at 3 13 pm president trump urged protesters at the u.s. capitol to remain peaceful no violence remember we are the party of law and order respect the law and our great men and women in blue 3 13 pm president trump's words couldn't have incited the riot at the capital the day's events make this clear let's walk through the actual time line at 11 15 am police security camera video show crowds forming at 1st street near the capital reflecting pool this is a full 45 minutes before president trump even took the stage on january 6th let me repeat that violent criminals were assembling at the capitol over a mile away almost an hour before the president uttered

a single word on the ellipse. you did not hear that fact during the hours and hours of the house managers presentation did you when the president spoke what did he call for he called for rally attendees to peacefully and patriotically make their voices heard for them to walk down pennsylvania avenue to cheer on members of congress president trump went on for more than an hour ending it want to levon now why is this important because of all of the events that i'm about to describe they all occurred before before president trump's remarks concluded at 12 49 pm the 1st barriers at the u.s. capitol grounds were pushed over and the crowd entered the restricted area. at 11

o 5 pm acting defense secretary christopher miller received open source reports of demonstrator movements at to the u.s. capitol at one o 9 pm u.s. capitol police chiefs stephen son called the house and senate sergeant at arms telling them he wanted an emergency declared and he wanted the national guard called the point given the timeline of events the criminals at the capitol weren't there at the ellipse to even hear the president's words they were more than a mile away engaged in their pre-planned assault on this very building this was a pre-planned assault make no mistake and that is a critical fact watch this. does anyone in this chamber honestly believe that planning for the conduct of the president trump. that charge in the article of impeachment that that attack at the capitol never heard anybody believe

that it was not some sort of spontaneous decision by a bunch of folks protesters to go up to capitol hill and storm capitol hill this was all planned out how much of it was was planned how much of this was strategized ahead of time they are getting indications some evidence that they're seeing that indicates that there was some level of planning there appears to be premeditation f.b.i. internal report the day before the siege warning of a violent war at the capitol the f.b.i. issued a warning of a post mortem at the capitol the f.b.i. would warn law enforcement agencies about this specific attack be ready to fly congress tuesday here breaking doors being kicked in we got some intelligence that the number of individuals who are planning to travel to the d.c. area its intentions was violet's we immediately shared that information was pushed out that information through this change the t.s.a. structure was

a really disseminated written product and briefed to our command post operations to all of. the f.b.i. says to take guns discovered near the capitol in january 6th were placed there the night the 1st to get here until christmas suspected that plan. because we are now says the bombs were planted the night before the capital c o n 730 and 30 pm they were planted the day before all the i know the medication and coordinate the money into the issues and. so to answer the question of the house manager does anybody believe that this would have occurred but for the speech from donald trump. i do. all of these facts make clear the january 6th speech did not cause the riots

the president did not cause the riots he neither explicitly or implicitly encourage the use of violence or lawless action but in fact called for peaceful exercise of every americans 1st amendment rights to peacefully assemble and petition their government for redress of grievances in other words the brandenburg standard does not meet out the house managers admitted many facts are unknown even speaker pelosi admitted not knowing the real cause of the violence when she called for a 911 style commission to examine the facts and causes that led to the violence on the screen is speaker pelosi is call for the 911 commission.

let's touch now on the 2nd absurd and conflated allegation in the house managers single article. present trump's phone call to georgia secretary of state ben raffensperger sarap to slee recorded by the way. included and included multiple attorneys and others on the call let me point out the very obvious fact that the house managers ignored the private call that was made public by others cannot really be the basis to claim that the president instead intended to incite a riot because he did not publicly disclose the contents of the call how could he have hoped to use this call to invite his followers if he had no intent to

make the conversation public and indeed had nothing to do with it being secretly recorded. the house managers told you that the president demanded that the georgia secretary of state quote find just over 11000 votes the word find like so many others the house managers highlighted is taken completely out of context and the word fine did not come out of thin air based on an analysis of publicly available voter data that the ballot rejection rate in georgia in 2016 was approximately 6.42 percent and even though a tremendous amount of new 1st time mail in ballots were included in the 2020 count the georgia rejection rate in 2020 was a mere 4 tenths of one percent a drop off from 6.42 percent 2.4 percent

president trump one of the signature verification to be done in public how can a request for signature verifications to be done in public be a basis for a charge for inciting a riot with that background it is clear the president trying to comments in the use of the word find were soley related to his concerns with the inexplicable dramatic drop in george's ballot rejection rates let's examine how the word find was used throughout that conversation mr trump's 1st use of the word find was as follows quote we think that if you check the signatures a real check of the signatures going back in fulton county you'll find at least a couple 100000 of forged signatures of people who have been forged.

and we are quite sure that's going to happen. president trump also used find as follows quote now why aren't we doing signature and why can't it be open to the public and why can't we have professionals do it instead of rank amateurs who will never find anything and don't want to find anything they don't want to find you know they don't want to find anything some day you'll tell me the reason why because i don't understand your reasoning but some day you'll tell me the reason why but why don't you want to find. president trump echoed his previous sentiments again in the context of pursuing illegitimate and robust investigation into the lack of signature of verification for mail in an absentee ballots quote and why can't we have professionals do

it instead of rank amateurs who will never find anything and don't want to find anything they don't want to find anything you know they don't want to find anything . they don't want to find you know they don't want to find anything someday you'll tell me why because i don't understand your reasoning but someday you'll tell me why but why don't you want to find we can go through signature verification and we'll find hundreds of thousands of signatures and you can let us do it and the only way you can do that do it as you know is to go to the past but you didn't do that in cobb county you just looked at one page compared to another the only way you could do a signature verification is to go from one that signed it in nov 1 november whatever recently and compare to 2 years ago 4 years ago 6

years ago you know or even one. and you'll find that you have many different signatures but in fulton where they dumped ballots you will find that you have many that aren't even signed and that you have many forgeries and quote. mr trump continued to use the word fine throughout the conversation each and every other time in the context of his request that mr raffensperger undertake a signature a review of signature verifications and his concerns generally with ballot integrity and his reported electoral deficit here are a few examples quote but why wouldn't you want to find the right answer brad instead of keep saying what that the numbers are right because those numbers are so wrong. another example quote

we think that if you check the signatures a real check of the signatures going back in fulton county you'll find at least a couple 100000 of forged signatures of people who have been forged and we are quite sure that's going to happen and quote moreover there was nothing untoward with president trump or any other candidate for that matter speaking with the lead elections officer of a state that's why the georgia secretary of state took a call along with members of his team one of whom decided to record it and release it to the press the only reason this conversation is being discussed in this chamber is because once again the media and their democratic allies distorted the true conversation to mislead you and the american public

so we have a complete lack of evidence for the article of impeachment presented by the house managers. so why are we here politics. their goal is to eliminate a political opponent to substitute their judgment for the will of the voters why bother with the senate trial of donald trump he's no longer president will be out of office anyway is it to keep him from ever running again to make sure he can never run for office again keep it running for office again it's all trump would not be able to run for office again barring him from running for office again disqualified for running for office disqualifying him from ever running from office again disqualified for running for office and it's about focusing they can never run again remove him from every running for office again never be able to ride

office again battle of former president trump for running bad if we don't impeach this president he will get reelected. the goal is to eliminate a political opponent to substitute their judgment for the will of the voters members of the senate our country needs to get back to work i know that you know that but instead we are here the majority party promised to unify and deliver more covert relief but instead they did this we will not take most of our time today us of the defense in the hopes that you will take back these hours and use them to get delivery of covert relief to the american people

let us be clear this trial is about far more than president trump it is about silencing and banning the speech the majority does not agree with it is about cancelling 75000000 trump voters and criminalizing political viewpoints. that is what this trial is really about it's the only x. the existential issue before us. if it asks for constitutional cancel culture to take over in the united states senate are we going to allow canceling and banning and

silencing to be sanctioned in this body to the democrats who view this as a moment of opportunity i urge you instead to look to the principles of free expression and free speech i hope truly that the next time you are in the minority you don't find yourself in this position to the republicans in this chamber i ask when you are next in the majority please resist what will be an overwhelming temptation to do this very same thing to the opposing party members of the senate this concludes the formal defense of the 45th president of

the united states to the impeachment article filed by the house of representatives i understand that there is a procedure in place for questions and we await them there after we will close on behalf of president trump. and mr president we yield the balance. and i ask unanimous consent we take a 15 minute recess the objects in the senate will stand recess. all right so we've just been listening to donald trump's legal team laying out their defense in the former president's impeachment trial he is charged with and citing the false he is essentially charged with inciting the riots on

capitol hill with a speech that he delivered on january 6th essentially voicing false claims that the election was stolen and we've been hearing that trump's lawyer is essentially arguing that there is no clear link between donald trump's speech on january 6th and the capital insurrection they claim that the trial is unconstitutional and that president trump was exercising his rights under the 1st amendment free speech when he made his address to his supporters well the last few hours the legal team have been explaining why president should be acquitted they have called the entire situation absurd they say that he did not incite his supporters on january 6th to storm the capitol building and defense lawyer michael vanderveen accuse the house impeachment managers of presenting a case driven by hate 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 wall 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 capitol he didn't. well donald trump's defense team also dedicated much of their time to showing examples of members of the democratic party and independent senators using political rhetoric talking about fighting and the use of violence. in a fight democrats are fighting as hard as we can democrats are standing up to fight we know because we eat

a lot of that like to democrats are going to fight like you know we fight like you know from a partner that i will fight like and we're going to fight like hell i'm going to fight like you know i need my help i will fight right now we have to fight like all you and i mean many of these senators and members of the house he fights like a coach we are going to fight what killed we're going to fight. fight one kill and we just have to fight we're going to fight we are going to fight right. by. right let's go to allan fisher is following proceedings on capitol hill for us and so we've been hearing really a continuation of the arguments there that the president did not incite the riot on capitol. just to get to go to the video which was 11 minutes and 800 seconds of democrats and independents centers as you see using the word fight the question that then could be directed to the trump defense team is if that is the case why would donald trump supporters the only one to act on it now they say

that the speech that he gave done in the ellipse was not the precursor that this had all been preplanned but of course the democratic argument is that the new ad been pre-planned because donald trump or talked about the big lie of the election being stolen of his anger about the election being stolen even when he knew that that wasn't true even though he had lost several court cases it's interesting too that we hear words like heat and hypocrisy and punish they're being used by trump's the fence team aimed particularly at the case put forward by the democrats and they say that this is cancel culture which is a buzz phrase among republicans and the right wing here in the united states at the moment suggesting that they are trying to cancel donald trump and by extension in the sum up there by bruce castor that they're also trying to cancel the votes of 75000000 americans who voted for donald trump and he seemed to suggest may want to

vote for him again in the future there's always the possibility that donald trump will possibly run again for the presidency in 2024. we are told that in the chamber that when the video or the 11 minutes video of fight was being played that there was laughter among some of the senators that it just seemed ridiculous that it going on too long but a number of the republicans who came out during the last break had said that they felt the defense team and actually done a reasonably good job a pretty good job you remember there were big criticism of them on tuesday in their defense about whether or not this was a constitutional hearing there seems to be a. among others that they have done a good job and ron johnson who is a senator from wisconsin is a big don't trump fund he's one of the people who talked about whether or not this election was stolen claiming that it indeed was he essentially says that his mind's made up that he is going to vote no and that's the difficulty that the democrats

have no i just want to address one other point during the the earlier presentation . donald trump's defense team talked about manipulated video and they did it again and then played a video with a number of democrats talking about how the the protests in the summer were largely peaceful and then the cut in iran them picture of a riot to point out that most of the protests over the summer where indeed peaceful and it's manipulated video to stick a bit of a riot in the middle of the conversation not only that he accused the democrats of not giving them the video that we saw on wednesday which of course was a security camera video which no one had seen for the 1st time which was incredibly dramatic incredibly potent and they said that this was held from them under the rules of the trial it was made clear that the the prosecution had to give all the evidence to the defense and we are told that that video evidence was handed over with everything else on tuesday and so thomas defense team had the opportunity to

watch the video if they see they saw it just for the 1st time on wednesday that is because they chose not to watch the video. rights argument so far is that the. president trump is not guilty because it's unconstitutional it's politically motivated they speak about trump's use of the word fight it being politically motivated and then also we heard a bit more in the last portion of his defense alan about the fact that president trant former president loves the police he loves his very much the nor in order president. and he's talked about his support for the police on many occasions and back the blue here's an interesting thing when donald trump put forward his budget to come to congress it actually called for a reduction in the amount of money that would be given to law enforcement he also

didn't condemn the actions of people who were plotting to kidnap the governor of michigan in fact he said that the governor of michigan should be grateful to him and many times he of course has criticized the f.b.i. saying that there were corrupt people in the f.b.i. not least related to what he claimed was the fraud of the the russia investigation . donald trump's defense team out essentially giving a fig leaf to republican senators talking about the constitutionality over which was decided on tuesday talking about 1st amendment rights and whoa hold on a 2nd look at all these people many of them considered he figures by the right how they have used the word fight and then they are talking about joe process as well. and they are doing this so that republican senators can go home and say oh well look i voted no because it did that this simply wasn't right it wasn't constitutional here's another interesting thing in the last break ted cruz was seen i don't know take cruz being

a republican senator big supporter of donald trump he was seen with several other republican senators the likes of marsha blackburn from tennessee and others saying that there are different standards for impeachment in the house compared to the senate that sounds like a talking point that is being prepared so they can go out and see look at the house impeached him but there are different standards here in the senate therefore we have decided not to impeach donald trump it is about facing the bases about a lot of these people going back home and saying yes i voted for donald trump which will protect them with the base but then if they're confronted by people who aren't trump supporters be the democrats or republicans who are disillusioned and we knew there were many of them. in the last election they can say well the reason i didn't vote was because constitutionality lack of joe process 1st amendment right different standard in the house and the senate it is all about political protection for what goes on from here over all the case made by the democrats. was probably

a bit thin but we knew it was going to be because they've taken up not quite 4 hours of their time and of course they we know face questions and some of those questions could be awkward such as why did donald trump not activate the national guard quicker than he did why was he tweeting about mike pence not doing his job when he knew that might pence have been taken out of the chamber and may be at risk why was it mike pence himself that activated the national guard because the white house failed to do it why if so many republicans say donald trump wasn't responsible for sending the mob to the hill why did they call the white house and say he is the only one that can call these off the big question to about whether or not you know to call witnesses i'm told there's a debate going on among democrats some think that that might be a good idea but others looking at the electoral math realize that they're not going

to get 67 votes so it may be better just to have made their case and walk away at this point i guess it will become clearer in the next session but certainly a truck trumps defense team are going to face some difficult questions from the democrats in the senate indeed there is you say they have 16 hours to present their arguments that they're taking up as assistant much smaller portion of that and then the question answer session comes next and then just to take a broader perspective that in many ways this this proceeding reflects a division inside the country all over well many trant voters that and may be critical of his post-election conduct he still retains a fair bit of support how conscious are republicans of. very much so and many of those who are going to vote no are doing so because they themselves harbor ambitions to run for the presidency in 2024 at they believe that donald trump doesn't run and remember then donald trump will be 7 team as. 7 the thing

that they need to get his base his support and so by being seen as loyal to donald trump the will help when part of that beast when it comes to the whole republican primary which will last for about a year or more and then perhaps will have a big say in the eventual nominee so you're looking at people like george holy ted cruz marco rubio rick scott from florida i could go on there are several more who quite fancy the idea of running for president in 2024 so to be seen to be a loyal to donald trump is still important because he controls a huge part of the republican party base when there was a meeting of kevin mccarthy who is the leader of the demo of the republicans in the house he went to model argo after the inauguration donald trump being don't a monologue oh. he had been critical of donald trump in and around the 6th of

january he actually laid the blame for what happened in the in the 6 of january directly at the feet of the president as he he was at the time and then he kind of walked that back a bit and then went down tomorrow i go on one of the reasons he went to mar a lago this is the point i'm trying to make is that he asked him for his donor lists it's all about money the they need the money they need access to who was bankrolling donald trump because to keep the republican party moving to keep the challenge in 2022 in the midterms it's important to have money and donald transporter rules an important source of that so you can see why they are still many people in the republican party both politically and financially still express fealty to donald trump still express loyalty to the man who was president thanks very much for now alan fischer on capitol hill thanks alan. what's your lawyers heading the legal team to defend trump i david show and british cast shown as a civil rights and criminal defense lawyers representatives represented some

controversial for. because including trump's ally raja stone he also told us media that he met accused sex trafficker jeffrey epstein in prison just before he died he observes the jewish sabbath so will not participate in the trial off to sundown on friday casta is a former district attorney known for refusing to prosecute bill cosby on sexual assault charges his rambling opening statement was heavily criticized by both democrats and republicans and is also said to have an raged donald trump but in closing just now cast a point to take examples of preplanning and coordination among the right as evidence that donald trump's speech did not incite the storming of the capitol the january 6 peach did not cause the riots the president did not cause the riots in either explicitly or implicitly encourage the use of violence or lawless action but in fact called for peaceful exercise of every american's 1st amendment rights to

peacefully assemble and petition their government for redress of grievances. well let's cross live now to andy gallagher who's in west palm beach florida and much of the rhetoric and language we heard from president trump's defense team really reflects words that trump himself is used when he speaks about the whole thing being unjust and unconstitutional political vengeance interesting we're hearing from bruce castor there raising the point about the sort of contradiction in the impeachment managers argument that. well essentially saying that it couldn't be both premeditated the attack on capital because they were arguing that it was preplanned in other words it couldn't have been incited by president trump because it was premeditated. but look objectively speaking if we look at the 1st day of the 2nd impeachment on tuesday and trump's lawyers opening

remarks they were pretty much a disaster they were all over the place their argument wasn't very cohesive for tall and then you contrast that with what they've just done over the past few hours and they've put forward a pretty strong case i'm short of the president former president trump is watching you'd be pretty happy because he was apparently not very happy with tuesday's opening remarks so as alan said i think this is an important point this is all about giving republican politicians the army initially they need when they go back to their home states to say to their supporters many of whom who still backed president charm look this was a strong case put forward by the president's lawyers the evidence is there for everyone to see you can hear the language of the democrats are using it's the same as the language of the former president was using so that's why i voted not to impeachment and pretty much all of this is a moot point anyway because 17 republicans were never going to cross the aisle and vote to impeach president trump that was simply not going to happen but i think for

the democrats this was important to put this in historical perspective to get it out there on public record because i think over the last 4 years. many of us have become so know by world events that we almost forget what happened on january the 6th and then throughout all of this there hasn't been really any talk of the 5 people that died it's important to remember that people lost their lives on january the 6th that's kind of been swept under the carpet with all this political to ing and fro ing and accusations of this and people died that is a simple fact that cannot be changed but i think the president trumps lawyers did a good job if you compare the job they did on tuesday and i think it president former president trump is watching it be pretty happy with the end result so far on thursday he was playing golf but i have little doubt that at mar a lago today donald trump was watching all of this unfold. and. andy

you mention that the 5 people that died in the capital riot and really for many people inside the country but also for those of us watching what took place all around the world these were shocking events when support says essentially marched on the capitol to attract to protest congress as acceptance of biden's victory and then continued on with this with this mind and rampage how did it affect the way the support system you have has there been much criticism of trump's behavior from from those who voted for him. i mean you know when i when i've been speaking to transports that last 4 years not met many of them in different parts of the country they may not necessarily like the man himself they may not necessarily like how he conducts himself personally but they like what he does for them and it's and it's a an important thing to remember that even though former president trump lost the

election he still won over 70000000 votes so those people won't going anywhere that's an important thing to remember as well and that's why you get a group. senators right now watching their own backs because they know if they turn against this man who essentially runs this party now and you know you heard that from marjorie taylor green just the other week that the cuban i'm supporting senator from georgia saying this is not the republican party this is donald 'd trump's republican party that's really what the context is here because the arguments can go backwards and forwards everyone can score their own marks but everyone in the republican party no matter how many fractures the show right now and there are plenty knows that in actual fact this does remain the former president's party he casts a long shadow over the future of this party going forward and everybody will be watching very closely for the 1st time he speaks and will be here to cover that but more importantly perhaps what he does in the future and who he backs and whether he

runs him self in 4 more years. thanks very much from west palm beach and gallacher thank you mandy john nichols is the national affairs correspondent for the nation and author of the fight for the soul of the democratic party joins me by skype from madison wisconsin step just to pick up on the point that andy was making their way using legal terminology to describe these proceedings words like a defense prosecution trial but essentially this is this is a political process that's unfolding here you're absolutely right this is not a trial. for additional cents this is not a legal this is not a civil trial. not a criminal trial this is a political and constitutional. process and and it's best understood in that regard that's one of the reasons why many of the rules that people want to apply to trials don't apply to this for instance we've had reports

in the us that 3 republican senators met with the defense team last night now in a trial you would never have 3 jurors meet with a defense team so it is something very different and it's very much in the sort of hard wiring of the american experiment the american constitution was written in 787 with the intent that the legislative branch could remove a president or other members of the executive branch if they began to violate their oaths in a way that frankly might lead to a monarchy or to some sort of royal chowder that was something that the founders really wanted to guard against and it's interesting that one of the things that concerned them the most was something exactly like this someone who held the presidency seeking to extend their power. in an illicit or illegal way or in

a dangerous way and so this is very it is very much an appropriate impeachment trial but again it is not a traditional trial like that people who watch t.v. courtroom dramas would understand. it and when you think about everything that's happened the events on on january 6th a capital riot and the fact that there were casualties there were 5 deaths from that what are the what then are how much is at stake in this trial which of course we know that president reagan like most likely scenario is that he's not going to be convicted and so therefore he will not be disqualified from running for public office office again which was the purpose of all of this so many people in the 1st place what kind of message does it send that he is not convicted after everything that's happened what are the implications. that's a very good question and look i have written histories of impeachment and covered

a lot of more of the years and it's my view that this is the most important impeachment trial in the history of the united states and i say that not casually but because this goes to the heart of the matter disco's to exactly why the impeachment power exists that exists to guard against abuses of office the tickler by a duty to president trying to remain in office things of this nature and so use unsettling that while it to my mind the prosecution here the pietschmann managers have done a very very good job of making the case they are unlikely to succeed that does send a signal that big clearly president trump or former president trump will seek to exploit he will say look i was acquitted. but there is more to it than that and this is one of the important now days i've interviewed some of the democrats who are on a management team and they always talk about 2 important factors one the

actual trial and the potential for conviction that something they clearly want but there also is the battle for history there is the battle for how donald trump will be interpreted going forward how people will understand and think about it and the evidence that is put forward here is not just seen by the senators it is seen by the great mass of american people and it is clearly one of the intents of the democratic impeachment managers in this trial that when people see this when they take it in even if trump is acquitted that they will see trump and in a much more concerned of perhaps rejecting light than they did before. so just to be passed by a question. what what does this say about the way in which that the country's leader has congressmen and women view the constitution what does it mean for the rule of no in the country it's

a very good question again and look what it says is that we are a intensely divided country and people have chosen to wear their partisan alliances their partisan allegiances ahead of their oaths to the constitution and that will satisfy you that there are times when democrats have done that as well so it's not just republicans in this case but what we're seeing here is a circumstance where the oath to defend and protect the constitution which is the kind of core hold that that every member of the senate every member of congress wears is is not so dominant in the minds of much of our political class as the of the desire to defend their political allies to advance their political causes this is not as the founders of the american extent it's an experiment intended their intent was that that oath would be taken seriously and frankly that

in circumstances like this people would rise above party but you asked what this tells us and what it tells us is that our partisan ships have overwhelmed our sense of duty in many cases in this country what that says about the rule of law i think it's also a bit concerning message because we have again a circumstance as we have had in previous presidential of the chairman's a signal that the most powerful person in the country cannot be held to account or will not be held to account and that's a troubling message because again if you go back to the roots of the american experiment the intent was that no one would be above the law not even a president. what might that be changes the constitution as a result of of all of this any process along those lines i doubt it our constitution is very very hard to change and just as you have

a sort of partisan gridlock here and inability to get enough votes to convict donald trump so you also would require a supermajority to amend the constitution to change it and so i think in the short term it is unlikely and what that means is that one result of this trial is indeed the the former president is acquitted is that both parties are likely to kind of go to their corners and to become if you will even more determined to be partisan because the constitutional protections aren't in place in the way that one might hope that would be and so i think that that the sad reality is that the united states is going to see a lot of turbulence going forward i don't mean to be ones. where if it's going to settling it's what was seen on january 6th and not necessarily suggesting we're going to see more of that but what i am suggesting is a an inability of the 2 parties to work with one another around basic premises of

the american experiment that is a concern that that i don't think i'm alone in expressing i think there are a lot of people who watch american politics who are very concerned could this trial then end up being completely counterproductive could it backfire in some way if trump is not going to be convicted he essentially hands him a victory it shows he can go up against the elites he can compete with the country's alcohol institutions and palace structures and when. yes i mean that is certainly a concern that's been expressed again the democratic impeachment managers are hoping that the shower of their case seen by the great mass of americans will cause the center of balance to go against trump and that ultimately even if he is it could be did that the great mass of people will see him as someone who committed acts to do things that are unacceptable in a political figure but one thing to understand about donald trump and i've covered

him for a very long time is that donald trump is a master of using the media he is very very good at it taking a development and interpret it in the most favorable light for himself he's probably better at that than any politician we've seen in the modern era what that means is that he will definitely seize upon the fact that he was not convicted and seize upon the fact that he was acquitted i suspect that much as he did with the last of 3 impeachment a year ago take a victory lap and celebrate himself now he doesn't have twitter anymore so some of his vehicles for communicating are are not as. powerful as they were but i would be very surprised if donald trump doesn't come back in short order in some very loud very notable way and and portray himself as someone twice acquitted

and a political figure who will certainly have influence in the republican party the question is whether again the core question of whether he might run for president again 2024 imagine that he's very savvy and the way he interacts with the people who follow him and the people that support and what then is the most effective way to counter any they're all just a personality that is very effective with a notional manipulation and exploiting divisions. yes that's the great challenge of the 21st century in this new media age that we live in and there are there are many many theories about how best to counter it running all the way from don't give him attention over to constantly to actually economic and try to challenge it i would suggest that that trump rose in 20152016 with an argument that government didn't work for the great mass of people and my thinking on this is

that perhaps the best response is for those who disagree with donald trump to show that government can work and i think that's something that joe biden is very focused on it's been notable that during this trial president biden has said he's not paying a lot of attention to it he's much more focused on covert 19 and on economic challenges and a host of other issues and in a way that's a that's a counter to trump he's effectively saying that he's interested in governing rather than all the theatre all that controversy that goes on around donald trump and i would suggest that if joe biden is a successful president and that that's still very much up for grabs there's a lot of challenges ahead but if he uses a successful president that might be one of the best counters to 'd again this theater that goes on with donald trump and frankly with a lot of other politicians biden is not an exciting politician he tends to be in

many ways a rather boring political figure he focuses on the hard work of the job if he can achieve a lot in doing that that becomes sort of an alternative view and one frankly that i think a good many americans might like in the sense that we've had so much drama so much turbulence some much controversy culminating in what happened on january 6th and now innocent pietschmann trial that there might be a taste we will see for something that's a little calmer. and it's very dead that's why the key differences from the previous impeachment process is the context within which this is happening the country is facing economic challenges it's still in the middle of the crime of ours pandemic as the rest of the wild so actually there's a lot of as a lot of demand on the time of congress it's already a very packed legislative agenda so there's a kind of rush to get through this to so that they can get on to other business

there is no question that his influence this process again and having interviewed a number of the players in it on an all sides lately i don't think there's any question that that many people especially many democrats think this process has to go forward they think it's very serious and very important i tend to sympathize with many of their arguments here by the same token even those who are taking the process very seriously believe it has to go forward are conscious that this can't go on for weeks or months this cannot be a long process because it really is standing in the way of a serious focus on a pandemic mass unemployment a cry for racial justice in this country that has yet to be met a climate crisis and all the other challenges that governor faces an already the majority of republicans in the senate have declared the trial is unconstitutional

because donald trump is no longer in office but we do have this next phase of the trial which is the question and answer session how could that be interesting in terms of you know we learn more we get a clearer indication of how republicans are thinking if as any possible shift in the positioning. yes i think it's the most interesting part of the trial because remember the impeachment managers are from the house of representatives not from the senate the defense team for president trump these are private lawyers and so we have not heard separate couple of brief interplays we have not heard from the members of the senate the questions that are asked of the impeachment managers and of the defense team will show how seriously senators are taking this process and what you're going to want to look for is questions from republican senators that suggest that they really are interested in clarifying in fact or in getting to the

bottom of a particular issue if you have a good deal of that particularly from some of the senior republican senators who are not as aligned with trump that might be a signal that there's there's some wavering there's some openness there again i don't think that it's likely that you're going to have enough republican senators move across to convict but i will note that in the initial stages of this problem bill cassidy a very conservative republican senator from louisiana indicated that he was convinced by the arguments on the 1st day and he actually shifted his vote from being opposed to declaring the trial a constitutional to start from supporting a declaration charles out 2 opposing that declaration so it is within the realm of possibility that some of these senators can be influence we have not had clearer

signals on that up to this point the question answer is where you're going to get that and frankly i also think the question answer is going to be it especially important moment for jamie raskin who is the lead impeachment manager he's a of incredibly sharp. warner is very very good at what he does and so in that back and forth especially if he gets into an exchange with one of the republican senators that could be a very dramatic moment and also one that might have some influence on the process but also keep an eye on robert doggett stacy plus cat who comes from the virgin islands she is also a very very capable lawyer with a lot of experience in this area and so again you may see some of these figures on the impeach management team stepping up and you know kind of really showing themselves in exchanges with the senators one final thing i'll say in that regard

though is they have to be careful because this is one of those remarkable moments where they'll be answering questions perhaps even arguing a little bit with senators those senators are also jurors and so it can't be too intense back and forth because obviously you don't want to turn off a juror who you might be able to get because but at this point it doesn't that lie evidence for this faith and i think so what you want to say 67 senate says including the 17 republicans to confirm a conviction but right now we think about 4 or 5 republicans will vote with the democrats. yeah what we're looking at right now it is a situation where 6 republicans voted to say that the trial was constitutional all of those 6 are considered to be possible votes with the democrats there is an outside change and this is an interesting dynamic of it that some republican senators might simply choose not to vote but they might vote present if they do

that creates a different dynamic and a question of whether you have to get to the 67 or maybe you have a lower threshold for achieving a conviction again i don't think you're going to get to a not doing so but there's going to be a lot of attention to that for 2 reasons number one. if i had $56.00 votes for conviction is a very significant vote that is a clear majority it would be a bipartisan majority for impeachment that's a big deal and it's understood as such or that battle for history but again even though you'd have that. ok thank you john nichols many appreciate your thoughts when you think proceedings are getting back on the way in the senate trial for a 2nd opinion to former president tunnel tom. president i ask unanimous consent that the answers within the 4 hour question period be limited to 5 minutes each and

if the questions are directed to both parties the times be equally divided furthermore that questions on that question questions alternate sides for posing questions for as long as both sides have questions without objection so ordered mr president i have a question at the desk for the desk. the service a minute a question from senator schumer and senator of primes foreign has directed to the house managers a clerk or it. isn't

it the case that the violent attack and on the capitol on january 6th would not have happened if not for the conduct of president trump. 5 minutes. to answer your question very directly donald trump some of the. you semel the mob and he lit the flame everything that followed was because of his doing and although he could have immediately and forcefully intervened to stop the violence he never did in other words this violent bloody insurrection that occurred on january 6th would not have occurred but for president trump the evidence we presented at trial

makes this absolutely clear and this attack as we said didn't come from one random speech and it didn't happen by accident and that mob didn't come out of thin air before the election donald trump spread lie after lie about potential fraud in an election remember that had even happened yet months before the election took place he was saying it was rigged that it was going to be stolen all to make his supporters believe that the only way he was going to lose is if the election was stolen if the election was rigged and what he did lose he spent week after week in citing his supporters to believe that their votes had been stolen and that the election was fraudulent and that it was their patriotic duty to fight like hell to stop the steal and take their country back and remember this is in the united states where our vote is our voice you tell somebody that an election victory is

being stolen from them that's a combustible situation. and he gave them clear direction on how to deal with for example on december 19th 18 days prior to january 6 president trump told them how when where to fight for it he 1st issued his call to action for january 6th this was a save the date sent 18 days before the event on january 6th and it wasn't just a casual one off reference or a singular invitation for the next 18 days he directed all of the rage he had incited to january 6th and that was for him what he saw as his last chance to stop the transfer of power to stop from losing the presidency and he said things like quote fight to the death and january 6th will be a quote wild and quote historic day and this was working they got the message in

the days leading the attack report after report social media post after social media post confirmed that these insurgents were planning armed violence but they were planning it because he had been priming them because he had been amping them up that's why they were planning it and these posts confirmed by reports from the f.b.i. and capitol police made clear that these insurgents were planning to carry weapons including guns to target the capitol itself and yet donald trump from january 5th to the morning of his speech tweeted $34.00 times urging his supporters to get ready to stop the steel he even on the eve of the attack warned us that it was coming he warned us.