only a nation, for many it's not only a nation, for many it's also _ not only a nation, for many it's also an— not only a nation, for many it's also an idea. as the light that gives— also an idea. as the light that gives hope to people struggling for democracy in autocratic regimes, the li-ht democracy in autocratic regimes, the light that _ democracy in autocratic regimes, the light that inspires people fighting... light that inspires people fighting---_ light that inspires people fighting. . . light that inspires people fiuuhtin... ., ., , fighting... looking to our viewers on pbs in america _ fighting... looking to our viewers on pbs in america and _ fighting... looking to our viewers on pbs in america and to - fighting... looking to our viewers. on pbs in america and to everyone else watching on bbc news around the world. we are continuing our live coverage of donald trump is like a peter trial and continue to the senate democrats who are making the case that he incited the violence on january the 6th. i say this is someone who loves my country, our country, just as all of you do. there is a lot of courage in this room, a lot of courage that has been demonstrated in the lives of the people in this room. some folks have stood up for the civil rights of fellow americans and risked their

careers and their reputations, their livelihoods and their safety standing up for civil rights. many members of congress have risked their lives in service to our country in uniform. fighting in the jungles of vietnam, patrolling the mountains of afghanistan you served our country because we're willing to sacrifice to defend our nation as we know it. and as the world knows it. and although most of you have traded in your uniform for public service, your country needs you one more time. the world watched president trump tell his big life. the world

watched his supporters come to washington at his invitation and the world watched as he told his supporters to march here to the capital. president trump, our commander—in—chief at the time, failed to take any action to defend us. as he utterly failed in his duty to preserve, protect and defend. now, the world is watching us, wondering whether our constitutional republic is going to respond the way it should come of the way it's supposed to. whether the rule of law will prevail over mob rule, because the answer to that question has consequences far beyond our own borders. think of the consequences to our diplomats and negotiators as

they sit at tables around the world to enforce our agenda on trade, the economy and human rights. to fail to convict a president of the united states who incited a deadly insurrection, who acted in concert with a violent mob, who interfered with a violent mob, who interfered with the certification of the electoral college votes, who abdicated his duty as commander—in—chief would be to forfeit the power of our example as a northstar on freedom, democracy, human rights and most of all, on the rule of law. and to convict donald trump would mean that america stands for the rule of law. no matter who violates it. let us show the world that january six was not america. let us remind the world that we are truly their northstar.

representative neguse and i will address the first mm in argument that's being offered by president from's lawyers to try to excuse his incitement to this insurrection. neguse will begin. mr president, distinguished senators, good afternoon. you have heard over the course of the last several days overwhelming evidence that president trump incited in insurrection. but as lead manager mentioned as we prepare to close, we would be remiss if we didn't briefly

address the principal defence that the president will offer to excuse his conduct, and that is this notion that he can't be held accountable for what happened onjanuary six because his actions are somehow protected by the first amendment. now, let's stop a moment and try to really understand the argument that they are making. according to president trump, everything he did, everything we showed you that he did was perfectly 0k everything we showed you that he did was perfectly ok for him to do, and for a future presidents, to do again. and the constitution, apparently, in their view, forbids you from doing anything to stop it. that can't be right. that can't be.

and it isn't right. their argument is meant as a distraction. they are concerned not with the facts that actually occurred, the fact that we've proven, but with an alternative set of facts where president trump did nothing but deliver a controversial speech at a rally, of course, that's not what we have charged in the article of impeachment, and it's not what happened. you will hear from my colleague emma lead manager raskin, and the many myriad reasons why this argument that they make is wrong on the law, completely, notjust around the law, completely, notjust around the edges, majorfundamental the edges, major fundamental mistakes the edges, majorfundamental mistakes of constitutional law, the kind that lead manager raskin tells me wouldn't cut it in his first year law course, which, of course, he

certainly would know, since he was taught this subject for decades. and that explains why so many lawyers who have dedicated their lives to protecting free speech, including many of the nation's most prominent conservative free—speech lawyers have described president trump's first amendment claims as quote, "legally frivolous." another quote from a recent letter, a prominent free—speech lawyer that quote the first amendment is no bar to the senate convicting former president trump and disqualifying him from holding future office. their argument is wrong on the facts, wrong on the law, and would flip the constitution upside down. let's start with the facts. because as you

will see, his free—speech claim depends on an account of what he did of why we're here that has no in the evidence. to hear his lawyers tell it, he wasjust evidence. to hear his lawyers tell it, he was just some guy at a rally, expressing unpopular opinions. they would have you believe that this whole impeachment is because he said things that one may disagree with. really? and make no mistake, they will do anything to avoid talking about the facts of this case. that i can assure you. instead, we expect they will talk about a lot of other speeches, including some given by democratic officials, and they will insist with indignation that the first amendment protects all of this, as though it were exactly the same. we trust you to know the

difference. because you have seen the evidence that we have seen. you have seen, as we have proven over the last three days, that his arguments completely miss described the reality of what happened on january six. they leave out everything that matters about why we are here and what he did. because president trump wasn't just some are here and what he did. because president trump wasn'tjust some guy with political opinions who showed up with political opinions who showed up at a rally onjanuary the 6th and delivered controversial remarks. he was the president of the united states, and he had spent months, months using the unique power of that office, of his bully pulpit to spread that big lie, that the election had been stolen, to convince his followers to stop the

steel, to assemble them, just blocks away from here on january the 6th steel, to assemble them, just blocks away from here onjanuary the 6th at the very moment that we were meeting to count the electoral vote, where he knew it had been widely reported that they were primed and eager and ready for violence at his signal. and then, standing in the middle of that explosive situation, in that powder keg that he had created over the course of months before a crowd filled with people that were poised for violence at his signal, he struck a match. and he aimed at rate at this building. at us. you've seen all of that evidence. there's no denying it. that's why the house impeached him. that's why he's on trial. no president, no matter their

politics or the politics of their followers, conservative, liberal, or anything else, no president can do what president trump did, because this isn't about politics, it's about his refusal to accept the outcome of the election and his decision to incite in insurrection, and there is no serious argument that the first mm it protects that. and it would be extraordinarily dangerous for the united states senate to conclude otherwise. to tell future presidents that they can do exactly what president trump did and get away with it. two to set the precedent that this is an acceptable, now a constitutionally protected way to respond to losing an election. and you'll notice

something, certainly something that raskin and i noticed, which is by all accounts, raskin and i noticed, which is by allaccounts, it raskin and i noticed, which is by all accounts, it doesn't appear that president from's lawyers disagree. they don't insist that if the facts we've charged, the facts that we have proven, the facts supported by overwhelming evidence are true, as of course, you now know, they are, that there is nothing that you can do. they are not arguing that it's ok for a person to incite a mob to violence, at least, i don't think they are arguing bats, instead, what they are arguing bats, instead, what they are arguing bats, instead, what they are doing is offering a radically different version of what happened that day, totally inconsistent with the evidence, and then they insisted that if that fictional version of events, if that alternate reality were true, well, then, he may be protected by the first mm it. that's their argument. but you are here to adjudicate real

evidence, realfacts, not hypothetical ones. and for that reason alone, you should reject their argument because it has been advanced to defend a situation that bears no resemblance to the actual facts of this case. with facts, i want to turn it over to my colleague to address the many legal flaws, as i mentioned with president trump's position. mr i mentioned with president trump's osition. ~ . i mentioned with president trump's osition. ~ , . , i mentioned with president trump's osition. ~ , , . position. mr neguse has explained why president _ position. mr neguse has explained why president trump's _ position. mr neguse has explained why president trump's last - position. mr neguse has explained why president trump's last ditch . why president trump's last ditch first amendment arguments have nothing to do with the actual facts of the case. he's been impeached for inciting violent insurrection against the government, incitement of violent insurrection is not protected by free speech. there is no first amendment defence to

impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. the idea itself is absurd. the whole first amendment smoke screen is a completely irrelevant distraction from the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors governing a president who has violated his oath of office. yet, president trump, we know has a good way of treating up as down and wrong is right. he tried to pop the biggest election fraud in american history by overturning the results of the 2020 election even as he insisted that his own fraud was in fact an effort to stop the steel. to stop a fraud. a vast conspiracy that he blamed on local and state officials of both political parties, the media, thejudiciary, federal, state, members of congress, anybody who wouldn't go along with him was part of the conspiracy. he violated his own oath of office by inciting mob violence to prevent congress from counting the electoral ballot to my college votes as we are

assigned to do, even as he attacked vice president pens at a rally for violating his oath of office. and going on with an egregious assault on democracy. no he argues that congress is violating his free—speech rights when it was donald trump who incited an insurrectionist attack against us that halted speech and debate on the floor of the house and the senate during the peaceful transfer of power and that imperiled the very constitutional order that protects freedom of speech in the first place along with all of our other fundamental rights. as a matter of law, it's a matter of logic. president trump's brazen attempts to invoke the first amendment now won't hold up in any way. the basic flaw, of course, is that it completely

ignores the fact that he was president of the united states, a public official. he swears an oath as presidents, that nobody else wears, in exchange, he's given greater powers than anybody else in the entire country, maybe on earth. here she promises to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the united states, and our government institutions and our people. and as we all know, the power we entrust to people in public office, and government office, especially our president comes with special obligations to uphold the laws and the integrity of our republic. and we all swear that oath. what if a presidents publicly, say a president publicly and on a daily basis advocated replacing the constitution with a totalitarian form of government and urged states to secede from the union and swore an oath of loyalty to a foreign leader where —— orforeign leader where —— or foreign government. leader where —— orforeign government. as a private citizen,

you couldn't do anything about people using those words to advocate totalitarianism, to advocate secession from the union, to swear an oath of personal loyalty to a foreign leader or a foreign government or country. you couldn't. it's totally protected. if you try to prosecute somebody for that, you would lose, but it is simply inconceivable, unthinkable that a president could do any of these things, get up and swear an oath to foreign governments or leaders, advocate totalitarianism from advocate totalitarianism from advocate secession and not be impeached for it. it's just unthinkable that that could happen. would that violate their first amendment rights? the opposite view pressed here by president trump's council would leave the nation powerless to respond to a president who uses the unmatched power, privilege and prestige of his or her office, the famous bully pulpit in ways that risk the ruin of the

republic. all for his or her own ambition and corruption. and lust for power. everyone should be clear, there is nothing remotely exotic about what we are saying. it should be common sense to everybody, common sense about this understanding of the first amendment as it applies to public servants, cops, firefighters, teachers, everybody across the land. my teachers, everybody across the land. my daughter, who i mentioned earlier in the trial, she is a teacher in a public school. teachers teach, but if they go off script and start advocating totalitarianism, treason, or what have you, they are not living up to the duties of their office as teacher, they can be fired. everybody knows that. and it happens all the time, by the way. including two cops and firefighters and people on the front lines. it

happens all the time. in fact, it happened countless times to people fired by president trump for their statements or ideas about things, including on election fraud, not long ago. there are people in government who lost their jobs because the government didn't like what they said or what they wrote. now, as i mentioned yesterday, and i can't help but repeated, justice scalia got this right, he wrote on these cases about how the first amendment affects people who take on public office, who take on public employment, and he summed it up like this, he said, you can't ride with the cops but root for the robbers. you can't ride with the cops but root for the robbers. that's what justice alito said. and when it comes to the peaceful transfer of power to the rule of law, to the rule of respecting election

outcomes, our president, whoever he or she is, outcomes, our president, whoever he orshe is, must outcomes, our president, whoever he or she is, must choose the side of the constitution. they must all stop not the side of the insurrection, or the coup or anybody who is coming against us. and if he or she chooses the wrong side, i'm sorry, there is nothing in the first amendment or anywhere else in the constitution that can excuse your betrayal of your oath of office. it's not a free—speech question. but there's more. let's play make—believe and pretend that president trump were just a run—of—the—mill private citizen, as my colleague mr neguse said, just another guy at the rally, who is just expressing a deeply unpopular opinion because we shouldn't overlook the fact that while there were thousands of people in that violent mob, they represent a tiny, tiny, tiny part of less than i% a tiny, tiny, tiny part of less than i% of the population and the vast majority of the american people reject the kind of seditious mob violence that we saw on january six.

but let's say that he were just another guy in the crowd that day, it is a bedrock principle that nobody, nobody can incite a riot. the first amendment does not protect it. a key case, brandenburg versus ohio, there is no first amendment protection for a speech directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and likely to produce such action. and for all the reasons you've heard based on the voluminous comprehensive totally unrefuted, and we think irrefutable, but eager to hear our colleagues, based on all the evidence you have heard and for all the reasons you have heard, that definition of prescribed apple speech fits president trump's conduct perfectly. this is a classic case of incitement. and you don't have to take my word for it, the 144

free—speech lawyers mr neguse mentioned, who include many of the nation's most dedicated, most uncompromising free—speech advocates, unlike mr trump, uncompromising free—speech advocates, unlike mrtrump, of course, but these people agree that there is a powerful case for conviction under the brandenburg standard, even if the president of the united states were just to be treated like some guy in the crowd, and they add that the first amendment is no defence to the article of impeachment leveled against the former president. and i mentioned the brandenburg standard, not because it applies here, of course, it doesn't, because this is an impeachment, it's not a criminal trial. there is no risk ofjail time, let's be clear about that. the president doesn't go to jail for one week, one day, one hour or one minute based on impeachment and conviction and disqualification from further office. rather, i mentioned it to emphasise that absolutely nobody in america would be protected by the first amendment if they did all the things that donald trump

did. no be made donald trump run for president and swear an oath to preserve, protect and defend the constitution on january the 20th 2017, but when he did by virtue of swearing that oath and entering this high office, he took upon himself a duty to take care that our laws would be faithfully executed under his leadership. all of the laws, the laws against federal destruction of property, all of the laws. we expected them and everything he said and everything he did to protect and preserve and defend our constitutional system. including the separation of powers. but instead, he betrayed us and his representative —— as representative cheney said, it was the greatest betrayal of a presidential oath in the history of the united states of america. the greatest. as i mentioned yesterday, president trump is not even close to the proverbial

citizen who falsely shouts fire in a crowded theatre. he is like the now proverbial municipal fire chief who incites a mob to go set the theatre on fire and not only refuses to put out the fire, but encourages the mob to keep going as the blaze spreads. we would hold that fire chief accountable, we would forbid him from thatjob ever again, and that's exactly what must happen here. there are hundreds of millions of citizens who can be president. donald trump has disqualified himself, and you must disqualify him to. just like the fire chief who sends the mob, president trump perverted his office by attacking the very constitution he was sworn to uphold. in fact, that's one reason why this free—speech rhetoric at this trial is so insidious. his conduct represented the most devastating and

dangerous assault by a government official on our constitution, including the first amendment, in living memory. we wouldn't have free—speech or any other rights if we didn't have the rule of law, peaceful transfer of power and a democracy where the outcome of the election is accepted by the candidate to lost. we had it all the way up until 2020. the central purposes of the first amendment are democratic self—government and civic truth seeking. two purposes that president trump sought to undermine, not advance, in the course of his conduct as we have definitively demonstrated at this trial. the violence he incited threatened all of our freedoms. violence he incited threatened all of ourfreedoms. it violence he incited threatened all of our freedoms. it threatens the very constitutional order that protects free—speech, due process, religious free exercise, the right to vote, equal protection and the many other fundamental rights that

we all treasure and cherish as citizens the united states. you are watching outside source on bbc news. to those of you watching on pbs in america, things were being with us. we will see you next week. while rejecting the outcome of an election, he happen to lose. if anything, president trump's conduct as an assault on the first amendment and equal protection rights that millions of americans exercise when they voted last year. often under extraordinarily difficult and arduous circumstances. remember, first amendment protects the right of the people to speak about the great issues our day. to debate during elections and then to participate and politics by selecting the people who will be our leaders, and remember, in american democracy, those of us who aspire and attain public office are nothing but the servants of the people, nothing, not the masters of the people. we have no kings here. we have no czars. here, the people governed, president ford said. the

people! the most important words of the constitution, the first three, we the people. but all of this... all of this means little if a president who dislikes the election results can incite violence to try to replace and usurp the well of the people. as expressed in the states. ignore the judicial branch of government and then run over the legislative branch of government with a mob. president trump's high crimes and misdemeanors sought to nullify the political rights and sovereignty of the american people. our rights as a people to deliberates, to form opinions, to persuade each other to vote and then to decide who our president will be. the sovereignty of the people. that's an attack on the first amendment, i would say. in addition, president trump's actions were a

direct attack on our own freedom of speech here in the capital. members of congress were sent here to speak for their constituents. that's why we have our own little mini free—speech clause, this speech and debate clause. that's literally our job. we come here and represent the views of our people. the attack that president trump incited first members of congress to stop speaking into literally for our lives and the lives of our staffs and our families. them man's statements and actions halted congress and halted the peaceful transfer of power and has no right, no right to claim that free—speech principles prevent this body from exercising its constitutional powers to hold him accountable for his offence against us. you know, voltaire said famously, and ourfounders knew it,

"i may disagree with every thing you say, but i will defend with my life your right to say." trump says, "because i disagree with every thing you say, i will overturn your popular election and insight insurrection against the government." we might take a moment to consider another voltaire insights, which a high school teacher of mine told me when a student asked, "when was the beginning of the enlightenment? " and she said, "i think it was when volterra said, "anyone who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." there is no merit whatsoever to any of the free—speech rhetoric, the empty free—speech rhetoric, the empty free—speech rhetoric, the empty free—speech rhetoric you may hear from president from's lawyers coming attacked the first amendment coming attacked the first amendment coming attack the constitution, he betrayed the oath of office, presidents don't have any right to do that. it's forbidden. so the republic may survive, the people are far more important than that. the president —— president he ask you to create,

which would allow any president to do precisely what he did is self—evidently dangerous. so there can be no doubt, not at all, that the president lacks any first amendment excuse or defence or immunity. he incited a violent insurrection against our government. he must be convicted. now i will call up representative dean, who explained why contrary to the president claims the house provide him with all the process that was due to him in this impeachment process. i'm sorry, mr ted and lou will do that. —— mr lieu will do that. ted and lou will do that. -- mr lieu will do that-— will do that. thank you for your timin: will do that. thank you for your timing your— will do that. thank you for your timing your attention. - will do that. thank you for your timing your attention. we - will do that. thank you for your timing your attention. we all. will do that. thank you for your - timing your attention. we all heard president trump attorneys on tuesday, and as part of his efforts to avoid talking about his own conduct, to avoid talking about

anything related to his constitutional crime, we expect that president trump will raise process objections. his due process claims are without merit. under the constitution, the house has "the sole power of impeachment". that provision confirms that a house function as a grand jury or prosecution. we have decides whether to bring charges. —— the half the size. another impeachment cases, the house has provided some deliberative and procedural privileges to the person being impeached, but those are exactly that, privileges. they are exactly that, privileges. they are a discretionary. the house has the power to decide its own rules, how it wants to pass the article of impeachment, and in this case, the house deep aid the article impeachment and passed it on a bipartisan vote. i am a former

prosecutor. i want to add that i have had the opportunity to decide what are the charges. and when you see a crime committed in plainview, prosecutors don't have to spend months investigating before they bring charges. i know that in this case that hundreds of people have been arrested and charged by prosecutors for the violence on january six. there was no reason for the house to wait to impeach the man at the very top. he incited the violence. the house had good reason to move quickly. this wasn't extra circumstance. this was not a case where it was a heading conduct or some kind of conspiracy that required years of investigation. this case does not raise very complicated legal issues. the

gravity of the president possibly conduct the the clearance clearest responses from the legislator. in particular given that the president was still in office at the time the house improve this article. and rumours of further violence echoed around the country. they still do. there must be no doubt that congress will act decisively against a president that incites violence against us. that is why the house moved quickly here in president trump, who created an emergency, cannot be here to complain that the house impeachment too quickly for the emergency cause. another point on the due process question. earlier in this trial, president trump's attorney suggested that the house somehow deliberately delayed the transmission of this article of impeachment. that is simply not accurate. when the house adopted

this article of impeachment on a bipartisan vote, we were ready to begin trial. but the senate was not in session at the time. and when we inquired as to our options, senate officials told us clearly and in no uncertain terms that if the clerk of the house attempted to deliver the article of impeachment to the secretary of the senate before the senate reconvene, the clerk of the house would have been turned back at the door. that is why the child did not begin the end. another reason why the president objections of due process are meritless. finally, let mejust process are meritless. finally, let me just conclude that you all will see and have seen a full presentation of evidence by the house and you will hear a full presentation by the president's attorneys and you'll be to ask questions, the senate has the sole

power to try powers of impeachment. president trump is receiving any and all process that he is due right here in this chamber. mr president, senators come in a moment my colleague will return to show that we have established with overwhelming evidence president trump engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors come up before he comes up misdemeanors come up before he comes up i would like to emphasise what should be an uncontroversial point but is really key to understand that if we have proven to you the conduct that we have alleged in this article in president trump has indeed committed a high crime a misdemeanor under the constitution. incitement of insurrection under the circumstances is undoubtedly in the worries of george mason from the constitutional convention a great

and dangerous offence against the republic. indeed it is hard to think of a greater or more dangerous offence against the republic than this one. so, to be very precise about this, i hope we all can agree today that if a president does insight a violent insurrection against the government, he can be impeached for it. i hope we all can agree that that is the constitutional crime. another key point, while president trump two lawyers may be arguing otherwise, the question here is not whether president trump committed a crime under the federal coat or a dc law or the law of any state. impeachment does not result in criminal penalties. as we keep emphasising. no one spends a day in jail, there are not even criminal or civil

fines. centuries of history, not to mention the constitutional text, structure and original intent and understanding all confirm the teaching ofjames wilson, and other framer who wrote in impeachments and offences, not within this sphere of ordinaryjurisprudence simply put impeachment was greater for a purpose separate and distinct from criminal punishment. it was created to prevent and deter elected officials who swore an oath to represent america within commit dangerous offences against our republic. that is a constitutional crime. senators, what greater offence could one commit then to insight a violence insurrection at our seat of government. during the peaceful transfer of power cosmic circumstances where violence is foreseeable where a crowd is poised

foreseeable where a crowd is poised for violence to provoke a mob of thousands to attackers and weapons and sticks and polls to bludgeon and beat our law enforcement officers into the face the sacred walls and the trash the place and to do so while seeking to stop us from fulfilling their own oath from our own duties to uphold the constitution, by counting the votes from our free and fair elections come then to sit back and watch in the light as insurrectionist attackers, violating a sacred oath and engaging in a profound dereliction and desertion of duty, how can we ensure that our commander—in—chief will protect preserving defendants and our constitution if we don't hold a president accountable in a circumstance like this? what is impeachable conduct if not this? i challenge you also think about it. if you think this is not impeachable, what is? what would be?

president trump two lawyers endorsing that his conduct in inciting these events was totally appropriate in the senate acquits donald trump that any president could insight and provoke insurrectionary violence against us again, if you don't find this a high crime in misdemeanor today you have set a new terrible standard for presidential misconduct in the united states of america. the only real question here is the factual one. did we prove that donald trump while president incited a violent insurrection against the government? incitement of course is an inherently fact—based in fact intensivejudgement, which is why inherently fact—based in fact intensive judgement, which is why we commend you all for your scrupulous attention to everything that took place. but we believe that we have shown you overwhelming evidence in this case that would convince anyone

using their common sense that this was in the incitement, meaning that donald trump eyes conduct encouraged violence, the violence was foreseeable, and he acted willfully in the actions that encourage the violence. mr neguse will take you to evidence again. not the whole thing, we're almost done. we're almost done. but we don't want it to be said they never prove this so they never prove that. because my magnificent team of managers has stayed up night after night after night through weeks to compile all of the factual evidence and we have put it before you and we have put it before all of you in this public trial. because we love our country. we love our country that much. mr neguse will show you we have proven

our case. in that president trump committed this impeachable offence that we impeached him for onjanuary 13. and that you should convict him and when he is finished, i will return and explain why it is dangerous for us to ignore this and why you must convict and then we will rest. mr neguse. mr president, distinguished ministers good afternoon again. as my colleague mention, it's been a long few days. i want to say thank you that we are very grateful for your patience and for your contention that we make attention and that attention you have paid to everyone of our managers as they

have presented our case. as lead manager raskin mentioned, i hope and i trust we can all agree that if a president and a violent insurrection against our government, that is impeachable conduct. so what i would like to do as we close our case is just walking through why our evidence overwhelmingly establishes that president trump committed that offence. as you can consider that question, that question of whether the president incited in insurrection, there are three questions that reasonably come to mind. wasn't violence foreseeable? did he encourage violence? —— what is violence foreseeable? did he act willfully? and i will show you why the answer to every one of those questions has to be yes. first,

let's start with foreseeability. was it foreseeable that the violence would erupt onjanuary six if president trump lit a spark? would it be predictable that the crowd at the save america rally was poised on a hair triggerfor violence? that a hair trigger for violence? that they a hair triggerfor violence? that they would fight, literally, if provoked to do so? of course it was. when it president trump stood up to that podium onjanuary six, he knew that podium onjanuary six, he knew that many in that crowd were inflamed, were armed, or ready for violence. it was an explosive situation. and he knew it. we have shown you the evidence on this point. you have seen it. the images in the videos, the articles, and the pattern which show a violence on

that terrible day was entirely foreseeable. we have shown you how this all began with the big ally, the claim that the election that was rigged. and that president trump and his supporters were the victims of a massive fraud. —— the big alive. a massive fraud. —— the big alive. a massive conspiracy to rip away their votes. —— the big lie. we showed you how mr trump spread that lie and out over the course of months, with the support and encouragement, it inflamed part of his base. resulting inflamed part of his base. resulting in death threats, real—world violence, and an increasingly extreme call to stop the steal. we established that after he lost the election, the president was willing to do just about anything to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. that

he tried everything he could do to stop it. you will recall the evidence on the screen. him pressuring and threatening state election officials, attacking them to the point of the literally calling them enemies of the state. threatening of the lease one of them with criminal penalties. then attacking senators, members of congress come all across the media. pressuring the justice congress come all across the media. pressuring thejustice department, prompting outcries from assistant us attorneys, not to mention his own attorney general, reportedly telling him that the stolen election claims were quote, ps, not my phrase, his phrase. and then come as january six approach, he moved onto attacking own vice president. openly and savagely. we recounted throughout

that entire period all the ways in which president trump and the supporters with ties that the election was stolen. and as every single one of us knows, nothing in this country is more sacred, nothing that our right to vote. our voice. and here you have the president of the united states telling his supporters that their voice, their rights as americans are being stolen from them. ripped away. that made them angry. angry enough to stop the steal. to fight like hell to stop the steal. and we showed you this. you saw the in the suites, the

rallies, the statements, encouraging and spreading that big lie. you saw that he did this over and over again with the same message each time. "you must fight to win it back". you must never surrender. no matter what. and remember, each time that his supporters along the way showed violence, he endorsed it. he encouraged it. he praised it. all part of that same demand to stop the steal and fight like hell. remember the video that manager plaskett showed you? from texas? some of his supporters circling a bus of campaign workers on the highway? people easily could have been killed. easily. what did he do? he

tweeted it. he made a joke about it at a rally. he called them patriots. he held them out as an example of what it means to stop the steal. when he told his supporters to stop the steal, they took up arms to literally intimidate officials to overturn the election results. you saw the evidence. and so did he. he welcomed it. and when president trump attacked georgia �*s secretary of for certifying the results, his supporters sent death threats. —— secretary of state. you saw those in great detail. what did he do? he attacked the election officials further. when his supporters gathered together to have a second

milligan maga rally, a rally about the stolen election, he tweeted that the stolen election, he tweeted that the fight had just begun. what happened next? it is not rocket science. fights broke out. stabbings, serious violence, now, president trump, like all of us come he saw what happened at that rally. he saw all of the violence in the burnings, the chaos. how did he respond? he tweeted praise of the event. and then you see it on the screen. he by $50 million to $50 million worth of as to further promote his message to those exact same people. he immediatelyjoined

forces with that very same group. he joined forces with the same people that had just erupted into violence. with the violence predictable? was it obvious that the crowd onjanuary six was poised for violence? prepared for? absolutely. this isn't just clear looking back in time. it was widely recognised at the time. in the days leading up to january six, there were dozens, hundreds of warnings, and he knew it. he knew the rally would explode if provoked. he knew ali would take with a slight push. remember, you heard from manager plaskett the chatter on

social media, websites that the trump administration monitored and were known to the trump operation stop to show that the people he invited to the january six rally took this as a serious call to arms. that this was notjust took this as a serious call to arms. that this was not just any attacked. it was to storm the capital if necessary. to stop the steal. and it wasn'tjust necessary. to stop the steal. and it wasn't just clear on necessary. to stop the steal. and it wasn'tjust clear on these websites be trump administration was monitoring. the fbi issued reports about this at the credible threat. a threat to target us. law enforcement made six arrests at night before. six arrest! newspapers across the city warned of the risk of the violence. there can be no doubt that the risk of violence was foreseeable. and what did he do in

the days leading up to the rally? did he calm the situation? ask yourself, did he call for peace? no. he didn't do that. he spread his big alive more. the most dangerous lie as i mentioned, that americans folks were being stolen and that the final act of theft her here in the capital. and then he assembled all those supporters. he invited them to an organised event on a specific day at a specific time, match perfectly to coincide with the joint session of congress, to coincide with the steel that he had told them to stop. by steel that he had told them to stop. by any and all means. again, he was told bylaw enforcement, and all over the news, that these people

were armed, and ready for real violence. he knew it. he knew would perfectly well. he knew he had created this powder cake at his rally. he knew how combustible situation was. —— powder cake. he knew there were people him who had prepared or armed and armoured. he knew they would jump to violence at any signal, any sign from him. —— powder keg. that he needed them to fight and stop the steal. and we all know it happened next. second question. did he encourage the violence? standing in that powder keg, did he light a match? everybody knows the answer to that question.

the hours of video you all have watched leave no doubt. just remember what he said onjanuary six. all of us here today do not want to see our— all of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen. there's— see our election victory stolen. there's never been anything like this _ there's never been anything like this it _ there's never been anything like this. it appeared to death in american _ this. it appeared to death in american history. everybody knows this. american history. everybody knows this make — american history. everybody knows this. make no mistake, this election was stolen _ this. make no mistake, this election was stolen from you, and from the countrx _ was stolen from you, and from the countrx we — was stolen from you, and from the country. we will never give up, we will never — country. we will never give up, we will never concede. it doesn't happen _ will never concede. it doesn't happen. you do not concede when there _ happen. you do not concede when there is— happen. you do not concede when there is theft involved. and to use a favourite — there is theft involved. and to use a favourite term that all of you people — a favourite term that all of you people really came up with, we will stop the _ people really came up with, we will stop the steal! we must stop the steal _ stop the steal! we must stop the steal we — stop the steal! we must stop the steal. we will not let them silence

your voices. we will not let it happeh _ your voices. we will not let it happen. we will not let it happen. thank you. you have to get your people _ thank you. you have to get your people to — thank you. you have to get your people to fight because you will never _ people to fight because you will never take back our country with weakness — never take back our country with weakness. you have to show strength you have _ weakness. you have to show strength you have to— weakness. you have to show strength you have to be strong. and we fight. we fight _ you have to be strong. and we fight. we fight like hell. if you don't fight — we fight like hell. if you don't fight like hell, you will not have a country _ fight like hell, you will not have a country any — fight like hell, you will not have a country any more. you may remember it at the outset of this trial and i told you you would hear three phrases over and over and over again. the big lie that the election had been stolen,. steel and never concede, and fight like hell.

—— steer the —— not be still. you heard those phrases throughout this trial. video after video, statements after statements telling his supporters they should be patriots to fight hard to stop the steal. and on that day, that day, where did he direct the crowds anger? he directed them here. to congress. he quite literally that one part of that speech pointed at us. he told them to fight like hell and if you don't fight like hell, you will not have a country any more. and here's the thing, that wasn't metaphorical. it wasn't rhetorical. he had already made it perfectly clear that when he said fight, he meant it. and one

followers in fact fight, when they engaged in violence, he would praise and honour them as patriots. he implied that it was ok to break the law because the election was being stolen. you heard it. remember the clip that manager dean showed you earlier in this trial. he told them... remember how all of his supporters, some of his supporters across social media were treating this as a war talking about bringing in the calvary? president trump made it clear with those different rules were. he had been making it clear for months.

let's have trial by combat! rudy, ou did a let's have trial by combat! rudy, you did a great — let's have trial by combat! rudy, you did a great job. _ let's have trial by combat! rudy, you did a great job. he _ let's have trial by combat! rudy, you did a great job. he has- let's have trial by combat! rudy, you did a great job. he has got . you did a greatjob. he has got guts _ you did a greatjob. he has got guts. unlike a lot of people in the republican he fights. —— in the republican he fights. —— in the republican party. his republican he fights. -- in the republican party. his message was c stal republican party. his message was crystal clear- _ republican party. his message was crystal clear. and _ republican party. his message was crystal clear. and it _ republican party. his message was crystal clear. and it was _ republican party. his message was| crystal clear. and it was understood immediately, instantly, by his followers. and we don't have to guess. we don't have to guess as to how they reacted. we can look at how people reacted to what he said. you saw them. and you saw the violence. it is pretty simple, he said it, and

they did it. and we know this because they told us. we they told us in real time during the attack. you saw the affidavits, the interviews of social media, live tv, they were doing this for him. because he asked them to. it wasn't just insurrectionist who confirmed this. many people, including current and former officials immediately recognised that the president had inside of the crowd, that he alone was capable that he did this and he had to call it off because he was the only one who could. let's see what representative mccarthy, representative gallagher, chris christie, representative kinsinger,

and representative keko had to say. i cannot be sadder and more disappointed with the way our country— disappointed with the way our country looks at this very moment. people _ country looks at this very moment. people are — country looks at this very moment. people are getting hurt. this country looks at this very moment. people are getting hurt.— country looks at this very moment. people are getting hurt. this is ros atkins in london, _ people are getting hurt. this is ros atkins in london, jane _ people are getting hurt. this is ros atkins in london, jane o'brien - atkins in london, jane o'brien washington, dc. we continue bbc news coverage of donald trump's impeachment trial.- coverage of donald trump's impeachment trial. coverage of donald trump's im eachment trial. ., . ., , impeachment trial. you are the only erson impeachment trial. you are the only person who — impeachment trial. you are the only person who can _ impeachment trial. you are the only person who can call— impeachment trial. you are the only person who can call this _ impeachment trial. you are the only person who can call this off. - impeachment trial. you are the only person who can call this off. (all - person who can call this off. call it off! _ it's pretty simple, the president caused — it's pretty simple, the president caused this protest to occur. he is the only— caused this protest to occur. he is the only one — caused this protest to occur. he is the only one who can make it stop. what _ the only one who can make it stop. what the _ the only one who can make it stop. what the president said is not good enough _ what the president said is not good enough. the president has to come out and _ enough. the president has to come out and tell— enough. the president has to come out and tell his supporters to leave the capitol— out and tell his supporters to leave the capitol grounds. and to allow congress — the capitol grounds. and to allow congress to do their business peacefully. and anything short of that is— peacefully. and anything short of that is an — peacefully. and anything short of that is an abdication of his responsibility.— that is an abdication of his responsibility. that is an abdication of his resonsibili . ., ~ ., . , . responsibility. you know, a guy that knows how to _ responsibility. you know, a guy that knows how to tweet _

responsibility. you know, a guy that knows how to tweet very _ responsibility. you know, a guy that i knows how to tweet very aggressively on twitter. _ knows how to tweet very aggressively on twitter. you — knows how to tweet very aggressively on twitter, you know, _ knows how to tweet very aggressively on twitter, you know, puts _