Russell lowell to provide arsenic jurors with just one perspective. Once to every man and nation comes the moment to decide. And despite of truth with falsehood for good or evil side. Mighty god, could it reallybe that simple . Could it really the just, striving against falsehood and good striving against evil . Powerful redeemer, have mercy on our beloved man. We pray in your magnificent name. Amen. Will you join me in the pledge of allegiance. [pledge of allegiance] morning business is closed. And the senate will convene in a court of impeachment as i have said to be seated, theres no objection, the journal of proceedings in the trial are approved today. We asked the sergeant at arms to make the proclamation. Hear me, hear me. All are commanded to keep silence on pain of imprisonment while the senate of the United States is sitting for the trial of the article of impeachment exhibited by the house of representatives against donald john from, former president of the United States. [inaudible] the present in the Senate Chamber of the managers of the house of representatives. And counsel for the former president of the United States. Majority leader is recognized. Mister president , in the moment i will call on a resolution to govern the structure of the second investment trial of Donald John Trump. Its been agreed to by the house managers, the former president s council and his 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 from. The greatest 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. Mister president , i send a resolution to death on my behalf and that all the republican leader to the organizing of the nextphases of this trial. Will report. Senate resolution 47 will provide for related procedures concerning the article impeachment against Donald John Trump , former president of the unitedstates. The question occurs on the adoption of the resolution. I asked for the tram ones and nays. The clerk willcall the role. [roll call]. [roll call]. [roll call vote]. [roll call vote]. [roll call vote]. [roll call vote]. [roll call vote]. [roll call vote]. [roll call vote]. [roll call vote]. [roll call vote]. [roll call vote]. [roll call vote]. [roll call vote]. [roll call vote]. [roll call vote]. [roll call vote]. [roll call vote]. [silence]. [silence] this vote, the yeas are 89, the nay are 11. A resolution is agreed to. Pursuant to the provisions of the Senate Resolution 47, there should not be four hours by the parties equally divided on the question of whether Donald John Trump is subjectto the jurisdiction of a court of impeachment. Notwithstanding the expiration of his term inthat office. Mister raskin, or a argue a proponent or opponentof this question . Mister castor, are you a proponent or opponent of this question . Thank you. Mister manager raskin, your party may proceed first. We will beable to reserve real time if you wish. Mister raskin, you are recognized. Thank you very much mister president , distinguished members of the senate. Goodafternoon. My name is jamie raskin and its my honor to represent the eighth Congressional District in the house to serve as lead house manager and mister president we will the reserve time for real, thank you. Because ive been a professor of constitutional law for three decades i know there are a lot of people are dreading endless lectures about the federalist papers here. Please breathe easy. I remember well wh online that a professor is someone who speaks while other people are sleeping. You will not be hearing extended lectures from the because our case is based on cold hard facts. Its all about the facts. President trump has 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 and 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 would be a high crime and misdemeanor in your first year as president , in your second year as president , in your third year as president and for the vast majority of your fourth year in president you can suddenly do in your last few weeks inaugust without facing any constitutional accountability at all. This would create a brandnew january exception to the constitution of the United States of america. A january exception. Everyone can see immediately why this is so dangerous. Its an invitation to the president to take his best shot at anything you may want to do on his way out the door , including using violence means to lock that door. To hang on to the oval office at all costs. And if you 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 coordinate that President Trumps lawyers advance, we risk allowing january 6 to become our future. And what will that 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 steel. [applause] 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 to the capital. [chanting] take the capital. [shouting] everybody in [shouting] metal speaker, the Vice President of the unitedstates senate. [applause] [chanting] usa, usa. The constitution says you have to protect our country and you cant vote on fraud and fraud rates of everything, doesnt it . When you get somebody in a fraud youre allowed to go by very different rules. So i hope mike has the courage to dowhat he has to do. We fight like hell and if you dont fight like hell youre not going to have a country anymore. [shouting] were going to go down pennsylvania avenue. And were going to the capital and were going to try and give our republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones dont need any of our help. Going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. Majority leader. We are debating a step that has never been taken in american history. President trump claims the election was stolen. The assertions range from specific local allegations to constitutional arguments to sweeping conspiracy theories. But my colleagues, nothing before us proves illegality anywhere near the massive scale, the massive scale that would have kept the entire election. [shouting] [shouting] [shouting]. [shouting] my challenge today is not about the good people of arizona. I will stand in recess until the call to the chair. Thank you. [shouting] mister speaker, can i have water in the chamber . The house will be in order. [shouting] the house will be in order. [chanting] stop the steel. Stop the steel. [shouting] [chanting] [shouting] trader pence, trader pence. [shouting] stop the steal. Stop the steal. Their leaving. They areleaving. [chanting] break it down. Break it down. [shouting] get down, get down. [shouting] thats why we need to have 30,000 guns. Lets go. Lets go. [shouting]. [shouting]. [shouting] [chanting] 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 wecant play into the hands of these people. We have to have peace. So go home. We love you. You are 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. [shouting]. [shouting] we will take down every one of you. [silence] senators, the president was impeached by the us house of representatives on january 13 for doing that. You ask what a high crime and misdemeanor is under our constitution . Thats a high crime and misdemeanor. If thats notand Impeachable Offense then there is no such thing. And if the president s arguments for a january exception are upheld , then 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 the framers of our constitution knew it. Thats why they created a constitution with an oath written into it that finds the president from his very first day in office until his very last day in office and every day inbetween. Under that constitution, and under that both, the president of the United States is forbidden to commit high crimes and misdemeanors against the people at any point that hes in office. Indeed, that one specific reason for 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 getattacked. Everything that we know about the language of the constitution, the framers original understanding and intent, prior to practice commonsense 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 misdemeanors. We exercise that power on january 13. The president is undisputed committed his offense while he was president. 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 1, section 3 gives the senate the sole power to try all impeachments. The senate has the power, the sole power to try all impeachments. All means all under no exceptions to the rule. But because the senate has jurisdiction to try all impeachments and has jurisdiction to try this one. Its really that simple. The vast majority of constitutional scholars who study the question and waited on the proposition being advanced by the president , this january exception heretofore unknown agree with us. That includes the nations most prominent conservatives, legal scholars. Including former 10th circuit judge michael mcconnell. Hes a cofounder of the Federalist Society, stephen calabrese. Ronaldreagans solicitor general charles reed. Luminary washington lawyer charles cooper. Among hundreds of other constitutional lawyers and professors , i commend the people i named, to read the recent writing to you in the newspapers over the last several days. And all of the key precedents along with detailed explanations of the constitutional history and textual analysis appear in the trial brief we filed last week and the reply brief that we filed very early this morning. Ill spare you replay i want to highlight a few key points from constitutional history that strikes me as compelling and foreclosing President Trumps argument that theres a secret january exception away in the constitution. The first point comes from english history which matters because as hamilton wrote england provided a model from which the idea of this institution has been borrowed. And 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 impeachments of a Government Official 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 the corrupt guide, the framers knew all about it strongly supported the impeachment. In fact the hastings case was invoked by name at the convention. It was the only specific impeachment case they discussed at the convention. It played a key role in their adoption of the high crimes and misdemeanors 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 concern when virginia and george mason held the hastings impeachment as a model for us in the writing of our constitution. The early state constitutions supported the idea to read every single state constitution in the 1780s either specifically said that former official 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 there was an overwhelming presumption in favor of allowing legislature to hold former officials accountable in this way. Any departure from the norm would have been a big deal and yet theres no sign anywhere that that ever happened. Some states including delaware even confined impeachment only to officials who had already left office. This confirms their removal was never seen as the exclusive purpose of impeachment in america. The goal was always about accountability, protecting society the official corruption. Delaware matters for another reason. Writing about impeachment in the federalist papers, hamilton explained the president of america would stand upon nobackground in the governor of new york upon worst ground and the governors of maryland and delaware. He emphasized the president is even more accountable than officials in delaware where as i noted the constitution clearly allowed impeachment of former officials and nobody involved in the convention ever said the framers meant to reject this widely accepted , deeply rooted understanding of the word impeachment when they wrote it into our constitution. The Convention Debate instead confirms this interpretation. There while discussing impeachment the framers repeatedly returned to the threat of president ial corruption aimed directly at elections. The heart of selfgovernance. Almost perfectly anticipating President Trump, william devi of North Carolina explained impeachment was for a president who spared quote, no effort or means whatever to get himself reelected. Hamilton in federalist one said the greatest danger to our republic and the liberties of the people comes from political opportunists who begin as demagogues and and 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 intent focused on danger to elections, and the peaceful transfer of power, it is inconceivable that they design 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. Thats as a matter of history and original understanding. There is no merit to President Trumps claim that he can insight and interaction and insist weeks later that the senate lacks the power to even hear evidence at trial, to even hold a trial. The true rule was stated by former president John Quincy Adams when he correctly 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 from colorado will further pursue the Relevant Senate precedents. Explain why this bodies practice has been supported by the text of the constitution and mister selenium rhode island then response to the fallacies presented by the president s council. And after these gentlemen speak i will return to discuss the importance, the fundamental importance of the Senate Rejecting President Trumps argument in the preservation of democratic selfgovernance and the rule along. In the United States of america. I know will turn it over to my colleague, mister lewis of colorado. Mister president , distinguished senators. My name is joan 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. Nora case with such a heavy and weighty constitutional question. For you all to decide. Thankfully, as lead manager raskin so thoroughly explained, the framers answered that question for you. For us. And you dont need to be a constitutional scholar to know that the argument President Trump ask you to adopt is not just wrong. Its dangerous. And you dont have to take my word for it. This body, the worlds greatest deliberative body the United States senate has reached that same conclusion. In one form or another in the past 200 years in multiple occasions. 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 cant commit grave offenses in their final days and escape any congressional response. Thats not how our constitution works. Lets start with the president. With what has happened in this very chamber. Id liketo focus on just two cases. Ill go through them quickly. One of them is the nations very first impeachment phase which actually was of a former official. In 1797 about a decade after our country ratified our constitution there was a senator tennessee by the name of william blunt. Who was caught conspiring with 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 ever againlink federal office. The senate proceeded with the trial with none other than Thomas Jefferson presiding. Now, warren argued the senate couldnt conceive because he had already been expelled but heres the interesting thing. Expressly disavowed any claim that former officials cant ever be impeached. Unlike President Trump, he was very clear that he respected and understood that he could not even trying to argue that ridiculous position. Even impeached senator blunt recognize the inherent absurdity of that view. Heres what he said and i certainly never shall contend that an officer may first offense and avoid by resigning his office. Thats the point. There was no doubt because the founders were 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 precedent that this body has to consider. The trial of former secretary of war william bell. In short in 1876 the house discovered he was involved in a massive kickback scheme. Hours for the house today had discovered this product released its report documenting the scheme, he rushed to the white house to resign, tendered his resignation to president ulysses grant. To avoid any further inquiry into hismisconduct and of course to avoid being disqualified from holding federal office in the future. Later that day , aware of the resignation what did the house do denmark the house moved forward and unanimously impeached him. Making clear its power to impeach a former official and when his casereached the senate, this body , belnap made the same argument President Trump is making today. That you all lack jurisdiction, any power to try him because hes a former official. Many senators at that time when they heard that argument literally they were sitting in the same chair as 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 arguments with dangerous implications. Itwould literally need 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 case is clear precedent that the senate must proceed with this trial since it rejected pretrial dismissal, permits jurisdiction and moved to a full consideration of the merits. He was ultimately not convicted but only after a thorough Public Inquiry into his misconduct created a record of his wrongdoing and assured this accountability and deterred anyone else from considering such corruption by making clear it was intolerable. The trial served important constitutional purposes. Given that president i described you, given all that president embarks, you can imagine my surprise at manager raskins surprise when we were reviewing the trial brief which his counsel insists that the senate actually didnt decide anything in thebelknap case. They say its not my words, ill quote from their trial brief. It cannot be read as foreclosing an argument that they never dealt with. Never dealt with . The senate didnt debate this question for two hours. Thesenate 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 decide decisively the senate has jurisdiction. And that it could proceed. That must proceed to a full trial and by the way unlike belknap as we know, President Trump was not impeached for runofthemill corruption. Misconduct, he was impeached for inciting a violent insurrection. An insurrection where people died. In this building. An insurrection that desecrated our seat of government and if congress were to stand completely beside 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 noticed, none of us no matter our party or our politics once that. Now, weve gone through the highlights of the president and i think its important that you know as the manager raskin mentioned that scholars who overwhelmingly have reviewed the same president fall to the same conclusion. The senate must hear this case. Lets go through just a few short examples. To start all of us i know are familiar with the Federalist Society. Some of you may know stephen, breezy personally, cofounder of the Federalist Society read 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 center hawley later held. Here is what mister calabrese has to say. On january 21 he issued a public letter stating are carefully considered use of the law lead all of us to agree that the constitution permits the impeachment, conviction and disqualification of former officers including president s and by the way hes not the only one as lead manager raskin said. Ronald reagans former solicitor general among many others. Another prominent conservative scholar known to many of you again personally is former 10th Circuit Court of appeals judge, judge michael mcconnell. He was nominated by president george w. Bush. It was confirmed by this body unanimously. Senator hatch, many of you served with this to say about judge mcconnell. That hes an honest man. Hes beholden to no one and no group. What judge mcconnell had to say about the question that youre debating this afternoon . He said the following. Given the impeachment of mister trump was legitimate, the text makes clear the senate has power to drive at impeachment. Uber manager raskin mentioned another lawyer, chuck cooper in washington has represented former attorney general jeff sessions. House minorityleader kevin mccarthy. He issued an editorial two daysago , very powerful observing scholarship has matured substantially and ultimately arguments that President Trumps champion championing are beset by serious weaknesses. Finally ive went through a lot scholars and ill finish on this one. Theres another scholar i know some of you know some of you have spoken with recently. Up until just a few weeks ago he was recognized 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 need. These are his words. First avery thorough study he explained that quote, the resignation from office does not prevent trial on articles of impeachment. Thats professor charlies work. Same piece, he celebrated the belknap trial and described it as a corrective measure that help the system regain legitimacy. He wrote another article, several on this topic and this one is hundred 46 page study, very detailed and in that study he said quote, that the decision in belknap was correct in its view at impeachment historically had extended to former officials such as warren hastings, you heard the manager raskin described. As you can see professor turley argued the house could have impeached and the senate could have tried Richard Nixon after he resigned. His quote on this is very telling. Future president s would not assume that your 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 this country. Not my words, not lead manager raskins words professor Jonathan Turleys work. I agree with him. Because hes exactly right. Now, the question one might reasonably ask after going through all those quotes of such noted jurists and scholars is why is there such agreement on this topic . The reason is simple. Because its what the constitution says area i want to walk you through three provisions of theconstitution that make clear that the senate must try this case. First, lets start with what the constitution says about congresss power in article 1. You heard lead manager raskin make this point and its worth underscoring. Article 1, section 2 gives the house full power of impeachment. Article 1 section 3 gives the senate the sole power to try all impeachments. Based on President Trumps argument would think that language includes caveats. Exceptions area 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, unqualified grants of jurisdictional power to the house to impeached and the senate totry all impeachments. Not some, all. Former judge mcconnell, the judge we talked about earlier provides very effective textual analysis of this provision. You can see it up here on the slide and ill give you the highlights. He says and i quote this is judge mcconnell, given the impeachment of mister trump was legitimate the text makes clear the senate has power to try that impeachment. Again, here is what its pretty interesting, when we presented this argument in our trial brief which we filed over a week ago and related out, stepbystep so that you could consider it and so that opposing counsel could consider it as well. We received President Trumps response yesterday. And thetrial brief offers no real. To this point. None. And in fairness, i cant think of any convincing response. The constitution is just exceptionally clear on this point area perhaps they will have something to say today about what they did not yesterday area theres another provision worth mentioning here because theres been a lot of confusion about it and im going to try to clear this up. Its the provision on removal and disqualification. We all know the senate imposes judgment only when it convicts. On the screen youll see article 1 section 3, clause 7 and with that in mind language says that the senate connects the judgment shall not shall not extend further than removal and disqualification. Thats it. The meaning is clear. 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 formerofficers but it doesnt have the power to go any further than. As i understand President Trumps argument, they believe that this language somehow says that disqualification can only follow the rule of current officers. But it doesnt. That interpretation essentially rewrites the constitution. It adds words that are 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 qualification. And this by the way is not the first time that this direct question has been debated in this chamber. Disqualification from the constitution and would put wrongdoers in charge of whether the senate can try. Third and final reason why President Trump must stand trial but provision of article one of the constitution. You will see here on the screen that the constitution twice describes the accused in an impeachment trial. Here is what i want you to focus on. The adjusting thing is notice the words, it refers to a person and a party being impeached. Again, we know that the framers gave a lot of thought to the words that they chose and even had a Style Committee during the constitutional convention. They could have written civil officers here and they did that elsewhere in the constitution and that would ultimately have limited appeasement trials to occur with officials but instead they used broader language to describe who could be tried by the United States senate. Who could be with him trial rather for impeachment other than the civil officers, who else could a person or a party be . There is only one possible answer, former officers. Again, that might explain why during the bell connect trial senator of delaware later became the secretary of state of the United States and he sat right where senator carpers city now and 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 and the only group that could possibly encompass was former officials like belknap and of course here like President Trump. And just so we are 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. There is one provision that President Trump relies on almost exclusively, article two, section four and im sure you will see it when they present their arguments. Their argument is that the language you will see on the screen somehow prevents you from holding this trial by making removal for office in absolute requirement but again, where does language say that . Where does it to say anything and that about your jurisdiction . In fact, this provision isnt even in the part of the constitution that addresses your authority. It is an article two, not article one. It certainly says nothing about former officials. President trumps interpretations doesnt square with history, regionalism, textualism, in fact, even chuck cooper the famous conservative lawyer i mentioned earlier with clients like the House Minority leader has concluded that this provision of the constitution that President Trump relies on cuts against his position those are his words. That is because as cooper says article two, section four means just what it says. In the first half it describes what the official must do to be impeached, namely 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. That is it. In coopers words is 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 75 page brief they struggle to find any professors to support their position they did cite one professor though, professor holt, expert in this field who they claimed agreed with them that the only purpose of impeachment is removal. Professor colts position which they had to have known because it is in the article that they cite in the brief is that removal is quote, not the sole end of impeachment. Actually, in that same article he describes the view advocated by president Trump Lawyers as having deep flaws. Again, you do not have to take my word for it. You can take professor they cited in their brief, take his word for it. He tweeted about it on the screen here this is what he had to say. I will not read through it in great detail but i will simply give you the highlights. President trumps brief sites might 2001 article on late impeachment a lot but in several places they mr. President what i wrote quite badly. There were multiple examples of such flat out misrepresentations and they didnt have to be disingenuous and misleading like this. This key constitutional scholar relied on in President Trump set it right. I have explained in great detail the many reasons why the argument President Trump advocates for here today is wrong. I just want to close with a note about why it is dangerous. Lead manager raskin explained that impeachment exists to protect the American People from officials who abuse their power. And 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 capital on january 6. I was on the floor with lead manager raskin like every one of you i was evacuated as the violent mob stormed the capitals gates. What you experienced that day, but we experienced that day, what our country experienced that day is the framers Worst 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 Sicilian he and i have the honor of resenting the first Congressional District of rhode island. As i hope is not clear from the arguments of ms. Mr. Raskin, impeachment is not merely about removing someone from office. Fundamentally impeachment exists to protect our constitutional system and to keep each of us safe and to uphold our freedoms and to safeguard our democracy. It achieves that by deterring abuse of the extraordinary power that we entrust to our president and the very first day in office to the very last day. It also ensures accountability for president s who harm us or our government. In the aftermath of a tragedy it allows us an opportunity to come together and to heal by working through what happened and reaffirming our constitutional principles. 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. Now, 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. It is 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 and i would like to emphasize in greater detail the extraordinary constitutional offense that the former president thanks you have no power whatsoever to adjudicate. While spreading lies about the election outcome and a brazen attempt to retain power against the will of the American People he incited and armed, angry mob to riot and not just anywhere but here in the seat of our government and in the capital during a joint session of congress when the Vice President presided while we carried out peaceful transfer of power which was interrupted for the first time in our history. This was a disaster of historic proportions. It was also an unforgivable betrayal of the oath of office, the oath he swore, and oath he sullied and dishonored to advance his own personal interest. 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 injury as a result of President Trumps actions that presented prevented greater tragedy. At trial, we will prove with overwhelming evidence that President Trump is singularly directly responsible for inciting the assault on the capital. We will also prove that his dereliction of duty, his desire to seek personal advantage from the mayhem and his decision to issue weeds further inciting the mob, attacking the Vice President all compounded the already enormous damage. Virtually every american who saw those events unfold on television with absolute horrified by the events of january 6. But we also know how President Trump himself felt about the attacks. He told us that here is what he tweeted at 6 01 as the capital was in shambles and as dozens of Police Officers and other Law Enforcement officers late battered and bruised and bloodied. Here is 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 and celebrated their cause and validated their attack and told him, remember this day forever. Hours after they marched through these halls looking to assassinate Vice President spence, the speaker of the house and any of us they could find. Given all of that, it is no wonder that President Trump would rather talk about jurisdiction and i suppose the january exception, rather than talk about what happened on january 6, make no mistake these arguments are dead wrong. They are a distraction 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 and i would like to cover the remainder and address the broader issues at stake in this trial. For starters, and an extension of his mistaken reading of the constitution President Trump insists that he cannot face trial in the senate because hes really a private citizen. He references here the bill of attainder clause. But as was just explained, the constitution refers to the defendant in and impeachment trial as a person and a party and certainly he counts as one of those. Thats also apply common sense. Here is the reason he now insists on being called the ready for the of the United States. Rather than a citizen trump. This is not a grandly selected private citizen but a former officer of the United States government, former president of the United States of america and he is treated differently under law called the former president s act. For years we trusted him with more power than anyone else on earth and as a 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, so is his claim that there is 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 pose absolutely no risk whatsoever of subjecting private citizen to impeachment to their private conduct. To emphasize the point President Trump was impeached while he was in office for conduct in office and the alternative once again is january exception which are most powerful officials that commit the most terrible abuses and then resigned to lead office and suddenly claim the they are just a private citizen who cant be held accountable at all. In the same vein of President Trump and his lawyers argued that 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 on that in the house has repeatedly acknowledged that fact but in the vast majority of cases the houses rightly recognize that an official resignation or departure makes the extraordinary step of impeachment unnecessary and maybe even unwise. As a house manager rightly explains in the belknap case and i quote, there is no likelihood that we shall ever on lumber the clumsy and bulky monster piece of ordinance to take aim at an object from which all danger has gone by. President trumps case is different. The danger has not gone by and this 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. This invites further abuse of power and 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 that precedent, that i just described, would lie about a loaded weapon ready for the hand of any future president who decided in his final months to make a play for Unlimited Power paid think of the danger. Here is the rare case in which love of the constitution and commitment to our democracy requires the house to impeach. It is for the same reason the senate can and must try this case. Next, President Trump will assert that somehow significant or matters that the chief justice is not presiding over this trial. Let me state this very plainly. It does not matter. It is not significant. Under article one, Section Three when the president of the United States is tried the chief justice shall preside. There is only one person who is president of United States at the time. Right now Joseph R Biden junior is the 46th president of the United States. As a result the requirement that the chief justice preside isnt triggered but 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 does not preside the Vice President presides and it would be a concept for summer two preside over a child who would become president if there was a conviction. There isnt that concerned when you have a foreign present on trial or for that matter when you have anyone on trial other than the current president. It is why the chief justice presides only in that single case though 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 because as he put it this impeachment is somehow unconstitutional. So far as i understand it from reading the pleadings of this case this defense involves cobbling together a bunch of meritless eagle arguments and all of them attempting to focus on substance rather than jurisdiction and insisting that these kitchen sink objections leave the senate to not try the case. Some say it may raise these points at this juncture i feel obligingly to address this. He may argue, for example, that he did not receive enough process in the house even though the house proceedings are more like a grand jury action which is followed later by trial and 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 and even though we are going to put that evidence before you at this trial and even though we have a full and fair opportunity to respond to it before all of you and even though hundreds of others involved in the events of generally six have already been charged for their role in the text of the present has incited even though we invited him to voluntarily come here and testify to tell his story the request that 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 also completely irrelevant to the question of whether you should hold this trial and that question is answered by the constitution and the answer is yes. In addition separate from his new process complaints President Trump and his counsel, particularly his counsel, have boasted on tv that to counter the undisputed evidence of what actually happened in this case you will see video clips and there was no video clips of other politicians, including democratic politicians using what they consider incendiary language. Apparently they think this will establish some sort of equivalent or that it will show in contrast that President Trumps save america rally was not so bad. Like so much of what president lawyers might say today that is a given and its a parler game meant to inflame partisan hostility and play on our divisions. Let me be crystal clear. President trump was not impeached because of the words he used, viewed in isolation, without context or beyond the pale. Plenty of other politicians have used Strong Language but Donald J Trump was president of the United States and sought to overturn a president ial election that have been upheld by every single court to consider it. He spent months insisting to his base that the only way he could lose was a dangerous wideranging conspiracy against them and america itself. He relentlessly attempted to persuade his followers that the peaceful transferral of power that was taking place in the capital 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. He endorsed 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 the heated statements in circumstances where it was clear and where it was foreseeable that those statements would spark extraordinary imminent violence. He then failed to defend the capital, the congress and the Vice President during the insurrection engaging in extraordinary dereliction of duty and desertion 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 lie about the election that had launched the violence in the first place. He issued a tweet five hours after the capitalists act in which sided with the bad guys. We all know the context matters and that office in meaning and intent and consequences matter. Simply put, in matters when and where and how we speak in the oaths we have sworn and the 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 it is 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 that the country can move on. They will 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 conclusion of that argument is wrong. Just weeks ago, weeks ago, the president of the United States literally incited an armed attack on the capital, 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 and his own Vice President and thousands of congressional staffers and our own Capital Police and other Law Enforcement. This was a national tragedy, a disaster for america standing in the world and President Trump is singularly responsible for inciting it. As we will prove, the attack on the capital was not solely the work of extremists lurking in the shadows and indeed, does anyone in this chamber, honestly believe, that but for the conduct of President Trump that that charge in the articles of impeachment that that attack at the capitol would occurred . Does anyone believe that . And now his lawyers will come before you and insist that even as the capital still surrounded with barbed wire and fences and soldiers that we should just move on and that led to bygones be bygones and allow President Trump to walk away without any accountability, any reckoning, any consequences. That cannot be right. That is not unity. That is the path to fear what future president s could do and so there is a good reason while this article of impeachment past the house and it bipartisan support and principles at stake belong to all americans, from all walks of life, we have a common interest in making clear that they are aligns no one 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. We William Faulkner famously wrote that the past is never dead but this is not even the past. This just happened. It is still happening. Look around you as you come to the capital income to work. I really do not believe that our Attention Span is so short that our sense of duty so frail and that are fractional loyalty so allconsuming that the president can provoke 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. This is exactly what the constitution calls for and the framers original understanding in the chambers owned president in the very words used in the constitution all confirm unquestionably, indisputably that 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 is turned the capital into an armed fortress. Senators it now falls to you to bring our country together by holding this trial once all the evidence is 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 cant stand trial and be held to account for inciting insurrection against us. This trial is personal indeed were for every senator and for every member of the house for every manager and all our staff in the Capital Police in the Washington Dc Metropolitan Police and the National Guard and maintenance and custodial crews in 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 two. Distinguish members of the senate my youngest daughter tabitha was there with me on wednesday january 6. It was the day after we buried her brother, our son tommy, the saddest day of our lives. Also there was my soninlaw hank who is married to our oldest daughter, haner. I consider him a son to even though he eloped with my daughter and did not tell us what they were going to do. It was in the middle of covid19 but the reason they came with me that wednesday january 6 was because they wanted to be together with me in the middle of a devastating week for our family. I told him i had to go back to work because we were counting electoral votes that day on january 6. 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 capital. Our majority leader currently 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 so tabitha and hank were with me in the office as colleagues drop by to console us about the loss of our middle child, tommy. Our beloved tommy. Mr. Cicilline actually came to see me that day and dozens of members and lots of republicans and lots of democrats came to see me and i felt a sense of roi wont forget their tenderness. And through thetears, i was working on a speech for the floor. When we would all be together in 2021 and i wanted to focus on unity when we met in the house. I quoted abraham lincolns famous 1838 lyceum speech where he said that if division and destruction ever come to america, it wont come from abroad. It will come from within. Said lincoln. And in that same speech lincoln passionately the lord mom violence. It was right after the murder of eliza lovejoy, the abolitionist newspaper editor lincoln deplored mob violence. The deplored mob rule and he said it would lead to tyranny and despotism in america. That was the speech i gave then, a day after the house very graciously and warmly welcomed me back and tell that hank came with me to the floor and they watched it from the galleryand when it was over , they bwent back to the office , stenys office to the house floor. They didnt know the house had been reached yet and insurrection, all right or a coup at home 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 the office. All around the people were calling their wives and husbands,their loved ones to say goodbye. Members of congress and the house were removing their congressional things so they wouldnt be identified by the mom as they tried to escape the violence. Our new chaplain and said a prayer for us and we were told to put our gas masks on and then there was the 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. My chief of staff julie hagan was with town and had locked and barricaded in the office i. Kids hiding under the desk. Placing what they thought irwere their final tests and whispered phone call to say your goodbyes. They thought they weregoing to die. My soninlaw had never been to the capital before. And when they were finally rescued over our later my cat r officers we were together i hugged them and apologized and i told my daughter out of the whos 24 brilliant teacher, now i told her how sorry i was mister it would not be like this again next time she came back tothe with me. And you know what she said . She said dad, i dont want to come back to the capital. Of all the terrible brutal things i saw and i heard on that day, and since then that one hit me the hardest. That and watching someone use an American Flag pole, the flag still on it to sphere and pummel one of our Police Officers ruthlessly, mercilessly. Tortured by a poll with a flag on it that he was defending owith his very life. People died that day. Officers ended up with had damage and braindead. Peoples eyeswere down. An officer had a heartattack. An officer lost Three Fingers that day. Two officers taking their own lives. Senators, this cannot be our future. This cannot be the future of america. We cannot have president s in fighting and mobilizing mob violence against our government and our institutions as they refused to accept the will of the people and the constitution of the United States. Much less can we create a new january exception in our beloved constitution that prior generations have died for fall for. So that president s have several weeks to get awaywith whatever it is they want to do. History does not support the january exception in any way so why would we invent one for the future . We close, mister president