end 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 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 that thousands were descending into d.c. and would not take it anymore. and when they got here at the save america march he

told them again in that speech exactly what to do his his lawyer opened with quote let's have trial by combat up there was rudy giuliani and donald trump brought that message home in fact he prays really jolly giuliani is a fighter and president trying to use the words fighter fighting 20 times in that speech remember you've just told these people these thousands of people that somebody has stolen your election your victory you're not going to get the president that you love senators that is an incredibly combustible situation when people are armed and they've been saying that they're mad as hell and they're not going to take it anymore he looked down to a sea of thousands some wearing body armor helmets holding sticks and flag poles some of which they would later use to beat capitol police and told them that they could play by different rules. play by different rules.

he even at one point quite literally point at the capitol as he told them to fight like hell and after the attack you know we've shown clearly well that once the attack began insurgent after insurgent made clear they were following the president's orders you saw us present that evidence of the insurgents who were there that day who said i came because the president asked me to come i was here and he's invitation you saw that of the folks that were in the capitol that day. i was expiring. either for their question as president. and senator from south carolina i have questioned make you very much miss present and it send a question to the desk on behalf of myself senator cruz marshall and kramer to

counsel. senator graham for. so kramer. submit. a question for the counsel for trump. read it. does a politician raising bail for rioters encourage more rioting council has 5 minutes yes as counsel yield back the rest of their time. counsel's time as you noted back

are there other questions. mr president. from georgia i have a question for the us. senate to the desk the senator from georgia senator warner has a question for the house managers kurkov read the question. is it true or false that in the months leading up to january 6th dozens of courts including state and federal courts in georgia rejected president trump's campaign's efforts to overturn his last joe biden.

as for private. mr president senators. that is true. that's true. i want to be clear though that we have absolutely no problem with president trump having pursued his belief that the election was being stolen or that there was fraud or corruption or unconstitutionality we have no problem at all with him going to court to do it and he did and he lost in 61 street cases in federal court and state court in the lowest courts in the land in the u.s. supreme court he lost it. he lost in courts in pennsylvania arizona georgia michigan minnesota nevada and wisconsin all of them said the same thing they couldn't find any corruption they couldn't find any fraud certainly nothing rising to a material level that would alter the outcome of any of the elections and there was

no one constitutionality that's the american system and so. i mean it's hard to imagine him having got more due process than that in pursuing what his come to be known popularly is the big lie the idea that somehow the election was being stolen from him and we have no problem with the fact that he went to court to do all those things but notice number one the big lie was refuted devastated and demolished in federal and state courts across the land including by 8 judges appointed by president donald trump himself we quoted earlier in the case what happened in pennsylvania where u.s. district court judge matthew brown said in the united states this can that the court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations in the u.s. this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter let alone all the voters of its 6 most populous state our people

laws and institutions demand more then and went up to judge stefanos the bus was a trump appointee who is a part of the appeals court panel he said the campaign's claims have no merit. the number of ballots it's basically challenges is far smaller than the $81000.00 vote margin of victory in a never claims fraud or that any votes were cast by illegal voters plus tossing out millions of mail in ballots would be drastic an unprecedented disenfranchising a huge swath of the electorate and upsetting all of the down ballot races too which incidentally weren't being challenged even though it was the exact same ballot that that had been brought so the problem was when the president went from his judicial combat which was fine to intimidating in bloody bullying state election officials and state legislators and then finally as represented cheney said summoning a mob assembling a mob and then lighting the match. for insurrection against the union when he

crossed over from nonviolent means no matter how ridiculous or absurd that's fine he's exercising his rights to inciting violence that's what this trial is about and we heard very little of that from the presentation of the president's lawyers they really didn't address the facts of the case at all there were a couple propaganda reels about democratic politicians that would be excluded in any court land they talk about the rules of evidence all of that was totally irrelevant to the case before us whatever you think about it it's irrelevant and we'll be happy to of course to address the 1st moment arguments to. and it's your president for me mr president i'll send that question to the depths

the question is for karl and. it is for the counsel for the former president. exactly when did president trump learn of the breach of the capital what specific actions did he take to bring the rioting to an end and when did he take them please be as detailed as possible

or question. back. exactly when did president trump learn of the breach of the capital and what specific actions did he take to bring the rioting to an end and when did he take them please be is detailed as possible it's very very the house managers have given us absolute. the other on to that question we were able to piece together a timeline and. it goes all the way back to december 31st january 2nd there is a lot of interaction between the authorities and getting folks to have security beforehand on the day we have

a twee at 238 so it was certainly some time before then with the rush to bring this impeachment there's been absolutely no investigation into that and that's the problem. with this entire proceeding the house managers did 0 investigation in the american people deserve a lot better then coming in here with no evidence hearsay on top of hearsay on top of reports that are of hearsay due process is required here and that was denied. mr president. mr president i sent

a question to the desk served to remove the. question for the house managers. in the court. on january 6th the anti-symmetric proud boys group their president trump had told to stand by laid siege to the capital alongside other rioters including

one wearing a cap it sure is there evidence that president trump knew or should have known that his tolerant of anti-semitic speech hate speech combined with his own rhetoric could incite the kind of violence we saw on january 6th. mr president senators donald trump has a long history of praising and encouraging violence as he saw he is the spouse hateful rhetoric himself he has not just tolerated it but he's encouraged people speech by others he has refused as you saw in the september debate that interview

to condemn extremists and white supremacist groups like the proud voice and he has had every opportunity and courage and cultivated actual violence by these groups yes he has encouraged actual violence not just the word fight. he told groups like the proud boys who had beaten people with baseball bats to stand by when his supporters in the 50 car caravan tried to drive a bus a biden campaign workers off the road he tweeted a video of that incident with fight music attached to it and wrote i love texas when his supporters say death threats to the republican secretary of state raffensperger in georgia he responded by calling mr raffensperger and me of the state after he knew of those death threats and in the morning of the 2nd 1000000

maggie march when did erupted in violence and burned churches he began bad day with the tweet we have just begun to fight i want to be clear that donald trump is not on trial for those prior statements however that hateful and violent and inappropriate they may be but his statements the president's statements make absolutely crew year 3 important points for our case 1st president trump had a pattern and practice of praising and encouraging violence never condemning it it is not a coincidence that those very same people proud boys organizers of the trump caravan supporters and speakers of the 2nd 1000000 magen march all showed up on january 6 to an event that he had organized with those same individuals who had organized that violent attack 2nd his behavior is different it's not just

that it was a comment by an official to fight for a cause this is months of cultivating a base of people who were violent not pretentiously violent but were violent and that the prior conduct both helped him cultivate the very group of people. all that attacked us it also shows clearly that he had but that he had that group assembled inflamed and all the public reports ready to attack he deliberately encouraged them to engage in violent on january 6 president trump had spent months calling his supporters to a march on a specific day at a specific time for a specific purpose what else were they going to do to stop the certification of the election on that day but to stop you

but to stop you physically there was no other way particularly after his vice president said that he would refuse to do what the president asked the point is this the by the time you call the calvary cavalry not cows or re but cavalry of his thousands of supporters on january 6th and the vent he had invited them to he had every reason to know that they were armed violent and ready to actually fight he knew who he was calling and the violence they were capable of and he still gave his marching orders to go to the capital and quote fight like hell to stop the steel how else was that going to happen if they had stayed at the ellipse maybe it would

have just been too violently in fight in protest with their words but to come to the capital that is why this is different and that is why he must be convicted and acquitted. and disqualify. this president about the senator scott of south carolina and myself i'd like to submit a question to the desk so of tennessee. the

question is for counsel for the former president from senators hagel and scott of south carolina or co or read the question given that more than $200.00 people have been charged for their conduct at the capitol on january 6th that our justice system is working to hold the appropriate persons accountable and that president trump is no longer in office isn't this simply a political show trial that is designate designed to discredit president trump and its policies and shame the 74000000 americans who voted for him.

thank you senators for those that question and that's precisely what the 45th president believes this gathering is about we believe in law and order and trust that the federal authorities that are conducting investigations and prosecutions in against the criminals that invaded this building will continue their work and be as aggressive and thorough as we know them to always be and that they will continue to identify those that enter the inner sanctum of our government and desecrated it the 44th president no longer holds office there is no sanction available under the constitution in our view for him to be removed from office that he don't they no longer holds the only logical conclusion is that the purpose of this

gathering is to embarrass the 45th president of the united states and in some way try to create an opportunity for senators to suggest that he should not be permitted to hold office in the future or at the very least publicize this throughout the land to try to damage his. ability to run for office when and if he is acquitted and at the same time. tell the 4574000000 people who voted for them that their choice was the wrong choice i believe that that this is a divisive way of going about handling impeachment and it denigrates the the great solemnity that should attach to such proceedings you know the remainder of my time mr.

president. so from massachusetts president i send a question to the house manager for the house managers to the desk because the. president. answer the. question. the question is from senator markey. duckworth the. house of representatives the kirk read the question exactly when did the president learn of the breach at the capitol and what steps

did he take to address the violence please be as detailed as possible. to respond.

to president senators this attack was on live t.v. on all major networks in real time the president as president has access to intelligence information including reports from inside the capitol he knew the violence that was under way he knew the severity of the threats and most importantly he knew the capitol police were overwhelmingly outnumbered and in a fight for their lives against thousands of insurgents with weapons we know he knew that we know that he did not send any individuals we did not hear any tweets we did not hear him tell those individuals stop this is wrong you must go back. we did not hear that so what

else do the president do we are unclear but we believe it was a dereliction of his duty and that was because he was the one who had caused them to come to the capitol and they were doing what he asked them to do so there was no need for him to stop them from what they were engaged in but one of the things i would like to ask is we still have not heard and posed to you all the questions that were raised by mr raskin manager raskin in his closing argument why did the president trump not tell the protesters to stop as soon as he learned about it why did president trump do nothing to stop the attack for 2 hours after the attack began why did president trump do nothing to help protect the capitol and law enforcement battling the insurgents you saw the body cam of a capitol police officer at 429 still fighting

for 29 after since what time 12 o'clock in the afternoon why did he not condemn the violent insurrection on january 6 those are the questions that we have as well and the reason this question keeps coming up is because the answer is nothing. mr president. i sent a question to the desk. of . you to mr romney on the evolution of.

our current it's a question. couric or it. oh i apologize the question is for both sides of the time will be evenly divided. when president trump set the disparaging tweet at 2 24 pm regarding vice president pence was he aware that vice president had been removed from the senate by the secret service for his safety the house manager and in

time will be evenly divided between course the clerk read the question again when president trump sent the disparaging tweet at 2 24 pm regarding vice president hands was he aware that the vice president had been removed from the senate by the secret service for his safety. record is 2 and a half minutes and you. well let me tell you what he said at 2 24 pm he said mike pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our country and our constitution usa demands the truth and you know by now what was all over the media you couldn't turn on the television can turn on the radio couldn't consume any media or probably take any phone calls or anything else

without hearing about this and also hearing about the vice president and here's what donald trump had to know at that time because the whole world knew it all of us knew it live television had by this point shown that the insurgents were already inside the building and that they had weapons and that the police were outnumbered and here are the facts they're not in dispute donald trump had not taken any measures to send help to the overwhelmed capitol police as president at that point when you see all this going on in the people around you are imploring you to do something and your vice president is there why wouldn't you do it. donald trump would not publicly condemn the attack the attackers or told them to stand down despite multiple pleas to do so and donald trump hadn't even acknowledged the attack. and after wednesday's trial portion concluded as senator

tuberville spoke to reporters and confirmed the call that he had with the president and did not dispute manager cicely's description in any way that there was a call between he and the president around the time that my parents was being ushered out of the chamber and that was shortly after 2 pm and senator tuberville specifically said that he told the president mr president they just took the vice president now i've got to go that was shortly after 2 pm there were still hours of chaos and carnage and mayhem the vice president and his family were still in danger at that point our commander in chief did nothing. for the former president the answer is no at no point was the president informed the vice president was in any

danger because the house rushed through this impeachment in 7 days with no evidence there is nothing at all in the record on this point because the house failed to do even a minimum amount of due diligence what the president did know is that there was a violent. there was a violent riot happening at the capitol that's why he repeatedly called via tweet and via video for the rides to stop to be peaceful to respect capital police and law enforcement and to commit no violence and to go home but to be clear this is an article of impeachment for incitement this is not an article of impeachment for anything else so one count they could have charged anything they wanted they chose to charge incitement. so that the question although answered directly no it's not really relevant to the

charges for the impeachment in this case and i just wanted to clear up one more thing mr castro in his 1st answer may have spoke but what he said was mr trump had said fight to the death that's falls i'm hoping he misspoke thank you. mr president. mr president on behalf of myself and senators casey and brown i send a question that i ask

this question for cobra chars. to the house managers a corker report. in presenting your case you were lied on past presidents from impeachment trials such as william bell impeachment after what you have presented in the course of this trial if we do not convict former president trump what message will we be sending to future president and congress is.

president trump engaged in a course of conduct that inside an armed attack on the capitol he did so while seeking to overturn the results of the election and fort the transfer of power and when the attack began he further incited violence into his own vice president even as demonstrated his state of mind by failing to defend us and the law enforcement officials who protect us the consequences of his conduct were devastating on every level. police officers were left overwhelmed unprotected congress had to be evacuated our staff barricaded in this building calling their families to say

goodbye some of us like mr raskin had children here. and these people in this building some of whom were on the f.b.i.'s watch list took photos still laptops destroyed precious statues including one of john lewis desecrated the statue of a recently deceased member of congress who stood for nonviolence this was devastating and the world watched us and the world is still watching us to see what we will do this day and will know what we did this day 100 years from now those are the immediate consequences and our actions will reverberate as to what

are the future consequences the extremists who attacked the capital at the president's provocation will be emboldened all our intelligence agencies have come firm this is not house managers saying that there are quite literally standing by and standing ready donald trump told them this is only the beginning they are waiting and watching to see if donald trump is right that everyone said this was totally appropriate let me also bring something else up i'll briefly say the defense counsel. put a lot of videos out in their. in their defense playing clip after clip. a black women talking about fighting for a cause or an issue or

a policy was not lost on me as so many of them were people of color and women black women black women like myself who are sick and tired of being sick and tired for our children your children our children this summer things happened that were violent but they were also things that gave some of us black women great comfort seeing amish people from pennsylvania standing up with us members of congress fighting up with us and so i thought we were past that i think maybe we're not. there are long standing consequences decisions like this that will define who we are as a people who america is we have in this room made

monumental decisions you all have made plan you mental decisions we've declared wars past civil rights acts ensured that no one in this country is a slave every american has the right to vote unless you live in a territory at this time some of these decisions are even controversial but history has shown that they define us as a country and as a people today is one of those moments in history will wait for our decision. mr president. or neutral i send a question to the desk. he

served mr leeson course be have. a cripple sort of blood burn sort of portland and the. question is for the counsel for the former president. read multiple state constitutions and acted prior to 1787 namely the constitutions of delaware virginia pennsylvania and vermont specifically provided for the impeachment of

a former officer given that the framers of the us constitution would have been aware of these provisions does their decision to emit language specifically authorizing the impeachment of former officials indicate that they did not intend for our constitution to allow for the impeachment of former officials good question. and the answer is yes of course they left it out the framers were very smart men and they went over draft after draft after draft and that document and they reviewed all the other drafts of all of the state constitutions all of them. and they picked didn't choose what they wanted

and they discarded what they did not and what they discarded was the option. for all of you to impeach a former elected official i hope that's answering your question thank you. mr president 0 of the gulf war you as the president sent a question to the desk several california salutes question for the house managers critical report.

having been on the front lines of combating the big lie over the past 4 years as california's chief elections officer it is clear that president trump's plot to undermine the 2020 election was built on lies and conspiracy theories how did this plot to unconstitutionally keep president trump in power lead to the radicalization of so many of president trump's followers and the resulting attack on the capitol.

and senators donald trump spent months inciting his base to believe that their election was stolen and that was the point that was the thing that would get people so angry think about that what it would take to get a large group of thousands of americans so angry to storm the capitol that was the purpose behind donald trump saying that the election had been rigged and that the election had been stolen and to be clear when he says the election is stolen what he's saying is that the victory and he even says one time the election victory is being stolen from them. think about how significant that is to americans again you're right over 70000000 i think 74000000 people voted for

donald trump and this wasn't a one off comment it wasn't one time it was over and over and over and over and over again with a purpose. and we're not having this impeachment trial here because donald trump contested the election as i said during the presentation and nobody here wants to lose an election we all run our races to win our elections but what president determined did was different when our commander in chief did was the polar opposite of what we're supposed to do. we let the people decide the elections except president trump he directed all of that rage that he had incited to january 6th the last chance that this is again to him this was his last chance this was certifying the election results he needed to whip

up that mob amp them up enough to get out there and try to stop the election results in the certification of the election and all they took over the senate chamber to do that they almost took over the house chamber there were 50 or so or more house members who were skin literally scared for their lives up in the gallery a woman who bought into that big lie died. because she believed the president's big lie this resulted in a loss of one of his supporters lives a capitol police officer died that day other of president trump supporters 2 capitol police officers ended up taking their own lives. defense counsel their defense is basically everything president drubbed trump did is ok and

he could do it again is that what we believe that there is no problem with that that is perfectly fine if he does the same thing all over again this is dangerous he's inciting his base he was using the claim of a rigged election we have never seen somebody do that over and over and over again tell a lie say 6 months ahead of time that it's a rigged election there is a dangerous consequence to that when you've got millions of followers on twitter and millions of followers on facebook and you've got that huge bully pulpit from the white house and you're the president of the united states there is a cost to doing that people are listening to you in a way that quite honestly they're not listening to me and they're not listening to all of us in this room. you know i just want to clear up the defense counsel made

a point about. something that i read earlier defense counsel suggested i misspoke and i just want to clarify for the record that the tweet i referenced let me read you the tweet directly if a democrat presidential candidate had an election rigged and stolen with proof of such acts at a level never seen before the democrat senators would consider it an act of war and fight to the death michonne the republicans do nothing just want to let it pass no fight so donald trump was equating what democrats would do if their election was stolen he said they'd fight to the death why do you think he sends that tweet because he's trying to say hey the other side would fight to the death so you should fight to the death i mean do we read that any other way.

mr president. this is reserved mr president on my behalf and on behalf of senator kramer i sent a question to the desk. and self and senator kramer send a question for the. council and house managers and following

our procedure the 1st one to respond a bit after the it's rigged will be the counsel for the former president. if the senate's power to disqualify is not derivative of the power to remove a convicted president from office could the senate disqualify a sitting president but not remove him or her. if the senate's power to disqualify is not derivative of the power to remove a convicted president from office could the senate disqualify

a sitting president but not remove him or her. it was 2 and a half minutes. you know but i can't let this rest mr castro attributed a statement the time before last that he was up here that donald trump had told his people to fight to the death. i'm not from here on not like you guys i was being very polite and given an opportunity to correct the record and i thought that's exactly what he would do but instead what he did is he came up in illustrated the problem with the present taishan of the house case it's been

smoking mirrors and worse it's been dishonest he came up and tried to cover when he got caught as they were caught earlier today with all of the evidence check in tweets switchin dates everything they did and bear in mind i had 2 days to look at their evidence so when i say 2 days i mean they started putting in the or evidence so i started be able to get looking at it. that is not the way this should be done but what we discovered was he knew what he was doing he knew that the president didn't say that to his people what he said was if it up and dividends this is what they would do in his speech that day you know what he said he said if this happened to the democrats if the election was stolen from

the democrats all hell would break loose but he said to his supporters we're smarter we're stronger and we're going to not didn't do what they did all summer long. so what he did was he misrepresented in a tweet to you to put forth the lehrer it is that is wrong it's wrong it's dishonest and the american people don't deserve this any longer you must acquit. on the part of the house of representatives 2 and a half minutes and that was profoundly inaccurate and irrelevant to what the question is when we get back to

the question. so under article 2 section 4 a president who is in office must be convicted before removal. and and. then must be removed before disqualification ok but if the president is already out of office then he can be separately disqualified as this president is but these powers have always been treated as separate which is why i think there have been. 8 people who've been convicted in removed in just 3 of them disqualified and as you know there's a totally separate process within the senate for doing this the constitution requires 2 thirds vote for conviction but for disqualification it's a majority vote. it's a separate things so people could vote to convict and then voe not to

disqualify if they felt that the evidence demonstrated that the president was guilty of incitement to insurrection they could vote to convict but if they felt that they didn't want to exercise the further power established by the constitution to disqualify they wouldn't have to do that and not could be something that's taken up separately by the senate by majority vote. mr president. the senator from massachusetts questions that

the senator from massachusetts has a question for the 'd house managers the clerk will read the question the defense's presentation highlighted the fact that democratic members of congress raised objections to counting of electoral votes in past joint sessions of congress to your knowledge were any of those democratic objections raised after insurrectionist stormed the capitol in order to prevent the counting of electoral votes and after the president's personal lawyer asked senators to make these objections specifically to delay the certification.

so thank you very much mr president for not trying to respond to that the answer is no we are not aware that any other objections raised in the counting of electoral college votes either by democrats or republicans and this is actually been a kind of proud bipartisan tradition under the electoral college just because the electoral college is so arcane and has so many rules to it i think that my co-counsel on the other side had some fun because i was one of the people who took i think about 30 seconds in 2016 to point out that the electors from florida were not actually conforming to the letter of the law because they have a rule in florida that you can't be you do officeholder in other words you can't be like a state legislator and also be an elector and so that was improper form but i think

the vice president then vice president biden properly gavel me down and said look we're going to try to make the electoral college work and we're going to vindicate the will of the people that's pretty much what's happened and nobody has stormed the capitol before or as representative cheney the secretary of the republican conference said gone out and summoned a mob assembled a mob incited a mob and lit a match as representative cheney said. this would be that all of this goes to the doorstep of the president none of it would have happened without him and everything is due to his actions this would not happen that is the chair of the house republican conference who was the target of an effort to remove her which was rejected on a vote of by more than 2 to one in the house republican conference and there is an attempt to remove her for voting for impeachment and becoming a leader for vindicating our constitutional values so do please don't mix up

what republicans and democrats have done i think in every election for a long time to say there are improprieties going on in terms of conforming with state election laws with the idea of mobilizing a mob insurrection against the government that got 5 people killed 140 capitol officers wounded and threatened the actual peaceful succession of power and transfer of power in america if you want to talk about reforming the electoral college we can talk about reforming electoral college you don't do with violence. mr president to go to thank you my apologies the senator from massachusetts for butting in i said the question to the desk for the former president's attorneys

the question from kramer's for the. counsel for the former president to read the question given the allegations of the house manager that president trump has tolerated anti-semitic rhetoric has there been a more pro israel president than president trump. no but it's apparent that nobody listened to what i said earlier today because the victoria speech needs to stop you need to stop. there

was nothing funny here mr raskin we aren't having fun here this is about the most miserable experience i've had down here in washington d.c. there's nothing fun about it and in philadelphia where i come from when you get caught doctoring the evidence your case is over and that's what happened they got caught doctoring the evidence and this case should be over. so.