hello, i'm ros atkins, this is outside source. donald trump's historic impeachment trial is underway in washington. we are bringing you live coverage of the start of donald trump's second impeachment trial. let us continue to listen. ,, ., ., , ., ., , impeachment trial. let us continue to listen. ,, ., ., , ., ., to listen. senator george edmonds of vermont is one _ to listen. senator george edmonds of vermont is one of— to listen. senator george edmonds of vermont is one of the _ to listen. senator george edmonds of vermont is one of the most _ vermont is one of the most prestigious republican senators of his time. he sat right to adequate —— senator grassley sits today. he zeroed in on this exact point and this is his quotes. a prohibition against doing more than two things cannot be turned into a command to do both or neither. and just imagine the consequences of such an absurd

translation. if president trump are right about that language then officials could commit the most extraordinary, destructive offences against the american people. high crimes and misdemeanors and they would have total control over whether they can ever be impeached and if they are, us and it can try the case. if they want to escape any public inquiry and their misconduct by the risk of disqualification from future office and it's pretty simple. you canjust resign one minute before the house in peaches or even one minute before the senate trial where they can resign during the senate trial. it's not looking so well. that would effectively erase disqualification from the constitution. it would put wrongdoers in charge of whether the senate can try it. third and final reason. why president trump must stand trial. provision of article ron of the constitution —— article

one. you will see her on the screen that the constitution describes the accused in a impeachment trial. here is what i want you to focus on. the interesting thing is notice the words. it refers to a person and a party being impeached. again, we know that there gave a lot of thought to the word that they chose. they even had a style committee during the constitutional convention. they could have written several officers and they get that elsewhere in the constitution. that would have ultimately eliminated impeachment trials the current officials but instead they use broader language. to describe who can be tried by the united states senate. so, who could be put on trialfor impeachment senate. so, who could be put on trial for impeachment other than civil officers and who else could a person or a party be? there is only one possible answer. former officers. that might actually explain why during the trial senator

thomas of delaware later became the secretary of state for the united states and he sat there and senator carper is sitting now. he found these point so compelling that he felt compelled to speak out on it. he concluded that the constitution must allow the impeachment and trial of people and parties who are not civil officers and the only group that could possibly encompass was former officials and of course here at president trump. and just so we're clear and full disclosure, this is another argument that was not addressed by president trump. in his rebuttal. and you know why they did not. because their arguments does not square with the plain text of the constitution. there is one provision that president trump relies on almost exclusively.

article two, section four. i'm sure you will see it. when they present their arguments. their argument is that the language you will see on the screen somehow prevents you from holding this trial and by making removal from office an absolute requirement. but again, where does the language say that? where does it say anything in that provision about yourjurisdiction. infact, say anything in that provision about yourjurisdiction. in fact, this provision isn't even in the part of the constitution that addresses your authority. it is an article two, not article one. and it certainly says nothing about former officials. president trump's interpretation does not square with history, regionalism, textualism, in fact even chuck cooper, the famous conservative lawyer i mentioned

earlier with clients like the house minority leader, he has concluded that this provision of the constitution, that president trump relies on cuts against his position. his words. and that is because article two, section four means just what it says. in the first half describes what an official must do to be impeached and to the second half describes what happens when civil officers of the united states including visiting presidents are convicted. removalfrom office. that is it. in cooper's words it simply establishes what is known in criminal law as a mandatory minimum punishment. it says nothing about former officials. nothing at all. given all of that is not surprising that in president trump's legal

trial brief, 75 page brief a struggle to find any professors to support their position. they did cite one professor however, professor called. an expert in this field. who they claimed agreed with them that the only purpose of impeachment is removal. is professor's position which they had to have known because it's in the article that they cite in the brief is that removal is not the sole and of impeachment. actually, in that same article he describes the view advocated by president trump's lawyers as having deep frauds. again, he did not have to take my word for it. you can take professor's word for it. the purpose at a site that in their brief filed yesterday because he tweeted about

it. on the screen here this is what it. on the screen here this is what it had to say. i will not read through it in great detail, i will give you the highlights. in several places they misrepresent what i wrote quite badly. there are multiple examples of flattop misrepresentations. a ski constitutional scholar relied on by president trump said itjust right. i have explained in great detail the many reasons why the argument that president trump advocates for today is wrong. ijust president trump advocates for today is wrong. i just want to close with a note about why it is dangerous. lead manager raskin explained that impeachment exists to protect the american people from officials who

abuse their power. who betrayed them. it exists for a case just like this one. honestly, it's hard to imagine a clear example of how a president can abuse his office, inciting violence against a coequal branch of government while seeking to remain in power after losing an election. sitting back and watching it unfold. we all know the consequences. make everyone of you, i was in the capital onjanuary six. i was in the capital onjanuary six. i was in the capital onjanuary six. i was on the floor with the manager raskin. like everyone of you, i was evacuated as despite mum stormed the

capital's gates. what you experienced that day, what we experienced that day, what we experienced that day, what we experienced that day, what our country experienced that day is their worst nightmare come to life. presidents cannot inflame insurrection in their final weeks and then walk away like nothing happened. and yet that is the rule that president trump asks you to adopt. i encourage you, we urge you to decrying his request. to vindicate the constitution. to let the straightest case. —— to elect us try this case.

we are watching the beginning of donald trump's second impeachment trial. at stake is whether he inside fed the attack on their capital which you will have seen onjanuary the 6th. let continue to listen. figs the 6th. let continue to listen. as a the 6th. let continue to listen. sis a whole the 6th. let continue to listen. is a whole is now clear from the arguments of mr raskin impeachment is not merely about removing someone from office. fundamentally, impeachment existed prevent our constitutional system. to keep each of us safe. to uphold our freedom. to safeguard our remarks —— democracy. their motives facts by declaring abuse of the extraordinary power that we entrust to our presidents and the very first day in office did a very nice day. it also

ensures accountability for presidents who harm us or our government. in the aftermath of a tragedy it allows us an opportunity to come together and to heal by working through what happened and reaffirming our constitutional principles. and it authorises this body and face by alone take this quite our political system, anybody whose conduct an office proves that they present a danger to the public. impeachment would fail to achieve these purposes if you created for these purposes if you created for the first time ever despite the words of the constitution a january exception as mr raskin explained. i was a former defence lawyer for many years and i can understand why president trump and his lawyers don't want you to hear this case.

why they don't want you to see the evidence. but the argument that you lackjurisdiction rests on a purely fictional pole. purely fictional. designed to allow the former president to escape accountability for conduct that is truly indefensible. under our constitution. he saw the consequences of his actions on the video that we paid earlier. in would like to emphasise and greater detail the extraordinary constitution offence that the former president thinks you have no power whatsoever to adjudicate. while spreading lies about the election outcome and a brazen attempt to retain power against the intent of the american people. he incited and armed angry mob to riot. and notjust anywhere

but here in the seat of our government. in the capital. when the vice president presided while we carried out the peaceful transfer of power which was interrupted for the first time in our history. this is a disaster of historic proportions. he was also an unforgivable betrayal of the oath of office of president trump. the he swore. an oath that he studied and dishonored to advance his own personal interests. and make no mistake about it. as you think about that day. things could have been much worse. as one senator said they could have killed all of us. it was on me that bravery and sacrifice of the police who suffered deaths and injuries as a result of

president trump's actions that prevented greater tragedy. at trial we will prove with overwhelming evidence that president trump is a singularity and directly responsible for inciting the assault on the capital. it will also prove that his dereliction of duty, his desire to seek personnel advantage from the mayhem and his decision to issue treats further inciting the mob, attacking the vice presidents all compounded the already enormous damage. virtually every american who saw those events unfold on television was absolutely horrified. the events of january six. we also know how president trump himself felt about the attack. he told us. here is what he tweeted at 601 has the capital was in shambles and as dozens of police officers and other

law enforcement officers may battered and bruised and bloodied. here is what he said. every time i read that it chills me to the core. the president of the united states site technically insurrectionist. he celebrated their cause to evaluate the effect they are attacked and he told them remember this day forever. hours after they marched through the tall slicking to assassinate vice president times, the speaker of the house and any of us they could find.

given all of that, it is no wonder that president trump would rather talk aboutjurisdiction in a supposed january exception rather than talk about what happened on january six. make no mistake, his arguments are dead wrong. there are distractions from what really matters. the senate can and should require president trump to stand trial. my colleagues have already addressed many of president trump's efforts to escape trial and i would like to cover the remainder and address the broader issues at stake in this trial. for starters in an extension of his mistaken reading of the constitution, president trump insists that he cannot face trial in the senate because he is merely a private citizen. he references the bail but as he explained that constitution never refers to the

defendant and impeachment trial as a person and a party and certainly he counts as one of those. let's also apply some common sense. there is a reason that he now insists on being called the 45th president of the united states. rather than citizen trump. he is not a randomly selected private citizen. he's a former officer of the states government. he's a former president the united states of america. he is different —— treated differently under a law called the former presidents act. forfour called the former presidents act. for four years he trusted called the former presidents act. forfour years he trusted him called the former presidents act. for four years he trusted him with more power than anyone else on earth. as a former president who promised on a bible to use his power faithfully he can and should answer the way that he kept that promise while bound by it in office. his insistence otherwise is just wrong. so is his claim that there is a slippery slope to impeaching private

citizens proceeds. the trial of a former official for abuses he committed as an official while he was an official poses absolutely no risk whatsoever of subjecting a private citizen to impeachment for their private conduct. president trump was impeached while he was in office for conduct in office. period. the alternative is this january exception which are most powerful officials can commit the most terrible abuses and then resigned to leave office and setting the claim that they are just a private citizen who cannot be held accountable at all. in the same vein, president trump and his lawyers argue that he should not be impeached because it will set a pat precedent for impeaching others. but that slippery slope argument is also

incorrect. for centuries, the prevailing view has been that former officials are subject to impeachment and you just heard a full discussion of that. the house has repeatedly acknowledged that fact. but in the vast majority of cases, the house is rightly recognised that an official resignation or departure makes the extraordinary step of impeachment unnecessary and maybe even unwise. as a house manager rightly explained in a close, there is no likelihood that we shall ever on november the clumsy and bulky months to a piece of ordnance to take aim at an object for which all danger has gone by stop president trump's case is different. the danger has not gone by. his by any government official pale in comparison. moreover, allowing his conduct to pass without

the most decisive response with itself create an extraordinary danger to the nation. inviting further abuse of power and its unable or unwilling to respond insurrection incited by the president. think about that. to paraphrase a set precedent that i just described about a loaded ( ready in the hands of any future president who decided to make a play for unlimited power. think of the danger. here is the rare case in which love of the constitution and commitment to our democracy require the house to impeach. it's for the same reason the senate can and must try this case. next president trump letter asserts that somehow it's not

terry's that the chiefjustice is presiding over this trial. let me state this very plainly. it does not matter. it is not significant. article one section three when the president of the united states is tried the chiefjustice shall preside. there is only one person who is president of the united states at a time. right now, joseph bidenjunior is the 46th president of the united states. as a result, the requirement is in trickery. instead the normal rules of any impeachment, of anyone other than the sitting president apply. under those rules they can preside. this makes perfect sense and a chief justice presides because when the current president is on trial, if the chiefjustice does not preside that vice president presides and it

will be a conflict for someone to preside over a child that will become president if they was a conviction. so there is not that concerned when you have a former president on trial while lamb you have anyone on trial other than the current president. which is why they chiefjustice presides on the in that single case and why this is exactly the presiding officer, the constitution and the senate rules require. as a fallback president trump and his lawyers me argue today that he should get a free pass and inciting an armed insurrection against the united states government and endangering congress because as he would put it, this impeachment is unconstitutional. as far as i understand it from reading the pleadings in this case, this defence involves putting together a bunch of meritless legal arguments or attempting to focus on substance rather than jurisdiction and

insisting that kitchen sink objections will leave the senate to not try the case. since they may raise these points at this juncture i feel obliged to address them. saying he did not receive enough processing the house. and even though the house proceedings are like a grand jury action which is followed later by trial in the senate and the evidence of these high crimes and misdemeanors is overwhelming and supported by huge public record and even though we are going to put that evidence before you at that trial and evening they'll have a four and futile opportunity to respond to it before all of you. leaving the hijinks of others involved in the event on january six have already been charged in their role in the attack and even though we invited him to come here and testify and tell you

stories and at a place that his lawyers immediately refuse presumably because they understood what would happen if you are to testify under oath. regardless, president trump's process arguments are not only wrong on their own terms but they're also completely irrelevant to the question of whether you should hold this trial. that question is answered by the constitution and the answer is yes. in addition, separate from his due process complaints, president trump and his counsel have posted on tv i'm to counter the undisputed evidence of what actually happened in this case and you will receive the best video clips of other politicians including democratic politicians including democratic politicians using what they consider incendiary language. apparently they think this will establish some sort of equivalency. but it will show an

contrast that president trump express statements at the same america rally were not so bad. like so much of what president trump's lawyers might say today, that is a gimmick. it is a parlor game. meant to inflame partisan hostility and prey on our divisions. so, let me be crystal clear. president trump was not impeached because of the words he used viewed in isolation without context or beyond the pale. plenty of other politicians have used strong language. but donald trump was president of the united states. he sought to overturn a presidential election that had been upheld by every single court to consider it. he spent months insisting to his base that the only way he could was a dangerous wide—ranging conspiracy against them and america itself. he relentlessly attempted to betray his

followers that the peaceful transfer of power that was taking place in the capital was an abomination that had to be stopped at all costs. he flirted with groups like the proud boys telling them to stand back and stand by that enduring —— sparking death threats to his opponents. he summoned an armed, angry, and dangerous crowd that wanted to keep in power and was widely reported to be poised on a hairtriggerfor violence at his direction. he then made his heated statements and circumstances where it was clear and where it was foreseeable and those statements will spark extraordinary eminent guidance. they and feel the capital. the congress, and the vice president during the insurrection. engaging in extraordinary

dereliction of duty and desertion of duty that was only possible because of the high office he held. he issued statements during the insurrection targeting the vice president and reiterating the very same rights about the election that had launched the violence in the first place. and he issued a treat five hours after the capitalist act in which he sided with the bad guys we all know that context matters and that office and meaning and intent and consequences matter and simply put it matters when and where and how we speak. the oath we swore and the power we hold matters. president trump was not impeached because he

used words that the house decided are forbidden or unpopular. he was impeached for inciting armed violence against the government of the united states of america. this leads me to a few final thoughts about why it's so important for you to hear this case as authorised and in the required by our history and by the constitution. president trump's lawyers will say i expect that you should dismiss this case to the country can move on. they will assert this is partisan and the spirit of bipartisanship and it requires us to drop the case and march forward immunity. with all due respect every premise and every conclusion of that argument is wrong will stop just weeks conclusion of that argument is wrong will stopjust weeks ago, conclusion of that argument is wrong will stop just weeks ago, weeks ago the president of the united states

later ready insight at an armed attack on the capital. our receipt of government while seeking to retain power as a an election he lost and then celebrated the attack. people died people are pretty injured. president trump's actions and being shared every single member of congress stop his own vice president. thousands of congressional staffers and ever on capitol police and other law enforcement. this was a nationality tragedy. a disaster for america enforcement. this was a nationality tragedy. a disasterfor america plus by standing in the world and president trump a singularly responsible for inciting the as we will prove the attack on the capital was not so leave the work of extremist working the shadows. indeed, there is anyone in this chamber honestly believe that but for the conduct of president trump

that the charge in the article of impeachment that that attack on the capital would have occurred? does anyone believe that. even as the capital still surrounded with barbed wire is and fences and soldiers that we should just move on. let bygones be bygones. and allow president trump to walk away without any accountability, any reckoning, any consequences. that cannot be right. that is not unity. that is the path to spirit what future presidents could do. there is a good reason why this article of impeachment past the house with bipartisan support. it belongs to all americans through all walks of life and we have a common interest in making clear that airlines nobody can cross. and especially the president of the united states. and so we share an interest in this trial where the

truth can be shown and where president trump can be called to account for his offences and william faulkner famously wrote that the pastis faulkner famously wrote that the past is never dead but this is not even the past. thisjust past is never dead but this is not even the past. this just happened. it is still happening. look around you as you come to the capital income to work. i really do not believe that our attention span is so short that our sense of duty is so short that our sense of duty is so frail and i were loyalty so all can the president can provoke an attack on congress itself and get away with itjust because it occurred near the end of his term. after a betrayal like this there cannot be unity without accountability. this is exactly what the constitution calls for and the original understanding and the chambers on president and the very words used in the constitution all

confirm unquestionably indisputably that president trump must stand trial for that president trump must stand trialfor his high crimes that president trump must stand trial for his high crimes and misdemeanors against the american people. we must not, we cannot continue down the path of partisanship and division that has turned capital into armed fortress. senators, it now falls to you to bring our country together by holding this trial once all the evidence is before you by delivering justice. thank you. you are watching ongoing coverage of the beginning of donald trump impeachment trial. as we told we been watching democrats making the case that donald trump did insight onjanuary six something his defence team will resist. let's continue to watch. be team will resist. let's continue to watch. �* ., ., . . ., .,

watch. be held to account for excitin: watch. be held to account for exciting insurrection - watch. be held to account for exciting insurrection againstl watch. be held to account for i exciting insurrection against us. the trial— exciting insurrection against us. the trial is— exciting insurrection against us. the trial is personal indeed for every— the trial is personal indeed for every senator, every manager, all of our staff _ every senator, every manager, all of our staff the — every senator, every manager, all of our staff. the capitol police, washington, dc metropolitan police, the national guard, maintenance and custodial_ the national guard, maintenance and custodial crews, the print journalists and tv people who were here _ journalists and tv people who were here and _ journalists and tv people who were here. and all of our families and friends — here. and all of our families and friends i— here. and all of our families and friends. i hope the trial reminds america — friends. i hope the trial reminds america how personal democracy is. and how— america how personal democracy is. and how personal is the loss of democracy too. distinguish members of the _ democracy too. distinguish members of the senate, my youngest daughter tabitha _ of the senate, my youngest daughter tabitha was there with me on wednesday, january six. it was the day after— wednesday, january six. it was the day after we buried her brother, our son tommy — day after we buried her brother, our son tommy. the saddest day of our lives _ son tommy. the saddest day of our lives also — son tommy. the saddest day of our lives also it— son tommy. the saddest day of our lives. also it was my son—in—law hank— lives. also it was my son—in—law hank who — lives. also it was my son—in—law hank who is _ lives. also it was my son—in—law hank who is married to our oldest daughteh — hank who is married to our oldest

daughter. hannah. and i consider him a son_ daughter. hannah. and i consider him a son tom _ daughter. hannah. and i consider him a son too. even though he eloped with my— a son too. even though he eloped with my daughter and didn't tell us what they— with my daughter and didn't tell us what they were going to do. but it was in _ what they were going to do. but it was in the — what they were going to do. but it was in the middle of covid—19. but the reason — was in the middle of covid—19. but the reason they came with me that wednesday, january six was because they wanted to be together with me in the _ they wanted to be together with me in the middle of a devastating week for our— in the middle of a devastating week for our family. and i told them i had to— for our family. and i told them i had to go— for our family. and i told them i had to go back to work because we were _ had to go back to work because we were counting electoral votes that day on _ were counting electoral votes that day on january were counting electoral votes that day onjanuary six. were counting electoral votes that day on january six. it was our constitutional duty. and i invited them _ constitutional duty. and i invited them instead to come with me to witness _ them instead to come with me to witness this historic event, the peaceful— witness this historic event, the peaceful transfer of power in america _ peaceful transfer of power in america. then they said they heard that president trump was calling on his followers to come to washington to protest— his followers to come to washington to protest and they asked me directly. _ to protest and they asked me directly, would be safe? would it be safe _ directly, would be safe? would it be safe and _ directly, would be safe? would it be safe and i_

directly, would be safe? would it be safe. and i told them, of course it should _ safe. and i told them, of course it should be — safe. and i told them, of course it should be safe, this is the capital. our majority leader had kindly offered — our majority leader had kindly offered me the use of his office on the house — offered me the use of his office on the house floor because i was one of the house floor because i was one of the managers that day and we were going _ the managers that day and we were going through our brief. so tap and hank— going through our brief. so tap and hank were — going through our brief. so tap and hank were with me in his office. his colleagues — hank were with me in his office. his colleagues drop by to console us about _ colleagues drop by to console us about the — colleagues drop by to console us about the loss of our middle child, tommy _ about the loss of our middle child, tommy. our beloved tommy. they actually _ tommy. our beloved tommy. they actually came to see meet that day, dozens— actually came to see meet that day, dozens of— actually came to see meet that day, dozens of members, lots of republicans, lots of democrats came to see _ republicans, lots of democrats came to see me _ republicans, lots of democrats came to see me. and i felt a sense of beingm — to see me. and i felt a sense of being... lifted up from the agony. and i_ being... lifted up from the agony. and i won't— being... lifted up from the agony. and i won't forget their tenderness. and i won't forget their tenderness. and through the tears i was working on a speech— and through the tears i was working on a speech for the floor. when we would _ on a speech for the floor. when we would all— on a speech for the floor. when we would all be kicked together in

joint _ would all be kicked together in joint session. and i wanted to focus on unity— joint session. and i wanted to focus on unity when we got in the house. it's on unity when we got in the house. it's i _ on unity when we got in the house. it's i quoted — on unity when we got in the house. it's i quoted abraham lincoln as famous — it's i quoted abraham lincoln as famous 1838 lyceum speech where he said that _ famous 1838 lyceum speech where he said that if— famous 1838 lyceum speech where he said that if the vision and destruction ever come to america it won't _ destruction ever come to america it won't come — destruction ever come to america it won't come from abroad. it will come from within — won't come from abroad. it will come from within. said lincoln. and in that same — from within. said lincoln. and in that same speech lincoln passionately deplored mob violence. this was— passionately deplored mob violence. this was right after the murder of elijah _ this was right after the murder of elijah lovejoy the abolitionist newspaper editor. and lincoln implored — newspaper editor. and lincoln implored mob violence. and he deployed — implored mob violence. and he deployed mob rule. and he said it would _ deployed mob rule. and he said it would lead to tyranny and despotism in america — would lead to tyranny and despotism in america. that was the speech i gave _ in america. that was the speech i gave that — in america. that was the speech i gave that day after the house very

graciously — gave that day after the house very graciously and warmly welcomed me back _ graciously and warmly welcomed me back and _ graciously and warmly welcomed me back. and tabitha and hank came with me to _ back. and tabitha and hank came with me to the _ back. and tabitha and hank came with me to the floor. and they watched it from the _ me to the floor. and they watched it from the gallery. and when it was over they— from the gallery. and when it was over they went back to that office off the _ over they went back to that office off the house floor. they didn't know _ off the house floor. they didn't know that _ off the house floor. they didn't know that the house had been breached yet. and that in insurrection, riot or a coup had come _ insurrection, riot or a coup had come to— insurrection, riot or a coup had come to congress. and by the time we learned _ come to congress. and by the time we learned about it, about what was going _ learned about it, about what was going on. — learned about it, about what was going on, it was too late. i couldn't— going on, it was too late. i couldn't get out there to be with them _ couldn't get out there to be with them in — couldn't get out there to be with them in that office. and all around me people — them in that office. and all around me people were calling their wives and their— me people were calling their wives and their husbands, their loved ones to say— and their husbands, their loved ones to say goodbye. members of congress and the _ to say goodbye. members of congress and the house anyway were moving their congressional pins so they wouldn't — their congressional pins so they wouldn't be identified by the mob as they tried _ wouldn't be identified by the mob as they tried to escape the violence. our new— they tried to escape the violence.

our new chaplain got up and said a 0ur new chaplain got up and said a prayer— 0ur new chaplain got up and said a prayer for— our new chaplain got up and said a prayer for us and we were told to put our— prayer for us and we were told to put our gas — prayer for us and we were told to put our gas masks on. and then there was a _ put our gas masks on. and then there was a sound _ put our gas masks on. and then there was a sound i— put our gas masks on. and then there was a sound i will never forget. the sound _ was a sound i will never forget. the sound of— was a sound i will never forget. the sound of pounding on the door like a battering _ sound of pounding on the door like a battering ram. the most haunting sound _ battering ram. the most haunting sound i_ battering ram. the most haunting sound i ever heard and i will never forget _ sound i ever heard and i will never forget it — sound i ever heard and i will never forget it. my chief of staff was with tabitha and hank locked and barricaded in that office. the kids hiding _ barricaded in that office. the kids hiding under the desks, placing what they thought were their final tax and whispered phone calls to say their— and whispered phone calls to say their goodbyes. they thought they were going to die. my son—in—law had never— were going to die. my son—in—law had never even _ were going to die. my son—in—law had never even been to the capital before — never even been to the capital before. and when they were finally rescued _ before. and when they were finally rescued over an hour later by capital— rescued over an hour later by capital officers and we were together, i had them and i apologised and i told my daughter tabitham —

apologised and i told my daughter tabitha... 24 and a brilliant algebra _ tabitha... 24 and a brilliant algebra teacher and teach for america _ algebra teacher and teach for america. now, itold her how algebra teacher and teach for america. now, i told her how sorry i was _ america. now, i told her how sorry i was and _ america. now, i told her how sorry i was and i_ america. now, i told her how sorry i was. and i promised herthat america. now, i told her how sorry i was. and i promised her that it would — was. and i promised her that it would not _ was. and i promised her that it would not be like this again the next _ would not be like this again the next time — would not be like this again the next time she came back to the capitol— next time she came back to the capitol with me. and you know what she said? _ capitol with me. and you know what she said? she said dad, i don't want to come _ she said? she said dad, idon't want to come back— she said? she said dad, i don't want to come back to the capital. of all the terrible, brutal things i saw and heard — the terrible, brutal things i saw and heard on that day, and since then, _ and heard on that day, and since then, that — and heard on that day, and since then, that when hit me the hardest. that and _ then, that when hit me the hardest. that and watching someone use in american — that and watching someone use in american flagpole with the flag still on — american flagpole with the flag still on it to spear and pummel one of our— still on it to spear and pummel one of our police — still on it to spear and pummel one of our police officers ruthlessly, mercilessly, tortured by a poll.

with— mercilessly, tortured by a poll. with a — mercilessly, tortured by a poll. with a flag on it that he was defending with his very life. people died that— defending with his very life. people died that day. officers ended up with head damage and brain damage. i’eople's _ with head damage and brain damage. people's eyes were gouged. an officer— people's eyes were gouged. an officer had a heart attack. an officer— officer had a heart attack. an officer lost three fingers that day. two officers have taken their own lives _ two officers have taken their own lives. senators, this cannot be our future _ lives. senators, this cannot be our future this — lives. senators, this cannot be our future. this cannot be the future of america _ future. this cannot be the future of america. we cannot have presidents inciting _ america. we cannot have presidents inciting and — america. we cannot have presidents inciting and mobilising mob violence against _ inciting and mobilising mob violence against our— inciting and mobilising mob violence against our government, and our institutions because they refused to accept _ institutions because they refused to accept the _ institutions because they refused to accept the will of the people under the constitution of the united states — the constitution of the united states. much less can we create a newjanuary states. much less can we create a new january exception states. much less can we create a newjanuary exception in our

precious _ newjanuary exception in our precious beloved constitution the prior generations have died for and fought— prior generations have died for and fought for~ — prior generations have died for and fought for. so that corrupt presidents have several weeks to get away with— presidents have several weeks to get away with whatever it is they wanted to. away with whatever it is they wanted to history _ away with whatever it is they wanted to. history does not support a january— to. history does not support a january exception in any way. so why would _ january exception in any way. so why would we _ january exception in any way. so why would we invent one for the future? we close _ would we invent one for the future? we close, mr president. that would we invent one for the future? we close, mr president.— we close, mr president. that was a very personal _ we close, mr president. that was a very personal speech _ we close, mr president. that was a very personal speech from - we close, mr president. that was a very personal speech from james i very personal speech from james raskin. talking about his experiences on the day of the attack on the capital. the day before he buried his son and on the day of the attack his two other children accompanied him and became involved in those events in the capital. he's just said, this cannot be our future. we continue to listen to democrats as they outline their reasons for donald trump to be

impeached. this will end after the entire process in a vote with 100 senators casting their votes, deciding whether to find the former president guilty or not. two thirds of them will need to vote for guilty for they are to be a conviction. but the theme throughout every statement we've heard from the democrats as they go into a ten minute recess is that they believe donald trump and cited the attack on the capital on january the 6th. they said to hold an impeachment trial for january the 6th. they said to hold an impeachment trialfor a president whose left office is not a bad precedent as some may suggest. in fact, they are arguing it is necessary to show what the senate, the houses representative and what america stands and what it will or won't tolerate. repeatedly we've heard emphasis on the fact that on that day, january the 6th, there was supposed to be and indeed in time there was the peaceful process of power built into the process that was planned for that day the

official accounting of the votes. that did happen it was delayed because of the violence. the democrats are arguing that the attack on that process in part is the reason that what happened was so serious. let's speak to a democratic strategist who is in washington. joel strategist who is in washington. joel, i know you knowjames raskin very well. i wonder what your emotions were as you've heard him speakjust then. emotions were as you've heard him speakjust then-— emotions were as you've heard him speakjust then. ross, thank you for includin: speakjust then. ross, thank you for including me — speakjust then. ross, thank you for including me today. _ speakjust then. ross, thank you for including me today. it's _ speakjust then. ross, thank you for including me today. it's deeply - including me today. it's deeply personal as a congressman raskin said. he is a champion ofjustice, a champion of democracy, he has been fighting for democracy his entire life. teaching constitutional law, he started his summer programme about democracy some of young high school kids who cherish democracy and get active in politics. and to see the moment when he talked about how his young daughter said she didn't want to come back to the capital was very, very painful.

because jamie spent his whole life fighting for democracy for us. and to be in congress is the height of 1's professional life. as as he's experience it's just devastating. 1's professional life. as as he's experience it'sjust devastating. it cuts to the core of what we are talking about. this is about america. this is about our constitution, our democracy and jamie personifies those of us who believe that we need to protect it and cherish it. and it's fitting that he is the person prosecuting donald trump. he that he is the person prosecuting donald trump-— donald trump. he will though be aware that _ donald trump. he will though be aware that the _ donald trump. he will though be aware that the trump _ donald trump. he will though be aware that the trump defence i donald trump. he will though be| aware that the trump defence will donald trump. he will though be - aware that the trump defence will be that this very process is undermining the unity, the cooperation across the political spectrum. which he's been pursuing during his career as you just detailed. during his career as you 'ust detailed. , , during his career as you 'ust detailed.�* during his career as you 'ust detailed. , , , _, detailed. the disunity is coming from those _ detailed. the disunity is coming from those who _ detailed. the disunity is coming from those who oppose - detailed. the disunity is coming from those who oppose the - from those who oppose the commonality. the disunity is coming from those who want to whitewash what took place. that jamie and the other members, the other prosecutors so ably explained which was it was a

riot, a violent mob incited by the president to undermine and prevent the peaceful transfer of power from an election that he lost. so disunity is coming from donald trump side. and this is a moment for accountability, for us to live up to our national creed. which is based in our constitution and to convict there is a former president so that he could never return to public life ever again. and we can end this chapter. ever again. and we can end this cha ter. �* . , ever again. and we can end this chater. �* .,, ,., ., ever again. and we can end this cha ter. �* .,, ,., ., ., ever again. and we can end this chater. �* ., ., ., chapter. but as someone who looks at democratic party _ chapter. but as someone who looks at democratic party strategy, _ chapter. but as someone who looks at democratic party strategy, is - chapter. but as someone who looks at democratic party strategy, is this - democratic party strategy, is this rather about sending a message to america about what that party stands for? because you all know that these prosecutors do not prosecutors have an uphill battle to get that conviction.— an uphill battle to get that conviction. ., ., , conviction. you are right. there is olitical conviction. you are right. there is political reality. _ conviction. you are right. there is political reality. we _ conviction. you are right. there is political reality. we also - conviction. you are right. there is political reality. we also saw - conviction. you are right. there is political reality. we also saw the l political reality. we also saw the also first ever bipartisan meant not bipartisan impeachment of this former president took place about a week and half ago. where ten republicans in the house including the number three republican voted to impeach him. so it is not at all

clear that the american people want to just sweep this under the rug. in fact numbers and poll after poll show that deep concern over what took place. i think from a political perspective, this is the right thing for democrats, this is the right thing for america. and with that one can hold their head high. and certainly president biden, he's going to have his agenda moving through already moving through congress. this isn't going to impede that. i think the american people to get a look in the mirror and particularly those who are in the middle in the independent lane and say, who stood up for us in the moment of national crisis and who didn't? �* , . didn't? and this trial will demonstrate _ didn't? and this trial will demonstrate that. - didn't? and this trial will demonstrate that. joel, | didn't? and this trial will i demonstrate that. joel, we appreciate you joining us from washington. thank you very much. let's bring in the bbc�*s gary o'donoghue who has been following events on capitol hill. gary, for people who didn't see the opening of the case, just take our view is through a very high impact first few

minutes. ~ . , minutes. what they did quite cleverly is — minutes. what they did quite cleverly is cut _ minutes. what they did quite cleverly is cut together - minutes. what they did quite cleverly is cut together a - minutes. what they did quite cleverly is cut together a lot l minutes. what they did quite l cleverly is cut together a lot of the video that was filmed on the day. some of it perhaps new video for that were not entirely sure. but really sort of cutting together the events that took care at the capitol with the words of donald trump at that rally really trying to create a narrative. an dramatic narrative of those few hours where this place was under siege, those few hours where this place was undersiege, underattack. those few hours where this place was under siege, under attack. where the mob ran through these halls, destroying everything in its path. looking for a people, and frankly looking for people to injure and hurt as much as they could. they all shouted if you remember, hank mike pence as they did it. so it was a pretty powerful presentation. it was a made for the 21st century

television age, that kind of presentation. of course there are those on the republican side that will be unmoved by that. they believe this is entirely unjustified, unconstitutional. indeed around ten of them voted to against even the rules of this trial at the beginning of the afternoon. the managers here have set out their case very strongly. it is not surprising, they are largely the democrats, largely trial lawyers themselves increase the delete my previous lives. they know how to put together a case. they are doing it so far and a pretty powerful way. we have yet to see the first answer is from the trump lawyers. they've tried to preempt some of their arguments but we will see a part of their case on the constitutionality set out in the next few minutes. i should explain as we talked, the democrats have reserved the remainder of the time for now. we are in a ten minute break. after that break will be hearing from

donald trump defence team. i was struck, this is unusualfor a donald trump defence team. i was struck, this is unusual for a trial, those prosecuting the case were not just making the case that donald trump was responsible they are also addressing the debate about whether this trial should be happening at all. , . �* , this trial should be happening at all. , ., �* , ., ., all. yes. that's the nature of the debate that's _ all. yes. that's the nature of the debate that's happening - all. yes. that's the nature of the debate that's happening at - all. yes. that's the nature of the debate that's happening at this | debate that's happening at this stage. it is whether or not it should be happening, whether it's a constitutional event, that it works for the constitution, that it should go ahead. there will be a vote on that in a couple of hours' time. we had a dress rehearsalfor this boat a couple of weeks ago. when senator rand paul put a similar motion in front of the senate. 45 republicans agreed with him that it was unconstitutional, this whole trial process. we may say that repeated again. the irony is that even if they lose and they trial goes ahead which we expect it will, doesn't stop those republicans as jurors taking into account or even deciding

wholly on the nation of the constitutional argument when it comes to the ends of the day. whatever the other evidence says, no one stopping them saying to themselves when it comes to the final vote, themselves when it comes to the finalvote, it's themselves when it comes to the final vote, it's unconstitutional, and voting to acquit. bind final vote, it's unconstitutional, and voting to acquit. and coming back to the _ and voting to acquit. and coming back to the speech, _ and voting to acquit. and coming back to the speech, the - and voting to acquit. and coming. back to the speech, the testimony and voting to acquit. and coming - back to the speech, the testimony we heard from james raskin describing the horror of being in the capital with two of his children and his daughter saying i don't want to come back here because she was so scared. presumably, the defence of donald trump and all republican senators would agree that was horrific. there is nothing to defend there. the debate is whether donald trump is responsible for that violence. it’s responsible for that violence. it's eah. it's responsible for that violence. it�*s yeah. it's about drawing the connection, it is in a? drawing the connection, it is in a? drawing the connection between his words and the rally before hand. and his words in the months since the election that he lost in november and the actions of the mob. when he said, you have to fight like hell otherwise you

won't have a country anymore. it's his lawyer say that was figurative language. that was him talking about the electoral process and the electoral system. nothing to do with violence. they say things like the mob had planned this even before that rally. so how can his words have created that insurrection, that attempted insurrection? all these arguments will be heard in the coming days. as will various arguments around the first amendment, freedom of speech. which of the republicans say is absolutely central to their defense. that the president cannot be convicted because what he said was covered by the first amendment. something the democrats reject because of course, there are qualifications to first amendment speech. one of them is a proximate effect of violence. star; proximate effect of violence. stay with us, proximate effect of violence. stay with us. please — proximate effect of violence. stay with us, please gary. _ proximate effect of violence. stay with us, please gary. let'sjust emphasise, it's unlikely, not impossible but unlikely that donald trump will be convicted. this is

why. there are 100 us senders. they are thejurors in why. there are 100 us senders. they are the jurors in this trial. 50 of them are republican, 48 are democrats and two are independent who almost always vote with the democrats. it's a 50—50 split. to convict donald trump, two thirds of them, 67 senators would need to find donald trump guilty. that means at least 17 republicans would have to vote against party lines. some republicans could cross those party lines. here i find that we should watch out for. senator mitt romney, he voted to convict donald trump in the last impeachment trial. and he's called the variety insurrection incited by trump. it's ben sass, a senatorfrom nebraska. he's been an outspoken trump critic and called the right the inevitable and ugly outcome of the presidents addiction to constantly stoking —— susan wright wrote an opinion piece of accusing tribe of accusing the

writers. lisa murkowski she called on trump to resign. and lastly pat toomey from pennsylvania, he says trump must face criminal liability. bearing in mind all of those statements that i've just read, is it not certain that at least those five will come across? trio. it not certain that at least those five will come across?— it not certain that at least those five will come across? no, i don't aet five will come across? no, i don't get certain _ five will come across? no, i don't get certain at _ five will come across? no, i don't get certain at all. _ five will come across? no, i don't get certain at all. bear _ five will come across? no, i don't get certain at all. bear in - five will come across? no, i don't get certain at all. bear in mind i get certain at all. bear in mind that they are under a lot of pressure from their own constituents. there he met a couple of them have just been reelected so they have six years before they have to face the electorate again. that may feel a little more insulated to vote against the president, former president if they want to do that. i don't that necessarily means that you're going to get definitely five across. five is well short of that 17 as you outline. that you would need for a conviction. there are others whose position is a little confusing, i would say. take the

leader of the republican leader mitch mcconnell. he was very clear about what he thought the presidents role it and what happen onjanuary six, he condemned it outright. he had a couple of weeks he voted to say that they trial was unconstitutional. what's he thinking, which way is he leaning? is he keeping a foot in both camps to see what happens? the other big factor, the other big political factor, the other big political factor is they are all looking over their shoulders, republicans because they don't know which way this party is going to go. they don't know if this is going to remain donald trump sparty for that where there's been a substantive long—term shift in the nature of republicanism. that means they have to go with that stream of thinking. oh whether or not there will be some kind of reversion to a more middle ground, a more middle—of—the—road party. it's in a realfork in the middle—of—the—road party. it's in a real fork in the road middle—of—the—road party. it's in a realfork in the road in middle—of—the—road party. it's in a real fork in the road in that sense. and they are all trying to second—guess and ensure they are not on the wrong side of the fence when

the shouting ends, begins, ends. while we wait for donald trump's defence team to appear and begin pushing back at what we've been hearing from the prosecution, just help us out with the chronology of the next few days. what's can happen between here, the start of at the moment of the senators vote? you will have a — moment of the senators vote? you will have a vo _ moment of the senators vote? you will have a vo in _ moment of the senators vote? ym. will have a vo in about two hours' time on this constitutional question. that's expected to be in favour of the democrats of the trial can proceed. tomorrow the democrats, house managers will start to present their case. they have a 16 hour window to do that over two days. no more than eight hours per day. they don't have to use it all but the can. that will take up wednesday and thursday. then the president trump's defence lawyers will have exactly the same amount of time 16 hours was up the same amount of time 16 hours was up saturday and sunday potentially to do the same. after that there is a question of whether or not witnesses or documents can be

subpoenaed. that would require more debate if either side wanted that. that can slow things down enormously. if either of them decide to agree to it. if not then there were some questions that senators get to ask for a few hours. you are looking, if there are no witnesses called and that delay introduced was to be looking at probably a vote on monday, maybe tuesday next week. {line monday, maybe tuesday next week. one further detail and want to clara, you are saying at the moment this is about the constitutionality of the impeachment trial. but in those speeches that we just heard in the last hour, all three speakers went well beyond that issue in much more broadly outlined why they think donald trump incited violence was up presumably they're going to have to go back over that ground tomorrow. i think that's absolutely right. we saw this in the impeachment trial last time around. there was a good deal of duplication. in that case it was kind of necessary in the sense that there was a lot of detail about

who said what, text to whom at what time and who had a meeting with whom, when each ambassador there was in each country and who talked to who i want time for that there was all sorts of minutiae. the case was developed over a number of months before it even came to a trial. in this case, the narrative is over a relatively short period of time. particularjanuary the sex and the run up to it from november the 3rd. so you will see a lot of these arguments repeated again. what's promised by democrats as new evidence. they won't say what that is. whether that's a new video, new photography. or whether they are planning to call witnesses. they are suggesting there is new evidence. whether that will be of an earth shattering nature or sufficiently shattering nature or sufficiently shattering to change any minds we will have to wait and see. thea;r shattering to change any minds we will have to wait and see. they have certainly created _ will have to wait and see. they have certainly created an _ will have to wait and see. they have certainly created an expectation. i certainly created an expectation. gary, we appreciate you taking us through the details. gary will guide us through the next couple of hours as well. if you haven't been watching for the last hour and a

half the democrats it began in this impeachment trial of donald trump presenting a powerful 30 minute video of the capitol hill riots on january the sex. this is some of that. ~ ., ., ., ,, ., ., that. were going to walk down and i'll be that. were going to walk down and ill be there _ that. were going to walk down and i'll be there with _ that. were going to walk down and i'll be there with you. _ that. were going to walk down and i'll be there with you. we - that. were going to walk down and i'll be there with you. we are - that. were going to walk down and | i'll be there with you. we are going to walk down the walk down to the capital. to walk down the walk down to the ca - ital. . to walk down the walk down to the caital. . . ~ to walk down the walk down to the caital. ., ., ~ .., , ., capital. yeah! take the capital! take the capital! _ capital. yeah! take the capital! take the capital! we _ capital. yeah! take the capital! take the capital! we are - capital. yeah! take the capital! take the capital! we are going | capital. yeah! take the capital! i take the capital! we are going to the capital! stop the steal! this was a fraudulent election. but we can't play into the hands of these people. we have to have peace so go home, we love you, you are very special. home, we love you, you are very secial. . . , home, we love you, you are very secial. ., ., , home, we love you, you are very secial. ., .,, ., home, we love you, you are very secial. ., ., , ., ., special. that was part of the video the democrats _ special. that was part of the video the democrats have _ special. that was part of the video the democrats have produced - special. that was part of the video the democrats have produced was| special. that was part of the video - the democrats have produced was not this is what the lien impeachment manager the democratjamie raskin manager the democrat jamie raskin had manager the democratjamie raskin had to say.

manager the democrat jamie raskin had to sa . ., manager the democrat jamie raskin had to sa. ., ., ., ., had to say. you ask what a high crime or misdemeanor - had to say. you ask what a high crime or misdemeanor is - had to say. you ask what a high crime or misdemeanor is under| had to say. you ask what a high - crime or misdemeanor is under our constitution, that's a high crime and misdemeanor. if that's not an impeachable offence, there and there is no such thing. that impeachable offence, there and there is no such thing.— is no such thing. that is some of, one of several— is no such thing. that is some of, one of several speeches - is no such thing. that is some of, one of several speeches we - is no such thing. that is some of, j one of several speeches we heard from democrats. just to be clear, the democrats have first been laying out their arguments. in theories specifically focused on the constitutionality of an impeachment trial of a president who is no longer in office. in fact they spoke more expensively than just that issue. we are in a short break on this date one of the impeachment trial proceeding. these are live pictures from washington, dc. you can see that those taking part are not in position yet. but the next thing that's going to happen, and you'll see that here on bbc news is for donald trump's defence team to start pushing back at two things. one, that they should actually be happening at all. and to that the president was responsible for the

violence on january president was responsible for the violence onjanuary six. president was responsible for the violence on january six. you president was responsible for the violence onjanuary six. you will see it all of course on bbc news. i'm ros atkins. this is outside source. donald trump's historic impeachment trial is under way in washington. it's our solemn constitutional duty to conduct a fair and honest impeachment trial of the charges against former president trump. this is the feed we have coming from the us senate. remember, donald trump is the only president to be impeached twice and the only president to face trial after leaving office. the senate are in recess but will return shortly. donald trump's legal team will be laying out his defence. he is the only president being impeached