes to convict, 6 votes, a tall order. Pamela brown, thanks so much. Wolf . A very tall order, indeed. The house Impeachment Managers will use Video Footage to make the case that thenPresident Trump incited the violent insurrection on capitol hill on january 6. The nine House Democrats serving as Impeachment Managers were selected by the House Speaker nancy pelosi, and the group plans to push back on the trump Legal Defense team and Senate Republicans who argue that putting a former president on trial is unconstitutional. The group will also cite trumps monthslong campaign alleging widespread Election Fraud as the cause of the deadly riot. Our chief Congressional Correspondent manu raju is on capitol hill. Will we find out today, manu, if the managers intend to call witnesses . Reporter that is still an open question, wolf. I am told by multiple democrats that one reason why they have not said whether they are going to call witnesses, they are preserving that option in case trumps team has said something that requires them to call witnesses to rebut any of the arguments coming from the former president s team. That is one reason why its unresolved, but at the moment they are not requesting witnesses. That means this could be a relatively speedy trial. We could see a final Acquittal Vote happen in the Senate Sunday or monday after the arguments take place. We also expect there to be new evidence presented by the House Democratic Impeachment Managers new Video Footage showing what happened during the insurrection and the argument by democrats that donald trump incited these insurrectionists. They were listening to his words. Theyre going to show video and also Court Filings to document their evidence on their view that donald trump was the reason why these protesters, these demonstrators, these rioters came to capitol hill and left a scene of death and destruction. Now, as pamela noted, today is going to be a debate about the constitutionality of this case. Then afterwards, were going to get into the debates about the me merits. One of the things democrats are going to try to convince republicans is to keep those two questions separate. Focus on the constitutional aspect today. There will be a vote that will be dispensed with, then focus on the merits. Their hope is they can convince republicans ultimately to vote on the merits and believe donald trump should never hold office again. Of course, they need 17 republican senators to join all 50 democrats to convict, and then another vote to bar him from ever serving in office again. In talking to republican senators, they still believe this is unconstitutional. There is very little they can do to change their minds. In the words of one republican senator, James Lankford telling us there is nobody in this building whose mind isnt made up. And lankford thinks its unconstitutional and he will vote the same. The democrats have to make the case that this is a violent criminal act incited by the president. And this trial will go on not just the rest of this week, but saturday and sunday as well, is that right . Saturday for certain. The question will be whether or not the trump team decides to use all 16 hours of their arguments. They can decide to yield back some of that time, which is why we could see this vote come really quickly, potentially as soon as sunday, to acquit the former president. All right, manu, thanks very much. Anderson, over to you. Wolf, Donald Trumps Defense Team Plans to argue it is unconstitutional to put a former president on trial. That former president did not incite the deadly mob assault on the Capitol Deson january 6, despite telling a mob to fight like hell. We fight like hell. If you dont fight like hell, youre not going to have a country anymore. Reporter they do not believe there will be enough senate votes to convict him, and they expect hell be acquitted after 25 senators voted last month to declare the proceeding unconstitutional. But the former president is concerned about his potential exposure to prosecution after the trial is complete. With me is chief correspondent jim acosta. What do the former president s attorneys plan to present . Reporter anderson, i think a lot of the arguments were going to be hearing from the president s Defense Lawyers during this Impeachment Trial is essentially what were going to be hearing today, and that is that it is unconstitutional to try and convict somebody who is out of office, somebody who is a private citizen. That is what theyre going to be resting most of their case on. Theyll also be arguing, as weaver been hearing the last several days, they view what former President Trump said on january 6 was a protected speech and that he was not trying to incite some kind of deadly insurrection at the capitol, even though that is exactly what unfolded. Anderson, one of the things im also hearing is that, and you mentioned this a few moments ago, is that former President Trump believes he is going to be acquitted in all of this. He does not believe there will be enough republican senators who will vote to convict him at the end of this process, but there are other matters on the former president s mind. Im told by a source familiar with his thinking, a source familiar with some of these discussions that the former president has been having down here at maralago that trump is concerned about the potential for criminal prosecution after this Impeachment Trial wraps up, and that he is concerned about facing charges in unrelated criminal matters that have nothing to do with the deadly insurrection that happened on january 6th. Now, we did see the former president s office respond to some of this reporting out there that authorities down in georgia are looking at charging or at least investigating whether to charge former President Trump as it relates to that phone call that he had with the Secretary Of State brad raffensperger. During that Phone Call Trump was asking about how can he go about obtaining 11,000 votes so he could overturn the votes in that state. That is one matter that his office has answered to. They said a Secretary Of State should expect to have those kinds of phone calls. But getting back to the other reporting, im told by a source familiar with trumps thinking that he has been reaching out to aides, associates, allies to gauge what they think might be his potential exposure to other unrelated criminal matters after this Impeachment Trial is over. So if and we expect the president former president to survive this Impeachment Process not to be convicted, to be acquitted after all of this. He does have other legal troubles hes concerned about moving forward. Anderson . What do we know about how involved the former president has been with his defense, with his new attorneys . Is he going to be watching the proceedings this week . Reporter yes, we do expect him to be watching some of the proceedings. Trump would not be trump if he were not glued to Cable Television and watching some of this unfold. Hes addicted to it just like he was addicted to his twitter feed when that was still up and running. But he has been having discussions with his attorneys on a regular basis. Bruce caster, david schoen. Were also hearing, anderson, that other attorneys have been brought onto the case, michael van der veen, these attorneys have been brought on to augment the former president s legal team. Up to this point it was only two attorneys. Trump, as we all know, has been accustomed to larger legal teams in the past. There was a whole slew of lawyers who worked his first Impeachment Trial, and theyre now beefing up, it sounds like, beefing up the legal team just at the last minute here as this next Impeachment Trial, the second Impeachment Trial, is about to get underway. Anderson . Jim acosta, thank you very much. Jake, back to you. Joining me now, political chief correspondent dana bash and Political Correspondent abby phillip. Dana, let me start with you. Today is going to be a focus on the constitutionality of it, and the truth of the matter is that according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research service, most scholars that have looked into this say it is constitutional. You know these republican senators well, you cover them all the time. How many do you think that say its unconstitutional are actually saying it because of the merits, they actually feel that way, and theyve studied it and looked into the trial of former Secretary Of War, ulysses s. Grant, and so forth, and how many are taking the low end so they dont have to deal with President Trump . The latter, i think its fair to say. Its pretty clear that even before these senators had the opportunity to study that, i mean, they all have google like we do, but for the most part, theyre looking for an offramp, a desk to hide under, a process out. Thats just the way it is. There is pushback on that, and not just from democrats but from some lawyers in the Republican Party who are saying thats just not true. Charles cooper, who was a lawyer for john bolton, who is a very wellrespected lawyer in republican circles, wrote this oped over the weekend saying absolutely not, this is wrong. It is wrong to say it is not constitutional, it actually is constitutional to try a former president. So, you know, well see at the end of today, which is the day both sides are going to make arguments about the constitutionality, whether anyone is swayed, but i think that this particular argument, you nailed it with your question, it is political. Then the rest of the debate will be about after the Constitutionality Issue is over, in future days well see a lot more about what President Trump did, what he did not do, and one of the things thats so interesting reading the brief offered by trumps attorneys is, they make declarations that are just contrary to the facts that we all saw play out, such as trumps intention was not to stop the counting of electoral votes. Of course it was. He said it, he tweeted it, that was the whole point. And if you read the briefs, it highlights the art of omission, that if you just ignore all the things that he said and did on the day of the riot and in the days leading up to the riot, it will just make sense, this will be totally fine and acceptable. But if you take into consideration things the president actually did say, tweeted during the riot, tweeting about mike pence failing to do what he wanted them to do, which was overturn the results of the election, tweeting to his supporters basically a statement that said, this is what happens when you dont give the election to me, effectively. Those were all things that also happened on that day and are completely ignored in this brief. So youre going to see, i think, the former president s lawyers presenting this very rosy picture of that rally that happened right before the riot in which, you know, former President Trump was talking about how these were all patriots and how they love america and that they should go peacefully down Pennsylvania Avenue. But it is the entirety of the picture that i think is what has led to this moment. Its not just what he said in brief snippets on that morning, but also the totality of it. What he wanted his supporters to do was to stop the constitutional process and specifically to send a message to his Vice President and to members of congress that this process could be stopped by his own supporters. And one thing, you mentioned omission. One of the interesting things t that is not in the president s lawyers very lengthy brief they put out yesterday was that the election is rigged. Our reporting is that the former president s first set of lawyers quit in part because of a money dispute, but also because trump was insistent on them putting in a brief, the election was rigged, which they said that is not true, mr. Former president. Speaking go ahead, im sorry. Just to add to that, i was told this morning by a source that talks to former President Trump that he Still Believes or he still wants to believe the election is rigged, but on this particular issue he was beaten down by the people around him to say it is not in your interest to put it in this brief before the Impeachment Trial. Just to under line the fundamental contradiction that is so much of this argument, they dont call him former President Trump in the brief. They call him President Donald Trump as if he is still president , because his spirit is brittle and they dont want to offend him by calling him former President Trump. At that same time, they are making the argument that he cannot be impeached or convicted because he is a former president and not the current president. So, i mean, none of it makes any sense, but, you know, this is what weve been dealing with. This is a reminder. He was impeached as a sitting president , he wis just being tried as a former president , which i think is a distinction we have to keep in mind as we go through these arguments. Absolutely, and the focus will be on the constitutionality of it today. Dana and abby, stay with us. Wolf . Moments from now senators will begin to arrive and the trial will begin. Plus security right now at the u. S. Capitol on very high alert all of this week during the trial. Were going to take you there for an update. And more of the riot suspects are now blaming the president , we should say the former president , for bringing them to the u. S. Capitol. How their own words will be used against trump. This is cnns special live coverage. Research shows that people remember commercials with exciting stunts. So to help you remember that Liberty Mutual customizes your home insurance, heres something you shouldnt try at home. Insurance is cool. Only pay for what you need. Liberty. Liberty. Liberty. Liberty. Say hello to way more quality finds youll love on wayfair. Way more brands you trust. And way more dependability. So with wayfair youll always find your perfect match. [announcer] grubhub perks give you deals on all the food that makes you boogie. Phone Dinging singing in Foreign Language 2 phut hon kaiz remix by phao get the food you love with perks from [group] grubhub grub what you love. In about 40 minutes or so, the second Impeachment Trial of donald trump is set to begin. Senators will relive the terror of just a few weeks ago when protrump supporters stormed the u. S. Capitol, sending lawmakers running for cover. That threat of violence continues to grip the nations capitol right now with the u. S. Capitol building, the entire complex, under truly extraordinary security. Lets go to our crime and justice correspondent, shimon prokupecz, who is over by the Capitol Gates for us right now. Shimon, this security goes way beyond the national mall. Reporter it does. So, wolf, were here outside the capitol. I want to show you some of the fencing here that continues, surrounding the entire capitol. You can see the razor wire here. This is still all over the capitol, the complex surrounded with this fencing. And then you can see also, wolf, the National Guard still here. You see some of the military vehicles, and then further over here to my right, National Guard troops still lining the perimeter of the capitol. So for blocks, really, this entire area still closed off. This, wolf, is one of the checkpoints to get inside the capitol. Weve seen lawmakers come in here with security. Of course, lawmakers also have extra security. There is concern over threats lawmakers have received. The Impeachment Managers also have extra security. Officials taking nothing for granted as we are going to continue to see this steppedup security here at the capitol, wolf. Ive been in washington for a long time. I havent seen security around the u. S. Capitol complex, the house and Senate Office buildings, i havent seen this ever, shimon. One of the house members who did vote to impeach trump now urging senators to convict the former president to save america. That plea is not coming from a democrat but republican congressman adam kenzinger. Kinzinger writes this, and im quoting. This isnt a waste of time, its a matter of accountability. If the gop doesnt take a stand, the chaos of the last four months and last four years could quickly return. The future of our party and our country depends on confronting what happened so it doesnt happen again. Impeachment offers a chance to say enough is enough. The congressman told cnn earlier today he worries about the precedent an acquittal in the senate would set. Instead what weve had for the last four years, a president thats focused on division, stoking the darkness in everybodys heart. And i fear what happens is there will be another president someday that sees that as a model and decides he or she is going to emulate that, and thats frightening. Our chief National Correspondent john king is with me as he always is. Lets discuss what we just heard from kinzinger. Do you think hes really changing minds of some of his fellow republicans . He has the courage to try. The senate trial will be the first test. He was one of ten, as you noted. Thats just shy of 5 , 5 of the 210 House Republicans who were willing to say this former president now must be held accountable. They chose to impeach him. Heres the choice for Senate Republicans. Dont hide behind the Constitutionality Argument. Dont hide behind the ridiculous argument that hes gone now or that he lost the election and hes gone now, because he did all this after the election. Will there be a conversation about accountability . If you want to make the case, we do not believe he should be convicted in this Impeachment Trial, what is your alternative . I think Congressman Kinzinger, congresswoman cheney, they raise the ten in the republican trial. Where has the Republican Party gone in the four years of trump . They have supported denial, supported conspiracy, supported fiction, supported fantasy, supported a big lie. Many lies, but the biggest one at the end, an attack on our very democracy. If you dont want to convict him, what is your accountability . Where is it . I think thats a fascinating conversation that Congressman Kinzinger is willing to have, hes will be to help lead. The question is where does it go . The next installment of that is what happens over the next several days in the United States senate, how many republicans vote again that this is not constitutional, and do republicans have an open mind . We sit here today saying there are not the 17 votes to convict. Okay. They take an oath to have an open mind, as do the democrats. But they take an oath to have an open mind. If you say, i will not vote to convict, youre not doing your job. Thats my biggest question, what is the accountability . If not a conviction, okay, stand up, make a case to your constituents, to your senate colleagues, to your country. This is the wrong accountability, here is the right accountability. That is completely missing in the Republican Party except for the Lonely People like Congressman Kinzinger and the ten in the house. And some around the country, but the country is on trial here, not just President Trump. He said hes received Tens Of Thousands of messages of support from his constituents. Not all of them, but most of them have been supportive. But thats not the case with a lot of the other nine House Republicans who voted to impeach the former president. Theyre being censured by state parties. Some of them are getting threats of violence and worse, Death Threats, and many of them will get primary challenges. Its likely somebody will primary cheney, someone will pri prima pri primary kinzinger. That will be litigated in the 2022 midterms in the republican primaries. It will be litigated again in 2024. You heard kinzinger talk about another President Trump down the road. They are worried they are enabling donald trump to be a primary force in his party. He is of the belief, Congressman Kinzinger and the other nine, that that will not inhibit that. The senator from florida today trying to make the case, move on, theres other news that are more of a priority, including covid. Listen to this. Heres the problem, and ive said this already. Beginning today at 1 00 and for the next seven or eight days, the u. S. Senate will not be focused on that. It will be focused on an Impeachment Trial of a president thats no longer in office. Let me ask you, how many people are going to get vaccinated because of this Impeachment Trial . None. How many people are going to find a job because of this Impeachment Trial . None. We are going to spend a week focused on something that is not going to help anyone with the thing that matters most in this country right now, and thats a terrible thing. Thats a waste of our time. What do you think of that . Number one, hes on the ballot in 2022, just pure and simple. Pure and simple on the ballot in 2022, and if he runs for reelection, he wants to stay in the former president s good graces, the guy who was mocked as little marco in the primaries, who then called him a cancer on the Republican Party, who then said if he was elected, he would destroy the Republican Party. Now they are all velcroing themselves to him. It would have been nice if months and months ago he stood up to thenPresident Trump when he was ignoring and refuting and rejecting common sense and science skand the pandemic. Now the pandemic is suddenly so important to republicans. Where was that a year ago or nine months ago . Again, this is the political argument. The republicans are trying to say, this is bad for our country and ill go back to where i begin. If its bad for the country to have this trial, what is your alternative accountability or does the former party of Law And Order think donald trump just deserves a walk here . Make the case. We evhave a lot to discuss a well watch history unfolding. Jake, back to you. The republicans and democrats will argue constitutionality and whether the First Amendment right keeps donald trump from consequences. And a group conspireing to march the capitol said he used to work for the fbi. Well have details on that next. Not whats easy. So when a hailstorm hit, usaa reached out before he could even inspect the damage. Thats how you do it right. Usaa insurance is made just the way martins family needs it with hasslefree claims, he got paid before his neighbor even got started. Because doing right by our members, thats whats right. Usaa. What youre made of, were made for. Usaa hi. So youre the scientist here. Does my aveeno® daily moisturizer really make my dry skin healthier in one day . Its true jen. This Prebiotic Oat Formula moisturizes to help prevent dry skin. Impressive aveeno® healthy. Its our nature. ™ try the body wash, too. Hail with it, baby, cause youre fine and youre mine, and you look so divine come and get your love get a dozen Double Crunch Shrimp for one dollar with any steak entree. Only at applebees. Your Grooming Business is booming. You need to hire. I need indeed. Indeed you do. The moment you sponsor a job on indeed you get a shortlist of quality candidates from a resume data base. Claim your seventyfivedollar credit when you post your first job at indeed. Com groomer want to save hundreds on your wireless bill . With Xfinity Mobile you can. How about saving hundreds on the new Samsung Galaxy s21 ultra 5g . You can do that too. All on the most reliable network. Sure thing and with fast nationwide 5g included at no extra cost. Weve got you covered. So join the carrier rated 1 in customer satisfaction. And get a new Samsung Galaxy starting at 17 a month. Learn more at xfinitymobile. Com or visit your local xfinity store today. Trump fans blaming itthe former president for their actions that day. There is a video with the shaman of qanon. They really did hang on their every word from our president , their president , the person we permitted every day, day in and day out, to speak to us in ways and fashions that simply werent true. That defense certainly dovetails with what democrats are trying to prove. Here to discuss, laura coates, and eisemann at the white house who oversaw the first impeachment. Rob garber is with us who teaches law. Lauren, thank you for being with us. Does is help the defense at all . They can say, not only did the president instruct, people followed. It wasnt just coincidental that people stormed the capitol, that they left when he told them to do so. Its all part of the overall con contextual argument of someone who could be the Puppet Master for far too many people that day and others. It all goes to their claim and their ability to make the case that this was not just any person, it was the president of the United States, and he practically threw them at the United States capitol. The ones who call themselves the proud boys, the qanon people, when theyre suddenly facing charges, they turn on their beliefs to the president who they have all this honor to. You mean with their tail between their legs . Yes, when it comes to federal prosecution, the United States versus your name, suddenly you dont have a whole lot of friends and places to turn, and if the very person you were following, the ringleader, already made you out to be the persona non grata. Remember what the president did when he was still in office. He extended that 10foot pole by saying, i dont condone this beh behavior, that they would be prosecuted. As a prosecutor, i can tell you its almost music to the ears of a prosecutor when the ringleader turns his back on the people he has led because it invites cooperation, it invites more information about what was actually said, it invites more evidence into the overall frame, and youre seeing that happen right here. They call him the qanon shaman. I dont want to call him a shaman because i dont want to insult shamans. The Qanon Costume Wearer apparently wants to testify at the Impeachment Trial. Do democrats need to call witnesses to make their case . Anderson, they will have some of the most powerful Witness Testimony possible already on video, both from the president himself, his own words. As laura points out, not just on january 6, that was the culmination. He whipped this mob into a frenzy for months, telling them their democracy was being stolen because the election was stolen. But then the Fighting Words on january 6. They have that video testimony. That will be their most important witness. Youll hear him again and again. Youll undoubtedly hear his crooked call to georgia Secretary Of State raffensperger also to try to drive the frenzy, flip the georgia results. And then the individuals like mr. Chansleys lawyer. Some of these insurrectionists themselves who will appear on video and say, im here because the president told me to attack, and then conversely, many of them say, leaving because the president told me to leave. So those are the most important witnesses. Stand by, everyone. More than 200 people have now been charged in the insurrection at the center of todays Impeachment Trial. Were now learning that one of them previously said he worked for the fbi and held, according to him, a top Security Clearance for decades, he claims. Senior White House Correspondent pamela brown has the reporting. Pamela, this man named thomas caldwell, what do you know about him . Hes 66 years old, and his lawyers claim he has held top Security Clearance since 1979, and he said he worked for the fbi from 2009 to 2010. He has now been charged. Hes one of the more than 200 people charged following the riots as part of a conspiracy, an extremist groups conspiracy to allegedly attack the Capitol Building. He is from virginia. As i pointed out, he worked for the fbi and he claims to have held this top secret Security Clearance. He has argued that doj has not shown proof that he was inside the Capitol Building the day of the riot. But as with so much of these charges youre seeing and the paperwork from doj, social media was a big clue for this man, thomas caldwell. Youre seeing in the paperwork that he posted on social media, on his facebook page, inside. So its really remarkable, though, to think that this is someone who has now been charged in the Capitol Building riots and appears, according to him, to have worked for the fbi for a year. Pamela brown, more to learn, no doubt. Thanks very much. Next tuesday night President Joe Biden will join me live in milwaukee, wisconsin. Well have an exclusive president ial town hall starting at 8 00 p. M. Eastern. I hope youll join us for that. The Impeachment Trial is set to start very shortly. President biden is staying far from the fray, focusing on his agenda at the white house. Well go live to the white house next. I wouldnt be here if i thought Reverse Mortgages took advantage of any american senior, or worse, that it was some way to take your home. Its just a loan designed for older homeowners, and, its helped over a million americans. A reverse Mortgage Loan isnt some kind of trick to take your home. Its a loan, like any other. Big difference is how you pay it back. Find out how Reverse Mortgages really work with aags free, noobligation Reverse Mortgage guide. Eliminate monthly mortgage payments, pay bills, medical costs, and more. Call now and get your free info kit. Other mortgages are paid each month, but with a Reverse Mortgage, you can pay whatever you can, when it works for you, or, you can wait, and pay it off in one lump sum when you leave your home. Discover the option thats best for you. Call today and find out more in aags free, noobligation reverse Mortgage Loan guide. Access taxfree cash and stay in the home you love. Youve probably been investing in your home for years. Making monthly mortgage payments. Doing the right thing. And its become your familys heart and soul. Well, that investment can give you taxfree cash just when you need it. Learn how homeowners are strategically using a reverse Mortgage Loan to cover expenses, pay for healthcare, preserve your portfolio, and so much more. Look, Reverse Mortgages arent for everyone but i think ive been round long enough to know whats what. Im proud to be part of aag, i trust em, i think you can too. Trust aag for the best Reverse Mortgage solutions. Call now so you can. Retire better want to save hundreds on your wireless bill . With Xfinity Mobile you can. How about saving hundreds on the new Samsung Galaxy s21 ultra 5g . You can do that too. All on the most reliable network. Sure thing and with fast nationwide 5g included at no extra cost. Weve got you covered. So join the carrier rated 1 in customer satisfaction. And get a new Samsung Galaxy starting at 17 a month. Learn more at xfinitymobile. Com or visit your local xfinity store today. The white house today making it clear that its business as usual, even with the former President Senate Impeachment Trial about to get underway. Cnn chief White House Correspondent Kaitlan Collins joins us now. President biden making a point that hes not focusing his attention on the Impeachment Trial of his predecessor. Reporter the white house says he is one viewer who will not be tuning in to the Impeachment Trial. Thats because hes focused on his own agenda which is dealing with that Coronavirus Relief proposal which he is still trying to make sure has all 50 democrats on it, while the senate is, of course, focused on former President Trump. So the white house says hes going to be doing that. Hes got a trip to the pentagon, another to the National Institutes of health as well thats on his schedule, and so theyre going out of their way to say, this is not going to be something that is taking up a lot of time of President Bidens. Though, fof course, he has weighed in on it at times, he has declined to say how he believes former President Trump should be held to account. He did not say the other day whether or not they should take any action against him after this trial does go forward, saying, leave that up to the senate. Here comes the briefing and well talk about it there, jake. Kaitlan collins, thanks so much. Dan and abby are back with me. Abby, listen to President Biden yesterday. He weighed in on whether or not he thinks trump will testify. Hes got an offer to come and testify. Hes decided not to. Well let the senate work that out. Hes basically keeping a handsoff approach to this, arms length. Right, and i think punting to the senate, a body he knows very well because he had been a senator for decades. But hes doing it intentionally, not trying to weigh in one way or the other because i think for two reasons. One, this administration truly does want to focus on the task at hand for them, which is governing, dealing with the virus, dealing with the economy, wri righting the federal government. And another part of this, i dont think his aides think it would be particularly helpful for him to weigh in one way or the other. One of the key arguments republicans are making is that this is some sort of political vendetta that is designed to help joe biden. Remember, the senators will consider potentially, if donald trump is convicted, they would consider whether to ban him from Holding Federal Office ever again. That is something that the argument against that for some republicans is that is a secret bid by democrats to help protect joe biden if joe biden were to run again. I think joe biden is trying to stay out of that conversation altogether. And dana, you heard earlier in the broadcast, senator marco rubio, republican senator in florida up to reelection in 2022, talking about how this Impeachment Trial doesnt deliver one job to one american, how it doesnt put one vaccine in the arm of one person who needs it. Obviously thats impirically true. Obviously the business goes on. Right, theyre trying to walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. And it is happening. The political reasons abby laid out are very real for President Biden and his top advisers to not get involved. There is also the policy reasons, which is that he understands very well that he is going to be judged on how he gets the country back in shape and how quickly he does it. And focusing on, you know, trying to find the sweet spot among democrats for the covid bill is very real. Whats interesting is i talked to a democratic hill source last night who is very much in touch with the white house who said that what theyre hearing privately on the hill, Senate Democrats, is what were hearing publicly. The administration is getting calls from Senate Democrats saying, any guidance, anything you want us to do, anything you want us to emphasize or not . And the answer is no. We really are just staying out of it and letting you do your thing as jurors, and the reason is politically, but also so they can focus on what the president s promises were that he made during the campaign, which is not to convict a former president , but to fix the Health Care Crisis and fix the economy. A lot of work to do on the economy and the pandemic, of course. Wolf . All right, jake, thank you. The house Impeachment Managers, they have an enormous challenge. Theyve got to convince 17 republican senators to vote with all 50 democrats to convict the former president. Among the jurors, there still could be some surprises, and the House Managers say they have some surprising evidence that potentially could change some minds. Our political director David Chalian is joining us right now. David, walk us through which senators we should be watching very closely. Wolf, just a reminder of the Balance Of Power right now in the u. S. Senate. Its a 5050 evenly divided senate, so, as you noted, if all 50 democrats were on board with conviction, they would still need to find 17 republican senators. We have a few clues of where to look, of where those potential republican votes for conviction may exist. If you look at first the five senators who just a couple weeks ago voted with the democrats saying this is, indeed, a constitutional trial. Susan collins, lisa murkowski, mitt romney, ben sasse and pat toomey. These are the first five youre going to look at to hear what theyre thinking about the trial. But then there are a couple others who voted with the republicans saying this is not a constitutional exercise, but i think its worth just keeping an eye on. Richard burr of North Carolina and rob portman of ohio, both of these senators are retiring. Portman has already made a statement that indicates he thinks this whole process is about dividing the country, and he really wants to focus on trying to bring the country together and heal some divisions, but again, theyre both retiring, theyre not basing voters again, and if, indeed, there is some compelling new evidence, perhaps managers may see these two senators as additional targets. But again, wolf, thats nowhere near the 17 they need to convict. David, stand by. John king, let me get your analysis. Its an enormous challenge, but the House Managers, all nine of them, theyre going to be walking into the senate momentarily right now to begin the formal official part of this trial. They say they have some new evidence theyre going to put forward, Video Evidence specifically, which is so compelling. They want to connect what the former president said at that rally and also what the criminals, the insurgents, the insurrectionists did at the building where many said they were sent by trump, many leaving here they come. You can see jamie raskin at the front. Let me just tell you, Diana De Degette of colorado, Eric Swalwell of california, ted liu of california, Stacy Plaskett of the virgin islands, Madeleine Dean of pennsylvania and they will be the House Managers making the arguments in favor of conviction. They have a high bar and they know that. Most republicans have dug in on the idea that hes gone, can we please just make this go away . Dont draw me into this anymore. They know they have the high bar. But to the evidence, the former president s own words. Not just at that rally. Hes the one that invited the supporters to come that day when he knew the Radical March would be happening. He incited the riots, a domestic act against our own government. Then you had the rioters saying they were sent by the president , and when they left, because he tweeted to go home. That is the challenge of the next two days. Will republicans say it was politicalized . The prosecutors know they have a very high bar because of that first vote, and well get another one today on the very question of constitutionality. That is a process argument. Its a place where a lot of the republicans would like to stay. They would like to say, we dont want to talk about what happened. We dont want to talk about four years of trump and that final horrific day of the insurrection. They want to say, this shouldnt happen as opposed to addressing the issues. And, again, they were there. Most of them were there. Youre watching its cleaned up now but thats a crime scene. You can see them walking in, being escorted in. These are the nine House Managers who will argue in favor of conviction. The former president , and he was then the sitting president , he was impeached in the house of representatives, remember, john, 232197, including 10 republicans who voted to impeach the president. In the senate, as David Chalian reminded us, you need 67. You need twothirds of a majority to convict. That is a high bar to get, assuming all 50 democrats stay there, to get 17 republicans. That is the challenge. The math going in does not look good. However, we have lived through four years of surprises and disruption and things that go north heading south and things that look east being west. So i think everyone should have an open mind here. Its certainly the responsibility, the oath every senator took, democrats and republicans, was to keep an open mind and hear the evidence. We will watch the case made by these House Managers. We will then listen to a rebuttal by the defense, the president s attorneys. Then well see if were going to have witnesses. Early indications say no, but well watch how this plays out. The bar here is very high for the democrats, but to your point, they say theyll connect the dots using the former president s words, his actions with emails, his tweets, with what rioters, the criminals, said on that day. Comm can he do it . Jeff zeleny is with us. Walk us through what were about to see. We know the senate will come to order. They really have choreographed specifically what they need to do as we see the senate majority, now minority, leader Mitch Mcconnell walking. This is recorded minute by minute. You do see Minority Leader Mitch Mcconnell, one of the big differences from the last Impeachment Trial, the Minority Leader. Hes walking from his office onto the floor of the senate. Its about a 30second walk or so, very quick walk, but those are the very hallways where this Scene Of The Crime happened. So that is something to keep in mind. But we are also going to see the other senators arriving. One other thing to point out, though, wolf, yes, it is the second Impeachment Trial, but there are some new jurors, if you will, some new senators, if you will. Ten new senators who have arrived in the senate since the first Impeachment Trial. Six democrats, four republicans by my count, so this is also something new here. These members of the senate and jurors are going to be hearing this evidence for the first time, but there is a sense here on capitol hill talking to senators in both parties. Yes, its somewhat familiar, but they are keeping their power drive to a point, except for some senators, republican Senator Cramer released this statement summing up what some republicans are saying. He said this. Welcome to the stupidest week in the senate. The house senate is about to make a mockery of one of the most serious institutions in our country. Its disgusting. That view, though, wolf, is not shared by many republicans and certainly all democrats. There are republicans that are keeping an open mind on this as they arrive in that Senate Chamber as well. This is a very different moment, its a very different article of impeachment from the first time, so this is going to be a very different proceeding. You can see the senators there beginning to arrive in the Senate Chamber. One of the other differences, we are not going to see the senators sitting at their desk during this entire proceeding because of covid. Thats Something Else thats new. Theyll be watching off the senate floor if they choose, wolfful. Its a different process from a year ago. Theres been covid the past year, so well see some differences on the floor from the senate. Jake, back to you. He appealed to fellow colleagues to listen to new evidence in the trial, but what that evidence will be and if the democrats are Calling Witnesses is yet to be determined. David chalian is back with us. David, as we watch the trial begin to play out, its already clear how the arguments are being framed for both sides. Both sides have put together these legal briefs and weve read through them. Lets look at the Defense Key Arguments first, jake. The trial is unconstitutional. Thats what todays debate is about. They dont even want to get to the substance. The argument from trumps Legal Counsel is that hes a former president and therefore the entire Impeachment Process is moot for him and this trial should not take place. Another big argument youll hear a ton of throughout the trial is that the president s speech is protected by the First Amendment of free speech. Everything he said in the leadup to the big lie, jake, is all free speech and hes allowed to say those things. Thats an argument theyll put forth saying he didnt incite a riot. Then theyll frame the entire Impeachment Process as political theater. Democrats are engaged in pure political theater is what trumps Defense Counsel will say. This is all about hurting the former president politically, not about actual violation of his Oath Of Office. All right, david, thank you so much. Sure. So, abby, as we wait for the trial to commence, and well obviously bring that to you live when it happens, just some final thoughts. One thing i think is interesting, a month before the insurrection, in early december, republican officials in georgia were saying, stop lying about the election, somebody is going to get killed. Then a month later it happened. Yeah. And to add to that, remember that just before the election during one of the debates with joe biden, the president told one of the groups intricately involved in this riot, the proud boys, to stand back and stand by. That happened, and it was then succeeded by months and months of lies, that the president had actually seated into the conversation even before the election that he told supporters something that was not true. Lets listen in as the trial begins. Let us pray. Eternal god, author of liberty. Take control of this Impeachment Trial. Lord, permit the words of the new england poet, James Russell lowell, to provide our Senate Jurors with just one perspective. Lowell wrote, once to every man and nation comes the moment to decide. In the strife of truth with falsehood for the good or evil side. Mighty god, could it really be that simple . Could it really be just truth striving against falsehood and good striving against evil . Powerful redeemer, have mercy on our beloved land. We pray in your magnificent name, amen. Please join me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of america. And to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Good morning. Business is closed. And the senate will convene as a court of impeachment. I ask senators to be seated. If there is no objection, the journal of proceedings as a trial are approved to date, and ask the sergeant in arms to make the proclamation. Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye. All persons are asked to keep silence on pain of imprisonment while the president of the United States is sitting for the trial of the article of impeachment exhibited by the house of representatives against Donald John Trump, former president of the United States. I note the presence in the Senate Chamber, the managers on the part of the house representatives, and counsel for the former president of the United States. The Majority Leader is recognized. Mr. President , in a moment i will call up the resolution to govern the structure of the second Impeachment Trial of Donald John Trump. Its been agreed to by the House Managers, the former president s counsel and is cosponsored by the republican leader. It is bipartisan. Its our solemn constitutional duty to conduct a fair and honest Impeachment Trial of the charges against former President Trump, the gravest charges ever brought against a president of the United States in american history. This resolution provides for a fair trial, and i urge the senate to adopt it. Mr. President , i send a resolution to the desk on my behalf and that of the republican leader for the organizing of the next phases of this trial. Senate resolution 47 to provide for related procedures concerning the article of impeachment against Donald John Trump, former president of the United States. The question occurs on the adoption of the resolution. I ask for the yays and nays. Is there a sufficient second . There appears to be a sufficient second. Mr. Baldwin, aye. Mr. Barasso, aye. Mr. Bennett . Mr. Bennett, aye. Mrs. Blackburn . Mrs. Blackburn, aye. Mr. Blumenthal . Mr. Blumenthal, aye. Mr. Blunt . Mr. Blunt, aye. Mr. Booker . Mr. Booker, aye. Mr. Bozeman . Mr. Bozeman, aye. Mr. Brown . Mr. Brown, aye. Mr. Burr . Mr. Burr, aye. Mr. Cantwell . Mr. Cantwell, aye. Mr. Carper . Mr. Carper, aye. Mr. Casey . Ms. Collins . Ms. Collins, aye. Mr. Kuntz . Mr. Kuntz, aye. This is a procedural moment right now. Theyre all going to approve this resolution so the actual trial can begin. It will be interesting to see if anybody votes no. Its a bipartisan agreement negotiated by the Majority Leader schumer and the Minority Leader mcconnell. The only reason to vote no is if youre a republican objecting to the trial happening at all. This is just to lay the rules for the next several days, and then they move on obviously to the Trial Proceedings itself. But this is a procedural step that must be done, and senator schumer, the Majority Leader, obviously they could have done this by a voice vote. He wanted this vote recorded, so well go through the 100 United States senators. Then they begin four hours of a discussion, basically, on constitutionality, the legal aspect of this entire trial. And this was part of getting this agreement, was the democrats agreeing to have this Constitutionality Argument again. Remember, senator rand paul of kentucky had the senate vote on this when the House Manager originally brought over the articles of impeachment, but they want to do it again, and that was interesting to watch then. Only five republican senators broke and said no, there is a constitutional reason, there should be a trial. Lets see if we get the same vote today after four hours of argument. This time youll hear the House Managers making their case and the former president s attorneys making their case. Thats what gets different once youre in the actual trial. You dont hear from the senators much at all. They are jurors. They are there to listen. Senator leahy in the chair presiding will manage the proceedings, a traffic cop, if you will. Once this vote is over, the defense of the prosecution are the voices we shall hear unless any senator then raises a question or point of order. Theyre all wearing masks, john, because of covid, although senator rand paul for some reason is not wearing a mask. I guess hell have to explain that at some point. But its a statement that hes making. And i should point out, john, that after this fourhour debate on the constitutionality, the legal aspect of holding this trial, you just need a simple Majority Vote. You dont need 67, twothirds, you just need 51 in favor. The last time it was 5545, and presumably it will be similar to that. The only question here is are there more republicans who vote to continue the trial, essentially . Youre voting on the Constitutionality Question. If you vote its unconstitutional, youre saying i want to shut the trial down. If you vote you believe its constitutional to hold the trial, youre saying, imt want e hold the trial, lets move on. Only five republican senators said its unconstitutional in the last vote. Listening to attorneys this time, are there more republicans to say lets have this trial. That will be your first test, again, five senators broke last time, you would kneneed twothi to get to the vote to convict. Is there any indication that the republicans are moving . Anderson, back to you. Lets talk to our panel here. Ross garber, in terms of what theyre doing right now and what the next several hours look like, if you could just tell our jurors. What were going to see now, after this vote is done on the procedures, and we expect that will be accepted, next were going to see presentations by the lawyers about the jurisdictional issue, about the constitutionality of trying a former president. The House Managers are going to argue that, yes, there is jurisdiction and theyre going to cite lots of constitutional scholarship, and the president s lawyers are going to say, no, there is no jurisdiction. The president s lawyers brief was not very strong on this issue. In fairness, they just got hired. But they didnt cite much scholarship. I think its important for the viewers to understand that this is a unique proceeding. Its very unusual in american history. Only one other official, a Secretary Of War to ulysses s. Grant has been tried to verdict before by the senate, a former official. So theres no clear answers in this environment, but it will be very interesting to hear the arguments and how theyre presented. Do all the House Managers make this argument . Is it just one initially . I think were going to see either one or probably two make the argument. I think thats how its probably going to be structured. And then i know each side gets four hours for closing arguments. Is that the same is it four hours to make the argument on the constitutionality and jurisdictional issues . I forget what the rules actually provide for. I think thats the answer. And then we may see deliberations in the senate, and then, interestingly, a vote. It is going to be telling to see what the vote is, if it matches the previous vote or if anybody was actually moved on it. And that issue should be settled today, the Constitutionality Issue, at least a vote would be taken, correct . Thats correct, anderson. In my view it was settled in 1789 when the constitution was adopted. Its a plain matter of the text, the structure, the purpose, the precedent. Its been voted on by the senate in the 19th century. It was just voted on by the senate, but yes, it will be finally resolved today. It doesnt mean we wont keep hearing about it, because the republican senators and trumps lawyers are desperate to talk about anything other than his incitement of insurrection. There is one interesting thing. Were all assuming that if a senator votes that there is jurisdiction, then that senator is going to vote not guilty on the ultimate question, which is likely to be the case, but its not certain. The one time this happened before, for most senators thats what happened. If they voted no in jurisdiction, they then voted not guilty. But some took different paths. Some abstained and some actually voted guilty. If i were a House Manager here, i would probably argue that even if you believe there is no jurisdiction, if you participate in this trial and you get to verdict, you should vote with your conscience on the verdict. The resolution is agreed to. Pursuant to Senate Resolution 47, there should now be four hours of the parties equally divided on the question of whether Donald John Trump is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of impeachment, expresident of the United States, notwithstanding the expiration of his term in that office. Mr. Manager raskin, are you a proponent or opponent of this question . Im a proponent. Thank you. Mr. Caster, are you a proponent or opponent of this question . An opponent. Mr. Manager raskin, your party may proceed first. Well be able to reserve rebuttal time if you wish. Mr. Raskin, youre recognized. Thank you very much, mr. President , distinguished members of the senate. Good afternoon. My name is jamie raskin. Its my honor to represent the people of marylands 8th Congressional District in the house and also to serve as House Manager. Mr. President , we will indeed reserve time for rebuttal. Thank you. Because ive been a professor of Constitutional Law for three decades, i know there are a lot of people who are dreading endless lectures about the federalist papers here. Please breathe easy, okay . I remember well w. H. Oddins line that others sleep while a professor is speaking. You will not hear a lecture here because our case is based on cold, hard facts. Its all about the facts. President trump has sent his lawyers here today to try to stop the senate from hearing the facts of this case. They want to call the trial over before any evidence is even introduced. Their argument is that if you commit an Impeachable Offense in your last few weeks in office, you do it with constitutional impunity. You get away with it. In other words, conduct that will be a high crime and misdemeanor in your first year as president and your second year as president and your third year as president , and for the vast majority of your fourth year as president , you can suddenly do in your last few weeks in Office Without facing any constitutional accountability at all. This would create a brand new january exception to the constitution of the United States of america. A january exception. And everyone can see immediately why this is so dangerous. Its an invitation to the president to take his best shot at anything he may want to do on his way out the door, including using violent means to lock that door, to hang onto the oval office at all costs, and to block the peaceful transfer of power. In other words, the january exception is an invitation to our founders worst nightmare. And if we buy this radical argument that President Trumps lawyers advance, we risk having january 6 become our future. What will that mean for america . Think about it. What will the january exception mean to future generations if you grant it . Ill show you. We will stop the steal. Today i will lay out just some of the evidence proving that we won this election and we won it by a landslide. This was not a close election. And after this, were going to walk down, and ill be there with you, were going to walk down were going to walk down to the capitol yeah take the capitol take the capitol we are going to the capitol where our problems are its that direction everybody head this way this way where the hell did they come from . They came by the thousands. Usa usa Madam Speaker Vice President and the United States senate we are a million to one out here. Join us thats enough take the building theres more coming usa the constitution says you have to protect our country, and you have to protect our constitution. And you cant vote on fraud. And fraud breaks up everything, doesnt it . When you catch somebody in a fraud, youre allowed to go by very different rules. So i hope mike has the courage to do what he has to do. When we fight, we fight like hell, and if you dont fight like hell, youre not going to have a country anymore. Fuck you were going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue i love Pennsylvania Avenue and were going to go to the capitol, and were going to try to give our republicans the weak ones because the strong ones dont need any of our help were going to try to give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. Get the fuck out of here, you traitors Majority Leader. Were debating a step that has never been taken in american history. President trump claimed the election was stolen. The assertions range from specific local allegations to constitutional arguments to sweeping Conspiracy Theories. Usa usa usa but, my colleagues, nothing before us proves illegality anywhere near the massive scale, the massive scale that would have tipped the entire election. Fuck you, police lets go lets go second floor my challenge today is not about the good people of arizona. We will stand in recess until the call of the chair. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, can i have order in the chamber . The house will be in order. The house will be in order. Okay. Stop the steal stop the steal theres a fucking million of us out there treason treason treason treason treason treason Traitor Pence Traitor Pence stop the steal stop the steal stop the steal stop the steal stop the steal stop the steal stop the steal stop the steal theyre leaving, theyre leaving. Break it down break it down break it down oh oh get down, get down where the fuck are they . Theres got to be something in here we can use against these fucking scumbags. Lets go lets go [ Indiscernible Yelling ] fight for trump fight for trump fight for trump theres never been a time like this where such a thing happened where they could take it away from all of us. From me, from you, from our country. This was a fraudulent election. But we cant play into the hands of these people. We have to have peace. So go home, we love you, youre very special. Youve seen what happens. You see the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil. I know how you feel. But go home and go home in peace. Storm your own counties, storm your own Capitol Buildings and take down every one of these Mother Fuckers senators, the president was impeached by the u. S. House of representatives on january 13th for doing that. You asked what a high crime and misdemeanor is under our constitution . Thats a high crime and misdemeanor. If thats not an Impeachable Offense, then there is no such thing. And if the president s arguments for a january exception are upheld, then even if everyone agrees that hes culpable for these events, even if the evidence proves, as we think it definitively does, that the president incited a violent insurrection on the day congress met to finalize the president ial election, he would have you believe there is absolutely nothing the senate can do about it. No trial, no facts. He wants you to decide that the senate is powerless at that point. That cant be right. The transition of power is always the most dangerous moment for democracies. Every historian will tell you that. We just saw it in the most astonishing way. We lived through it. And you know what, the framers of our constitution knew it. Thats why they created a constitution with an oath written into it that binds the president from his very first day in office until his very last day in office and every day in between. Under that constitution, and under that oath, the president of the United States is fo forbidden to commit high crimes and misdemeanors at any point he is in office. Indeed, thats one specific reason impeachment, conviction and disqualification powers exist, to protect us against president s who try to overrun the power of the people in their elections and replace the rule of law with the rule of mobs. These powers must apply even if the president commits his offenses in his final weeks in office. In fact, thats precisely when we need them the most, because thats when elections get attacked. Everything that we know about the language of the constitution, the framers original understanding and intent, prior Senate Practice and common sense confirms this rule. Lets start with the text of the constitution. Which in article 1, section 2, gives the house the sole power of impeachment when the president commits high crimes and mlds. We exercised that power on january 13th. The president , it is undisputed, committed his offense while he was president. And it is undisputed that we impeached him while he was president. There can be no doubt that this is a valid and legitimate impeachment. And there can be no doubt that the senate has the power to try this impeachment. We know this because article i, section 3, gives the senate sole power to try all impeachments. The senate has the power, the sole power, to try all impeachments. All means all, and there are no exceptions to the rule. Because the senate has jurisdiction to try all impeachments, it certainly has jurisdiction try this one. Its really that simple. The vast majority of constitutional scholars who studied the question and weighed in on the proposition being advanced by the president , this january exception, heretofore unknown, agree with us. And that includes the nations most prominent conservative legal scholars, including former 10th circuit judge mike mcconnell, the cofounder of the federalist society, cal breezey, charles freed, washington lawyer charles cooper, among hundreds of other Constitutional Lawyers and professors. I commend the people i named their recent writings to you in the newspapers over the last several days. And all of the key precedents along with detailed explanation of the constitutional history and textual analysis are all included in the brief we filed last week and the brief we filed this morning. Ill spare you a replay, but i want to highlight a few points that strike me as compelling in foreclosing President Trumps argument that there is a secret january exception hidden away in the constitution. The first point comes from english history which matters, because hamlin wrote england created the model from which this constitution is borrowed. It would have been immediately obvious to anyone familiar with that history that former officials could be held accountable for their abuses while in office. Every single impeachment of a Government Official that occurred during the framers lifetime concerned a former official. A former official. Indeed, the most famous of these impeachments occurred while the framers gathered in philadelphia to write the constitution. It was the impeachment of warren hastings, the former Governor General of the British Colony Of Bengal and a corrupt guy. The framers knew all about it and they strongly supported the impeachment. In fact, the hastings case was invoked by name at the convention. It was the only impeachment they discussed at the convention. It played a key role in their adoption of the high crimes and misdemeanor standard. And even though everyone there surely knew that hastings had left office two years before his Impeachment Trial began, not a single framer, not one, raised a concern when virginia george mason held up the hastings impeachment as a model for us in the writing of our constitution. The early State Constitutions supported the idea, too. Every State Constitution In The 70s And 80s said former officials could be impeached or were entirely consistent with the idea. In contrast, not a single State Constitution Prohibited Trials of former officials. As a result, tlfrs there was an overwhelming assumption to hold City Officials accountable in that way. Any departure from that norm would have been a big deal, and yet there is no sign anywhere that that ever happened. Some states, including delaware, even confined impeachment only to officials who had already left office. This confirms that removal was never seen as the exclusive purpose of impeachment in america. The goal was always about accountability, protecting society and deterring official corruption. Writing in the federalist papers, hamilton explained that the president of america would stand upon no better ground than a governor of new york, and upon worse ground than the governors of maryland and delaware. He thus emphasized that the president is even more accountable than officials in delaware which i noted the constitution clearly allowed impeachment of former officials, and nobody allowed in the convention meant to say that the framers meant to reject this wildly accepted, deeply rooted understanding of the word impeachment when they wrote it into our constitution. The Convention Debates instead confirm this interpretation. There while discussing impeachment, the framers repeatedly returned to the threat of president ial corruption aimed directly at elections. The heart of selfgovernment. Almost anticipating President Trump, William Davey of North Carolina explained that impeachment was for a president that spared no effort or means w whatever to get himself reelected. Hamilton said the greatest danger of liberties to the people come as political opportunists who begin as demagogue and end as tyrants and the people who are encouraged to follow them. President trump may not know a lot about the framers, but they certainly knew a lot about him. Given the framers intense focus on danger to elections and the peaceful transfer of power, it is inconceivable that they designed impeachment to be a dead letter in the president s final days in office when opportunities to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power would be most tempting and most dangerous as we just saw. Thus, as a matter of history and original understanding, there is no merit to President Trumps claim that he can incite an insurrection and then insist weeks later that the senate lacks power to even hear evidence at a trial, to even hold a trial. The true rule was stated by former president John Quincy Adams when he categorically declared, i hold myself so long as i have the Breath Of Life in my body amenable to impeachment by the house for everything i did during the time i held any public office. When he comes up in a minute, my colleague, mr. Naguse of colorado, will further pursue the relevant precedence and explain why this bodys practice has been supported by the text of the constitution. Mr. Cicilline of rhode island will follow with the president s counsel, and i will continue to discuss the importance of the Senate Rejecting President Trumps argument for the preservation of democratic selfgovernment and the rule of law in the United States of america. I now will turn it over to my colleague, mr. Naguse of colorado. Do i have to recognize him . No. Mr. President , distinguished senators. My name is joe naguse and i represent colorados second Congressional District in the United States congress. Like many of you, im an attorney. I practiced law before i came to congress, tried a lot of different cases, some more unique than others. Certainly never a case as important as this one, nor a case with such a heavy and weighty constitutional question for you all to decide. Thankfully, as lead manager raskin so thoroughly explained, the framers have answered that question for you, for us. And you dont need to be a constitutional scholar to know that the argument President Trump asks you to adopt is not just wrong, its dangerous. You dont have to take my word for it. This body, the worlds greatest deliberate body, the United States senate, has reached that same conclusion in one form or another over the past 200 years on multiple occasions that well go through. Over 150 constitutional scholars, experts, judges, conservative, liberal, you name it, they overwhelmingly have reached the same conclusion that, of course, you can try, convict and disqualify a former president. And that makes sense. Because the text of the constitution makes clear there is no january exception to the Impeachment Power. That president s cant commit grave offenses in their final days and escape any congressional response. Thats not how our constitution works. Lets start with the precedent, with what has happened in this very chamber. Id like to focus on just two cases. Ill go through them quickly. One of them is the nations very first impeachment case which actually was of a former official. In 1797, about a decade after our country had ratified our constitution, there was a senator from tennessee by the name of William Blunt who was caught conspiring with the british to try to sell florida and louisiana. Ultimately president adams caught him. He turned over the evidence to congress. Four days later, the house of representatives impeached him. A day after that, this body, the United States senate, expelled him from office, so he was very much a former official. Despite that, the house went forward with its impeachment proceeding in order to disqualify him from ever again Holding Federal Office. And so the senate proceeded with a trial, with none other than Thomas Jefferson presiding. Now, blount argued that the senate couldnt proceed because he had already been expelled. Heres the interesting thing. He expressly disavowed any claim that former officials cant ever be impeached. Unlike President Trump efrhe wa very respectful that he understood he couldnt argue that very position. Even impeached senator blount recognized the inherent absurdity of that view. Heres what he said. I shall never contend that an officer shall first commit an offense and afterwards avoid by resigning his office. Thats the point. And there was no doubt because the founders around to confirm that that was their intent and the obvious meaning of what is in the constitution. Fastforward 80 years later. Arguably the most important precedents that this body has to consider, the trial of former Secretary Of War william belknap. Im not going into all the d details, but in short, in 1876, the house discovered he was involved in a massive kickback scheme. Hours before the House Committee discovered this conduct and released its report of belknap, he rushed to the white house to resign to president ulysses s. Grant to avoid paying for his misconduct and to avoid being disqualified of Holding Federal Office in the future. Later that day, aware of the resignation, what did the house do . The house moved forward and unanimously impeached him, making clear its power to impeach a former official. And when his case reached the senate, this body, belknap made the exact same argument that President Trump is making today. That you all Lack Jurisdiction, any power to try him because hes a former official. Now, many senators at that time when they heard that argument, literally they were sitting in the same chairs you all are sitting in today. They were outraged by that argument. Outraged. You can read their comments in the record. They knew it was a dangerous, dangerous argument with dangerous implications. It would literally mean that a president could betray their country, leave office, and avoid impeachment and disqualification entirely. And thats why, in the end, the United States senate decisively voted that the constitution required them to proceed with the trial. The belknap is clear precedent that the senate must proceed with this trial since it rejected pretrial dismissal, affirmed its jurisdiction and moved to a full consideration of the merits. Now, belknap ultimately was not convicted, but only after a further Public Inquiry into his conduct, which created a record of his wrongdoing. It assured his accountability and deterred anyone else from considering such corruption by making clear that it was intolerable. The trial served important constitutional purposes. Now, given that precedent that ive described to you, given all that that precedent imparts, you could imagine my surprise, Representative Raskins surprise when we reviewed the trial brief, that the senate actually didnt decide anything in the it can never be read as an argument they never dealt with. Never dealt with. The senate didnt debate this question for two hours. The Senate Debated this very question for two weeks. The senate spent an additional two weeks deliberating on the jurisdictional question. And at the end of those deliberations, they decided decisively that the senate has jurisdiction and that it could proceed, it must proceed to a full trial. By the, unlike bellmap as we know, President Trump was not impeached for Run Of The Mill misconduct, he was impeached for inciting an insurrection. An insurrection where people died in this building. An insurrection that decimated our seat in government. And if congress were just to stand completely aside in the face of such an extraordinary crime against the republic it would invite future president s to use their power without any fear of accountability. And none of us, i know this, none of us, no matter our party or our politics, wants that. Now, weve gone through the highlights of the precedent and i think its important that you know, as manager lee raskin mentioned scholars overwhelmingly viewed this precedent have all come to the same conclusion, the senate must hear this case. Lets go through a few short examples. To start, all of us i know are familiar with the federalist society. Some of you may know Steven Calabrese personally, the cofounder of the federal society. Actually was the chairman of the board in 2019. He was the first president of the Yale Federalist Society chapter board, a position that i understand senator howley later held. Here is what mr. Calabrese has to say. On january 21 he issued a public letter stating, our carefully considered views of the law lead all of us to agree that the constitution permits the Impeachment Conviction and disqualification of former officers, including president dents. By the way, hes not the only one, as manager raskin said, former solicitor general, among others. Another prominent scholar known to many of you personally is former tenth Circuit Court of appeals judge, my circuit, judge michael mcconnell. He was nominated by president george w. Bush. He was confirmed by this body unanimously. Senator hatch, many of you served with him, he had this to say that hes an honest man. He calls it as he sees it and hes beholden to no one and no group. What does judge mcconnell have to say about the question youre debating this afternoon . He said the following, given the fa impeachment of mr. Trump was legitimate, the next makes clear the senate has the power to try that impeachment. You heard the manager raskin mention another lawyer, chuck cooper, prominent, conservative lawyer here in washington, represents Attorney General jeff sessions, House Minority leader kevin mccarthy. He issued an editorial just two days ago. Very powerful observing that scholarship and this question matured substantially and ultimately the arguments President Trump is championing are beset by serious weaknesses. Finally, we have gone through a lot of scholars. I will finish on this one. Theres another scholar that i know some of you know and some of you actually spoken with recently, up until just a few weeks aing, he was a recognized champion champion of the view that the constitution authorizes the impeachment of former officials. And that is professor jonathan turley. Let me show you what i mean. These are his words, first, a very detailed, thorough study, he explains, quote, the resignation from office does not prevent trials on articles of impeachment. Thats professor turleys words. Same piece, he celebrated the trielt, describing it as kraktive measure that helped the system regain legitimacy. He wrote another article. Hes written several on this topic. Its 146page study. Very detailed. In that study he said, quote, the decision in belknap was correct in its view that impeachment extended to former officials, such as warren hastings, who you heard manager raskin describe. And the house impeached and senate could have tried Richard Nixon after he resigned. His quote on this, very telling, quote, future president s could not assume that mere resignation would avoid a trial of their conduct in the United States senate. Finally, last quote from professor turley, that no man in no circumstance can escape the account which he owes to the laws of his country. Not my words. Not lee manager ras kinz words, professor Jonathan Turleys words. I agree with him because hes exactly right. Now, a question one might reasonably ask after going through all of those quotes from such noted jurists and scholars is why is there such agreement on this topic . The reason is pretty simple, because its what the constitution says. I want to walk you through three provisions of the constitution that make clear that the senate must try this case. First, lets start with what the constitution says about congresss power in article one. You heard lead manager raskin make this point but its worth underscoring. Article one, section two, gives the house the sole power of impeachment. Article one, Section Three gives the senate the sole power to try all impeachments. Now, based on President Trumps argument, one would think that language includes caveats, exceptions, but it doesnt. It doesnt say impeachment of current civil officers. It doesnt say impeachment of those still in office. The framers didnt mince words. They provided express, absolute, unqualified grants of jurisdictional power to the house to impeach tonight senate to try all impeachments. Not some, all. Former judge mcconnell, judge that we talked about earlier, he provides very effective textual analysis of this provision. You can see it up here on the slide. I will just give you the highlight. This is judge mcconnell given the impeachment of mr. Trump was legitimate, the text makes clear the senate has the power to try that impeachment. Now again, here is what its pretty interesting to me at least. We presented this argument in our trial brief, which we filed over a week ago. We laid it out, again step by step, so you could consider it and so that opposing counsel could consider it as well. We received President Trumps response yesterday and the trial brief offers no rebuttal to this point. None. And in fairness, i cant think of any convincing response. The constitution is just exceptionally clear on this point. Now perhaps they will have something to say today about it but they did not yesterday. Theres another Provision Worth mentioning here because theres been a lot of confusion about it and im going to try to clear this up. This is the provision on removal and disqualification. We all know the senate imposes a judgment only when it convicts. Up on the screen you will see article 1, section 3, clause 7. The senate convicts and the judgment shall not extend further than to removal from office and disqualification. Thats it. The meaning is clear. The senate has the power to impose removal, which only applies to current officials, and separately, it has the power to impose disqualification, which obviously applies to both current and former officers. But it doesnt have the power to go any further than that. Now, as i understand President Trumps argument, they believe that this language somehow says disqualification can only follow removal of a current officer. But it doesnt. That interpretation essentially rewrites the constitution. It adds words that arent there. After all, the constitution does not say removal from office and then disqualification. It doesnt say removal from office followed by disqualification. It simply says, the senate cant do more than two possible sentences, removal and disqualification. And this, by the way, is not the first time that this direct question has been debated in this chamber. 146 years ago, during the belknap trial, senator George Edmonds of vermont, hes one of the most prestigious republican senators at this time. He sat right where senator grassley says today. He zeroed in on this exact point during the belknap trial. This is his quote, a prohibition against doing more than two things cannot be turned into a command to do both or neither. And just imagine the consequences of such an absurd interpretation of the constitution. If President Trump were right about that language, than officials could commit the most extraordinary, destructive offenses against the American People, high crimes and misdemeanors and they would have total control of whether they could ever be impeached, and if they are, whether the senate can try the case. If they want to escape any Public Inquiry into their misconduct or the risk of disqualification from future office, its pretty simple, they can just resign one minute before the house impeaches or just one minute before the senate trial, or they can resign during the senate trial if its not looking so well. That would effectively erase disqualification from the constitution. It would put wrongdoers in charge of whether the senate can try them. Third and final reason why President Trump must stand trial. Provision of article 1 of the constitution. Youll see here on the screen the constitution twice describes the accused in an Impeachment Trial. Heres what i want you to focus on. The interesting thing is notice the words, it refers to a person and a party being impeached. Again, we know that the founders gave a lot of thought to the words that they chose. They even had a Style Committee during the Constitutional Convention. They could have written civil officers here. They did that elsewhere in the constitution. That would have ultimately limited Impeachment Trials to current officials. But instead they used broader language to describe who can be tried by the United States senate. So who can be put on trial rather for impeachment other than civil officers . Who else could a person or a party be . Really, theres only one possible answer, former officers. Again, that actually might explain why during the belknap trial, senator thomas baird of delaware, he later became the Secretary Of State to the United States, he sat right where senator carper is sitting now, he found this point so compelling that he felt compelled to speak out on it. And during the trial he concluded that the constitution must allow the impeachment and trial of people and parties who are not civil officers. The only group that can possibly encompass was former officials like belknap and, of course, here like President Trump. And just so were clear in full disclosure, this is another argument that was not addressed by President Trump in his rebuttal. And we know why they didnt. Because their argument doesnt square with the plain text of the constitution. Theres one provision that President Trump relies on almost exclusively, article 2, section 4. Im sure youll see it when they present their arguments. Their argument is the language you will see on the screen somehow prevents you from holding this trying by making removal from office an absolute requirement. But again, where does the language say that . Where does it say anything in that provision about your jurisdiction . In fact, this provision isnt even in the part of the constitution that addresses your authority. Its in article ii not article i. And it certainly says nothing about former officials. In fact even chuck cooper, who i mentioned earlier with clients like the House Minority leader, hes concluded this provision of the constitution that President Trump relies on, cuts against his position, his words, and thats because as cooper says, article ii section four means just what it says. The first half describes what an official must do to be impeached, mainly commit high crimes and misdemeanors. And the second half, describes what happens when civil officers of the United States, including the sitting president , are convicted, removal from office. Thats it. In coopers words, it simply establishes what is known in criminal law as a mandatory minimum punishment. It says nothing about former officials, nothing at all. Given all of that, it is not surprising that in President Trumps legal trial brief, 75page brief, they struggle to find any professors to support their position. They did cite one professor though, professor cault, an expert in this field, who they claimed agreed with them that the only purpose of impeachment is removal. Professor caults position, which they would have had to have known because its in the article in which they cite in the brief is removal is, quote, not the sole end of impeachment. Actually in that same article he describes the view advocated by President Trumps lawyers as having deep flaws. Again, you do not have to take my word for it. You can take professor caults word for it, the professor they cited in their brief filed yesterday because he tweeted about it. On the screen here, this is what he had to say. I will not read it in great detail. Simply give you the highlights. President trumps brief cited my article on impeachment a lot but in several places they misrepresent what i wrote quite badly. There are multiple examples of such flatout misrepresentations. They didnt have to be disingenuous and misleading like this. This key constitutional scholar relied on by President Trump said it just right. I explained in great detail the many reasons why the argument President Trump advocates here today is wrong. I just want to close with a note about why its dangerous. Lead manager raskin explained that impeachment exists to protect the American People from officials who abuse their power, who betray them. It exists for a case just like this one. Honestly, it is hard to imagine a clearer example of how a president could abuse his office inciting violence against a coequal branch of government while seeking to remain in power after losing an election. Sitting back and watching it unfold. We all know the consequences. Like every one of you, i was in the capitol on january 6th. I was on the floor with lead manager raskin. Like every one of you, i was evacuated as this violent mob stormed the capitols gates. What you experienced that day, who we experienced that day, what our country experienced that day, is the framers worse nightmare come to life. President s cant inflame insurrection in their final weeks and then walk away like nothing happened. And yet that is the rule that President Trump asks you to adopt. I urge you, we urge you, to decline his request, to vindicate the constitution, to let us try this case. Mr. President , distinguished senators, my name is david cicilline. I have the honor of representing the first Congressional District of rhode island. As i hope is now clear from the arguments of mr. Raskin and mr. Neguse, impeachment is not merely about removing someone from office. Fundamentally impeachment exists to protect our constitutional system, to keep each of us safe, to uphold our freedom, to safeguard our democracy. It achieved that by deterring abuse of the extraordinary power that we entrust to our president s from the very first day in office until the very last day. It also ensures accountability for president s who harm us or our government. In the aftermath of a tragedy that allows us an opportunity to come together and to heal by working through what happened and reaffirming our constitutional principles. And it authorizes this body and this body alone, to disqualify from our political system anybody whose conduct in office proves that they present a danger to the republic. But impeachment would fail to achieve these purposes if you created for the first time ever, despite the words of the framers and the constitution, a january exception, as mr. Raskin explained. I was a former defense lawyer for many years, and i can understand why President Trump and his lawyers dont want you to hear this case. Why they dont want you to see the evidence. But the argument that you Lack Jurisdiction rests on a purely fictional loophole. Purely fictional. Designed to allow the former president to escape all accountability for conduct that is truly indefensible under our constitution. You saw the consequences of his actions on the video that we played earlier. I would like to emphasize in still greater detail the extraordinary constitutional offense that the former president thinks you have no power whatsoever to adjudicate. While spreading lies about the election outcome in a brazen attempt to retain power against the will of the American People, he inchristed an armed, angry mob to riot, and not just anywhere, but here in the seat of our government, in the capitol, during a joint session of congress when the Vice President presided while we carried out the peaceful transfer of power, which was interrupted for the first time in our history. This was a disaster of historic proportion. It was also an unforgivable betrayal of the Oath Of Office of President Trump, the oath he swore. An oath he sullied and dishonored to advance his own personal interests. And make no mistake about it, as you think about that day, things could have been much worse. As one senator said, they could have killed all of us. It was only the bravery and sacrifice of the police who suffered death and injuries as a result of President Trumps actions that prevented greater tragedy. At trial we will prove with overwhelming evidence that President Trump is singularly and directly responsible for inciting the assault on the capitol. We will also prove that his dereliction of duty, his desire to seek personal advantage from the mayhem and his decision to issue tweets are further inciting the mob, attacking the Vice President , all compounding the already enormous damage. Virtually every american who saw those events unfold on television was absolutely horrified by the events of january 6th. But we also know how President Trump himself felt about the attack. He told us. Heres what he tweeted at 6 01 as the capitol was in shambles and as dozens of Police Officers and other Law Enforcement officers lay battered and bruised and bloodied. Heres what he said, these are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously and viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly and unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love and in peace. Remember this day forever every time i read that tweet, it chills me to the core. The president of the United States sided with the insurrectionists. He celebrated their cause. He validated their attack. He told them, remember this day forever. Hours after they marched through these halls looking to assassinate Vice President pence, the speaker of the house, and any of us they could find. Given all of that, its no wonder that President Trump would rather talk about jurisdiction and a supposed january exception, rather than talk about what happened on january 6th. Make no mistake, his arguments are dead wrong. Theyre distractions from what really matters. The senate can and should require President Trump to stand trial. My colleagues have already addressed many of President Trumps efforts to escape trial. I would like to cover the remainder, and then address the broader issues at stake in this trial. For starters in an extension of his mistaken reading of the constitution, President Trump insists that he cannot face trial in the senate because hes merely a private citizen. He references here the bill of retainer clause. But as mr. Neguse explained, the constitution refers to the defendant in an Impeachment Trial as a person in a party, and certainly he counts as one of those. Lets also apply some common sense. Theres a reason that you now insists on being called the 45th president of the United States, rather than citizen trump. He isnt a randomly selected private citizen. Hes a former officer of the United States government. Hes a former president of the United States of america. Hes treated differently under a law called the former president s act. For four years we trusted him with more power than anyone else on earth. The former president who promised on a bible to use his power faithfully, he can and should answer for whether he kept that promise while bound by it in office. His insistence otherwise is just wrong. And so is his claim that theres a slippery slope to impeaching private citizens if you proceed. The trial of a former official for abuses he committed as an official, arising from an impeachment that occurred while he was an official, poses absolutely no risk whatsoever of subjecting a private citizen to impeachment for their private conduct. To emphasize the point, President Trump was impeached while he was in office for conduct in office period. The alternative, once again, is this january exception, which our most powerful officials can commit the most terrible abuses and then resign to leave office and suddenly claim that theyre just a private citizen who cant be held accountable at all. In the same vain, President Trump and his lawyers argue he shouldnt be impeached because it will set a bad precedent for impeaching others. But that slippery slope argument is also incorrect. For centuries the prevailing view has been that former officials are subject to impeachment, and you just heard a full discussion of that. The house has repeatedly acknowledged that fact. But in the vast majority of cases, the house has rightly recognized an officials resignation for departure makes the extraordinary step of impeachment unnecessary and maybe even unwise. As the House Manager rightly explained in the belknap case, and i quote, there is no likelihood that we shall ever unlimber the clumsy and bulky monster piece of ordinance to take aim at an object in which all danger has gone by, end quote. President trumps case though is different. The danger has not gone by. His threat to democracy makes any prior abuse by any Government Official pale in comparison. Moreover, allowing his conduct to pass without the most decisive response would itself create an extraordinary danger to the nation. Inviting further abuse of power and signaling that the congress of the United States is unable or unwilling to respond to insurrection incited by the president. Think about that. To paraphrase Justice Robert jackson, who said that precedent that i just described would lie about like a loaded weapon ready for the happened of any future president who decided in his final month to make a play for unlimited power. Think of the danger. Here is the rare case in which love is a constitution and commitment to our democracy requires the house to impeach. Its for the same reason the senate can and must try this case. Next, President Trump will assert that he somehow is significant or it matters that the chief justice isnt presiding over this trial. Let me state this very plainly, it does not matter. It is not significant. Under article i, section 3, when the president of the United States is tried, the chief justice shall preside. There is only one person who is president of the United States at a time. Right now joseph r. Biden jr. Is the 46th president of the United States. As a result the requirement of the chief justice preside isnt triggered. Instead the normal rules of any impeachment of anyone other than the sitting president apply. And under those rules, the president pro tem, senator leahy, can preside. Of course, this makes perfect sense. The chief justice presides because when the current president is on trial, if the chief justice doesnt preside, the Vice President could preside. It would be a conflict for someone to provide over a trial of someone who would become president if theres a conviction. So there isnt that concern when you have a former president on trial or for that matter anyone on trial other than the current president. Which is why the chief justice presides only in that single case and why this is exactly the presiding officer the constitution and the senate rules require. As a fallback, President Trump and his lawyers may argue today that he should get a free pass on inciting an armed insurrection against the United States government and endangering congress was as he will put it, this impeachment is somehow unconstitutional. As far as i understand it from reading the pleadings in this case, this defense involves cobbling together a bunch of meritless legal arguments, all of them attempting to focus on substance rather than jurisdiction, and insisting these kitchen sink objections leave the senate to not try the case. Since they may raise these points at this juncture, i feel obliged to address them. He may argue, for example, he didnt receive enough process in the house, even though the house proceedings are more like a grand jury action, which is followed later by trial in the senate with a full presentation of evidence. Even though the evidence of his high crimes and misdemeanors is overwhelming and supported by a huge public record, even though were going to put that evidence before you at this trial, and even though he had a full and fair opportunity to respond to it before all of you, even though hundreds involved on january 6th have been charged in their roles of attacks the president incited. Even though we invited him to voluntarily come here and testify and tell his story, a request as you know his lawyers immediately refused, presumably because they understood what would happen if he were to testify under oath. Regardless, President Trumps process arguments are not only wrong on their own terms, but theyre also completely irrelevant to the question of whether you should hold this trial. That question is answered by the constitution and the answer is yes. In addition, separate from his due process complaints, President Trump and his counsel have particularly his counsel, have boasted on tv that to counter the undisputed evidence of what actually happened in this case, youll see video clips, they will show a video clip of other politicians, including democratic politicians, using what they consider incendiary language. Apparently, they think this will establish some sort of equivalency, or it will show in contrast that President Trumps statements at the save america rally werent so bad. Like so much of what President Trumps lawyers might say today, thats a gimmick. Its a parlor game meant to inflame partisan hostility and play on our divisions. So let me be crystal clear, President Trump was not impeached because of the words he used viewed in isolation without context were beyond the pale. Plenty of other politicians have used strong language. But donald j. Trump was president of the United States. He sought to overturn a president ial election that had been upheld by every single court to consider it. He spent months insisting to his base the only way he could lose was a dangerous, wideranging conspiracy against them and america itself. He relentlessly attempted to betray his followers that the peaceful transfer of power that was taking place in the capitol was an abomination that had to be stopped at all costs. He flirted with groups like the proud boys telling them to stand back and stand by. While endorsing violence and sparking Death Threats to his opponents. He summoned an armed, angry and dangerous crowd that wanted to keep him in power and was widely reported to be poised on a hair trigger for violence at his direction. He then made his heated statements and circumstances where it was clear, whether it was foreseeable, that those statements would spark extraordinary imminent violence. He then failed to defend the capitol, the congress and the Vice President during the insurrection, engaging in extraordinarily dereliction of duty and de duty dedesserting of duty that was only possible because of the high office he held. He issued statements during the insurrection targeting the Vice President and reiterating the very same lies about the election that had launched the violence in the first place. And he issued a tweet five hours after the capitol was sacked in which he sided with the bad guys. We all know context matters. Office and meaning and content and consequences matter. Simply it matters when and where and how we speak, the oath were sworn and power we hold matter. President trump was not impeached because he used words that the house decided are forbidden or unpopular. He was impeached for inciting armed violence against a government of the United States of america. This leads me to a few final thoughts about why its so important for you to hear this case as authorized and as indeed required by our history and by the constitution. President trumps lawyers will say, i expect, that you should dismiss this case so the country can move on. Theyll assert this impeachment is partisan and that the spirit of bipartisanship and bipartisan cooperation requires us to drop the case and march forward in unity. With all due respect, every premise and every argument of that conclusion is wrong. Just weeks ago, weeks ago the president of the United States literally incited an armed attack on the capitol, our seat of government, while seeking to retain power by subverting an election he lost and then celebrated the attack. People died people were brutally injured. President trumps actions endangered every Single Member of congress. His own Vice President , thousands of congressional staffers and our own Capitol Police and other Law Enforcement. This was a national tragedy. A disaster for americas standing in the world. And President Trump is singularly responsible for inciting it. As we will prove the attack on the capitol was not solely the work of extremists lurking in the shadows, indeed does anyone in this chamber honestly believe that but for the conduct of President Trump, that a charge in the article of impeachment that that attack at the capitol would have occurred, does anybody believe that . And now his lawyers will come before you and insist hes as the capitol is still surrounded with bauered wires and fences and soldiers we should just move on, let bygones be bygones and President Trump walk away without any accountability, any reckoning, any consequences. That cannot be right. That is not unity. Thats the path to fear what future president s could do. So theres a did reason why this article of impeachment passed the house with bipartisan support. The principles as stake belong to all americans from all walks of life. We have a common interest in making clear there are lines nobody can cross, especially the president of the United States. And so we share an interest in this trial where the truth can be shown and where President Trump can be called to account for his offenses. William faulkner famously wrote that the past is never dead. But this isnt even the past. Just this happened. Its still happening. Look around you as you come to the capitol and come to work. I really do not believe that our Attention Span is so short, that our sense of duty so frail, our faction is so all consuming that the president can invoke an attack on congress itself and get away with it just because it occurred near the end of his term. After a betrayal like this, there cannot be unity without accountability. And this is exactly what the constitution calls for, the framers original understanding, this clhambers own precedent ad the very words used in the constitution all confirm unduss putedly President Trump must stand trial for his high crimes and misdemeanors against the American People. We must not, we cannot continue down the path of partisanship and division that has turned the capitol into an armed fortress. Senators, it now falls to you to bring our country together by holding this trial with all of the evidence thats before you by delivering justice. Thank you. Senators, mr. President , to close i want to Say Something personal about the stakes of this decision whether President Trump can stand trial and be held to account for inciting insurrection against us. This trial is personal indeed for every senator, for every member of the house, every manager, all of our staff, the Capitol Police, the washington, d. C. Metropolitan police, the National Guard, maintenance and custodial crews, the print journalists and tv people who were here, and all of our families and friends, and i hope this trial reminds america how personal democracy is and how personal is the loss of democracy too. Distinguished members of the senate, my youngest daughter tabitha was there with me on wednesday, january 6th. It was the day after we buried her brother, our son tommy, the saddest day of our lives. Also there was my soninlaw hank, whos married to our oldest daughter hannah, and i i consider him a son too, even though he eloped with my daughter and didnt tell us what they were going to do. But it was in the middle of covid19. But the reason they came with me that wednesday, january 6th, was because they wanted to be together with me in the middle of a devastating week for our family. I told them i had to go back to work because we were counting electoral votes that day, january 6th. It was our constitutional duty. And i invited them instead to come with me to witness this historic event, the peaceful transfer of power in america. And they said they heard that President Trump was calling on his followers to come to washington to protest and they asked me directly, would it be safe . Would it be safe . I told them, of course it should be safe. This is the capitol. Steny hoyer, our Majority Leader, had kindly offered me the use of his office on the house floor because i was one of the managers that day and we were going through our grief. So tabitha and hank were with me in stenys office as colleagues dropped by to console us about the loss of our middle child, tommy, our beloved tommy. Mr. Neguse and mr. Cicilline actually came to see me that day. Dozens of members. Lots of republicans, lots of democrats came to see me. And i felt a sense of being lifted up from the agony, and i wont forget their tenderness. And through the tears i was working on a speech for the floor, when we would all be together in joint session, and i wanted to focus on unity when we met in the house. I quoted abraham lincolns famous 1838 speech where he said that if division and destruction ever come to america, is it wont come from abroad, it will come from within, said lincoln. And in that same speech, lincoln passionately deplored mob violence, this was right after the murder of elijah love joy, the abolitionist newspaper editor. Lincoln deplored mob violence and he deplored mob rule and he said it would leave to tyranny and despotism in america. And that was the speech i gave the day after the house very graciously and warmly welcomed me back. And tabitha and hank came with me to the floor and they watched it from the gallery, and when it was over, they went back to that office, stenys office off of the house floor. They didnt know that the house had been breached yet, and that an insurrection, a riot where a coup had come to congress. And by the time we learned about it, about what was going on, it was too late. I couldnt get out there to be with them in that office. And all around me people were calling their wives and their husbands, their loved ones to say goodbye. Members of congress in the house were removing their congressional pins so they wouldnt be identified by the mob as they tried to escape the violence. Our new chap lip got up and said a prayer for us, and we were told to put our gas masks on. And then there was a sound i will never forget, the sound of pounding on the door like a battering ram. The most haunting sound i ever heard, and i will never forget it. My chief of staff, julie tagen, was with tabitha and hank locked in that office, hiding under the desks, placing what they thought were their final texts and whispered phone calls to say their goodbyes. They thought they were going to die. My soninlaw had never even been to the capitol before. And when they were finally rescued, over an hour later by capitol officers, and we were together, i hugged them and i apologized and i told my daughter tabitha, whos 24 and a brilliant algebra teacher in teach for america now, i told her how sorry i was, and i promised her it would not be like this again the next time she came back to the capitol with me. You know what she said, she said, dad, i dont want to come back to the capitol. Of all of the terrible, brutal things that i saw and that i heard on that day, and since then, that one hit me the hardest. That and watching someone use an American Flagpole, with the flag still on it, to spear and pummel one of our Police Officers ruthlessly, mercilessly tortured by a pole with a flag on it that he was defending with his very life. People died that day. Officers ended up with head damage and brain damage. Peoples eyes were gouged. An officer had a heart attack. An officer lost Three Fingers that day. Two officers have taken their own lives. Senators, this cannot be our future. This cannot be the future of america. We cannot have president s inciting and mobilizing mob violence against our government and our institutions because they refuse to accept the will of the people under the constitution of the United States. Much less can we create a new january exception in our precious, beloved constitution that prior generations have died for and fought for, so that corrupt president s have several weeks to get away with whatever it is they want to do. History does not support a january exception in any way, so why would we invent one for the future . We close, mr. President , and reserve our time. I ask unanimous consent. I ask unanimous consent. There will now be takenminute break. I ask unanimous consent, the Senate Recess for ten minutes. Without objection, so ordered. All right, democrats just gaveled for a tenminute break. Lets discuss what weve just seen while we wait for the senate to reconvene. Abby, let me start with you. I think it was very powerful, that Video Montage they put together that seemed to proceed through time, although there werent specific time stamps on events from the rally to the violence, making the case that donald trump got what he wanted. And preemptively refuting some arguments we are likely to hear later on when the president s lawyers make their case, which is that the idea that the president could not have incited the riot because the riot started before he finished his speech is untrue. As the video laid out, people who were in attendance at the president s rally before the riot were listening to his words and then repeating back to him, we have to take the capitol. And repeating those words saying, we are listening to trump, your boss, saying that to the capitol Police Officers who were on the stage. So the video seemed to lay out that the president s words encouraged people to leave the rally event, even before he finished his speech, to begin storming the capitol. And then it lays out and i think really, you know, damning detail how the president at various points encouraged the rioters repeatedly saying to them, i love you, in a tweet hours after the riot had occurred saying, go home in peace. Remember this day forever. Those are the kinds of comments that not just the comments in the rally itself but everything that preceded after it, that i think is part of the argument here that democrats are making. It wasnt just any one or two words in that context. It was everything that happened also during and after the riot. And it was the facts, but it was the feeling. Its hard we cant see the senators on the floor, but obviously, the whole point of that presentation, and it was incredibly powerful, was to lay out the facts and the timeline with the video, but to make them feel and to make them remember because, as we said before, theyre jurors but they are also witnesses and theyre also victims. They were there. And the notion of anybody listening to that and watching that and for all of them reliving it and not being moved by it and not thinking twice about it is i cant even imagine than on the constitutional consequence the fact that jamie raskin after he played that video went through and explained the genesis of impeachment and the discussion at the Constitutional Convention about how and why impeachment would be in the constitution and said it actually came from the uk and from people who were tried and convicted after they left office. I thought that was fascinating. Again, hard to imagine even the republicans who are looking for a political out with the Constitutionality Question can they have to think twice listening to that. Maybe. Im not sure they have to think twice about this, because honestly, i have to say, five people are dead directly from that day. There have been at least two or three suicides subsequent, two of them, of Police Officers. So people i mean even kevin mccarthy, who is one of the most sycophantic Public Officials said donald trump bears some responsibility for that day. Mitch mcconnell, Senate Republican leader, much more aggressive in his criticism. Even with that, dead people, i have to wonder what if the crowd actually had gotten to mike pence. What if this had gotten even worse . Abby, we were talking earlier, five People Killed that day. Dozens more maimed for injuries, wounds theyre going to have forever, Three Fingers lost, an eye lost, brain damage. What if a member of congress or Vice President pence got forbid had been killed . I honestly dont think that anything would be different on the floor of the senate. Yeah, i tend to agree with you because when you listen to what republicans are saying, none of them are actually grappling with what happened. Theyre just just a step before that theyre saying, we should just give him a pass for this one thing. A mulligan. Literally, one republican senator called it a mulligan. Lets just move forward. They keep talking about this idea of unity. But the really simple constitutional idea that jamie raskin and the other Impeachment Managers put on the table today that is it doesnt require you to be a lawyer or attorney to understand, it is that if you are the president of the United States, if there is such a giant loophole in the constitution that allows you to get away with whatever you want in the final weeks of your term, that is something that is a profound problem for this country. Its because it effectively means you can do whatever you want. Jamie raskin said very clearly, he said, it is in these moments that this principle is needed the most. He says that that it is that it would impeach the Impeachable Offense is when you need it the most, its precisely when you need it the most because that is when elections are attacked. That is the idea here, that if you want to stay in office, if republicans are correct in this, if you want to stay in office, you can do whatever you want in the last three weeks. There are no consequences. Thats exactly right. And also kind of to take that a step further, especially given the fact that the current thinking at the Justice Department since Richard Nixon has been that president s cant be indicted because the whole point is they need to be tried by the senate, they need to be tried by the house and the senate through the Impeachment Process. So if theres no recourse for a president after he leaves office, even if he does something in january, that january exception he was talking about, does that mean that there are that there is a way for the president to be tried in a regular court of law . I would imagine that his lawyers are going to argue the answer is absolutely not because president s should be treated differently. Then which is it question . You cant have it both ways. Anderson, its an interesting thing because we are used to republicans posturing about Law And Order and accountability and here we have House Republicans a few days ago saying congresswoman Marjorie Taylor greene, who spewed all of these bigoted, insane Conspiracy Theories said she should not be held accountable for things she said before she was elected. Is now Senate Republicans are basically saying President Trump should not be held accountable after he was elected after he left office, which just begs the question, when are you held accountable for what . Any watching of the video that was played just today in the Senate Chambers after watching that, the president s supporters who were attacking the capitol, the former president of the United States, cannot claim to be a lawandorder president when you have the crowds chanting kill the blue. We saw them hurling insults and fists and objects and American Flag and hockey stick at officers, as you said, gouging out an eye. An officer lost Three Fingers and one officer was killed, two others have died by suicide. Any claim by them that they are lovers of Law And Order, it rings hollow, certainly after seeing that. I want to bring in ross garber, laura niez and laura coates for legal analysis. Representative raskin extremely the constitutional argument going back in history and making it a very personal argument almost in the end, and he talked about this january exemption which when phrased as he did, it does seem moronic to believe that there should be a magical exemption for the month of january where a president can do anything they want and get away with it. Yeah. Let me say this. I could i could argue about the law, but what we just saw was a master class in advocacy, you know, from all of the managers. Anderson, you and i spent time together during the first trump trial and i was very critical of the advocacy in this trial. This really was a master class. They started off. They reminded everyone why we were sitting through this, why this was happening, and i think they it that very effectively, and then they marched through the law. They talked about the constitution. They talked about the history. They talked about the precedent, and then they brought it back again, back to something personal and then they widened is out and talked about why this was so significant, that it was about the country. This was a master class. As to that specific point, i think in some ways its not the best point to make, although they spent a lot of time, you know, talking about that because the worst thing thats going to happen to trump in this, the worst thing if hes convicted is disqualification. Thats it, and i dont think thats, you know, a particularly effective deterrent for president s, and also, you know, the thing that i think probably would be a deterrent exists. Theres the criminal law, and if trump committed a crime as is alleged, he potentially has to answer for that in the criminal system. Laura what, did you make of the presentation . Well, i was blown away by the end and congressman jamie raskin talking about the description of what it was like for people, what it was like in the room from where it happened, from what their perspective was was so compelling, and it complemented so well the Video Evidence that really brought us back. Remember, when we all watched on january 6th, we were watching in disjointed fashion. We didnt see it in the game scheme of things and the president s words and his reaction and what his unique position was. It was very, very compelling, and it brought me back to one point. There was a question raised by congressman cicilliny. Its rhetorical, and he said but for President Trumps conduct, do any of you really believe the insurrection would have happened . And i wish we could have panned the actual crowd there in the audience because i think its youd be hard pressed to say, yes, it would have happened anyway. It was inevitable, and that question is going to linger through the course of the trial and a presentation of evidence. But for this persons conduct, but for the behavior, but for the statements, but for his actions would we even be here today and thats the core question that will have to be answered and frankly did a very compelling job of doing so. The defense is going to argue i think quite well at one point that if youre talking about as ross described that that then youre asking for them to qualify and usurp the roast voter and you go back to the question of who is stealing the vote now . Ive got that question in my mind. But for trump would we be here . I think the question and the answer is no. Norm eisen . Well, anderson, it was a powerful presentation. The art of trial law is the art of surprise, and they didnt just argue the abstract constitutional issues. They put on that visceral video. Three points of view there that animate what were doing here. You have the perspective of trump. You heard his words. You have the perspective of the rioters, those horrifying scenes, and the perspective of the members of congress, including those same senators, and the personal touch reminding us that when we talk about defending america, when we talk about rule of law, when we talk about the constitution, were talking about human beings like congressman raskin, lead manager raskins daughter tabitha. The humor when he brought us to such poignancy and then reminded us that her husband tommy who was also there had eloped and everyone laughed. That catharsis is part of drawing people in emotionally. I thought that was very, very powerful at the end to animate the constitutional principles. Anderson, they clearly are not just talking to these senators. They are talking to the American People, amend its not just donald trump who is on trial. Its the republican senators who are on trial in the eyes of america. Will they do the thing, and i agree with you, theres no constitutional basis not to try an expresident. I think disqualification is powerful here to protect the country. Will the senators do the right thing . Will they yield to the power of law and the constitution, to the power of emotions, the human beings who make America Great . Thats what this trial is about, so high drama as we begin today. Yeah, yeah. Wolf, i want to go back to wolf. One of the things Representative Raskin said was that house members were taking off their identification as they were leaving because they were afraid that someone in the mob would recognize them as a member of congress. Thats an extraordinary detail. Yeah. They wear these little pins to show that they are a sitting member of the house of representatives or a United States senator, and its hard when we watched all of this, anderson, its hard to believe this was actually happening right here in the United States of america, and i know people are watching not only across the country right now, but they are watching all over the world, and, john, when people Around The World and, of course, here in the United States saw that powerful video, how it had been put together, reminding everybody what actually happened on january 6th, it was an amazing moment for these house Impeachment Managers but also for the country. For the world. It was a violent attack on americas democracy and the vehicle for it was one of the shrines of our government, the Capitol Building. There were a lot of people upset again, people there that very day, are reliving pain and reliving fear, but its necessary to receive such a powerful piece of the evidence of this trial Going Forward. As the lawyers were just discussing, it was just an excellent connection by the House Managers and their case there. Number one the history, back to the constitution and the framers. Its the republicans that often say read the federalist paper and its the republicans who say were constitutional conservatives and its the republicans say that what the democrat are trying to do are afoul of the framers. What a powerful framers of quoting the framers and history of past impeachment saying we have every reason to be here. This trial must go forward. A very high bar for the president s lawyers on the history. Very powerful presentation on the facts, what happened that day, and often when you cover the trial, when one of the attorneys bring up emotion its because they cant argue the facts and they are trying to take you over here with the emotion. The facts was legitimate, visceral, painful, evocative emotion made a strong case and now well hear the president s team try to argue it back. Again, ill come back to this question. The burden in the procedural votes is on the republicans. What is your argument against what you just heard to say that this is not you can decide you havent decided on your verdict vote yet, but what is your argument against holding a trial . What is your argument against, that and, again, ill come back to, if this is not the way to air it out, have a vote, will the former president be held account schnabl if this is not the way, whats the alternative, speak. And what was also so powerful was that these Impeachment Managers are, especially joe neguse, the congressman from colorado, they brought in conservative legal scholar opinions that it is in fact constitutional to have a trial of a former president of the United States, and these are impressive legal scholars, the conservative ones who are making the case, the case for the house Impeachment Managers, that it is constitutional. Both in prior days and in current day, including jonathan turley, the first trump Impeachment Trial, part of the defense, and then it was trademark, sad but trademark, that the House Democrats were shown and proved, they didnt allege this, they proved it, that in the president s lawyers former president lawyers basketweave they took another constitutional scholar out of context and misrepresented what he said and that scholar tweet it had and then turned to the president s team saying you do something trademark of the trump administration, you lie and take someone out of context. Jake, lets see how the republican the president s the former president s lawyers now rebut all these. They have got a tough challenge right now because the house Impeachment Managers made a very, very powerful case. Yeah. In fact, lets go to manu raju who covers capitol hill for us. Hes speaking to republican senators in the hallway getting their views of what they just heard. Manu, what are you hearing . Well, a lot of republican senators who im talking to, their minds are simply not changed. They came into this believing this was an unconstitutional proceeding. They are still of the view that this is an unconstitutional proceeding. You can argue why they are making that position known, but at moment nothing has changed. Several of these senators minds. One senator roger whitaker, a Mississippi Republican senator, he told me that he believes him people team that the democrats sent forward is better than the 2020 team that prosecuted donald trump on two separate charges, this one on the incitement an insurrection. He says its a better team, and then i asked him anything in here that changed your mind, and he said no. He believes still this is unconstitutional in his view. Others such as senator john bowsman, an arkansas republican said something sim lafrmt headed into the Impeachment Trial a lot of senators were locked no their existing position, one of them ron johnson a republican from wisconsin. Anything in here that you could hear that could change your mind about whether this is a constitutional proceeding or not . He said no. He said what about the democrats in the democrats have already made up their mind that its constitutional so youre getting a sense of where members are. A lot of them locked into this position right now, even though youre seeing for the first time a lot of this Video Evidence showing just how deadly this destruction was that virtually everybody in this building experienced while they were here, but at the moment youre not getting a sense that many of these republican minds are changed this. Vote, of course, this afternoon determining whether or not this is constitutional. A simple majority is all thats needed. The question is will there be more five republicans that break ranks . Doesnt seem that way. Five republicans have previously indicated its constitutional. Well see if there are any mo. Guys. Manu raju on capitol hill, thanks. Dana, one of the things incredible about this is if you dont think that its constitutional to hear an Impeachment Trial of a former president who is accused of violating his oath, he swore an oath to preserve, protect and defend the u. S. Constitution, lets listen in. Im sorry. Mr. Raskin has 33 minutes. May i proceed, mr. President . You may. Mr. President and members of the United States senate, thank you for taking the time to hear from me. My name is bruce castor. Im the lead counsel for the 45th president of the United States. I was assistant d. A. For such a long time i keep saying prosecutor but i do understand the difference, mr. Raskin. Before i begin i want to comment on the outstanding presentation from our opponents and the emotion that certainly welled up in congressman raskin about his family being here during that terrible day, and you will not hear any member of the team representing former President Trump say anything but in the strongest possible way denounce the violence of the rioters and those that breached the capitol, the very citadel of our democracy, literally the symbol that flashes on television whenever youre trying to explain that were talking about the United States, instant symbol. The to have it attacked is repugnant in every sense of the word. The loss of life is horrific. I spent many long years prosecuting homicide cases, catching criminals that committed murders. I have quite an extensive experience in dealing with the aftermath of those things. Certainly as an fop member and a member of many Police Organizations myself, we mourn the loss of the capitol Police Officer who i understand is laying not too far away from here, and, you know, many of you in this room over your careers before they reach this summit here in the senate would have had times where you represented your local communities as assistant district attorneys, assistant commonwealth attorneys, assistant state attorneys, and you know this to be true that when an horrific event occurred in your county or in your jurisdiction, if it was a state jurisdiction, you know there was a terrible outcry and the public immediately reacts with a desire that someone pay because something really bad happened, and that is a natural reaction of human beings. Its a natural reaction of human beings because we are generally a social people. We enjoy being around one another, even in d. C. We rec noise that people all the world over and especially americans who share that special bond with one no loves the freedoms that this country gives us, and we all feel that if somebody sun safe when they are walking down the street that the next person thats unsafe could be you, your spouse, one of your children, some other person that you love and know personally. So youll never hear anybody representing former President Trump say anything at all other than what happened on january 6th and the storming and the breaching of the capital should be denounced in the most vigorous terms nor, do those persons responsible should be prosecuted to the fullest extent that our laws allow, an indeed i have followed some of those cases, those prosecutions, and it seems to mow that were doing a pretty good job of identifying and prosecuting those concerns who committed those offenses. I commend the fbi and the district of Columbia Police and the other agencies for their work. Its natural to we coil. Its an immediate thing, and it comes over you without your ability to stop it, the desire for retribution. Who caused this all of thing . How do we make them pay . We recognize in the law, and i know many of you are lawyers, probably lawyers ive been a lawyer 35 years, longer than me, many longer than me probably, and we know we have a specific body of law that deals with passion and rage, blinding logic and reason. Thats the difference between manslaughter and murder. Manslaughter is the killing of a human being upon sudden and intense provocation, but murder is done with cold blood and we flektive thought. We are so understanding of the concept that peoples minds can be overpowered with emotion where logic does not immediately kick in that weve recognized examples that otherwise would be hear say and said, no, when youre driving down the street and you look over at your wife and you say that guy is about to drive through the red light and kill that person, your wife can testify to what you said because even though its technically hearsay its an exception living through the person. Why . No opportunity for reflective thought. Theres always sorts of examples that we recognize in the law for why people immediately desire retribution. Immediately recognize in the law that people can be overcome by events. And, you know, senators of the United States, they are not ordinary people. They are extraordinary people, in the technical sense extraordinary people. When i was growing up in suburban philadelphia my parents were big fans of senator dirkson of illinois, and senator dirkson recorded a series of lectures that my parents had on a record, and we still know what records are, right, on the thing that you put the nodl down on and you play it and heres little bruce, 8, 9, 10 years old listening to this back in the late 60s and i would be listening to that voice and if you ever heard dirksons voice its the most commanding, gravelly voice that just oozes belief and sincerity. Must have been a phenomenal United States senator. He doesnt he doesnt talk about ordinary people as we do in the law. We apelu the ordinary person standard. He talks about extraordinary people. He talks about gallant men is the name of the of the album and now, of course, a sign of the times gallant men and women and i would watch television and watch senator goldwater or senator byrd, senator mansfield or senator dole and i would be fascinated by these great men and everybodys parents say this when they are growing up. You could grow up to be a United States senator. You could do that. They are just men and women like you are. Well, then Everett Dirkson tells us that they are not. They are gallant men and women that do extraordinary things what their country need them to do it. United states senators really are different, and i have been around United States senators before, two of them in this room from pennsylvania i like to think are friendly toward me or at least friends of mine when were not politically adverse. And i have been around their predecessors, and one thing i have discovered whether it be democrats or republicans, United States senators are patriots first, patriots first. They love their country. They love their families. They love the states that they represent. There isnt a member in this room who has not used the term i represent the great state of fill in the blank. Why . Because they are all great, yeah, but you think yours is greater than others because these are your people. These are the people that sent you here to do their work. They trusted you with the responsibility of representative government. You know, i feel proud to know my senators, senator casey appeared in the back. Senator toomey over to the left. You know, its funny, this is an aside. Its funny. You ever notice how when youre talking or you hear others talking about you when youre home in your state, they will say, you know, i talked to my senator or i talked to somebody on the staff of my senator. Why is it that we say my senator . We say that because the people you represent are proud of their senators. They absolutely feel that connection of pride because thats not just pat toomey of pennsylvania, thats my senator from pennsylvania or bob case from scranton. Thats my senator, and you like that, is people like that. The people back home really do, and United States snrs have a reputation and its deserved. They have a reputation for coolheaded, being erudite. The men and women we send back home to d. C. To look after our interests. We feel a sense of ownership and a sense of pride in our senators. Theres plenty of times ive been around in political gatherings, right here. Theres no way senator toomey is going to allow that. There these no way that senator casey is going to allow that because we feel the pride and something bad is potentially in the wind, and we expect our United States senators not reacting to popular will and not reacting to popular emotions, we expect them to do what is right notwithstanding what is immediately an expedient that the media tells us is the topic of the day. So senators are patriots. Senators are family men and women. They are fierce advocates for the great state in which they represent, and somewhere down far that list of attributes and way below patriot and way pleau love of family and country and way below fierce advocates of the state, far down, at least thats what i thought anyway and i still think that, somewhere far down that list senators have some obligation to be partisans, to represent a group of wheefs shared by other United States senators. I understand that and in fact i have no problem with that system. It helps us debate and decide whats best for america, the robust debate of different points of view and i daresay that senators schumer and mcconnell represent those things in this body and make sure that everything is talked out and robustly debated in this room before United States senators make decisions of extreme importance to the people they represent. I know you arent allow to talk but i dont see either one of them jumping up and down to say im wrong about that. I think United States senators try to listen to each others views and i think United States senators try to do whats right for the country and far down is partisanship. In our system of government and if you read the federalist papers, were very fortunate because the federalist papers were authored as an explanation for why it is the states, the original states should adopt the constitution. These were persuasive documents about why the constitution is a good thing because if the individual state legislatures didnt adopt the constitution, we would not have it, so mr. Jay and mr. Madison and mr. Hamilton, they had an incentive to explain what they were thinking when they wrote it because they are explained to other erudite people who represent individual states why it is that they feel that this is the right thing to do, and, in fact, as many of you well know, madison had to promise that there would be a bill of rights immediately upon adoption or we wouldnt have a constitution. Even then there was horse trading going on in the legislative body of the United States. The other day when i was down here in washington, i came down earlier in the week to try to figure out how to find my way around, i worked in this building 40 years ago. I got lost then and i still do. But in studying the constitution and all the years i was a prosecutor where so many things depend on interpretations of phrases in the constitution, i learned that this body, which one of my worthy colleagues said is the greatest deliberative body in the entire world, and i agree, that was that particular aspect of our government was intentionally created if you read the federalist papers. The last time a body such as the United States senate sat at the pinnacle of government with the responsibility that it has today, it was happening in athens and it was happening in rome. The form of republicanism throughout history has always and without exception fallen because of fights from within, because of partisanship from within, because of bickering from within, and in each one of those examples that i mentions and there are certainly others probably that are smaller countries that lasted for less team that i dont know off the top of my head. Each one of them once there was the vacuum created that the greatest deliberative bodies, the senate of greece sitting in athens and the senate of rome, the moment that they devolved into such partisanship. Its not as though they ceased to exist. They ceased to exist as representative democracy, both replaced by totalitarianism. Paraphrasing the famous quote from Benjamin Franklin and i feel as though i can do that because hes a my founding father, too. He who would trade liberty for some temporary security deserves neither liberty for security. If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose both, and isnt the way we have enshrined in the constitution the conaccepts of liberty that we think are very critical, the very concepts of liberty that drove us to separate from Great Britain, and i cant believe these fellows are quoting what happened prerevolution as if thats somehow a value to us. We left the british system. If were really going to use prerevolutionary history in Great Britain, then the precedent is we have a parliament and we have a king. Is that the press pent that were headed for . Now, its not an accident that the very first liberty if you grant me that our liberties are enumerated in the bill of rights, its not an accident that the very first liberty in the first article of the bill of right is the First Amendment that says Congress Shall make no law abridging freedom of speech, et cetera, Congress Shall make no law. The very first one, the most important one, the ability to have free and robust debate. Free and robust political speech. Something that that mr. Raskin and his team brought up is that its somehow a suggestion from former President Trumps team that when various Public Officials were not denouncing the violence that we saw over the summer, that that was somehow that was the former president equating that speech to his own. Not at all. Exactly backwards. I saw a headline representative so and so seeks to walk back comments about i forgot what it was, something that bothered her. I was devastated when i saw that she thought it was necessary to go on television yesterday or the day before and say she needs to walk back her comments. She should be able to comment as much as she wants, and she should be able to say exactly as she feels, and if she feels that the supporters of then President Trump are not worthy of having their ideas considered she should be permitted to say that and anybody who agrees should be permitted to say that they agree. Thats what we broke away from Great Britain in order to be able to do, to be able to say what we thought in the most robust political debate. My colleague is going to give you a recitation on the First Amendment law of the United States. I command to your attention the analysis hes going to give you. I dont expect and i dont believe the former president expects anybody to walk back any of the language. If thats how they feel about the way things transpired over the last couple of years in this country they should be allowed to say that and i will go to court and defend them if anything happens to them as a result. If the government takes action against that state representative or the u. S. Representative who wants to walk back her comments, the government takes action against her, i have no problem going into court and defending her right to say those things even though i dont agree with them. This trial is not about trading liberty for security. Its about trading its about suggesting that it is a good idea that we give up those liberties that we have so long fought for. We have sent averagies to other parts sent armies to other parts of the world to implement the freedoms that we enjoy. This trial is about trading liberty for the security from the mob . Honestly, no. It cant be. We cant be thinking about that. We cant possibly be suggesting that we punish people for political speech in this country, and if people go and commit lawless acts as a result of their beliefs and they cross the line, they should be locked up, and in fact ive seen quite a number of the complaints that were filed against the people who breached the capitol, some of them charged conspiracy. Not a single one charged with conspiracy with the 45th president of the United States probably because prosecutors have an ethical requirement that they are not allowed to charge people with criminal offenses without probable cause. You might consider that. And if we go down the road that my very worthy adversary here mr. Raskin asks you to go down, the floodgates will open. I was going to say it will instead of floodgates i was going to say originally we could release the whirlwind which is a biblical reference, but i subsequently learned since i got here that that particular phrase has already been taken so i figured i Better Change it to floodgates, but the political pendulum will shift one day. This chamber and the chamber across the way will change one day and partisan impeachment will become commonplace. Are you know, until the impeachment of bill clinton, no one alive had ever lived through a president ial impeachment, not unless some of you were 150 years old. Not a Single Person alive had lived through a president impeachment. Now most of us have lived through three of them. This is supposed to be the ultimate safety valve, the last thing that happens, the most rare treatment and a session where this body is sitting as a court of impeachment, as one of the most rare things that it does. So the slippery slope principle will have taken hold if we continue to go forward with what is happening today and scheduled to happen later this week, and after we are long done here and after there has been a shift in the political winds and after there is a change in the makeup of the United States house of representatives and maybe had a change in the makeup of the United States senate, the pressure from those nokes back home especially from members of the house is going to be tremendous because report founders recognized that the argument that i started with, that political pressure is driven by the need for immediate action because something under contemporary Community Standards really horrific happened and the people represented by the members of the United States house of representatives become incensed, and what do you do with a federal issue, if youre back in suburban philadelphia and something happens that makes the people who live there incensed . You call your congressman and your congressman elected every two years with their pulse on the people of their district, 750,000 people, they respond, and boy do they respond. The congressman calls you back, a staefr calls you back. You get all the information that they have on the issue. Sometimes you even get invited to submit language that would improve whatever the issue is. Well, when the pendulum swings perhaps the next person that gets impeached and is sent here for you to consider is eric holder during fast and furious, the Attorney General of the United States or any other person that the other party considers to be a political danger to them down the road because of their avoid abilities and being articulate and having a resume that shows that they are capable. I picked eric simply because i think i think he has a tremendous hes had a tremendous career and he might be somebody that some republican somewhere might be worried about. So maybe the next person they go after is eric holder, and, you know, the republicans might regain the house in two years. History does tend to suggest that the party out of power in the white house does well in the midterm elections and certainly the 2020 elections, the house gained the House Majority narrowed and there was a gain of republicans so the members of the house, they have to worry about these consequences because if they dont react to whatever the problem of the day is, somebody in that jurisdiction there, somebody is going to say if you make me the congressman, ill react to that, and that means that the sitting member has to worry about it because their terms are short, and its not just members of the house of representatives with their short with their short terms. I saw on television in the last couple of days the honorable gentleman from nebraska, mr. Sasse, i saw that he faced backlash back home because of a vote he made some weeks ago. The Political Party was complaining about a decision he made as a United States senator. You know, its interesting because i dont want to steal the thunder from the other lawyers, but nebraska, youre going to hear, is quite a judicial thinking place, and just maybe senator sasse is on to something. Youll hear about what it is that the nebraska courts have to say about the issue that you all are deciding this week. There seem to be some pretty smart jurists in nebraska and i cant believe that a United States senator doesnt know that. A senator like the gentleman from nebraska Whose Supreme Court history is ever present in his mind and rightfully so. He, he faces the whirlwind even though he knows what the judiciary in his state thinks. People back home will demand their house members continue the cycle as political fortunes rise and fall. The only entity that stands between the bitter infighting that led to the downfall of the greek republic and the Roman Republic and the American Republic is the senate of the United States. Shall the business of the senate and thus the nation come to a halt, not just for the current weeks while a new president is trying to fill out his administration but shall the business of the senate and the nation come to a halt because impeachment becomes the rule rather than the rare exception . I know you can see this as a possibility because not a single one of you ever thought you would be doing a second impeachment inside of 13 months, and the pressure will be enormous to respond in kind. To quote every rhett dirkson, the gallant men and women of the senate will not allow that to happen and this republic will endure because the top responsibility of a United States senator and the top characteristic that you all have in common, and, boy, this is a diverse group, but there isnt a single one of you who, a, doesnt consider yourself a patriot of the United States and, two, there isnt a single one of you who doesnt comfort other 99 to be patriots of the United States, and that is why this attack on the constitution will not prevail. The document that is before you is flawed. The rule of the senate concerning impeachment documents, articles of impeachment rule 23 says that such documents cannot be divided. You might have sewn that we wrote that in the answer. It might have been a legalistic or legalese for the newspapers to opine on very much but there is some significance. The House Managers, clever fellows that they are, they cast a broad net. They need to get 67 of you to agree they are right, and thats a good strategy. I would use the same strategy except there is a rule that says you cant use that strategy. You see, rule 23 says that the the article of impeachment is indivisible and the reason why thats significant is you have to agree that every single aspect of the entire document warrants impeachment because its an allornothing document. You cant cut out parts that you agree with, warrant impeachment and parts that dont because its not divisible. It flat out says in the senate rules its not divisible. Now, previous imimpeachments like president clinton said the the President Shall be found guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors by engaging in one or more of the following and gave you a list. They didnt do that here. It has to be all or nothing and some of these things that you are asked to consider might be close calls in your mind, but one of them is not. The argument about the 14th amendment is absolutely ridiculous. The House Managers tell you that the president should be impeached because he violated the 14th amendment, and heres what the 14th amendment says. No person shall be a senator or representative in congress or elector of president and Vice President or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States or any other state who having previously taken an oath as a member of congress or as an officer of the United States or a member of any state legislature or as an executive or judicial individual and shall have engaged in insurrection against the same or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof, but congress may vote by twothirds of each house to remove such disability. Now, it doesnt take a constitutional scholar to recognize that thats written for people who fought for the confederacy, previous military officers in the confederacy and doesnt take a constitutional scholar to say that they be convicted first in a court with due process of law, so that question can never be ripe until those things have happened. Now if you agree with those arguments, and i know you all get your constitutions out and youll read it, and if you agree with those arguments, the suggestion that the 14th amendment applies here is ridiculous, and if you come to that conclusion because the managers have not separated out the counts, any counts within the article of impeachment, the whole thing falls. I didnt write that. They are married to that. I wrote it out in individual responses because i didnt know how to respond to the to the cast the wide net effort, and fortunately senators sometime in the mast realized that you cant do that because you passed a rule that says, hey, you cant do that. So thats why its gnawed. Its flawed in other ways, too, and my colleagues will explain that. I was struck i thought that the House Managers who spoke earlier were brilliant speakers, and i made some notes hand they will hear about what i think about some of the things that they shade later when im closing the case, but i thought they were brilliant speakers and i loved listening to them. The they are smart fellows, but why arent the why are the House Managers agreed and why is the majority of the house of representatives afraid of the American People . I mean, lets understand why we are really here. We are really here because the majority in the house of representatives does not want to face donald trump as a political rival in the future. Thats the real reason were here, and thats why they have to get over the jurisdictional hurdle which they cant get over, but thats why they have to get over that in order to get to the part of the constitution that allows removal, so thats the nobody says it that plainly, burks unfortunately, i have a way of speaking that way, and and the reason that i am having trouble with with the argument is the American People just spoke and they just changed administrations so in the light most favorable to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle here, their system works, the people are smart enough in the light most favorable to them, they are smart enough to pick a new administration if they dont like the old one and they just did and hes down there on Pennsylvania Avenue now probably wondering how come none of my stuff is happening up at the capitol . Why why do you why the members of the house of representatives, the majority of the house of representatives, why are they hey frayed of the very people that sent them to do this job, the people they hope will continue to send them back here . Why are they afraid that those same people who were smart enough to pick them as their congressman arent smart enough to pick somebody who is a candidate of president of the United States. Why feel that people all of a sudden will forgot how to choose an administration in the next few years and, in fact, this happens all the time when there are changes in administrations from oneterm president s to others. Well, nixon perhaps sort of one and a half term but nixon to ford, ford to carter, carter to reagan. Bush 41 to clinton. It happens. The people get tired of an administration they dont want and they know how to change it. And they just did so why think that they went know how to do it in 2024 if they want to, or is that what the fear is . Is the fear that the people in 2024 in fact will want to chang hand will want to go back to donald trump and not the current occupant of the white house President Biden, because all these other things the people were smart enough to do it and choose who the president should be and all the other times they were smart enough to choose who the members of congress were and by the way choose you as well, but they are not smart enough to know how to change the administration, especially since they did so it seems pretty evident to me that they do know how. It has worked 100 of the time, 100 of the time in the United States when the people got had been fed up and had enough of the occupant of the white house they changed the occupant of the white house. Now have i think now i know that one of the strengths of this body is deliberative action and i saw senator manchin on the tv the other night talking about the filibuster, and the main point was that senator manchin was explaining to those of us who dont operate here all the time that this body has an obligation to try to reach consensus across the aisle toelecto legitimize the decisions that they make. That came across on the television and thats why the senate of the United States is different than other places. The constitution is a document used to protect the rights of the minority, not the rights of the majority. Congress shall make no law hey bridging all of these things. Thats because those were the things that were of concern at the time. Its easy to be in favor of liberty and equality and free speech when its popular. P i think that i want to give my colleague mr. Schoen an tonight to explain to all of us the the legal analysis on jurisdiction. Ill be quite frank with you, we changed what we were going to do on a count that we thought that the House Managers presentation was well done, and i wanted you to know that we have responses to those things. I thought that what the first part of the case was which was the equivalence of a motion to dismiss was going to be about jurisdiction alone and one of the fellows who spoke with the House Manager, a former criminal defense attorney, seemed to suggest that theres something nefarious that we were discussing jurisdiction and trying to get the case dismissed but this is where it happens in the case because jurisdiction is the first thing that has to be found. We have count arguments to everything that they used, and you will hear them later on in the case from mr. Vanderveen and myself but on the issue of jurisdiction, the scholarly issue of jurisdiction, ill leave you with this before i invite david to come up and give you the erudite explanation. Some of this was shown on the screen, but article i section iii says judgments in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office and disqualification to hold the office of honor, trust in the United States but they should never be liable and subject to incitement trial and judged according to the law so this idea of january am nesty is nonsense. If my colleagues on this side of the chamber actually think that President Trump committed a criminal offense. Lets understand a high crime is a felony and a misdemeanor is a misdemeanor. The words havent changes that much all the time after hes out of office, you go and arrest him so there is no opportunity where the president of the United States can run rampant in jaire at the end of his term and go away scottfree. The department of justice doesnt know what to do with those people and so far ive not seen activity in that department and the people who stormed the building and breached it were not accused of conspiring with the president , but the section i read, judgment, the bad things that happen, ire, what we are doing shall not extend further than removal of office. What is so hard about that . Which of those words are unclear . Shall not extend further than removal from office. The President Trump no longer the object of the constitution has been achieved. He was removed by the voters. Mr. Schoen, are you ready . Now that ive taken all of his t time. Thank you, mr. President. President , leaders, quick adjustment. I stand before you amid what i always thought as the hall owed ground of democracy. American lives have been changed so dramatically in this room in just my lifetime through so many of your legislative initiatives from the Civil Rights Act when i was a child through most recently the first step act. Laws that have provided major opportunities for americans to move forward and upward, and more fully enjoy all of the attributes of what has been the greatest nation on earth. Ive seen the changes these laws have made through my clients every day for the past 36 years. These laws have enabled me to fight for their enjoyment of a fair state in their american project. I stand before a group of 100 United States senators who have chosen to serve your country from all corners of this great nation, given up all sorts of professions, time with family and perhaps other, more lucrative opportunities to serve your country. Mr. President , you are a man who so honorably served it is an honor to appear in this historic hall of democracy, yet today that honor is tempered by an overriding feeling of grave concern. Grave concern for the danger to the institution of the presidency that i believe even convening these proceedings indicates. The joy i believed i would feel if i ever had the great privilege of appearing before this body is replaced by sadness and pain. My overriding emotion is, frankly, wanting to cry for what i believe these proceedings will do to our great, so longenduring, sacred constitution and to the American People on both sides of the great divide that now characterizes our nation. Esteemed members of the senate, Going Forward with this Impeachment Trial of a former president of the United States is unconstitutional for reasons we have set out in our brief, some of which we will focus on here and, as a matter of policy, it is wrong, as wrong can be, for all of us as a nation. We are told by those who favor having the proceedings that we have to do it for accountability, but anyone truly interested in real accountability for what happened at the capitol on july 6th january 6th would, vg, insist on waiting for a full investigation to be completed. Indeed, one is under way in earnest already, intent on getting to the bottom of what happened. Anyone interested in ensuring that its truly the one or ones responsible from whom accountability is sought would more than willingly wait for the actual evidence, especially with new evidence coming in every day about preplanning, about those who were involved and about their agenda, bearing no relationship to the claims made here. They say you need this trial before the nation can heal, that the nation cannot heal without it. I say our nation cannot possibly heal with it. With this trial, you will open up new and bigger wounds across the nation for a great Many Americans see this process for exactly what it is, a chance by a group of partisan politicians, seeking to eliminate donald trump from the american political scene and seeking to disenfranchise 74 million plus american voters, and those who dare to share their political beliefs and vision of america. They hated the results of the 2016 election and want to use this Impeachment Process to further their political agenda. These elitists have mocked them for four years. Theyve called their fellow americans who believe in their country and their constitution deplorables and the latest talk is that they need to deprogram those who supported donald trump and the grand old party. But at the end of the day, this is not just about donald trump or any individual. This is about our constitution and abusing the Impeachment Power for political gain. They tell us that we have to have this Impeachment Trial, such as it is, to bring about unity. But they dont want unity. And they know this socalled trial will tear the country in half, leaving tens of millions of americans feeling left out of the nations agenda, as dictated by one Political Party that now holds the power in the white house and our national legislature. But theyre proud americans who never quit getting back up when theyre down and they dont take dictates from another party based on partisan force feeding. This trial will tear this country apart, perhaps like we have seen only once before in our history, and to help the nation heal we now learn that the House Managers, in their wisdom, have hired a Movie Company and a Large Law Firm to create, manufacture and supplies for you a package designed by experts to chill and horrify you and our fellow americans. They want to put you through a 16hour presentation over two days, focusing on this as if it were some sort of blood sport. And to what end . For healing, for unity, for accountability . Not for any of those. For surely there are much better ways to achieve each. It is again for pure, raw, misguided partisanship that makes them believe playing to our wrs instincts somehow is good. They dont need to show you movies to show you that the riot happened here. We will stipulate that it happened. And you know all about it. This is a process fueled irresponsibly by base hatred by these House Managers and those who gave them their charge, and they are willing to sacrifice our National Character to advance their hatred and their fear that one day they might not be the party in power. They have a very different view of democracy and freedom from justice jackson. Who once wrote, but freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch at the heart of the existing order. They have a very different view of democracy and freedom. This is nothing less than the political weaponization of the Impeachment Process, pure, raw sport, fueled by the misguided idea of party over country when, in fact, both will surely suffer. I can promise you that if these proceedings go forward, everyone will look bad. You will see and hear many members of our congress saying and doing things they most surely will regret. Perhaps far worse than a moment of personal shame, in a world in which history passes from our memories in a moment, our great country, a model for all the world, will be far more divided and our standing Around The World will be badly broken. Our arch enemies who pray each and every day for our downfall will watch with glee, glowing in the moment as they see you at your worst and our country in internal divide. Lets be perfectly clear. If you vote to proceed with this Impeachment Trial, future senators will recognize that you bought into a radical constitutional theory that clearly from the language of the constitution itself and holds, and this is in their brief that any civil officer who ever dares to want to serve his or her country must know that they will be subject to impeachment long after their service in office has ended, subject only to the political and Cultural Landscape of the day that is in operation at any future time. This is exactly the position taken by the House Managers at page 65 of their brief. Unprecedented, radical position. They unabashedly say so. Imagine the consequences for civil officers you know and who you believed served so honorably, but in the view of a future Congress Might one day to be impeachment worthy. Imagine it now because your imagination is the only limitation. The House Managers tell you a correct reading of the Impeachment Power under the constitution is that it has no temporal limit and can reach back in time without limitation to target anyone who dare to serve our nation as a civil officer. Now add that to their demand that you members put on the snap impeachment they returned in this case and could do again in the future, if you endorse it by Going Forward with this Impeachment Trial. This is an untenable combination that literally puts the institution of the