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. senator from vermont.

senator vermonters sanders has a question for both the counsel for the for president and the house manager the. clerk will read it for our procedure the 'd 'd 'd house version will go 1st the house prosecutors have stated over and over again that president trump was perpetrating a big lie when he repeatedly claimed that the election was stolen from him and that he actually won the election by a landslide or the prosecutors are right when they claim that trump was telling a big lie or in your judgment did trump actually win the election.

edgers have up to 2 and i have been it's. as we all know president trump did lose the election by 7000000 votes 306 electoral votes by the time of the january 6th attack the courts the justice department all 50 states across the country done agreed that the votes were counted the people had spoken and it was time for the

peaceful transfer of power as our constitution and the rule of law demands. 61 courts 61 courts the president went to that's fine appropriate he lost he lost he lost the election he lost the court case as leader mccollum mcconnell recognized the day after the electors certified the votes on december 14th he said quote many millions of us had hoped that the presidential election would yield a different result but our system of government has processes to determine who will be sworn in on january 20th the electoral college has spoken patriotism sometimes there is

a reason to dispute an election sometimes the calmest close sometimes we ask for a recount go to courts all of that's appropriate i lost my 1st election i stayed in bed for 3 days we do what we need to do and we move on. this was not that because when all of these people confirmed the donald trump of loss when the courts here is here is a department of justice save officials congress his vice president were ready to commit to the peaceful transfer of power the peaceful transfer of power donald trump was not ready and so we are all here because he was not ready day after day he told to supporters false outlandish claims of why this election is right now let's be clear president trump had absolutely no support of these claims

but that wasn't the point of what he was doing he did it to make his supporters fresh treated to make them angry. time is expired. and counsel for the former president of recognize for 2 and have bit. of course the kirk will read the question again. the house prosecutors have stated over and over again that president trump was perpetrating a big lie when he repeatedly claimed that the election was stolen from him and that he actually won the election by a landslide are the prosecutors right when they claim that trump was telling a big lie or in your judgment did trump actually win the election the.

counsel for the former president have to have been it's my judgment who asked that . my judgments here relevant in this proceeding could happen is what supposed to happen here is the article of impeachment is a have to be the servant will. be in order. the senators under the rose cannot challenge the content of the response the council will continue. to have the question read again please. the house prosecutors have stated over and over again that president trump was perpetrating a big lie when he repeatedly claimed that the election was stolen from him and that he actually won the election by a landslide are the prosecutors right when they claim that trump was telling

a big lie or in your judgment did trump actually win the election. in my judgment it's irrelevant to the question before this body what's relevant in this impeachment article is were mr trump's words insightful to the point of violence and dry it that's the charge that's the question and the answer is no he did not have speech that was insightful to violence or riot now what's important to understand here is the house managers have completely from the beginning of this case to right now done everything exempt answer that question the question they brought before you the question they want my client to be punished by that's

the questions that should be getting asked and the answer is he advocated for peaceful patriotic protests there his words you the house manager have showed 00 evidence that his words did anything else remember all of the evidence is this was premeditated the attack on the capitol was preplanned it didn't have anything to do with mr trump in any way what he said on that day on january 6th at that ellipse and that's the issue before the senate now on the issue of contesting elections and the results

the democrats have a long long history of just doing that i hope everybody was able to see the video earlier today over and over again it's been contested. when mr trump was elected president we were told that he was out of college was to have. what the senator from wisconsin says ari i couldn't sue was understand i sent my son a question to just for both parties. i .

thought it was constance and question. for both counsel for the former president and the house managers. will read it and the. counsel for the former president will have the 1st 2 to have been it's the house managers assert that the january 6th attack was predictable and it was foreseeable if so why did it appear that lot law enforcement at the capitol were caught off guard and unable to prevent the breach why did the house sergeant at arms reportedly turned down a request to activate the national guard stating that he was not comfortable with

the optics. counsel of former presidents recognize corkery the question again the house managers assert that the january 6th attack was predictable and it was foreseeable if so why did it appear that law enforcement at the capitol were caught off guard and unable to prevent the breach why did the house sergeant at arms reportedly turned down a request to activate the national guard stating that he was not comfortable with

the optics holy cow that is a really good question. and had the house managers done their investigation maybe somebody would have an answer to that but they didn't they did 0 investigation they did nothing they looked into nothing. they read newspaper articles they talk to their friends you know a t.v. reporter or some or something or another but jimminy crickets there is no due process in this proceeding at all and that question highlights the problem when you have no due process you have no clear cut answers but we do know that there was i think a certain level of foreseeability. looks like from the information they were

presenting so law enforcement knew that something could be happen i was in my present ation we knew that the mayor 2 days before before had been offered to have federal troops or national guard deployed beef up security here in capitol police i was offered so somebody had to have an inkling into some and my question is who ignored it and why if an investigation or don we would know the answer to that to thank you. the house have 2 and a half minutes 1st if

defense counsel has exculpatory evidence you're welcome to give it to us we would love to see it you've had an opportunity to give us evidence that what is culpa take the president haven't seen it yet everyone in the defense counsel wants to bring everyone else except the person who is most responsible for what happened on january 6th. and that's president trump donald trump and he is the person who foresee this the most because he had the reports he had access to the information he is well had we all know how he is an avid cable news watcher he knew what was going to happen he cultivated these individuals these are the under spirited facts the national guard was not deployed until over 2 hours after the attack i heard reference to mayor bowzer in defenses presentation

mayor bows or does not have authority over the capitol or federal buildings she could not deploy a national guards to the capitol that is outside of the jurisdiction of the mayor of the district of columbia at no point in that entire day did the president of the united states our commander in chief tell anyone law enforcement struggling for their lives insurgents who felt empowered by the sheer quantity of them any of us in this building or the american people that he was sending help he did not defend the capital the president of the united states did not defend the capital of this country. it's an indefensible. mr president. who served or more than mr president i sent a question to the desk. question

for the. question. if a president spins a big law anger americans and stoked the fury by repeating the lie at event after event. and invites violent groups to dca on the day and hour necessary to interrupt the electoral college cow and does nothing to stop those

groups from advancing on the capital and fails to some in the national guard to protect the capital and then expresses pleasure and delight that the capitol was under attack is the president innocent of inciting an insurrection because in a speech he says be peaceful. you know it's very dangerous 5 that. you'll ask a very important question which is given everything that the president did leading up to the election after the election and leading up to january 6th all of the

incitement of his supporters whom he convinced with a big lie over and over that the election had been stolen from them and from him and then once the mob had stormed the capitol the vice president was in danger the speaker was in danger the members of the house and the senate and all the staff here the janitorial staff the cafeteria workers everybody. and all of the hot rhetoric that he spoke with and then simply a few times said stay peaceful. remember he said stay peaceful when they'd already gotten violent when they'd already brought weapons when they'd already hurt people we never said was stop the

attack leave the capitol leave immediately. and let me be clear the president's message in that january 6 peach was insincere so in the entire speech which was roughly 1100 words. he used the word peaceful once and using the word peaceful was the only suggestion of nonviolence and president trump used the word fight or fighting 20 times now again consider the context he'd been telling a big lie over and over getting them amped up getting angry because an election had been stolen from them there's thousands of people in front of him some of them are carrying weapons and arms they're angry he's telling them to fight

and president trumps words in that speech just like the mobs actions were carefully chosen his words incited their actions and how do we know this for months the president had told his supporters his big lie that the election was rigged and he used the lie to urge his supporters not to concede and to stop the steel. if you rob a bank and on the way out the door you yell respect private property that's not a defense to robbing the bank as president the senator from texas mr president i sent a question to the desk directed at both sides

the senator from texas a question for both sides. read it in the house manages to go 1st for it to it and it. out of there 16 hours the house managers devoted all of 15 minutes to articulating a newly created legal standard for incitement one was violent

forseeable to did he encourage violence 3 did he do so willfully is this new standard derived from the criminal code or any supreme court case. while violent riots were raging kamel harris said on national t.v. they're not going to let up and they should not and she also raised money to bail out violent rioters using the manager's proposed standard is there any coherent way for donald trump's words to be incitement and common to harris's words not to be incitement. thank you mr president senators. i'm not familiar with the statement that is being

referred to with respect to the vice president but i find it absolutely unimaginable that vice president harris would ever incite violence or encourage were promote violence. obviously it's completely irrelevant to the proceeding at hand and i will allow her to defend herself. the the president's lawyers are pointing out that we've never had any situation like this before in the history of united states and it's true there's never been a president who has encouraged a violent insurrection against our own government so we really have nothing to compare it to so what we do in this trial will establish a standard going forward for all time now there are 2 theories didn't put before you and i think we've got to get past all of the picayune little critiques that have been offered today about this story that let's focus on what's really at stake here the president's lawyers say echoing the president his conduct was totally

appropriate in other words he would do it again exactly what he did is the new standard for what's allowable for him or any other president who gets into office our point is that his incitement so overwhelms any possible legal standard we have that we've got the opportunity now to declare that presidential incitement to violent insurrection against the capital in the congress is completely forbidden to the president united states under the impeachment clauses so we set forth for you the elements of encouragement of violence and we saw it overwhelmingly we know that he picked the date of that rally in fact there was another group that is going to rally another date and he got it moved to january 1st he synchronized exactly with the time that we would be in joint session. and as represented cheney said he summoned that mob he assembled that mob he incited out mob he lit the match come on

get real we know that this is what happened in the 2nd thing is the foreseeability of it was a foreseeable remember lansing michigan and everything we should do they didn't mention that of course remember the mega to march the make it to rally they did mention that violence all over the rallies the president shearing it on delighting in it and reveling in it exulting in it come on how gullible do you think we are we saw this happen we just spent 11 or 12 hours looking at all this and intend to. thank you expires. so for the president as to it after that it's. senator cruz i believe the 1st part of your question refers to the newly created raskin doctrine on 1st amendment and he just in his answer actually gave you a new one appropriateness. the standard that this

body needs to follow for a law is brandenburg vo heigho in the test really the 3 part test really comes out of bible believers versus wayne county to be specific. the speech has to be explicitly or implicitly encouraged the use of violence in other words has to be in the words itself which is clearly it's not in the words itself that step one they don't get past it to the speaker intends that his speech will result in use of violence or lawless action there's no evidence of that and it's ludicrous to believe that that would be true 3rd the imminent use of violence or lawless action is likely to result in speech also they fail on all 3 points of the law as we know it and needs to be applied here. i don't know why he said he never heard mala harris say about the riots and the people rioting and ruining our

businesses nurse treats that they're not going to let up and they should not because we played it 3 times today we gave it to you an audio i read it to you and you got it in video that's what she said but it's protected speech. her speech is protected also senator that's the point you all have protections as elected officials the highest protections under the 1st amendment and that 1st amendment applies here in this chamber to this proceeding and that's what you need to keep focused on the need to keep focused on what is the law and how do we apply it to this set of facts it's your duty to get he can make it caught up in all of the rhetoric and the facts that are relevant you need to keep focused on what is the

issue before you decide it based on the law brandenburg and bible believers and apply it to the facts and that requires you to look at the words and there were no words of incitement the venue time is expired. thank you mr president. senator from washington so i thought i sent a question to the death. he said from our students are a question for the house managers the clerk will read the question

at 6 o 1 pm eastern time on january 6th president trump tweeted these are the things that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously and viciously stripped away from the great patriots who have been badly and unfairly treated for so long adding for rioters to go home with love and in peace what is the relevance of this tweet to president trump's guilt the house managers are recognized for up to 5 minutes.

we're watching al-jazeera live from london 2230 g.m.t. it's just gone half past the hour we've been listening to the next stage in president donald trump's 2nd impeachment trial in which senators have 4 hours to question both the prosecution and the defense teams earlier on donald trump's legal team concluded that defense of the trial was unconstitutional and that it was politically motivated and that his language was just political rhetoric that other politicians have used as well so they're arguing that there's no clear link between donald trump's speech on january 6th in the capital insurrection which resulted in at least 5 deaths but really the key line.