you will 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

twice, that is something of course the president is highly critical of. democrats accuse the former president of inciting this mob attack on the capitol building and have shown a video as evidence. we're going to walk down to the capitol! let's continue our coverage of donald trump's impeachment trial. his lawyers have dismissed the trial as unconstitutional. they are going to be outlining those arguments in the coming minutes. welcome to our viewers on pbs in america and around the globe. the second impeachment trial of former president donald trump is under way in washington. he's accused of "incitement of insurrection" at capitol hill on january 6.

the trial is historic. donald trump is the first president to go on trial after leaving office and the only president to be impeached twice. his lawyers have dismissed the trial as unconstitutional. we as unconstitutional. are going to be hearing more details we are going to be hearing more details on that argument in the coming minutes. first of all, let me show you the picture we have coming in from capitol hill. we are imagining that the proceedings will get under way again shortly. while we are waiting for that, the bbc�*s barbara pletcher is on capitol hill. barbara, just take us through the next stage of the process we are waiting for —— barbara plett usher. yes, but we have been hearing is a debate about whether or not it is even constitutional to have this trial. mr trump's defence attorneys have said it is not and so both sides get two hours to argue their case. we havejust finished listening to the democratic case,

which was essentially quite an emotional and strong argument for why mr trump should be tried, essentially the argument was that if a president commits impeachable conduct for most of his presidency but yet in the last week of his office, he is impugned to any kind office, he is impugned to any kind of punishment, what good is the impeachment? you know, mrtrump of punishment, what good is the impeachment? you know, mr trump is mcclure is —— trump's lawyers are arguing he was out of office when he was impeached. figs was out of office when he was impeached-— was out of office when he was impeached. was out of office when he was imeached. r �* . ~' impeached. as you're talking, the defence has _ impeached. as you're talking, the defence has begun _ impeached. as you're talking, the defence has begun talking, - impeached. as you're talking, the defence has begun talking, so - impeached. as you're talking, the l defence has begun talking, so let's listen to what's being said. literally the cybill that flashes on television whenever you are trying to explain that we are talking about the united states, instant symbol, to have it attacked is pregnant in every sense of the word —— repugnant. the loss of life is

horrific. i spent many long years prosecuting homicide cases, catching criminals that committed murders. i have quite an extensive experience in dealing with the aftermath of those things. certainly, as an fop member and a member of many police organisations myself, we mourn the loss of the capitol police officer who understand is laying not too far away from here, and you know, many of you in this room over your careers, before they reached this summit here in the senate, would have had times where you represented your local communities as assistant district attorneys, assistant commonwealth attorneys, assistant

state attorneys, and you know this to be true, that went a horrific event occurred in your county or in yourjurisdiction, if it was a state jurisdiction, you know if there was a terrible outcry in the public and medially reacts with a desire that someone pay, because of the really bad happened, and that is a natural reaction of human beings. it is a natural reaction of human beings because we are generally asocial people. we enjoy being around one another. even in dc. we recognise that people all the world over, and especially americans who share that special bond with one another, love the freedoms that this country gives us. and we all feel that if somebody is unsafe when they are walking down the street, that

the next person that is unsafe could be you, your spouse, one of your children, some other person that you love and know personally. so you never hear anybody representing former president trump say anything at all other than what happened on january six, and the storming and preaching of the capital, should be denounced in the most vigorous terms. northat denounced in the most vigorous terms. nor that those persons responsible should be prosecuted to the fullest extent that our laws allow, and indeed i have followed some of those cases, those prosecutions, and it seems to be redoing a pretty good job of identifying and prosecuting those persons who committed those offences. i commend the fbi and district of columbia police and the

other agencies for their work. it is natural to recoil, it is in immediate thing, it comes over you without your ability to stop it, the desire for retribution. who caused this awful thing? how do we make them pay? we recognise in the law, and i know many of you are lawyers, probably lawyers 35 years longer than me, many longerthan probably lawyers 35 years longer than me, many longer than me, probably, and we know that we have a specific body of law that deals with passion and rage, blinding logic and reason. that is the difference between manslaughter and murder. manslaughter is the killing of a human being upon sudden and intense provocation, but murder is done with

cold blood and reflective thought. we are so understanding of the concept that people's minds can be overpowered with a motion, where logic does not immediately kick in, that we have recognised examples that we have recognised examples that otherwise would be hearsay and said that, no, when you're driving down the street and you look over at your wife and you say about you know what? the guys about the drive through a red light and kill that person, your wife contested back to what you said, because even though it is technically hearsay, it is an exception because is the event living through the person —— your life can testify back. why? no opportunity for reflective thought. there is all sorts of examples that we recognise in the law for why people immediately desire retribution, immediately recognise

in the law that people can be overcome by events. and, you know, senators of the united states, they are not ordinary people. they are extraordinary people, any sense, expert neri —— in the technical sense. when i was growing up in the suburbs of philadelphia, my parents were big fans of senator everett dirksen from illinois, and senator dirksen recorded a series of lectures that my parents had on her record. and we still know what records are, right? on the thing you put the needle down on and it plays! and here is little

bruce eight, nine come in ten years old listening to this in the late 60s, and i would be listening to that voice. if you ever heard everett dirksen�*s voice, it is the most commanding, gravelly, voice thatjust most commanding, gravelly, voice that just loses most commanding, gravelly, voice thatjust loses belief and that just loses belief and sincerity. thatjust loses belief and sincerity. must have been a phenomenal united states senator. he does not talk about ordinary people as we do in the law. we apply the ordinary person's standard. he talks about extraordinary people. he talks about extraordinary people. he talks about gallant men, the name of the album, and now, sign of the times, gallant men and women. and i would watch television and i would watch senator goldwater or senator byrd or

senator goldwater or senator byrd or senator mansfield, senator dole, and i would be fascinated by these great men, and everybody putting parents say this when they are growing up. you could drop to be a united states senator! you could do that. they are just men and women like you are. then everett dirksen tells us that they are not, they are gallant men and women, the do extraordinary things when their country needs them to do it. united states senators really are different. and i have been around united states senators before, two of them in this room from pennsylvania, i like to think are friendly toward me, or at least friend of mine when we are not politically adverse. and i have been

around their predecessors, and one thing i have discovered, whether it be democrats or republicans, united states senators are patriots first, patriots first. they love their country. they love their families. they love the states that they represent. there is not a member in this room who has not used the term" i represent the great state of" field in the blank. why? you think yours is greater than others because these are your people. these are the people that sent you here to do their work. they trusted you with their work. they trusted you with the responsibility of representative government. you know, ifeel proud

to know my senators, senator casey, appear in the back, senator toomey over to the left. it's funny, this is an aside, but it's funny. you ever notice how when you're talking or you hear others talking about you, when you are home in your state, they will say, i talked to my senator or i talked to somebody on the staff of my senator. it is always my senator. why is it that you say my senator? we say that because the people you represent are proud of their senators. they absolutely feel that connection of pride, because that is notjust pat toomey of pennsylvania, that is my senator from toomey of pennsylvania, that is my senatorfrom pennsylvania, or bob casey from scranton. that is my

senator. and you like that. people like that. the people back home really do. and united states senators have a reputation, and it is deserved, they have a reputation for cool headedness, being erudite. the men and women we sent from back home to dc to look after our interests. we feel a sense of ownership and a sense of pride in our senators. there is plenty of times i have been around in political gatherings, where i hear, there is no way senator toomey�*s going to allow that. i don't mean to pick on you, pat, but there is no way senator casey is going to allow that. because we feel pride,

something that is potentially in the wind, that we expect our united states senators not react to popular real and not react to popular emotions, we expect them to do what is right, notwithstanding what is immediately an expedient that the media tells us is the topic of the day. senators are patriots, senators are family men and women, they are fierce advocates for the great state in which they represent, and somewhere far down that list of attributes, way below patriot and way below love of family and country, and way below fierce advocates for their states, far down, at least, that's what i thought, anyway, and i still think

that, somewhere far down that list, senators have some obligation to be partisan. to represent a group of beliefs that are similar to beliefs shared by other united states senators. i understand that. and in fact, i have no problem with that system. it helps us debate and decide what is best for america, the robust debate of different points of view, and i dare say that senator schumer and senator mcconnell represent those things in this body and make sure that everything is talked out and robustly debated in this room, before united states senators make a decision of extreme importance to the people they represent. i know you are not allowed to talk, but i don't see either one of them saying i am wrong about that, because i think that is

what happens. i did united states senators try to listen to each other�*s use. i think united state senators try to do what is right for the country. and far down is partisanship. in our system of government, and if you read the federalist papers, we are very fortunate because the federalist papers were authored as an explanation for why it is the states, the original states, should adopt the constitution must�*ve these were persuasive documents about why the constitution is a good thing. because if the individual state legislatures did not adopt the constitution, we would not have it, so mrj and mr madison and mr hamilton, they had an incentive to expend what they were thinking when they wrote it, because they are explains to other everyday people, other states from why it is they

feel this is the right thing to do. and in fact, as many of you well know, madison had to promise that there would be a bill of rights immediately upon adoption or we would not have a constitution. even then, there was horse trading going on in the legislative body of the united states. the other day, when i was down here in washington, i came down earlier in the week to try to figure out how to find my way around, i worked figure out how to find my way around, iworked in figure out how to find my way around, i worked in this building a0 years ago, i got lost then and i still do. but in studying the constitution, and all the years i was a prosecutor, were so many things depend on interpretations of phrases in the constitution, i learned that this body, which one of

my worthy colleagues said is the greatest deliberative body in the entire world, and i agree, that particular aspect of our government was intentionally created, if you read the federalist papers. the last time a body such as the united states senate sat at the pinnacle of government, with the responsibility that it has today, it was happening in athens, and was happening in rome. republicanism, the form of government, throughout history has always, and without exception, fallen because of fights from within, because of partisanship from within, because of partisanship from within, because of bickering from

within. and in each one of those examples that i mentioned, and there are certainly others probably that are certainly others probably that are smaller countries that lasted for less time, that i don't know about off the top of my head, but each one of them, once there was the vacuum created that the greatest deliberative bodies, the senate of greece sitting in athens, the senate of rome, the moment that they devolved into such partisanship, it's not as though they ceased to exist — they ceased to exist as representative democracy. both replaced by totalitarianism. paraphrasing the famous quote from penniman franklin, who is a philadelphian i feel as though i can

do that, because he is my founding father, too, he who would trade liberty for some temporary security deserves neither liberty nor security. if we restrict liberty to attain security, we will lose both. and isn't the way we have enshrined in the constitution the concept of liberty that we think are critical, the very concepts of liberty that drove us to separate from great britain? and i cannot believe these fellows are quoting what happened prevent pollution as though that is somehow a value to us. —— free revolution. we left the british system. if we are really going to use pre—revolution history in great britain, the president is we have a parliament and we have a king. —— the president. is that the president that we are heading for?

it is not an accident that the very first liberty, if you grant me that our liberties are enumerated in the bill of rights, it is not annexing that the very first liberty in the first article of the bill of rights is the first amendment, which says, congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech, etc. congress shall make no law. the very first one. the most important one. the ability to have free and robust debate, free and robust political speech. something that mr raskin and his team brought up is that it is

somehow a suggestion from former president trump's team that, when various public officials were not denouncing the violence that we saw over the summer, that was somehow, the former president equating that speech to his own. not at all. exactly backwards. i saw a headline or preventative so—and—so —— represented of so—and—so seeks to walk back comments about... i forget what it was. something that bothered her. ., �* , ., �* . her. you're listening to bruce castor, her. you're listening to bruce castor. the — her. you're listening to bruce castor, the defence - her. you're listening to bruce castor, the defence lawyer. castor, the defence lawyer represented donald trump, respond to the democrat prosecutors at the beginning of donald trump's second impeachment trial. let's bring in barbara plett usher, live with us on capital hill. i have not at all times been

following the defence's argument. you and me both, you may have noticed mr castor has not asked a mention mr trump's name yet. he started out by condemning the attack on generally sixth, say whoever committed the crime should be punished, and then talking about how senators were really good people, and i thought he was winding up towards saying they should not be swayed by their passions to go in the wrong direction with this, but, yeah, it is quite a convoluted, long—winded discussion, perhaps he feels he has two hours to fill and he needs to take some time getting there. he doesn't have a video show thatjamie raskin had that there. he doesn't have a video show that jamie raskin had that we saw his last section of the democrats, so, yes, ithink his last section of the democrats, so, yes, i think we have not really seen the threat of his argument yet. but to be clear, but we are expecting him to address, at some point, is whether this trial should even be happening in the first place. is that right?— even be happening in the first place. is that right? yes. and the arc ument place. is that right? yes. and the argument that — place. is that right? yes. and the argument that they _ place. is that right? yes. and the argument that they put _ place. is that right? yes. and the argument that they put forward i place. is that right? yes. and the | argument that they put forward in

their brief, mr trump plasmid layers, is that it should not be happening because he is out of office, that it is unconstitutional to try a president when he is no longer in office because the penalty for impeachment is removing him from office and he is not in office, so thatis office and he is not in office, so that is the essence of the argument, which i assume he will get to at some point, but the democrats spoke first and they had about 80 minutes of quite strong arguments, starley presented arguments, i should say, as to why it was in fact constitutional, not only constitutional, not only constitutional but necessary. barbara, think you very much indeed, sojust to reiterate, what barbara, think you very much indeed, so just to reiterate, what we are seeing now, in theory, at least, is a discussion from both sides on whether this is constitutional, whether this is constitutional, whether this is constitutional, whether this impeachment trial is constitutional. they will be a vote on that later. that is expected to go the way of the democrats, supposing it does, we continue through the week, as the discussion continues in both sides present on whether donald trump is guilty of inciting the violence we saw in the capital onjanuary the

inciting the violence we saw in the capital on january the 6th. inciting the violence we saw in the capital onjanuary the 6th. to those of you watching on pbs in america, thank you very much indeed for watching, i will speak to you tomorrow. we cannot possibly suggest we punish people for political speech in this country, and if people go and commit lawless acts as a result of their beliefs, and they crossed the line, they should be locked up. and in fact, i have seen quite a number of the complaints that were filed against the people who preach the capital, some of them charged conspiracy. not a single one charged with conspiracy with the a0 for president of the united states, probably because prosecutors have an ethical requirement that they are not allowed to charge people with criminal offences without probable cause. you might consider that. and

if we go down the road that my very worthy adversary here, mr raskin, asked you to go down, the floodgates will open. i was going to say, it will, instead of floodgates, i was going to say regionally, it will release the whirlwind, which is a biblical reference, but i subsequently learned since i got here that that particular phrase has already been taken, so i figured i'd better change it to floodgates. but the political pendulum will shift one day. this chamber and the chamber across the way will change one day. and partisan impeachments

will become commonplace. until the impeachment of bill clinton, no one alive had ever lived through a presidential impeachment, not unless some of you are 150 years old, not a single person alive had lived through positional impeachment. now most of us have lived through three of them. this is supposed to be the ultimate safety valve, the last thing that happens, the most rare treatment. and a session where this bodyis treatment. and a session where this body is sitting as a court of impeachment among the most rare things it does. so the slippery slope principle will have taken hold if we continue to go forward with what is happening today and

scheduled to happen later this week. and after we are long done here, and after there has been a shift in the political winds, and after there is a change in the makeup of the united states house of representatives and it may be a change in the makeup of the united states senate, the pressure from those folks back home, especially for members of the house, is going to be tremendous, because, remember, the founders recognised that the argument that i started with, that political pressure is driven by the need for immediate action, because something under

contemporary community standards, something horrific happened in the people become incensed. and what do you do for a federal issue if you are back in suburban philadelphia and something happens that makes the people who live there incensed? you call your congressman and your congressman elected every two years, with her pulse on the people of their district, 750,000 people, they respond, and boy do they respond. the cumbersome and because you back, a staffer because you back, you get all the information that they have on the issue. some times even get invited to submit language that would improve whatever the issue is. well, when the pendulum swings in the next person that is impeached and for you to consider is recorded during fast and furious, the attorney general of the united

states, or anybody that