this is bbc news with the latest headlines for viewers in the uk and around the world. "inciter—in—chief" — that's how impeachment managers described donald trump as they lay out their case against him. democrats are using the former president's own words, tying him directly to the siege of capitol hill. because the truth is this attack never would've happened but for donald trump. as part of their case, democrats introduce never—before—seen security camera footage of the capitol hill riot. senators who are the jurors in this trial relive those terrifying moments.

hello and welcome if you're watching in the uk or around the world. prosecutors in donald trump's senate impeachment trial have accused him of being the "inciter in chief" of last month's deadly riots at the us capitol building. to make their argument, impeachment managers showed never—before—seen footage of the siege onjanuary 6th, and it was gripping to see. including this moment when security guard eugene goodman signalled to senator mitt romney to turn around because a mob of rioters was heading their way. it's the second day in a row that democrats have used shocking videos to play on the emotions of that day. it comes as the former president faces a separate criminal investigation in georgia, where he's accused of attempting to overturn the state's election results. if found guilty, he could face jail. from washington, our north america

editorjon sopel reports. day two of the trump impeachment trial, and harrowing new pictures and sounds of what unfolded on the 6th of january. the disbelief of the police. they are throwing metal balls at us. the prosecution argument — this was a direct consequence of donald trump's words and actions that day and in the weeks leading up to it. donald trump surrendered his role as commander—in—chief and became the inciter—in—chief. and he told this story of an african—american policeman who had fought the protesters for hours to defend the capitol. he was subjected to racial slurs. the trump legal team were given a kicking for their poor performance yesterday. donald trump was reportedly furious, and this republican senator changed his vote,

he was so appalled. the issue in hand is, is it constitutional to impeach a president who has left office? and the house managers made a compelling, cogent case, and the president's team did not. but it looks like the former president has the votes to avoid being convicted and banned from ever holding public office again. but even if donald trump's impeachment problems go away, his legal difficulties don't — they're piling up, and in georgia, it's been confirmed that a criminal investigation has been launched after the president tried to persuade that state's secretary of state to find him extra votes so that he would win, and notjoe biden. what makes this deeply problematic for donald trump, who was campaigning in georgia after the election, is that him asking for those votes is not a question of rival accounts, it's on tape. ijust want to find 11,780 votes, i

which is one more than we have, because we won this state. election interference, one of the charges being looked at, is a felony offence. in other words, a crime that carries a prison sentence of more than a year. the mayhem at the capitol grew out of donald trump's repeated claims that the presidency had been stolen from him. it would indeed be ironic if he were the one man charged with interfering in the 2020 election. jon sopel, bbc news, washington. barbara plett usherjoins us from capitol hill. barbara, there is a break in proceedings now for dinner, but that very dramatic footage for the house impeachment managers showed, what impact does that having on the senators who saw it?— impact does that having on the senators who saw it? well, i think it was pretty _ senators who saw it? well, i think it was pretty riveting _ senators who saw it? well, i think it was pretty riveting for _ senators who saw it? well, i think

it was pretty riveting for senators| it was pretty riveting for senators because they were reliving that day and quite graphic detail with footage that hadn't been seen before. you mentioned to mitt romney being hustled out of the hallway. he sprinted out of the hallway when he was told to move along, and he was watching very intently without much of an expression but paying very close attention. i think though senators felt the strongest their lives are being threatened will have been watching very closely. he also had never before seen footage of vice president pence being hustled out of the senate chamber and being taken to a out of the senate chamber and being ta ken to a safe out of the senate chamber and being taken to a safe room when we know the riders were looking for him, shouting "where is pence." they called him a traitor. you also have that footage of nancy pelosi's office, another target of the rioters, showing that the —— showing

her staff whispering to each other in fear. so, a really strong sense how the senators themselves felt and also the way the police officers were beaten. there was body camera footage shown of one of the officers who was attacked with sticks and an american flag pole. quite graphic stuff. yes, it was really an extraordinary view of an event that we have actually seen played out a number of times already on television. it number of times already on television.— television. it would take 17 republican _ television. it would take 17 republican senators - television. it would take 17 republican senators to - television. it would take 17| republican senators to vote television. it would take 17 - republican senators to vote to convict mr trump. they're being told they can vote their conscience by they can vote their conscience by the senate minority leader. are there any more than a handful? weill. there any more than a handful? well, there any more than a handful? well, there aren't — there any more than a handful? well, there aren't any _ there any more than a handful? well, there aren't any more _ there any more than a handful? well, there aren't any more than _ there any more than a handful? well, there aren't any more than a - there any more than a handful? .ii there aren't any more than a handful that we know of, but the best case to examine is the boat we had yesterday to decide whether to go ahead with the trial —— the vote. mr

trump's attorney is arguing its unconstitutional because he is no longer in office. one republican, the sixth, had changed his position from previously, which is interesting. although it's not usually significant in terms of numbers, so the democrats would have to convinced 11 more republicans. it seems unlikely you would then vote to convict. not out of the question because mixed mcconnell, the top republicans that it was a vote of conscious —— mitch mcconnell. we'll see whether this type of prosecution, this visually based prosecution, this visually based prosecution, is going to make a difference to republicans, but i think it's unlikely.—

think it's unlikely. thank you. toda 's think it's unlikely. thank you. today's session _ think it's unlikely. thank you. today's session focused - think it's unlikely. thank you. today's session focused on i think it's unlikely. thank you. | today's session focused on the detail. very much using his own words against him. let's remind ourselves of some of the arguments that have been made by democratic house impeachment managers today. these are the things — impeachment managers today. these are the things and _ impeachment managers today. these are the things and events _ impeachment managers today. these are the things and events that - are the things and events that happened when a sacred landslide election victory physically stripped away. in other words, this was all perfectly natural and perceivable to donald trump. at the beginning of the day, he told you he was coming, at the end of the day, he basically said he told you this was happened and adds, "remember this day forever, but not as a day of disgrace, a day of horror and trauma, as the rest of us remember it but as a day of celebration." when in our history has a speech led thousands_ when in our history has a speech led thousands of people to storm our nation's _ thousands of people to storm our nation's capital with weapons? to scale _ nation's capital with weapons? to

scale the — nation's capital with weapons? to scale the walls, break windows, kill a capital— scale the walls, break windows, kill a capital police officer? this was notiust— a capital police officer? this was notiust a — a capital police officer? this was notjust a speech. it didn'tjust happen — notjust a speech. it didn't 'ust ha en. ,, ., ., , , notjust a speech. it didn't 'ust hauen_ ,, ., ., , , ., notjust a speech. it didn't 'ust hauen_ ,, ., , ., , happen. senators, we must not become numb to this- — happen. senators, we must not become numb to this. trump _ happen. senators, we must not become numb to this. trump did _ happen. senators, we must not become numb to this. trump did this _ happen. senators, we must not become numb to this. trump did this across - numb to this. trump did this across state _ numb to this. trump did this across state after— numb to this. trump did this across state after state, _ numb to this. trump did this across state after state, so _ numb to this. trump did this across state after state, so often, - numb to this. trump did this across state after state, so often, so - state after state, so often, so loudly, — state after state, so often, so loudly, so _ state after state, so often, so loudly, so publicly. _ state after state, so often, so loudly, so publicly. public- loudly, so publicly. public officials _ loudly, so publicly. public officials like _ loudly, so publicly. public officials like you - loudly, so publicly. public officials like you and - loudly, so publicly. public officials like you and me i loudly, so publicly. public- officials like you and me received death _ officials like you and me received death threats _ officials like you and me received death threats and _ officials like you and me received death threats and call _ officials like you and me received | death threats and call threatening criminal— death threats and call threatening criminal penalties, _ death threats and call threatening criminal penalties, all— death threats and call threatening criminal penalties, all because . criminal penalties, all because trump — criminal penalties, all because trump wanted _ criminal penalties, all because trump wanted to _ criminal penalties, all because trump wanted to remain - criminal penalties, all because trump wanted to remain in - criminal penalties, all because - trump wanted to remain in power. what _ trump wanted to remain in power. what you — trump wanted to remain in power. what you saw _ trump wanted to remain in power. what you saw was _ trump wanted to remain in power. what you saw was a _ trump wanted to remain in power. what you saw was a man - trump wanted to remain in power. what you saw was a man so - trump wanted to remain in power. - what you saw was a man so desperate to cling the power that he tried everything he could to keep it, and when you run out of nonviolent measures, he turned to the violent mob that attacked your senate chamber onjanuary the mob that attacked your senate chamber on january the 6th. iuntimely chamber on january the 6th. when asked to condemn _ chamber on january the 6th. when asked to condemn the _ chamber on january the 6th. when asked to condemn the proud - chamber onjanuary the 6th. when asked to condemn the proud boys and and white _ asked to condemn the proud boys and and white supremacist, what did our president—

and white supremacist, what did our president say? he said, "stand back and stand _ president say? he said, "stand back and stand by." his message was heard loud and _ and stand by." his message was heard loud and clear. the group adopted that phrase, stand back and stand by, as— that phrase, stand back and stand by, as their— that phrase, stand back and stand by, as their official slogan. let's bring injeffrey rosen. he's a law professor at the george washington university and president of the national constitutional centre. thank you so much for being with us. house democrats laid out this case today, thatjanuary house democrats laid out this case today, that january the 6th happened because president trump basically ran out of nonviolent options to stay in power. what did you make of their case? it stay in power. what did you make of their case? . , , their case? it was extremely powerful. — their case? it was extremely powerful. and _ their case? it was extremely powerful, and it's _ their case? it was extremely powerful, and it's important| their case? it was extremely i powerful, and it's important to their case? it was extremely - powerful, and it's important to hear the words that representatives used. the violence that resulted from the speech was predictable and foreseeable. that tracks the legal

standard to be illegal speech that advocates violence has to be directed to and likely to incite imminent violence. the constitutional standard is similar. violence was predictable and foreseeable. it began by saying it should have been predictable that when you point and say go march on the capital, that can result in violence, but it culminated in the managers saying trump intended to cause violence against the vice president �*s of the united states. instructing the mob to harm or kill the vice president because he would not support american democracy. it was extremely powerful, emotionally, but also quite rigorous legally and emphasising the incitement standard far from emphasising the incitement standard farfrom being a close emphasising the incitement standard far from being a close call was easily met because the president actually intended the violence on american democracy. lute actually intended the violence on american democracy.— actually intended the violence on american democracy. we saw yesterday lulu american democracy. we saw yesterday 44 republican — american democracy. we saw yesterday 44 republican senators _ american democracy. we saw yesterday 44 republican senators vote _

american democracy. we saw yesterday 44 republican senators vote that - american democracy. we saw yesterday 44 republican senators vote that it - 44 republican senators vote that it unconstitutional to hold this trial because president trump is no longer in office. do you think that will be used by republican senators to avoid looking at the evidence that's being presented as democrats allege mr trump's guilt?— trump's guilt? yes, most people assume before _ trump's guilt? yes, most people assume before the _ trump's guilt? yes, most people assume before the a _ trump's guilt? yes, most people assume before the a vote - trump's guilt? yes, most people assume before the a vote that i trump's guilt? yes, most people | assume before the a vote that this is a way to avoid casting a vote on guilt. but mitch mcconnell�*s �*s statement is very significant. he said that question has been decided by the senate has sold power for impeachments. most people think the supreme court will not intervene, and mr mcconnell essentially said even though you may disagree, the trial is constitutional, therefore you're free to vote. whether senators will choose that option or hide behind the jurisdiction senators will choose that option or hide behind thejurisdiction law, we'll see, but the statement was significant. we'll see, but the statement was siunificant. ., we'll see, but the statement was significant-— we'll see, but the statement was siunificant. ., , ., significant. how significant do you think it is that — significant. how significant do you

think it is that separate _ significant. how significant do you think it is that separate criminal i think it is that separate criminal proceedings into president trump and what he said to election officials in georgia when he asked them to find more than 11,000 votes so the boats could be swung his way? is extremely significant because a criminal conviction or a criminal prosecution by estate is much harder to stymie than impeachment trial. the recently elected democrat looks like they're ready to bring criminal charges and no federal pardon is possible, even if... and no state pardon is possible because in georgia, it's the state border pardons, not the governor. a republican governor could not help president trump even if you want to. we heard the tape and it's a serious liability that could result in a year or more in prison.- liability that could result in a year or more in prison. how do you think the president's _ year or more in prison. how do you think the president's lawyers - year or more in prison. how do you think the president's lawyers are i think the president's lawyers are going to have to respond to this case that was laid out today by the

house impeachment managers? because after their meandering performance yesterday, will they now be under pressure? yesterday, will they now be under ressure? ~ , ., , pressure? well, the strongest res - onse pressure? well, the strongest response is — pressure? well, the strongest response is to _ pressure? well, the strongest response is to argue _ pressure? well, the strongest response is to argue as - pressure? well, the strongest response is to argue as they i response is to argue as they signalled yesterday that in order to be a high crime or misdemeanor, you have to have committed a technical crime, and president trump �*s mind did not rise to the technical level. that is a very high standard, one of the highest in the world, even speech advocating violence is protected under the first amendment unless it is directed to inciting imminent violence. his lawyers will say he didn't really directs the violence, he said let's be peaceful, he was just exercising his right and so forth. in a criminal trial, that wouldn't be an implausible argument. it's not a great argument and an impeachment trial because almost everyone agrees you don't have to have committed a criminal offence to have committed a criminal offence to have committed a constitutional high crime, but that would be their best

tactic. stick to the facts, stick to the law is a is protected free speech. the law is a is protected free seech. �* , the law is a is protected free seech. ~ , , , �*, speech. apparently the president's attorne is speech. apparently the president's attorney is expected _ speech. apparently the president's attorney is expected to _ speech. apparently the president's attorney is expected to argue - speech. apparently the president's attorney is expected to argue the l attorney is expected to argue the democrats are glorifying violence and what they're doing, but also democrats made the case today that the president violated his oath of office by encouraging people to storm the capital. so, what do you think of the democrats' constitutional case? i5 think of the democrats' constitutional case? is a very stron: constitutional case? is a very strong claim _ constitutional case? is a very strong claim that _ constitutional case? is a very strong claim that the - constitutional case? is a very i strong claim that the democrats argue that the president violated his constitutional duty to take care of the laws faithfully executed and uphold the constitution by repeatedly subverting the following bodies. first he suborned and attempted to overturn the judges, the 60 judges who ruled against them. second, he attacked the representatives in congress. third, he attacked the state election officials. fourth, he attacked the vice president of the united states

and the speaker of the house. it's impossible to imagine a more dramatic the constitution than attempting to overthrow a democratic election by attacking the institutions and officials who are charged with upholding it. so, that's very significant. it's separate from the technical questions and the democrats made a very powerful. questions and the democrats made a very powerful-— very powerful. democrats are also t in: to very powerful. democrats are also trying to argue — very powerful. democrats are also trying to argue that _ very powerful. democrats are also trying to argue that president - very powerful. democrats are also i trying to argue that president trump was the framer of the constitution's worst nightmare, that he was a demigod. is that hyperbole, or is there something to it?— there something to it? there is definitely something _ there something to it? there is definitely something to - there something to it? there is definitely something to it. - there something to it? there is i definitely something to it. james madison said... all large siblings, evenif madison said... all large siblings, even if every athenian wears socrates, it would've still been a mob. like the mobs in 1787. it's quite historically accurate to say this was indeed the worst nightmare.

professor, thank you for staying with us. we're just waiting for the proceedings to begin again. what did you make also of democrats making the case that back injuly of last year, when president trump in a fox news interview refused to commit to the two —— the peaceful transfer of power, there is a pattern in behaviour. it power, there is a pattern in behaviour.— power, there is a pattern in behaviour. if you focus on the january the — behaviour. if you focus on the january the 6th _ behaviour. if you focus on the january the 6th speech, - behaviour. if you focus on the january the 6th speech, then | behaviour. if you focus on the i january the 6th speech, then you answer these technical questions of what the —— was it foreseeable. there was a long—standing conspiracy that began back injuly, continued throughout october to perform a repeated speech, tweets, all in plain view, then the case for inciting insurrection by subverting

the election can becomes much more powerful. the election can becomes much more owerful. , ., ., , powerful. using all of this surveillance _ powerful. using all of this surveillance footage - powerful. using all of this surveillance footage from | powerful. using all of this - surveillance footage from inside the capital, which has impeachment managers did today, never before seen footage, while it might not have added to the evidence, did it add to the emotional weight of their arguments? it add to the emotional weight of their art uments? . ., , . ., arguments? it certainly did. who could fail to _ arguments? it certainly did. who could fail to empathise _ arguments? it certainly did. who could fail to empathise with - arguments? it certainly did. who could fail to empathise with mitt| could fail to empathise with mitt romney sitting in the chamber as he watched the never before seen surveillance video of himself being taken to surveillance video of himself being ta ken to safety? that surveillance video of himself being taken to safety? that remarkable footage of vice president paints within 100 feet of the mob calling for his head, wanting to lynch him. it was extremely powerful, but not the manipulative sense because it was directly relevant to the central claim that the violence was intended, foreseeable and actually

happened. they focus on the provocation, the attack and the harm, so the video evidence was both emotional and material and no one will ever forget emotional and material and no one will everforget it was emotional and material and no one will ever forget it was all right. we're hearing so much about the us constitution in this trial, but is there a crisis of civic education in this country? are we well—versed enoughin this country? are we well—versed enough in the constitution? i know i had to read it when i became a us citizen, but i'm not convinced that everybody else reads it. the citizenship _ everybody else reads it. the citizenship test _ everybody else reads it. the citizenship test is _ everybody else reads it. tue: citizenship test is one everybody else reads it. tte: citizenship test is one that everybody else reads it. "tt2 citizenship test is one that many americans can't pass and only a third of americans can name all three branches of government, a third can't name even one. i'm happy to report that the constitutional centre commissioned by congress to increase awareness of the constitution. numbers are through the roof. 500,000 people a day googling the 25th amendment, learning about the best arguments on both sides of all of these great

arguments. i would love your viewers to check out the interactive constitution. it's a meaningful nonpartisan educational tool, and what this remarkable experience has reminded all of us as we have a responsibility as citizens, not only of the united states, but citizens of the united states, but citizens of the united states, but citizens of the world who care about the civic life of america, which has such impact on the rest of us, to educate ourselves about the comp located but crucially important constitutional arguments so that we can preserve, protect and defend the constitution. t can preserve, protect and defend the constitution-— constitution. i would urge everyone absolutely to _ constitution. i would urge everyone absolutely to look _ constitution. i would urge everyone absolutely to look at _ constitution. i would urge everyone absolutely to look at that _ constitution. i would urge everyone absolutely to look at that website i absolutely to look at that website and i will do myself. if ultimately president trump is acquitted again in his second impeachment trial, will approve republicans' point that is a political process and not a constitutional impeachment? impeachment is both a political and constitutional process. that's what the framers said repeatedly, it's a complicated and unique entity in the

american constitution. so, it would be the wrong lesson if this was a party line vote, and it doesn't look like it will be entirely. to conclude it's all politics, the fact there were more republicans who joined the impeachment indictment itself than ever before in history, there might be more republicans who vote to a quick, it's clear senators are taking their duties seriously. this is a very serious case on both sides, so it's important for all of us to listen to these long arguments. they're not political, they're serious arguments about the preservation of the constitution, and that's why this is so important. the framers thought this was so important to —— impeachment was important to —— impeachment was important to —— impeachment was important to preserve the constitution. i'm not suggesting that you couldn't vote in good conscience on the other side if you thought that technical legal crimes were committed. you could conclude

it was not technical legal crime or if there wasn't jurisdiction, it was not technical legal crime or if there wasn'tjurisdiction, you could vote that way. there are dinner generally eat decent arguments on the both sides. —— there are generally decent arguments on both sides. it's an opportunity for us to educate ourselves about the constitution. t5 for us to educate ourselves about the constitution.— the constitution. is this impeachment - the constitution. is this impeachment trial - the constitution. is this| impeachment trial much the constitution. is this - impeachment trial much easier the constitution. is this _ impeachment trial much easier to understand and to grasp than the previous one against president trump, which was about his alleged abuse of power in ukraine? tt is abuse of power in ukraine? it is indeed. abuse of power in ukraine? it is indeed- the _ abuse of power in ukraine? te 3 indeed. the ukrainian facts were so complicated that i can't muster them quickly, and not everyone was convinced that calling a foreign leader is a high crime. then there was all these technical instructions, but this is hard not to grass. we saw the pictures. everyone was in the room when president trump pointed and said go march, and many of them were almost killed. it'sjust impossible

march, and many of them were almost killed. it's just impossible to imagine a more visited at a vamp —— vivid example. where someone literally points and says go march now, we have that here. thejurors themselves were relevant witnesses because their lives themselves were endangered, so you would have to be the most hard—hearted student of the constitution or viewer of these proceedings not to find them both emotionally and constitutionally gripping and very memorable. professor, last question, you've been very patient to stay with us, there is a thematic basis to the impeachment managers' case. they're let laying out provocation, attack and harm, and many are former prosecutors themselves? thea;r and harm, and many are former prosecutors themselves? they are and the are prosecutors themselves? they are and they are using — prosecutors themselves? they are and they are using their _ prosecutors themselves? they are and they are using their legal _ they are using their legal background with controlled passion. they're not making fancy speeches, but they're remarkably effective.

far more so than the ones in the previous impeachment. the most remarkable has to be jamie raskin. he first described how his own son had taken his life the day before the surge on the capital, he taken his daughter to take refuge to count the votes, and she was almost killed in the attack. he combined extraordinarily moving in a motion with gripping legal reason in setting out the constitutional case for provocation and harm in a way that was quite unlike anything i've seenin that was quite unlike anything i've seen in constitutional politics before. ., ., ., ., before. professor of law at george washington _ before. professor of law at george washington university _ before. professor of law at george washington university and - before. professor of law at george i washington university and presidency of the national constitutional centre, thank you so much for joining us with that analysis. thank ou. we joining us with that analysis. thank you- we are _ joining us with that analysis. thank you. we are waiting _ joining us with that analysis. thank you. we are waiting to _ joining us with that analysis. thank you. we are waiting to return - joining us with that analysis. thank you. we are waiting to return to i joining us with that analysis. thank| you. we are waiting to return to the united states _ you. we are waiting to return to the united states senate _ you. we are waiting to return to the united states senate and _ you. we are waiting to return to the united states senate and we - you. we are waiting to return to the united states senate and we can i you. we are waiting to return to the i united states senate and we can show

you live pictures of what's happening there at the moment, because house impeachment managers are about to resume their case. they're about to go back on the us senate floor. there are 16 hours of evidence that are going to be presented by the house impeachment managers over two days as they make their case against former president donald trump, accusing him of inciting the insurrection on the us capitol on the 6th of january. and we're almost at the end of the first day of evidence, probablyjust another hour and a half to go. this is senator bill cassidy, republican of louisiana, we can listen to him. who was a republican.— who was a republican. senator cassid . who was a republican. senator cassidy- he's — who was a republican. senator cassidy. he's a _ who was a republican. senator cassidy. he's a republican. - who was a republican. senator cassidy. he's a republican. he| who was a republican. senator- cassidy. he's a republican. he was the surprise republican who did vote that it was constitutional for this

trial to take place, so he is being viewed as a republican therefore who potentially is listening to the evidence and is someone who might possibly be somebody who votes to convict. let's bring in barbara plate usher. what are we expecting in this next stage —— barbara plett usher. in this next stage -- barbara plett usher. , . �* in this next stage -- barbara plett usher. , ., �* ., , usher. they haven't advertise in the section we just _ usher. they haven't advertise in the section we just finished, _ usher. they haven't advertise in the section we just finished, which - usher. they haven't advertise in the section we just finished, which was l section we just finished, which was this new video that had not been shown before from the security cameras. they will continue with the argument they're making, which is that president trump meticulously prepared over months his arguments against the election and ultimately can be held responsible for the violence that ensued after the rally. but people haven't said

exactly how they will do that in and a detailed way. they have 16 hours in total to present their case. they've done it for almost eight hours today already, and they can only go for eight hours and then they have tomorrow as well. but they have relied very much on visual evidence, on mr trump �*s my own words, his tweets, his comments that have been brought broadcast —— mr trump's own words. comments from his supporters showing what their plans were and showing they saw him as their leader and they were coming here and doing what they thought he wanted them to do. that's how they carried out through the day. they haven't said whether they have any more video to show us when they come back, which they're expected to do shortly. back, which they're expected to do shortl . z, ., back, which they're expected to do shortl . �* ., ., ., back, which they're expected to do shortl . ., ., , shortly. barbara, there have been re orts of shortly. barbara, there have been reports of some _ shortly. barbara, there have been reports of some of— shortly. barbara, there have been reports of some of the _ shortly. barbara, there have beenj reports of some of the republican senators being really shaken by what was shown, that never before seen

footage, especially sin of her —— senator langford of oklahoma. he was speaking just as the writers stormed the capital and he was a apparently very effective —— the rioters. t very effective —— the rioters. i think some of the senators watching it in some ways on the one hand, it was... revived memories perhaps that they had already somewhat left behind, but also, it in a way they hadn't seen it before. and i think the combination of that, bringing back the experience that they had but then seeing it in quite gripping detail in ways they didn't know perhaps for example how close the rioters had come to the senate and how quickly they had to be evacuated before they entered.— before they entered. that's right. think ou

before they entered. that's right. think you so _ before they entered. that's right. think you so much. _ before they entered. that's right. think you so much. sorry - before they entered. that's right. think you so much. sorry to - think you so much. sorry to interrupt, but we can go live to the senate floor. jamie raskin, the lead impeachment manager. thea;r senate floor. jamie raskin, the lead impeachment manager.— senate floor. jamie raskin, the lead impeachment manager. they will show how he continued _ impeachment manager. they will show how he continued to _ impeachment manager. they will show how he continued to soak— impeachment manager. they will show how he continued to soak the - how he continued to soak the insurrection and refused to speak out against the violence —— stoke the insurrection. mr president, establish senators, you just _ mr president, establish senators, you just heard from my colleagues about _ you just heard from my colleagues about the — you just heard from my colleagues about the harrowing events that happened here at the capitol on january— happened here at the capitol on january six and saw that very disturbing video. i'd like to turn your— disturbing video. i'd like to turn your attention to what was happening on the _ your attention to what was happening on the other end of pennsylvania avenue _ on the other end of pennsylvania avenue at — on the other end of pennsylvania avenue at the white house.

and the truth is, the faqs are that onjanuary— and the truth is, the faqs are that onjanuary six, donald and the truth is, the faqs are that on january six, donald trump and the truth is, the faqs are that onjanuary six, donald trump did not once condemn this attack. he did not once condemn this attack. he did not once condemn this attack. he did not once condemn the attackers. in fact, once condemn the attackers. in fact, onjanuary— once condemn the attackers. in fact, onjanuary six, the only person he condemned — onjanuary six, the only person he condemned was his own vice president, mike pence, who was hiding _ president, mike pence, who was hiding in — president, mike pence, who was hiding in this building with his family— hiding in this building with his family in— hiding in this building with his family in fearfor hiding in this building with his family in fear for his life. in the first— family in fear for his life. in the first crucial— family in fear for his life. in the first crucial hours of this violent attack, — first crucial hours of this violent attack, he — first crucial hours of this violent attack, he did nothing to stop it, nothing — attack, he did nothing to stop it, nothing to— attack, he did nothing to stop it, nothing to help us. by all accounts, from _ nothing to help us. by all accounts, from the _ nothing to help us. by all accounts, from the people who were around him, he was _ from the people who were around him, he was delighted. and here's the last thing — he was delighted. and here's the last thing donald trump said that day, and — last thing donald trump said that day, and you might remember this from _ day, and you might remember this from my— day, and you might remember this from my emotions presentation earlier— from my emotions presentation earlier this week. at 6pm onjanuary

the 6th, _