ranging from the structure to health and education. these initiatives ultimately help to eradicate poverty. and promote sustainable development. you're watching the news hour live from doha i'm terry navigator we're bringing you special coverage of a historic moment in the u.s. the former president donald trump's 2nd impeachment trial now in just a few minutes the senate will begin proceedings which will decide whether trump is guilty of inciting an insurrection and he's accused of urging his supporters to march on the capitol building last month that's where congress was meeting to

confirm joe biden's victory in the presidential election what's trump insisted was stolen from him the riots led to the deaths of 5 people well trump is the only former president to face trial and his lawyers argue that makes the proceedings unconstitutional if convicted he could be barred from ever running for office senators are expected to vote on whether the trial should go ahead and when approved both sides will make their case over the coming days just a few minutes ago we saw the house managers there they are they're making their way into the senate let's bring in alan fischer he's joining us now from capitol hill so we're waiting for that trial to get on or under way alan tell us what we're looking at and what should we expect. well 1st he is going to be about 4 hours they're going to decide the format of how this trial goes ahead how many days it will sit. have been agreed by. sides will get 16 hours to put their case is that

after we decide from 4 hours to the on the debate on whether or not this is constitutional no there are plenty of people who see that it is the republicans are arguing that it isn't and when i say republicans i mean don't trumps defense team interestingly enough they also quote a conservative scholar who says that it's not constitutional because don't trump has left office that constitutional scholar has in the last couple of hours come out and said no you've absolutely got this wrong of what i was saying you can't try someone who was president even after he's left office here's a couple of things you going to watch for over the next couple of days 1st of all trump's team won't refer to joe biden as president joe biden if they were fair to him at all they were fair to him as former president joe biden that is because don't trump's team doesn't want to acknowledge that donald trump lost the election or to be more accurate donald trump doesn't want his team to acknowledge he lost

the election also if they are given 16 hours to put their case the truck he might not take all of those 16 hours and there is the possibility that it will take what less than that there's a couple of reasons for that one is the pretty new to this job remember just over a week ago that they were appointed when the previous legal team fellow with donald trump the other thing is that they don't want to go into any great detail and they would be the would be the plan isn't to call witnesses that this state here's another interesting thing about the defense team. the would be will use video but they will use video of democrats using language which they claim isn't century which is exactly the same charge against donald trump so things are underway now in the senate chairman let's go and have a listen to what's going on here in all persons are commanded to keep silence on pain of imprisonment by 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 trump former president of the united states. and note the presence in the chambre of the managers on the part of the house of representatives and counsel for the former president of the united states. mr president jordan leaders recognize. mr president in a moment i will call up a resolution to govern the structure of the 2nd impeachment trial of president of

donald john donald john trump it's been agreed to by the house managers the former president's counsel and is co-sponsored by the republican leader it is bipartisan it's our solemn constitutional duty to conduct a fair and honest impeachment trial of the charges against former president trump the gray davis 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 kirk or report.

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 only adoption of the resolution i ask for the yeas and nays is are sufficient sec there appears to be there is a sufficient 2nd clerk will call the roll the small one was bald when mr brough so mr brewer. mr bennett mr bennett. mrs blackburn mrs black burn. mr blumenthal mr blumenthal mr blunt mr blunt. mr booker. mr booker mr bozeman mr byrd. mr braun mr braun mr brown mr brown mr burr

mr burr i miss cantwell is cantwell i mrs capita mrs capper to mr carden mr carden mr corporate mr corpore mr casey mr case see mr cassidy ms collins ms collins mr. mr. corning mr cornyn ms cortez master. ms cortez masto mr cotton mr carr mr cramer mr cramer mr craig. mr craig. mr cruise mr cruise mr daines

mr daines ms duckworth ms duckworth mr durbin mr durbin mr ernst ms ernst mrs feinstein mrs feinstein mrs fisher this is fish or mrs jill abram mrs gillett and mr graham. just to say you're watching a live picture from capitol hill that's where the the impeachment trial of the former president donald trump has just begun and they are going through the roll call right now let's bring in allan fessor joining us from capitol hill allan so tell us exactly what's happening right now. they're going through there all call of all $100.00 senators it's a procedural motion then they will get into the debate on whether or not this hearing is constitutional donald trump's lawyers argue that it's not the can't be impeached after you leave office the democrats say that look if that was the case

if that's what the founding fathers meant there's nothing to stop a president in the last couple of weeks in office even in the last day committing some huge big crime and then walking into the office thinking i'm free and clear so they will argue very clearly over the next 4 hours that donald trump can be held accountable for the actions on january the 6th we're talking about things that you've got to watch out for trusting that senator leahy who is a democrat he is the man who will oversee these proceedings normally it would be the chief justice of the supreme court of the united states it was john roberts almost a year ago the reason he's not in position no is because the argument from the supreme court is because donald trump isn't a sitting president there is no need for the chief justice to be there therefore the more senior member on the essentially the ruling side of the senate senate president pro tempore essentially he he will take control of the proceedings the republicans are going to argue that that alone makes this unconstitutional because

we will see hold on a 2nd who else in the united states can be held responsible for a judge who is also a juror as the senator will be that simply isn't justice therefore this cannot go ahead that is likely to fail because when they come to vote on whether or not this is constitutional it's on the street majority fought and. of course the democrats at the moment how a majority even if it's tight $5050.00 they can call and the vice president comes the hardest who will cast their vote on behalf of the democrats so that is what is going on at the moment and then to morrow we will move on to the 16 hours and it remember a year ago when we had the 1st impeachment hearing is 24 hours this is all about condensing the proceedings there's a couple of reasons why the democrats want to do that there were complaints the last time that they went on too long the board republican senators who did get fed up they felt they were being lectured to and therefore that tom the more for the

whole idea of voting to impeach don't try to uphold the conviction that's maybe slightly disingenuous but that was part of the arguments they want to make things a lot tighter this time the other thing is they want to get this done quickly that the last impeachment trial took 3 weeks they don't want this dragging on that long because if every senate is tied up with this and all eyes are on this then they're not pushing through with joe biden's legislative agenda i know you're probably looking at me thinking the whole time he was just. into office 3 weeks ago why they wanted about his legislative agenda when he was elected for 4 years there's a lot of things they want to do quickly not least covert relief which they want to get on the hill in some form remember joe biden wants $1.00 trillion dollars for that the biggest relief bill ever and also he wants to get an immigration bill up onto the hill pretty quickly as well so those things as far as the white house is concerned takes precedence so that is why the democrats want to move through these things very quickly there's a possibility they will call any witnesses either they will vote on the senate

floor about that what they will do is use a lot of video or they will use a lot of donald trump's words they will say that he provoked the crowd at trump's lawyers argue that the f.b.i. have uncovered the fact that there was going to be some sort of insurrection some sort of protest that could turn violent before january the 6th therefore donald trump's words did not inspire the crowd that they acted on their own the democrats will argue contrary to that that it was because the president used phrases like if you don't fight for your country then you will lose and that it was important that he be held accountable for that so we're back into the proceedings now they've gone through the roll call let's hear what they're saying on the floor of the. haggerty mr haggerty now.

all right so as we wait for the trial to pick up pace let me just tell you what you're looking at you're looking at live picture from capitol hill that is where the senate has officially begun with proceedings and these proceedings will decide whether the former u.s. president donald trump is guilty of inciting an insurrection and trump just

a reminder is accused of urging his supporters to march on the capitol building last month at least that's what he's accused off and at the time that was where congress was meeting to confirm joe biden's victory in the presidential election which trump has insisted was stolen from him now is the only former presidents to face trial lawyers will argue in just a few minutes that his salary makes the proceedings a constitutional 7 and that is patrick leahy seeking right now is the impeachment trial for citing officer let's listen in on the question of whether guard john trump is subject to the jurisdiction of record of impeachment for acts committed by a president of the united states should not was doing the expiration of his term of that office this to manager rescued are you a proponent or a total of this question. mr caster or you're

a proponent or up the root of this question your own. the mr manager raskin your party may proceed 1st it will be able to raise your rebuttal time if you wish mr ruskin you're recognized. thank you very much mr president distinguished members of the senate could afternoon my name is jamie raskin it's my honor to represent the people of maryland's 8 congressional district in the house and also to serve as the lead house manager and mr president we will indeed reserve time for rebuttal thank you. because i've been a professor of constitutional law for 3 decades i know there are a lot of people who are dreading endless lectures about the federalist papers here please breathe easy ok i remember well w.h.

auden is line that a professor is someone who speaks well other people are sleeping and you will not be hearing extended lectures from me because our case is based on cold hard facts it's all about the facts a president trump a 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 would be

a high crime in misdemeanor in your 1st year as president and your 2nd year as president and your 3rd year as president and for the vast majority of your 4th year as president you can suddenly 2 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 it's 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 on to 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 the president trumps lawyers advance we risk allowing january 6th to become our future and what will that mean for america think about it what will the january exception mean to future generations if you grant it i'll show you. we will stop this steal a have today i will lay out just some of the evidence proving that we won this election and we want it by a landslide this was not a close election and after this we're going to walk down and i'll be there with you

we're going to walk down the hatch we're going to walk down to the capitol. where you were born you will 2 for the that time where. have. have my. car. thanks to the. far as they came in and when i. was. moved my.

room. the old. the vice president and the united states senator. control of the sun not margaret but. we have done your killing a lot rob. thank you are. the one you. will want. on the. sitcom situation says you have to protect our country and you have to protect our

constitution and you can't fraud and front brakes up everything yes it when you tax somebody in a fraud you're allowed to go by very different rules so i hope my case the courage to do what he has to. come. back to the fight to fight like hell and if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore. you have the. right to be in your family and you might have done something. and we're going to the japanese. try and years are republicans that we once because the strong ones don't need any of us we're just going to try and give them the kind of try and

boldness that they need to take back our country. was jordi we. were debating a scam. that has never been taken in american history was. was. president trump claims the election was stolen the assertions range from specific local allegations to constitutional arguments to sweeping conspiracy theories. was was but my colleagues nothing before us cruise illegality anywhere near the massive scale

the massive scale that would have took n.p.r. aleck. i was was. the. guy was i was. i was. i was. i. was i was. right.

i. should. be. right back sharon. was was. so you're watching the video is that the lead impeachment manager jamie raskin has basically put together an assuring descendants and we do apologize for any profanity vents you may have seen in the video. let's bring in alan fischer he's joining us from capitol hill allan so raskin is basically knocking down the republicans main argument just tell us what we've seen so far and what raskin had to say. ok 2

things that are quite important we've seen in the 1st 15 minutes 1st of all the video it's the a in the way it's edited is to bring the visceral feelings that the senators had on the 6th of january when they were taken out of the senate because there was a real risk to their safety and this video is reminding them of the chaos of that moment because remember this impeachment trial is actually being held on a crime scene there is still an ongoing investigation into the 5 deaths here particularly the death of the capitol hill police officer there's still an investigation going there $2211.00 people have been charged with offenses related to that there are 500 ongoing investigations 211 people have been charged in 43 states jimmy raskin made the point very early on this is based on facts this is what we're going to present to you it's not going to be some sort of abstract argument we're presenting facts to you he's a former constitutional professor he said he's not going to bore people he's going to sensually drill down very quickly and that was back to the point i made earlier

when saying that there's a feeling that the last time around it went on a bit too long and bored people here's the other thing that's very important to him in one sentence he's essentially knocking down the republican argument he said look there is no january exception to the constitution it's not as if a president can commit high crimes and misdemeanors in year 12 or 3 but in the last month do whatever he wants because he's got a free pass and therefore he has to be held responsible for this that is essentially the donald trump defense argument all in one go that you cannot try someone who is no a former president centrist and chuck schumer stumbled over 1st of all his name and the fact that he called on president trump people still in washington d.c. haven't quite got into the habit of referring to him as former president donald trump and as i said earlier what is going to be interesting is that the team behind door trumps defense if they mention joe biden at all they will refer to him as former vice president joe. and you don't want to acknowledge that he actually won

the election that's not anything to do with war constitution not something just to keep donald trump happy because he insisted on that here's the other thing that's going to be very important over the next coming days this is different from a criminal trial therefore it's going to be a whole different kind of hearing that you see the standards are different the arguments are different and in a lot of ways when the donald trump defense team gets up and says look donald trump may have said this but republic democrats have said this in the past that to a degree is to provide cover for republicans who mean well vote against convicting donald trump when they go back to their home states the can say well look i looked at what donald trump said and what democrats said and i didn't see much difference it gives them political protection to a degree ok allan thank you for the time being and we're going to go back to the trial now and the exhibits and the videos that are being shown by the impeachment managers and we do apologize in advance if you see any profanity on our air as

a result of these videos. i was. with. which. i was. was this guy this. was i think i'll be fucking me up and god ok ok. ok ok i think i i i. thank you and yet you

you know you. we they treat you with the. way with. the thank the. 2 the. the the the the. the. thank you to. the. what has 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 can't play into the hands of these people we have to have peace so go home we love you you're very special you've 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 and peace was the god

the god god god god god. god he's your cha that god is god god god god. god. god god. will.

senators the president was impeached by the u.s. house of representatives on january 13th for doing that you ask would a high crime a misdemeanor is under our constitution that's a high crime misdemeanor if that's 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 he's 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 presidential 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 can't be right. the transition of power is always the most dangerous moment for democracy 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 that's why they created a constitution within both written into it that binds the president from his very 1st day in office until his very last day in office and every day in between under that constitution and under that o. . the fred the president united states is forbidden to commit high crimes and misdemeanors against the people at any point that he's in office indeed that's one specific reason the impeachment conviction and disqualification powers exists

to protect us against presidents 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 that's precisely when we need them the most because that's when elections get attacked everything that we know about the language of the constitution the framers original understanding intent prior senate practice and common sense confirms this rule let's start with the text of the constitution which in article one section 2 gives the house the sole power of impeachment when the president commits high crimes and misdemeanors we exercise 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 impeachment we know this because article one 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 and there are no exceptions to the rule because the senate has jurisdiction to try all impeachments it most certainly has jurisdiction to try this one it's 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 nation's most prominent conservative legal scholars including former 10th circuit judge michael mcconnell the co-founder of the federalist society stephen calibrating ronald reagan solicitor general charles fried luminary washington lawyer charles cooper among hundreds of other concert goers and professors i commend the the people i named their rate 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 appear in the trial brief we filed last week and the reply brief that we filed very early this morning i'll spare you a replay but i want to highlight a few key points from constitutional history that strike me as compelling in

foreclosing president trumps argument that there's a secret january exception hidden away in the constitution the 1st point comes from english history which matters because it's hamilton road england provided the 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 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 famed 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 specific impeachment case that 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 2 years before his impeachment trial began not a single frame or not one raised a concern when virginian 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 to every single state constitution in the $780.00 s. either specifically said that 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 there was an overwhelming presumption in favor of allowing legislatures to hold former officials accountable in this way any departure from that norm would have been a big deal and yet there's 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. acting society and deterring official corruption delbert matters for another reason writing about impeachment in the federalist papers hamilton explained that the president of america would stand upon no better ground than a governor of new york in a pot of worse ground than the governors of maryland and delaware he does emphasize that 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 that the framers meant to reject this widely 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 return to the threat of presidential corruption aimed directly at elections the heart of self government. almost perfectly and his a paid ing president trump william davey 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 republics in the liberties of the people comes from political opportunists who begin as demagogues 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 that as a matter of history and original understanding there is no merit to the president trump's claim that he can incite an insurrection and then insist weeks later that the senate lacks the 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 7 for everything i did during the time. i held any public office when he comes up in a minute my colleague mr new goose of colorado will further pursue the relevant senate precedents and explain why this body's practice has been supported by the text of the constitution and mr sousa leni of rhode island will then respond to the fallacies presented by the president's counsel and after these gentlemen speak i will return to discuss the importance the fundamental importance of the senate rejecting president trumps arguments for the preservation of democratic self-government and the rule of law in the united states of america.

and i now will turn it over to my colleague mr new goose of colorado. to work with. mr president distinguished senators my name is jonah goosen i represent colorado's 2nd congressional district in united states congress like many of you i'm 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 is important system nor a case with such a heavy and weighty constitutional question for you all to decide thankfully as lieve manager raskin so thoroughly explained the framers have answered that question for you for us and you don't need to be

a constitutional scholar to know that the argument president trump asks you to adopt is not just wrong it's dangerous and you know it to take my word for it this body the world's greatest deliberative body the united states senate has reached that same conclusion in one form or another over the past 200 years in multiple occasions that will go through. over $150.00 constitutional scholars experts judges conservative liberal you name it they overwhelmingly have reached the same conclusion but 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 presidents can't commit grave offenses in their final days and escape any congressional response that's not how our constitution works let's start with the president with what has happened in this very chamber i'd like to focus on just 2 cases i'll go through them quickly one of them is the nation's very 1st impeachment case which actually was of a former official in 1797 about a decade after our country it 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 4

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 the trot with none other than thomas jefferson presiding . now blunt argued that the senate couldn't proceed because he had already been expelled but here's the interesting thing he expressed slee disavowed any claim that former officials can ever be impeached and unlike president trump he was very clear that he respected and understood that he could not even try to argue that ridiculous position even impeached senator blunt recognized the inherent absurdity

of that view here's what he said i certainly never shall contend that an officer 1st commit an offense and afterwards avoid by resigning his office that's the point and 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. fast forward 80 years later arguably the most important precedent that this body has to consider the trial of former secretary of war william bell now i'm not going to go on all the details but just in short in $876.00 the house discovered that he was involved in a massive kickback scheme hours before the house committee that discovered this conduct released its report documenting the scheme bill that literally rushed

to the white house to resign tender his resignation to president ulysses grant. to avoid any further inquiry into his misconduct and of course to avoid being disqualified from holding federal office in the future well later that day aware of the resignation one of the house to the house move forward and unanimously impeached him making clear its power to impeach a former official and when his case reached this senate this body belknap made the exact same argument that president trump is making today. but you all lack jurisdiction any power to try him because he's 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 outreached. 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 that's why in the end the united states senate decisively voted at the constitution required them to proceed with the trial the bill in that case 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 thorough public inquiry into his misconduct which created a record of his wrongdoing it ensured his accountability and deterred anyone else from considering such corruption by making clear that it was intolerable the trial

of them served important constitutional purposes now given that precedent that i've described to you given all that that precedent imparts you could imagine my surprise lead manager raskin surprise when we're reviewing a trial brief filed by the president in which his counsel insists that the senate actually didn't decide anything in the bell in that case they say it is not my words that are quote from their trial brief it cannot be read as for closing an argument that they never dealt with. never dealt with. the senate didn't debate this question for 2 hours the senate debated this very question for 2 weeks the senate spent an additional 2 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 that it must

proceed to a full trial and by the way unlike belknap as we know president trump was not impeached for run of the mill corruption misconduct he was impeached. for inciting a violent in sarette. an insurrection where people died in this building an insurrection that desecrated our seat of 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 presidents to use their power without any fear of accountability and none of us i know this none of this no matter our party or our politics wants that. now we've

gone through the highlights of the president and i think it's important that you know as leader manager rascon mention that scholars overwhelmingly who have reviewed this same precedent have all come to the same conclusion that the senate must hear this case let's 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 caliber e.c. personally the co-founder of the federalist society actually was the chairman of the board in 29 he was the 1st president of the yale federalist society chapter board a position that i understand sooner howley later held here is what mr caliber e.c. . has to say on january 21st he issued a public later public letter excuse me stating our carefully considered views of the law lead all of us to agree that the constitution permits the impeachment

conviction and disqualification and of former officers including presidents and by the way he's not the only one as manager raskin said president reagan's 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 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 he had this to say about judge mcconnell that he's an honest man he calls it as he sees and he's beholden to no one and no group well what this judge mcconnell have to say about the question that you're debating this afternoon he said the following given the impeachment of mr trump was legitimate the text makes clear that the senate has power to try that impeachment you heard the manager raskin mention another lawyer chuck cooper subproblem an conservative lawyer here in

washington has represented former attorney general jeff sessions house minority leader kevin mccarthy he issued an editorial just 2 days ago very powerful observing that scholarship in this question has mature substantially and it ultimately the arguments that president trump is championing are beset by serious weaknesses finally i would gone through a lot of scholars who are just finished on this one there's another scholar that i know some of you know and some of you've actually spoken with recently up until just a few weeks ago he was a recognized shippey. 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 1st in a very detailed study thorough study he explained that quote the resignation from office does not prevent trial on articles of impeachment that's professor turley as

works same piece he celebrated the belknap trial he described it as a corrective measure that helped the system regain legitimacy. he wrote another article was written several on this topic this was actually $146.00 page study very detailed and in that study he said quote that the decision and belknap was correct in its view that impeachment historically had extended to former officials such as one hastings who you heard the manager rascon describe in fact as you can see a presser to really argue that the house could have impeached in the senate could have tried richard nixon after he resigned his quote on this very telling quote future presidents 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 lead manager aspens words professor jonathan turley his words i agree with him because he's exactly right now a question one might reasonably ask after going through all those quotes from from such noted jurists and scholars is why is there such agreement on this topic well the reason is pretty simple because it's what the constitution says. i want to walk you through 3 provisions of the constitution that make clear that the senate must try this case. first let's start with what the constitution says about congress' power in article one you heard lead manager rascon make this point it's

worth underscoring article one section 2 gives the house sole power of impeachment article one section 3 gives the senate the sole power to try all impeachments now based on president trumps argument one would think that language includes kabi outs exceptions but it doesn't it doesn't say impeachment of current civil officers it doesn't say impeachment of those still in office the framers didn't mince words they provided express absolute unqualified rance of jurisdictional power to the house to impeach and to the senate to try all impeachments not some all former judge mcconnell judge that we talked about earlier he provides a very effective textual analysis of this provision you can see it up here on the

slide i'll just give you the highlight he says and i'll quote this is judge mcconnell given that the impeachment of mr trump was legitimate the text makes clear that the senate has power to try that and pietschmann. now again here is what it's pretty interesting me at least when we presented this argument in our trial brief which we filed over a week ago we laid it out step by step so that you could consider it and so that opposing counsel can consider it as well we received the president trumps response yesterday and the trial brief offers no rebuttal to this point none and in fairness i can't think. if any convincing response i mean that 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 there's

another provision worth mentioning here because there's been a lot of confusion about it and i'm going to try to clear this up it's the provision on removal and disqualification now we all know the senate imposes a judgment only when it convicts up on the screen you'll see article one section 3 clause 7 so with that in mind the language says that the senate convicts the judgment shall not extend further than removal and disqualification that's 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 doesn't have the power to go any further than that now as i understand president trumps argument they believe that this language somehow says that disqualification can only follow removal of

a current officer but it doesn't that interpretation essential the rewrites the constitution if it adds words that aren't there i mean after all the constitution does not say removal from office and then disqualification it doesn't say removal from office followed by disqualification it simply says the senate can't do more than 2 possible sentences removal and disqualification and this by the way is not the 1st time that this direct question has been debated in this chamber . 146 years ago during the belknap trial senator george edmonds of vermont he's one of the most prestigious republican senators of his time he he sat right where senator grassley sits today he zeroed in on this exact point

during the belknap tropp this is his quote a prohibition against doing more than 2 things cannot be turned into a command to do both.