that's it. for. $3.00. oh thank you is. there nothing like that that maybe if. you claim that it's wrong to object to the certification of election results you long with your allies in the media attempted to cancel and censor members of this chamber who voiced concerns and objected to certification. manager rascon you've been congress only 3 days when you objected in 2017 it's one of the 1st things you did when you got here and objection because 1029 electoral votes cast by florida were cast by electors not lawfully certified is the objection in writing and signed not only by the member of the house represented but also by assuming it is in writing or is it signed by senator not as

of yet and in that case the objection cannot be interchanged mr president i object to the certificate from the state of georgia on the grounds that the electoral vote . no to object to certificate from the state of north carolina based on violation of. it was noted by the joint session and i object because people horrified by what i meant actually that actually. the united states code prohibits debate i object but ject it to the counting of the electoral votes of the state of ohio i object to the certificate from the state of alabama the electors were not lawfully sort of fide to the 15 votes in the state of north carolina because of the massive voter suppression in the calling of voting polling bills there is no debate but it is no debate 16 there is no debate and the mass of gentlemen that we're going to. have an objection to the electoral votes the objection is in writing and

i don't care and that it is not it is not signed by member of the sea i do not wish to debate i wish to ask is there one united states senator who will join me a letter. action is signed by a member of the house but not yet by a member of the senate it is over. i. and when the house managers realize that the president's actual words could not have incited the riot as you allege in your article of impeachment you attempted to pivot. you said that raising the issue of election security and casting doubt on the propriety of our elections was dangerous one of the house managers this services celine told you that this is not about the words mr trump used in isolation rather it is about the big lie the claim that the election was stolen the house managers told you that it's the big lie that incited the riot and that

the big lie was president trump's claim that the election was not a fair election or that the election was stolen claiming the election was stolen you were told or words that are insightful to a candidate's followers and cause people to respond violently claiming the election was stolen or not legitimate is something that a candidate should never do because he or she knows or should know that such a claim and such words can actually incite violent insurrection you are told well it seems that the house managers position must be actually a bit narrower than that the house managers position really is that when republican candidates for office claim an election is stolen or that the winner is illegitimate it constitutes inciting insurrection and the candidate should know it but democratic party candidates republican elective office are perfectly entitled to claim the election was stolen or that the winner is illegitimate or to make any other outrageous claim they can it is their absolute right to do so and it is their

absolute right to do so irrespective of whether there's any evidence to support the claim. democratic candidates can claim the election was stolen because of russian collusion or that any explanation at all and that is perfectly ok and is in no way incitement to an insurrection and somehow when democratic candidates publicly decry an election as stolen or illegitimate it's never a big lie you've been doing it for years but could you imagine telling your supporters that the only way you could possibly lose is if an american election was rigged and stolen from you and ask yourself whether you've ever seen anyone at any level of government make the same claim about their own election if

stacy abrams doesn't win in georgia they stole it's clear it's clear and i would say i say that publicly it's clear you can run the best campaign you can even become the nominee. and you could have the election stolen from you he knows he's an illegitimate president he knows he knows that there were a bunch of different reasons why the election turned out the way it did the votes remain to be counted there are voices that were waiting to be her and i will not concede back and i respect where you're coming from and i respect issues that you're raising you're not answering the question do you think you will or. what is not to you you're not using the word legitimate there are still legitimate concerns over the integrity of our elections and of ensuring the principle of one person one vote i agree with tens of millions of americans who are very worried that when they cast the ballot on an electronic voting machine that there is no paper trail to

record that vote but constantly shifting vote tallies in ohio and now functioning at lot of electronic machines which may not have paper receipt have led to additional loss of confidence by the public this is their only opportunity to have this debate while the country is listening and it is appropriate to do so house manager castro no longer has to try to imagine it thanks to the distinguished senator and others it didn't have to be this way the democrats promised unity they promise to deliver the very covert relief in the form of 2000 dollars stimulus checks the president trump called for they should have listened to their own words of the past i leave you with the wise words of congressman jerry nadler. the effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters we must not

overturn an election and remove a president from office except to defend our system of government or our constitutional liberties against the dian threat and we must not do so without an overwhelming consensus of the american people there must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment supported by one of our major political parties and opposed by the other such an impeachment will produce the divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions the american people have heard the allegations against the president and they overwhelmingly oppose impeaching him they elected president clinton they still support him we have no right to overturn the considered judgment of the american people mr speaker and the case against the president has not been made. there is far from sufficient evidence to support the allegations and the allegations even if proven true do not rise to

the level of impeachable offenses mr speaker this is clearly a partisan railroad job the same people who today tell us we marched impeach the president for lying under oath almost to a person voted last year to reelect the speaker were just admitted lying to congress in an official proceeding the american people are watching and they will not forget you may have the votes you may have the muscle but you do not have the legitimacy of a national consensus or of a constitutional imperative this partisan coup d'etat will go down in infamy in the history of this nation thank you mr speaker i yield back the balance of my time.

there are 2 fundamental questions for purposes of this free speech analysis 1st does the 1st amendment to the constitution apply in this chamber to these impeachment proceedings 2nd if it does to the words spoken by mr trump at the ellipse on january 6th meet the definition of constitutional incitement so as to avoid the protections afforded by the 1st amendment i will explain why the answers to both of these questions must be a resoundingly yes the constitution in the 1st amendment must certainly apply

to these and pietschmann proceedings and mr trump's speech deserves full protection under the 1st amendment. but before getting into the legal analysis some plimer narry observations about the house managers case should be made 1st this case unfortunately is about political hatred it has become very clear that the house democrats hate donald trump this type of political hatred has no place in our political institutions and certainly no place in the law this hatred has led the house managers to manipulate and selectively at it mr trump speech to make it falsely appear that he sought to incite the crowd to violently attack the capital he did and we will show you why.

the hatred has also led the house managers to make some astounding legal arguments they astoundingly urge you to say to disregard your oath by ignoring the 1st amendment of the constitution. they also ignore landmark binding united states supreme court cases precedents wood and bond both of which unequivocal hold that elected officials have couper 1st amendment rights to engage in the exact type of political speech was mr trump in gauged in i was shocked the house managers not only spent a mere 3 pages on the 1st amendment analysis in their trial memo but yesterday they spent a 3 mere 10 minutes at the end of their case as a throwaway what we have read and what we have heard is devoid of any

constitutional analysis for less than what i would expect from a 1st year law student they left out landmark cases total intellectual dishonesty and finally hatred is at the heart of the house managers frivolous attempts to blame donald trump for the criminal acts of the rioters based on double here stay for hearsay statements of frangela right wing groups based on no real evidence other than rank speculation hatred is a dangerous thing we all have to work to overcome and hatred should have no place in this chamber in these proceedings. the 2nd observation the senate is presented with an extraordinary task sitting in judgment

of a former president's words in a speech that he gave it a political event the house managers accused mr trump of using his words to incite . the horrific events at the capitol on january 6 but yesterday they gave you a new and novel standard of incitement with an element of foreseeability negligence concept they cite 0 case law they made it up this task of applying a completely made up legal standard of incitement to an impeachment proceeding is truly an unprecedented task for the senate and that is something the senate must seriously consider when deciding the issue do you want to create a precedent where the senate will be tasked with sitting in judgment as to the

meaning and implied intent of a president's words or words of any elected official will that allow and maybe encourage a majority party to weaponize the awesome power of impeachment against the minority to suppress a point of view will the senate then have to deal with constant articles of impeachment by a majority party accusing minority presidents or other aleck to the officials of so-called incite fuller fault speeches you can see where this would lead sadly we have all seen the political rhetoric get ratched up over the last few years we've all been witnesses to many in cinder an incendiary words by our officials at political events broadcast over the media internet and each of

those instances will there now be senate impeachment hearings. one last observation we agree with the house managers context does indeed matter. the inflammatory rhetoric from our elected officials must be considered as part of the larger context of mr trump's speech at the ellipse on january 6th the inflammatory language from both sides of the aisle has been alarming frankly but this political discourse must be considered as part of these proceedings to contention wise mr trump's words we have some video to play that highlights some of what i'm talking about i preface this video by noting i am not showing you this video as some excuse for

mr trump speech this is not about this is not what about ism i am showing you this to make the point that all political speech must be protected. i just don't even know why the prize it's the country maybe that there needs to be on the grass in the streets for as long as there's unrest in our lives and that prevent us from i will punch you have to throw a punch but i think you need to go back and bunch of in the face that i thought he said to punch him in the face feel like punching him like to take him behind the camera bar and i was in high school i take you behind the gym and beat the hell out of you know i was sure it was going to take you beyond it q i will go and take trump out tonight that. they're still going to have to go and put a bullet in doll truck show me where it says the protests are supposed to be polite and peaceful.

and have done an awful lot about blowing up the wind as we get up in the face of some congress people that people would do what they do i want to know do. i want to tell you i haven't thought you have to leave so far away and you ok right we're going to go i'm never going to. do this is just a warning to you trying to be careful. what might kill you and for those of you who are so cheers need them if you have a 2nd elevator with you their presence felt like cancer jeff sessions to let it be says never have to come out alive. again i did not show you their robust speech to excuse her balance out the

speech of my client for i need not i showed you the video because in this political forum all robust speech should be protected and it should be protected evenly for all of us. as a brief aside we should all reflect and acknowledge the rhetoric has gotten to be too much and over the top it is grading on the collective well being of the body public the citizens most would like it to stop but the point is when you see speech such as this you have to apply the 1st amendment evenly blindly she is

blind lady justice. question one does the 1st amendment applied to this chamber in these proceedings the house managers position as stated in their trial brief is and i quote the 1st amendment does not apply at all to an impeachment proceeding and that's their position this is plainly wrong the text of the 1st amendment express the restricts congress from regulating speech it says congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or the right of the people peaceably to assemble

and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. to ignore the constitution would be contrary to the oath of office of a united states senator i do solemnly swear or affirm that i will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic that i will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. well you all know the rest know the senate cannot ignore the 1st amendment the constitution itself limits the bill the ability of the house to impeach to unlimited items such as high crimes and misdemeanors the position advanced by the house managers is essentially

an unlimited impeachment standard without constitutional guardrails on mord to any specific legal test other than the unbridled discretion of congress this is distinctly not the intent of the framers. the framers were aware of the danger of any impeachment process that would make the president the mere creature of the legislature a quote directly from the framers while debating the impeachment process on the floor of the constitutional convention of $1787.00 the framers were fearful that any impeachment process that gave congress full discretion on the standard for impeachment would constitute nothing less than a violation quote a violation of the final fundamental principle of good government.

one founding father james wilson wrote extensively on the impeachment process mr wilson was a renowned legal scholar at the time a law professor at the university of pennsylvania in philadelphia he was a major force in drafting and adopting the constitution in 1787 he served as one of the 1st supreme one of the 1st 6 supreme court justices 789 to 1798 was appointed by president george washington. in fact wilson taught the 1st corps on the new constitution to president washington and his cabinet the 1st in the nation's history in philadelphia at the university of pennsylvania in 1789 wilson in his law

lectures the 1st of their kind under the constitution plainly states that the senate may not ignore the constitution in impeachment proceedings. he states that lawful and constitutional conduct may not be used as an impeachable offense let me say that again he states that lawful and constitutional conduct may not be used as an impeachable offense read along with me the doctrine of impeachments is of high import in the constitutions of free states on one hand the most powerful magistrate should be amenable to the law on the other hand elevated characters should not be sacrificed merely on account of their elevation

no one should be sure while he violates the constitution and the laws. everyone should be secure while he observes them. to be clear james wilson is saying that the constitution does indeed apply when judging whether to convict an official by impeachment if the complaint of conduct is constitutional it cannot be impeachable are we to ignore the words and teachings of james wilson the house managers surely want you to. the house managers have made several references to this letter signed by a 140 partisan law professors calling mr trump's 1st amendment offense legally frivolous this is really an outrageous attempt to intimidate

mr trump's lawyers whenever a lawyer advances a truly frivolous argument they may violate professional ethical rules and could be subject to discipline this letter is a direct threat to my law license my career and my family's financial well being. these law professors should be ashamed of themselves and show should the house managers out there you do you really hate donald trump so much that you're willing to destroy a good hardworking people's lives people that are only doing their jobs and frankly as counsel for an accused for filling a constitutional role it's astounding really i'm a citizen not a politician i know these 1st amendment arguments are not anywhere

close to frivolous they're completely meritorious interesting lee the law professors letter was issued on february 5th 3 days before we even filed our legal brief in this matter and they ignored landmark bed rock supreme court cases directly addressing this issue in our brief we have a direct quote from james wilson the founding father supporting our position the direct quote was documented in the founding fathers original legal papers. on the subject he was the primary draftsman of the constitution thought the new constitution approved president washington he says so long as acts of elected officials like mr trump are constitutionally protected he should not be impeached

we have landmark u.s. supreme court decisions wood and bonds which i'll explain in detail supporting our position all of this the house managers and the partisan law professors completely and misleadingly ignore frivolous hardly the law the letter is a bully tactic and i think evidence is the house managers know they have a problem with a 1st amendment offense on the merits so they're resorting to such tactics the house managers suggestion that the 1st amendment does not apply to this impeachment pursue process is completely untenable. ignoring the 1st amendment would conflict with the senator's oath of office eros a conflict with well settled supreme court precedent and ignored the intent of the

framers of the constitution such as james wilson above all else ignoring the constitution would adopt the new raskin common sense doctrine we heard yesterday eroding hundreds of years of 1st amendment protections we are here under the constitution it is illogical what the house managers say the constitution does apply to this constitutional impeachment process it's double talk nonsense illogical. if the house managers had their way they would ignore all of the constitution. does that include the 6th amendment the right to counsel they would have mr trump sitting here with our lawyers and who would be dax it could be anyone what are you

or one of you. you must reject this invitation to ignore the 1st amendment it is anti american and would set dangerous precedent forever. the laws developed over the years to clearly established elected officials have the right to engage in protected speech mr trump is not just a guy on the street or a guy at a bar or a fire chief or a police officer there are a few of them and they're all analogies given by the house managers these sideways analogies are wrong mr trump was an elected official and there is an entire body of law supreme court landmark cases supporting the conclusion that mr trump actually has enhanced free speech rights because he is an elected

official these cases are ignored by the house managers and the law professors and that too is total intellectual dishonesty the supreme court has long held that the 1st amendment's right to freedom of speech protects elected officials. 2 important on point decisions for the supreme court would versus georgia and bond versus floyd express the contradict the house managers position the house managers do not even state those cases in their brief they barely acknowledge them in their reply and they were mum on them yesterday and would versus georgia the

supreme court addressed a case involving a sitting sheriff whose reelection was being investigated by a grand jury and panel by a judge based on allegations of irregular negro block voting it was in the sixty's the sheriff spoke publicly and multiple press releases calling the grand jury investigations racists illegitimate and in an attempt to intimidate voters he even urged the grand jurors on how to decide the issues and not let its high office be a party to any political attempt to intimidate voters the sheriff viewed the grand jury is challenging the legitimacy of his election the sheriff even sent a letter to the grand jurors with these allegations which is an extraordinary step since laws in most states including georgia prohibited temps to influence or

intimidate jurors the sheriff was charged and convicted of contempt of court and obstruction of the grand jury but the supreme court in a decision written by justice brennan reversed the court held that the 1st amendment protected an elected public official speech because the voting controversy directly affected the sheriff's political career she 29. the petitioner was an elected official and had read with me please everybody the petitioner was an elected official and had the right to enter the field of political controversy particularly where his political life was at stake the role that elected officials play in our society makes it all the more imperative that they be allowed freely to express themselves on matters of current

public importance would the us stands for the proposition that a difference of political opinion expressed in a speech on an issue of voting irregularity cannot be punishable where all that was done was to encourage investigation and peaceful political speech just like mr trump is done here the legal scholars call that directly on point. a 2nd case bond versus floyd involved a state legislature punishing an elected official for protected political speech bond is particularly instructive here to. and bond the supreme court squarely addressed the question of an elected officials punishment by a legislature for statements alleged to have been cited public by elation of the law the burning of draft cards. the court unequivocally rejected the

idea advanced here by the house managers that an elected official is intitled to no protection under the 1st amendment the supreme court held that the georgia house of representatives was in fact for bitten by the 1st amendment from punishing bond by not ceding i'm for advocating against the policy of the united states. there are 3 fundamental holdings in bond. one the manifest function of the 1st amendment in a representative government requires that legislators be given the widest latitude to express their views on issues of policy to just as erroneous statements must be protected to give freedom of expression the breathing

space it needs to survive so statements criticizing public policy and the implementation of it must be similarly protected 3rd holding legislators have an obligation to take pows ish ins on controversial poll live a poll questions so that their constituents can be fully informed by them and be better able to assess their qualifications please read along with me. their qualifications for office also so they may be represented in governmental debates by the person they have elected to represent them. mr trump enjoys this same 1st amendment protection from congress the 1st amendment's protections guarantee free speech addressing the electorial integrity issues essential to his

career that mr trump has consistently advocated. the house managers argue that the 1st amendment and i quote does not shield public officials who. are sensitive policy making positions from adverse actions when their speech undermines important governmental entrusts that is flat wrong they are in essence attempting to treat mr trump as their employ he this is not the law under wood and bond mr trump was elected by the people he is an elected official the supreme court says elected officials must have the right to freely engage in public speech indeed the supreme court express they rejected the house managers argument and

would versus georgia holding that the sheriff was not a civil servant but elected an elected official who had couper 1st amendment rights which could not be restricted that's would be georgia page $395.00 footnote 21 the house and managers do not mention wood or bond in the trial brief or anywhere else. why why not because it does not fit their narrative or their story they want to punish mr trump for engaging in constitutionally protected free speech and they do not want you to consider the issue. but you must. question too does mr trump's speech deserve protection under the 1st amendment

there is no doubt mr trump in gauge and constitutionally protected political speech that the house as improperly characterized as incitement of insurrection the fatal flaw of the house's argument is that it seeks to mete out governmental punishment impeachment based on 1st amendment political speech speech for political purposes the kind of activity to which the 1st amendment offers its strongest protection these are bedrock principles recognized by our supreme court for decades. the court has stated in no uncertain terms the importance of these principles toward democratic principles the general proposition that freedom of expression upon public questions is secured by the 1st amendment has long been settled by our decisions the constitutional

safeguard we have said was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changers desired by the people of new york times fiesole of and our 1st amendment decisions have created a rough hierarchy in the constitutional protection of speech core political speeches occupy the highest most protected position. even political speech that may incite unlawful conduct is protected from the reach of government punishment the court has said every idea is an incitement and if speech may be suppress when it might inspire someone to act unlawfully then

there is no limit to the state's sense oriel power the government may not prohibit speech because it increases the chances of an unlawful act will be completed committed at some indefinite time in the future the house managers showed you a series of tweets going all the way back to 2015 in an effort to prove incitement all of that evidence is totally irrelevant under the constitutional definition of incitement brandenburg versus ohio is really the landmark case on the issue of incitement speech. after the case was mentioned yesterday in the brandenburg vo heigho case another landmark the court held that govern meant may only suppose the government may only suppress speech for advocating the

use of force or a violation of law if such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing eminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action the brandenburg holding has been interpreter as having 3 basic prongs to determine if speech meet the definition of incitement the brandenberg test precludes speech from being sanctioned as incitement to iraq alas. the strong one the speech explicitly or implicitly encourage use of violence or lawless action to the speaker intends that his speech will result in use of violence or lawless action and 3 the imminent use of

violence or a lawless action is likely is the likely result of the speech. the house managers cannot get past the 1st prong of the brandenburg test they have not and can not prove mr trump explicitly or implicitly encourage the use of violence or a lawless action period brandenberg requires a close examination of the words themselves the words are either important or they're not the house managers in mid that the incitement issue is not about the words why not because on the face of it mr trump's words are no different than the figurative speech used by every one of

the senators assembled here today if it is not about the words but about the big law of a stolen election then why isn't house manager raskin guilty since he tried to overturn the 2016 election the more the house managers speak the more apoc recy gets revealed. a poc recy even though they say it's not about the words the law under brandenburg requires a close analysis of the words to determine incitement. so we need to look at those words mr trump did the opposite of advocating for lawless action the opposite he expressed the advocated for peaceful action

at the save america rally he explicitly stated these are the words i know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard that is how this president has spoken for years when he condemns violence lawlessness and reierson the house managers have played manipulated selectively edited parts of mr trump speech they focus heavily on the word fight. the president use the word fight 20 times in his speech. they picked

only 2 why why not the other 18 because they don't tell the story they way they want to tell it here all of them listen to the context. and rudy you did a great job ahead he's got guts you know what he's got guts out like a lot of people in the republican party he's got guts he fights he fights. i'll tell you thank you very much john fantastic job i watched that's a tough act to follow those 2 to so many weak republicans and we have great ones jim jordan and some of these guys they're out there fighting the house guys are fighting but it's it's incredible many of the republicans i helped them get in i helped them get elected get rid of how do you say i want to get rid of america 1st

even if you're going to do it don't talk about it right. unbelievable what we have to go through what we have to go through and you have to get your people to fight and if they don't fight we have to primary the hell out of the ones that don't fight you primary thing we're going to we're going to let you know who they are i could already tell you frankly i'm very public kids are constantly fighting like a boxer with his hands tied behind his back it's like a boxer and we want to be so nice we want to be so respectful of everybody including bad people and we're going to have to fight much harder. and mike pence is going to have to come through for us and if he doesn't. that will be a sad day for our country because you're sworn to uphold our constitution i and the accountability says if we see somebody in there that doesn't treat our

vets well or they steal they rob they do things family we say joe you're fired get added here before you couldn't do the guy you couldn't do that before so we've taken care of things we've done things like nobody's ever thought possible and that's part of the reason that many people don't like us because we've done too much but we've done it quickly and we were going to sit home and watch a big victory and everybody had astound for a victory it was going to be great and now we're out here fighting i said to somebody i was going to take a few days and relax after a big electoral victory 10 o'clock it was over the american people do not believe the corrupt fake deuce anymore they have ruined their reputation. but you know it used to be that they don't argue with me i fight so i fight good fight i'd fight their fight but puppet believe me and believe them somebody comes out you know they

had their point of view i had my point of view but you'd have an argument now what they do is they go silent. it's called suppression and that's what happens in a communist country that's what they do they suppress you don't fight with them anymore unless it's a bad so that a little bad story about me then make it 10 times worse and it's a major headline but hunter biden they don't talk about what happened on their whistle there are with your help over the last 4 years we've built the greatest political movement in the history of our country and nobody even challenges that i say that over and over and i never get challenged by the fake this and they challenge almost everything we say but our fight against the big donors big b.d. a big tech and others is just getting started this is the greatest of a sick there's never been a movement like that our brightest days are before us our greatest achievements still way i think one of our great achievements will be election security because

nobody until i came along had any idea how corrupt our elections were and again most people would stand there at 9 o'clock in the evening and say i want to thank you very much and they go off to some other life but i said something's wrong here something's really wrong can't have happened and we fight we fight like hell and if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore our exciting adventures and boldest endeavors have not yet begun my fellow americans for our movement for our children and for our beloved country and i say this despite all that's happened the best is yet to come. a boxer fighting with his hand tied behind his back members of congress fighting

rudy being rude. these are the metaphorical rhetorical uses of the word fight we all know that right. suddenly the word fight is off limits spare us the poc received in faults indignation it's a term used over and over and over again by politicians on both sides of the aisle and of course the democrat house managers know that the word fight has been used figuratively in political speech for ever but don't take it from me. it's best to listen to them and nations to play our jobs the point we had to face here and fight democrats are fighting as hard as we can democrats are standing up to fight we know we. democrats are going to fight like hell we fight

like hell on a fight like hell i will fight like hell we're going to fight like hell i'm going to fight like hell i might help i will i right now we have to sign it right now all i know many of these senators and members of the house will fight like hell we are going to fight like hell we're going to fight when can't fight like hell and we just have to fight we're going to find we are going to fight very hard because you are trying to fight both political rival load should be spent millions do you millions billions have got the standoff and fight and fight fight the dog and fight brown to fight and continue to fight once again to fight in the right we're fighting for my life just like you did ministration yet i get what you don't fight for what also fight him and challenge him in every way that we can fight in congress fight in the courts fight in the streets in the congress in the courts and in the streets there's a right there right there is the party and then there's the fight to japan were

eager to take on the spying the american people are going to have to fight yet am i good in this fight around the clock fighting we've got to keep fighting and keep focused we will fight when we must fight we've been fighting so we need to plug but we also need to find it always going to be not go fight and this is going to be a fight we must fight we're in the fight of our lives and we're going to be in to underline is the fight of our life find of their lives we are and for our lives we cannot give up. the park received. the reality is mr trump was not in any way shape or form instructing these people to fight or to use physical violence what he was instructing them to do was to challenge their

opponents in primary elections to push for sweeping election reforms to hold a big tack response a ball all customary and legal ways to petition your government for redress of grievances which of course is also protected constitutional speech but the house managers don't want you to focus on those things because again it does not fit their story. in the end i leave you with this quote from benjamin franklin freedom of speech is a principle pillar of a free government when this support is taken away the constitution

of a free society is dissolved and tyranny is directed on its ruins thank you. for. mr president the majority leader may ask unanimous consent the senate recess for a 15 minute break. but. ok so former president donald trump's defense lawyers presenting the. arguments on day 4 of the. impeachment trial of the former president let's bring in 0 who sat through that with michael vanderveen and david schoen trumps defense lawyers arguing. pretty much the president trumps rhetoric is protected under the

constitution under roe the 1st amendment. in answer to the question is going around everyone's head that 1st time that 1st video last that the 11 minutes and 18 seconds and of course have seen the edited highlights of it since then he's saying that although the president used the word fight it's all about the context that he had often said that he wanted people to go and peacefully protest they claim that this has been a theme of donald trump's presidency although i've been at rallies where donald trump has said that if people wanted to punch protesters he would cover their legal fees they went exactly the way we thought they would do the argued on the constitutionality that's an odd argument to make given that that was already decided by a vote on tuesday the argued about due process and they talked about how this isn't how these sort of things are done in criminal cases but then in criminal cases you wouldn't have the defense case talking to republican senators essentially part of

the jury on the night before you're about to give your presentation that would mean a mistrial as well it's interesting the words that they're using here that they've used hypocrisy a lot they've used punish the used hatred they've used heat they're trying to paint this very much as a partisan issue. is that the democrats that are attacking donald trump because they do not like him and the see that they have not liked him for a long time that is why they have talked about impeaching him for a very long time it's important to note at this point there are also 10 republicans who voted to impeach donald trump as well i think one point should be made that michael vanderveen is not a constitutional lawyer. nor a c. expert in civil rights law either he is in fact a personal injury lawyer from philadelphia clearly they have made a determination that they are going to try and not defend donald trump on exactly

what happened here on capitol hill it's all going to be about whether or not he provoked them their argument very clearly is that what happened was awful 'd but it really had nothing to do with donald trump and you can't make it about donald trump they're not going to spend a lot more time after the break making their case because what they have done effectively and this is not a legal issue this is a political issue what they have done is give the republican senators the chance to go back to the base to go back to their constituencies to go back to the media in their home states and say well the reason i voted not to convict donald trump was because 'd it was a 1st amendment right it was constitutional as the treating him differently from how they're treating all the others one other point i would like to make eugene if you look at the video that was edited and the democrats that are featured in that most of them are people that you would consider to be figures of heat for the right

for republicans and so they went chosen just by random they were chosen so that the republican senators can defend what was said many thanks and they have much more from in the hours ahead time for us to hand you over to our colleagues in london for the coverage we'll see you again. it's 10 years since the libyan revolution led to the. overthrow of long time ruler mama to death. the country was torn by conflict and rival claims of power. but it's hope talks will finally bring peace and stability join us as we assess libya's road to elections on al-jazeera. a song. a father. a mutual love of the arts. the stage is set to immortalize fading memories. in a magical race against time. witness our time machine.

on a. al-jazeera world goes to morocco to meet 5 would be film directors doing whatever it takes to succeed or write the script and i'm often the camera man the 40 injured here and the boom operator not the road to fame and fortune can be a rocky one juggling the demands of family life with their passion for filmmaking i'll become a great film director and my mother will be proud of filmmakers and child up front al-jazeera. joggers in new delhi take advantage of the relatively clean air after weeks of toxic small to stop people from venturing outside institutions including harvard say air pollution is leading to more severe cases of the coronavirus and more deaths from it and nowhere in india a situation worse than a daddy the number of records where

a desperate situation of the indian government set up a new commission to monitor sources of air pollution across 5 north indian states health experts and environmentalists have been wanting for months that the easing of the lockdown would lead to an increase in pollution and the impact that would have on those because the 19. this impeachment is completely divorced from the facts the evidence and the interests of the american people. donald trump's lawyers begin their defense of the former president by branding his 2nd impeachment trial an act of political vengeance. hello i'm maryam namazie and london you're watching al-jazeera also coming up on the program.