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 or not be turned into a command to do both or neither and just imagine the consequences of such an absurd interpretation of the constitution if if we're right about that language then officials could commit the most extraordinary destructive offenses against the american people high crimes and misdemeanors and they'd have total control over whether they can ever be impeached and if they are whether the senate can try the case if they want to escape any public inquiry into their misconduct or the risk of disqualification from future office it's pretty simple they just could just resign one minute before the house impeaches or even one minute before the senate trial or they could resign during the senate trial it's not looking so well . that would effectively a race disqualification from the constitution it would put wrongdoers in charge

of whether the senate can trust them for a. 3rd and final reason why president trump must stand trial provision of article one of the constitution you'll see here on the screen that the constitution twice describes the accused in an impeachment trial here's what i want you to focus on the interesting thing is notice the words it refers to a person and a party being impeached now again we know that the framers gave a lot of thought to the words that they chose they even had a style committee during the constitutional convention they could have written civil officers here i mean they did that elsewhere in the constitution that would have ultimately limited impeachment trials to current officials but instead they used broader language to describe who could be tried by the united states senate

so who could be on trot put on trial rather for impeachment other than civil officers who else could a person or a party be well really there's only one possible answer former officers and again that actually might explain why during the belknap trial senator thomas bayard of delaware he later became the secretary of state of the united states he sat right where senator carper sitting now he found this pot 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 were not civil officers and the only group that could possibly in compass was former officials like belknap and of course here like president trump and just so we're clear in full disclosure this is another argument that was not addressed by president trump in his rebuttal. and we know why they did because their argument

doesn't square with the plain text of the constitution there is one provision that president trump relies on almost exclusively article 2 section 4 i'm sure you'll see it when they present their arguments their argument is that the language you'll see on the screen somehow prevents you from holding this trial by making removal from office an absolute requirement but again where does the language say that where does it say anything in that provision about your jurisdiction in fact this provision isn't even in the part of the constitution that addresses your authority it's in article 2 not article one and it certainly says nothing about former officials.

president trump's interpretation doesn't square with history originalism textualism in fact even chuck cooper the famous conservative lawyer i mentioned earlier with clients like the house minority leader he has concluded that this provision of the constitution that president trump relies on cuts against his position his words and that's because as cooper says article 2 section 4 means just what it says in the 1st half describes one official must do to be impeached namely commit high crimes and misdemeanors and the 2nd half describes what happens when civil officers of the united states including the sitting president are convicted removal from office that's it in cooper's words it simply establishes what is known in criminal law as

a mandatory minimum punishment it says nothing about former officials nothing at all given all of that it is not surprising. that in president trump's legal trial brief 75 page brief they struggled to find any professors to support their position they did cite one professor though. professor kalt was an expert in this field who they claimed agreed with them. that the only purpose of impeachment is removal professor cults position which they had to have known because it's it's 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 trumps lawyers as having deep flaws and again you do not have to take my word for it you can take professor callus word for it the professor they cited in their brief filed yesterday because he tweeted about it on the screen here this is what he had to say i'm not going to read through it in great detail just simply give you the highlights president brief cites my 2001 article on late impeachment a lot but in several places they misrepresent what i wrote quite badly there are multiple examples of such flat out misrepresentations they didn't have to be disingenuous and misleading like this. this key constitutional scholar relied on a president trump said it just right i have explained in craig detail the many reasons why the argument that president trump

advocates for here today is wrong i just want to close with a note about why it's dangerous lead manager rascon explained that impeachment exists to protect the american people from officials who abuse their power who betrayed them. it exists for a case just like this one. honestly if it is hard to imagine a clear example of how a president could have buz his office inciting violence against a co-equal branch of government while seeking to remain in power after losing an election sitting back and watching it on fault. we all know the consequences like every one of you

i was in the capitol on january 6th i was on the floor. with lead manager asking like every one of you. i was evacuated as this violent mob stormed the capital's gates. what you experienced that day. what we experienced that day what our country experienced that day is the framers worst nightmare come to life presidents can't 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. is just off in 1900 g.m.t. you know with al jazeera live from london where we are following day one of the 2nd impeachment trial of former president donald trump let's carry on listening and. mr president distinguished senators. my name is david sicilia me i have the honor of representing the 1st congressional district of our island. as i hope is now clear from the arguments of mr rask and i mr new goose impeachment is not merely about removing someone from office fundamentally impeachment exists to protect our constitutional system to keep each of us safe to uphold our freedom to

safeguard our democracy it is a cheat is that by deterring abuse of the extraordinary power that we entrust to our presidents from the very 1st day in office to the very last day it also ensures in countability for presidents who harm us or in the aftermath of a tragedy it allows us an opportunity to come together and to heal by working through what happened in reaffirming our constitutional principles and it authorizes this body and this body alone to disqualify from our political system anybody whose conduct in office proves that they present a danger to the republic but impeachment would fail to achieve these purposes if you created for the 1st time ever despite the words of the

framers and the constitution a january exception as mr ruskin explained now i was a former defense lawyer for many years and i can understand why president trump and his lawyers don't want you to hear this case why they don't want you to see the evidence but the argument that you lack jurisdiction rests on a purely fictional loophole purely fictional designed to allow the former president to escape all accountability for conduct that is truly indefensible under our constitution. you saw the consequences of his actions on the video that we played earlier i'd like to emphasize in still greater detail the extraordinary constitutional offense that the former president thinks you have no power whatsoever to adjudicate. while spreading lies about the election

outcome in a brazen attempt to retain power against the will of the american people he incited an armed angry mob to riot and not just anywhere but here in the seat of our government in the capitol during a joint session of congress when the vice president presided while we carried out the peaceful transfer of power which was interrupted for the 1st time in our history this was a disaster of historic proportion it was also an unforgivable betrayal of the oath of office of president trump oath he swore an oath that he sullied and dishonored to advance his own personal interests and make no mistake about it. if 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 deaths and injuries as a result of president trump's actions that prevented greater tragedy at trial we will prove with overwhelming evidence that president trump is singularly and directly responsible for inciting the assault on the capital. we will also prove that his dereliction of duty his desire to seek personal advantage from the made him and his decision to issue tweets further inciting the mob attacking the vice president all compounded the already enormous damage and virtually every american who saw those events unfold on television was absolutely horrified by the events of generous 6. but we also know how president trump himself felt

about the attack he told us here's what he tweeted at 6 o one as the capitol was in shambles and as dozens of police officers and other law enforcement officers lay battered and bruised and bloodied. here's 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 for ever. every time i read that tweet it chills me to the core the president of united states sided with the insurrections he celebrated their cause he

validated their attack he told them remember this day for ever hours after they marched through these halls looking to assassinate vice president pens the speaker of the house and any of us they could find given all that it's no wonder that president trump would rather talk about jurisdiction and i supposed january exception rather than talk about what happened on january 6th. make no mistake his arguments are dead wrong there are distractions from what really matters the senate can and should require president trump to stand trial. my colleagues have already addressed many of president trump's efforts to escape trial i'd like to cover the remainder and then address the broader issues at stake in this trial for starters in an extension of his mistaken reading of the

constitution president trump insists that he cannot face trial in the senate because he's merely a private citizen he references here the bill of attainder clause but as mr niggas just explained the constitution refers to the defendant in an impeachment trial as a person and a party and certainly he counts as one of those that's also apply some common sense there's a reason that he now insists on being called the 45th president of the united states rather than citizen trump he's isn't a randomly selected private citizen he's a former officer of the united states government he's a former president of the united states of america he's treated differently under a law called the former president's act for 4 years we trusted him with more power than anyone else on earth 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 an office his insistence otherwise is just wrong. and so so is this 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 occurred while he was in official poses absolutely no risk whatsoever of subjecting a private citizen to impeachment for their private conduct to emphasize the point president trump was impeached while he was in office for conduct in office period the alternative once again is this january exception which our most powerful officials can commit the most terrible abuses and then resign to leave office and suddenly claim that they're just

a private citizen who can't be held accountable at all in the same vein president trump and his lawyers argue that he shouldn't be impeached because it will set a bad precedent for impeaching others but that slippery slope argument is also incorrect for centuries the prevailing view has been that former officials are subject to impeachment and you just heard a full discussion of that the house has repeatedly acknowledge that fact but in the vast majority of cases the house is rightly recognize that in officials resignation or departure makes the extraordinary step of impeachment unnecessary and maybe even unwise as the house manager rightly explained in the belknap case and i quote there is no likelihood that we shall ever unlimber of a clumsy and bulky monster piece of ordinance to take aim at an object from which all danger has gone by and. president trumps case though is different the

danger has not gone by his threat to democracy makes any prior abuse by any government official pale in comparison. moreover allowing his conduct to pass without the most decisive response would itself create an extraordinary danger to the nation inviting further abuse of power and sickening that the congress of the united states is unable or unwilling to respond to insurrection incited by the president. think about that to paraphrase justice raksha robert jackson who said that press that precedent but i just described would lie about like a loaded weapon ready for the hand of any future president who decide in his final months to make a play for a limited power think of the danger here is the rare case in which

love of the constitution and commitment to our democracy required the house to impeach is for the same reason the senate can and must try this case. next president trump will assert that he says it somehow is significant or it matters that the chief justice isn't presiding over this trial. let me state this very plainly it does not matter it is not significant under article one section 3 when the president of the united states is tried the chief justice shall preside there is only one person who is president of united states at a time right now joseph our. junior is the 46th president of united states. as a result the requirement that the chief justice preside isn't triggered instead the normal rules of any impeachment of anyone other than the sitting president apply

and under those rules the president pro tem senator leahy can preside of course this makes perfect sense the chief justice presides because when the current president is on trial. if he chief justice isn't preside the vice president could preside and it would be a conflict for someone to preside over trial that would become president if there was a conviction so there isn't that concern when you have a former president on trial or for that matter when you have anyone on trial other than the current president which is why the chief justice presides only in that single case and why this is exactly the presiding officer the constitution and the senate rules require as a fallback president trump and his lawyers may argue today that he should get a free pass on inciting an armed insurrection against the united states government and endangering congress because as he would put it this impeachment is somehow

unconstitutional so far as i understand it from reading the pleadings in this case this defense involves cobbling together a bunch of meritless legal arguments all of them attempting to focus on substance rather than jurisdiction and insisting that these kitchen sink objections lead the senate to not try the case sense they may raise these points at this juncture i feel obliged really to address them he may argue for example that he didn't receive enough process in the house. even though the house proceedings are more like a grand jury action which is follow later by trial in the senate where the full presentation of evidence you know the evidence of his high crimes and misdemeanors is overwhelming and supported by a huge public record even though we're going to put that evidence before you at this trial and you know have a full and fair opportunity to respond to it before all of you even though hundreds

of others involved in the events of generous 6 have already been charged for their role in attacks that the president incited and even though we invited him to voluntary come here and testify and tell his story. as you know 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 they're also completely irrelevant to the question whether you should hold this trial that question is answered by the constitution and the answer is yes. in addition separate from his due process complaints president trump and his counsel have been particulars counsel have boasted on t.v. but to counter the undisputed evidence of what actually happened in this case

you'll see video clips they'll show video clips of other politicians including democratic politicians using what they consider in city area language apparently they think this will salvage some sort of equivalency or that it will show in contrast that president trump statements that the saved america rally weren't so bad. like so much of what president trump's lawyers might say today that's a gimmick it's a parlor game meant to inflame partisan hostility and play on our divisions so let me be crystal clear president trump was not impeached because the words he used viewed in isolation without context were beyond the pale plenty of other politicians have used strong language but donald j. trump was president of the united states he sought to overturn a presidential election that had been up held by every single court to consider it

he spent months insisting to his base that the only way you could lose was a dangerous wide ranging that spirity against them and america itself. he relented lessly attempt to persuade his followers that the peaceful transfer 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 while endorsing violence and sparking death threats to his opponents he summoned an armed angry and dangerous crowd that wanted to keep him in power and was widely reported to be poised on a hair trigger for violence at his direction. he then made his heated statements and circumstances where it was clear 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 issued statements during the insurrection targeting the vice president and reiterating the very same lies about the election that had launched the violence in the 1st place and he issued a tweet for 5 hours after the capitol was sacked and which he sided with the bad guys but. we all know that context matters at office and meaning and intent and consequences matter

simply put it matters when and where and how we speak the oaths we sworn in 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 the government of the united states of america this leads me to have a few final thoughts about why it's so important for you to hear this case as authorize is indeed required by our history and by the constitution president trumps lor's will so i expect that you should dismiss this case so that the country can move on both cert that this impeachment is partisan and that the spirit of bipartisanship and bipartisan cooperation requires you 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 tram's actions endangered every single member of congress his own vice president thousands of congressional staffers and our own capitol police and other law enforcement this was a national tragedy a disaster for america's standing in the world and president trump is singularly

responsible for inciting it as we will prove the attack on the copper was not soley the work of extremists lurking in the shadows indeed does anyone in this chamber honestly believe that but for the conduct of president trump that the charge in the article of impeachment that that attack at the capital would have occurred does anybody believe that. and now is or is will come before you and insist even as the capital still surrounded with barbed wires and fences and soldiers that we just move on but 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's the path to fear of what future presidents could do so there's a good reason.