' the 'the sense of their case, they how the sense of their case, they spent a lot of analysis referring to it as what about it? take us to that. what about is a means what about you? what about the thing you said? i think with those videos were pretty much along those lines. democrats what about the things you said about fight? what about the things you said about impeachment and they had another video montage which showed many democrats calling for mr trom's impeachment shortly after he was elected. another big whataboutism was his attempt to make an equivalence between the violence that took place during protests of black lives matter over the summer and then using the statements of democratic officials who were supporting the protests to draw an equivalence to say they were supporting violence so what about

that? that was a number of different ways that that argument was being used. ., , ., ,., ., ways that that argument was being used. ., ., ., , ,, used. there was also a few gasps i understand — used. there was also a few gasps i understand on _ used. there was also a few gasps i understand on the _ used. there was also a few gasps i understand on the floor _ used. there was also a few gasps i understand on the floor when - used. there was also a few gasps i understand on the floor when he i understand on the floor when he referred to or well represented mr trump as referring to christ's cavalry versus cavalry stop at i think that that was a statement of a supporter who had said... who think that that was a statement of a supporter who had said. . ._ think that that was a statement of a supporter who had said... who we are the calvary. — supporter who had said... who we are the calvary, meaning _ supporter who had said... who we are the calvary, meaning we _ supporter who had said... who we are the calvary, meaning we are - supporter who had said... who we are the calvary, meaning we are the - the calvary, meaning we are the fighting force coming to save american democracy, that was the way it had been reported, the way it was understood to have been set. he said no she did not say that, he said that we are calvary, referring to christ on calvary. i don't know that anybody saw that coming. so i think

people were taken aback, but that is the way that he interpreted those words because of course, the phrase earlier as understood, we are the cavalry was seen as something to be as evidence that there had been plans to take the fight to the capital to stop the election count. you mentioned the court of public opinion and a lot of people in their case today, mr trump's moyers did say that this is just wholly political, an opportunity to eliminate mr trom's supporters. how important is public opinion and the future of the republican party? —— mr trump supporter. future of the republican party? -- mr trump supporter.— future of the republican party? -- mr trump supporter. public opinion is uuite mr trump supporter. public opinion is quite important, _ mr trump supporter. public opinion is quite important, it _ mr trump supporter. public opinion is quite important, it is _ mr trump supporter. public opinion is quite important, it is playing - mr trump supporter. public opinion is quite important, it is playing a i is quite important, it is playing a role in terms of how republicans are

looking at this. this is a judicial process but also political so they are looking at it through a political prism and they know that mr trump is a power player in the party and know that many republicans support him and many republicans do not support what is going on here and that will undoubtedly be part of the calculation in terms of how they vote. and also play a role in what happens after this because once the impeachment process is over if mr trump is acquitted, where does that leave him in terms of how much power he has to shape the future of the republican party and how much leeway does the events this week give those republicans who want to move away from his brand of politics some strength? would it that the democrats made or that the arguments republicans are making so in that sense the way the public response especially the republicans looking on with have some impact and where we move on from here.—

we move on from here. bruce castor we move on from here. bruce castor we understand _ we move on from here. bruce castor we understand was _ we move on from here. bruce castor we understand was the _ we move on from here. bruce castor we understand was the lawyer - we move on from here. bruce castor we understand was the lawyer that l we understand was the lawyer that upset mr trump in the opening statement. regarding his performance today and his team's performance, what sense are you getting? bruce castor did not _ what sense are you getting? bruce castor did not play _ what sense are you getting? bruce castor did not play a _ what sense are you getting? bruce castor did not play a very - what sense are you getting? bruce castor did not play a very big - what sense are you getting? ef'lce: castor did not play a very big role today. you saw him at the very and making those closing statements, and he did have a very negative, did not make a very —— did make a very negative impact on mr trump and totally confused people in the senate and those of us watching us what with that very rambling opening statement where he sort of ranged from ancient greek democracy to what wonderful people patriotic people senators were and never got around to the issues of the case. so that was arraigned in in a big way today, you had different lawyers taking the lead, you had a lot of visual

inserts i think to keep the pace moving. you had the arguments themselves did not last all that long and they were relatively sustained and wister castor took the floor, he continued in the been set by the two previous lawyers so i think they probably vindicated themselves in mr trump's eyes and perhaps the republicans as well because also the republicans were quite critical. because also the republicans were quite critical-— quite critical. barbara before we leave can be _ quite critical. barbara before we leave can be confirmed - quite critical. barbara before we leave can be confirmed we - quite critical. barbara before we leave can be confirmed we will i leave can be confirmed we will probably hear more from the senate floor today? we probably hear more from the senate floor today?— probably hear more from the senate floor toda ? ~ , . ., ., floor today? we understand that that is the case. floor today? we understand that that is the case- we _ floor today? we understand that that is the case. we know _ floor today? we understand that that is the case. we know that _ floor today? we understand that that is the case. we know that they - floor today? we understand that that is the case. we know that they now l is the case. we know that they now have four hours of questions that senators can submit in written form and we believe that that is going to continue today and then resume again tomorrow morning. we continue today and then resume again tomorrow morning.— tomorrow morning. we are “ust going tomorrow morning. we are “ust going to take the viewers h tomorrow morning. we are just going to take the viewers through _ tomorrow morning. we are just going to take the viewers through some - tomorrow morning. we are just going to take the viewers through some ofl to take the viewers through some of the things that were said today, we will come back to you shortly though barbara. david schoen accuse them of withholding evidence.

—— how is this new evidence have been seen before? more importantly the right was a major event that shotton impacted all americans. shouldn't the american people have seen this footage as soon as it was available? forwhat seen this footage as soon as it was available? for what possible reason did the house managers withhold from the american people and president trump's lawyers. the american people and president trump's lawyers-— the american people and president trump's lawyers. bruce castorjunior from donald — trump's lawyers. bruce castorjunior from donald trump's _ trump's lawyers. bruce castorjunior from donald trump's legal _ trump's lawyers. bruce castorjunior from donald trump's legal team - from donald trump's legal team denied that the house manager's claims that mr trump had incited an insurrection. but claims that mr trump had incited an insurrection-— insurrection. but the critical issue insurrection. but the critical issue in this case _ insurrection. but the critical issue in this case is _ insurrection. but the critical issue in this case is very _ insurrection. but the critical issue in this case is very narrow- insurrection. but the critical issue in this case is very narrow issue i in this case is very narrow issue thatis in this case is very narrow issue that is charged against the 45th president. and that issue is that the 45th president engage and

incitement of they continue to say insurrection. clearly, there was no insurrection. clearly, there was no insurrection. insurrection is a term of divined in the law that takes over a country, a shadow government, taking the tv stations over, having some plan on what you're going to do when you finally take power. clearly, this is not that. he also went on to _ clearly, this is not that. he also went on to say _ clearly, this is not that. he also went on to say that _ clearly, this is not that. he also went on to say that the - clearly, this is not that. he also went on to say that the riots - clearly, this is not that. he also i went on to say that the riots were preplanned and not incited by donald trump. the preplanned and not incited by donald trum -. . ., , ., ., trump. the criminals who infiltrated the caital trump. the criminals who infiltrated the capital must _ trump. the criminals who infiltrated the capital must be _ trump. the criminals who infiltrated the capital must be imprisoned - trump. the criminals who infiltrated the capital must be imprisoned for l the capital must be imprisoned for as long _ the capital must be imprisoned for as long as— the capital must be imprisoned for as long as the law allows. the fact that the _ as long as the law allows. the fact that the attacks were apparently premeditated as alleged by the house managers _ premeditated as alleged by the house managers demonstrates the ludicrousness of the incitement allegation against the president. you can't — allegation against the president. you can't incite what was already going _ you can't incite what was already going to — you can't incite what was already going to happen.

barbara plett usher is with us. she is on capitol hill. just picking up on that point that the riots were preplanned, that president trump's speech had nothing to do with it, i don't know if you can take us through the details of how he mounted that case, what points did he highlight? i think there are two ways he mounted that case. he focused very narrowly on president trump's speech saying that the timing of it really, that the people who carried out the riot were already gathering even while he was speaking, that there reports already beforehand that they were planning this type of attack and therefore mr trump's speech could not have incited them. that's essentially the argument he was making, he also focus narrowly on the words of the speech saying that

there was no explicit call to violence. so he is basically dismissing the democrats argument which is that he created over a period of two months after losing the election a kind of narrative about how the election had been stolen and that the only way to get what the american people had coming to them as their right was to take it back and that he knew what his supporters were like, he knew about the violence that some of them espoused and because he had seen it in other venues in the months preceding and therefore, when he came up to the speech on the day, he will have been aware of the context and what his words would result in. so, that sort of context argument, the defence dismissed completely. they focus very narrowly on the actions and the way that they timed with the speech. so, the planning took place ahead of time. and then

the rioters started to gather at the capital even while the speech was still going on so they say you can't connected to what mr trump said. we heard points on due diligence or due process rather. the first amendment, and freedom of speech and the wall surrounding what mr trump set. which of those arguments do you think will resonate or will be strongest and appealed to the republican senators who are looking for something to grasp onto to not vote in favour of impeachment? which one do you think will appeal the most? i impeachment? which one do you think will appeal the most?— will appeal the most? i think broadly speaking _ will appeal the most? i think broadly speaking what - will appeal the most? i think broadly speaking what the i will appealthe most? i think- broadly speaking what the republican senators have been supportive of is procedural arguments. senators have been supportive of is proceduralarguments. so for senators have been supportive of is procedural arguments. so for example they all supported the argument that it was unconstitutional to even hold the trial because mr trump was no longer in office so he could not be removed from office and you could not impeach a private citizen. the senate voted that down and the trial has obviously proceeded but on the basis of that, i think the procedure

argument again but this was a snap impeachment, that the democrats rushed to impeach mr trump without following the usual process of hearings and bringing witness evidence and allowing time for mr trump to respond and for his team to respond, that might be something that they find helpful or that they feel is an effective argument. timer;r feel is an effective argument. they also soke feel is an effective argument. they also spoke about _ feel is an effective argument. they also spoke about bringing cancel culture to the senate floor. that i can imagine appealing to a lot of mr trump's fan base.— trump's fan base. yeah, you know that issue — trump's fan base. yeah, you know that issue of _ trump's fan base. yeah, you know that issue of cancel _ trump's fan base. yeah, you know that issue of cancel culture - trump's fan base. yeah, you know that issue of cancel culture is - that issue of cancel culture is something that has become very politicised in the last year or two and it comes from social media, the left and the right talking about cancelling those voices that they don't feel are wrong —— that they feel are wrong and feel they should not be allowed to be expressed. mr

trump's team has taken on that language and has said that is what is happening here, basically we have the right to ever political opinions, mrtrump the right to ever political opinions, mr trump has the right to his political rhetoric, but with the democrats are doing is saying we can't tolerate that sort of expression because it's something that we don't believe in and that we are trying to cancel. it will probably have a fair amount of resonance amongst republicans who do agree with mr trump's message and who do feel that this process is not fair and that the democrats are acting in a politically motivated way. this acting in a politically motivated wa . ~ , acting in a politically motivated wa . �* , , acting in a politically motivated way. as you said they are moving thins way. as you said they are moving things along _ way. as you said they are moving things along far— way. as you said they are moving things along far too _ way. as you said they are moving things along far too fast, - way. as you said they are moving things along far too fast, just - things along far too fast, just compare it to former president trump's first impeachment hearing, how long did that take? well, the preparation for that actually which is the kind of comparison was much different. it is the kind of comparison was much different. ., , , ., ~ ., ., different. it went as you know over many months. _ different. it went as you know over

many months, there _ different. it went as you know over many months, there were - different. it went as you know over many months, there were public . different. it went as you know over i many months, there were public with it —— they were witnesses called, public witness testimony health, testimony drawn up, documents prepared, and that the trial itself i think took about 21 days and this try will be something like four or five days. so that's quite different. what the democrats argue is that they had to act quickly because this was a clear and present danger, mrtrump because this was a clear and present danger, mr trump didn't have many more days in office and they needed to act right away and because they were afraid of what he might do while he was still on —— still in officer that was one thing, and they said this was a different nature of the previous impeachment having to do with the call with a foreign leader where mr trump was accused of trying to use his political office to try to get the ukrainian president to dig up dirt on his political opponent at that time and joe biden. so it was kind of a complicated and it legal and required a lots of technical evidence to be brought together. this was something that happened in full public view, all the evidence

was out there, it was life streamed, life tweeted, and therefore they did not need to bring witnesses into the same process because the evidence was right there and that's certainly the way the democrats presented their case as we know, it was very much using the video evidence of the time. some critics have said if they had brought witnesses especially witnesses in mr trump's inner circle to try and get more of a documentation of what his intent was, what was the state of his mind during this time, because that is the hardest thing to prove, what somebody actually intended to do. some observers have said that would help their case to bring witnesses to establish with the intent was. but they argue, the democrats, using mr trump on but they argue, the democrats, using mrtrump on site but they argue, the democrats, using mr trump on site passwords, past associations and his conduct up until the election after it and up to the rally to say they could establish intent that way for some

—— mr trump's passed words. they are two different cases the first and second impeachment, but it was extremely fast the whole process. barbara plett usher, thank you for your analysis and summary of the day passing events so far because we are expecting to go back to the senate for a session of questions. in the meantime, let's bring in ron christie, he is a republican analyst and adviser to president george w bushjoining me from maryland. thank you forjoining us mr christy. so, your thoughts on what you saw today? good evening. my thought is that the president's and legal team didn't do enough for him. he saw about four hours of impassioned defence by the president's attorney, they had up to 16 hours in which they could present it. and what i found that the democrats did most effectively is that they were prepared and ready. they had a lot of their documentation to help make the case

on their side, the republicans didn't do as much as they could have done i think in defence of the former president of the united states to bolster the assertion that this was frivolous, that it should have been brought forward. so the republicans have the presumption of innocence, but i think the democrats were a lot more clear and a lot more convincing in many of their presentations.— convincing in many of their resentations. ~ ., ., , presentations. what more could they have done then? _ presentations. what more could they have done then? you _ presentations. what more could they have done then? you said _ presentations. what more could they have done then? you said you - presentations. what more could they have done then? you said you feel. have done then? you said you feel they didn't do enough. what areas would you have exploited further? well, that the defence has the presumption of innocence and so i think with the democrats did is they took the president's words and took many of them out of context in a way that was most inflammatory and prejudicial towards the president. what i would have done is i would have made a motion, i would have called really what would have been very influential for the president is i would have called witnesses and have people come forth and say "this was not the specific intent to president trump on that day. this

was not foreseeable that the president's actions in his words and deeds would have led to the horrific events that we saw on january 6th." so i think there's a lot more they could have done by mounting a defence by notjust strictly relying on the president's words but relying on the president's words but relying on the president's words but relying on the words of witnesses under examination to bear out the president's defence. urn? examination to bear out the president's defence. why do you think they didn't _ president's defence. why do you think they didn't use _ president's defence. why do you think they didn't use witnesses? j president's defence. why do you - think they didn't use witnesses? you can imagine why president trump refused to appear, but why do you think they didn't bring any witnesses into their argument? candidly i think the president's team has made the political calculation that there are enough —— not enough republicans to cross over and vote to convict and remove him from the ability to run for public office once more, public trust. i think there is a sense on the republican and a former president defence team wanted to get this over, put this behind us and not have this be a distraction hanging

over the president. as a lawyer as one of well versed in the wall, i think that's a missed opportunity by the president prospect defence team. missed opportunity in what way, ron? you think it is a risky assumption for them to make when you say a missed opportunity, an opportunity to do what, achieve what? {shrew missed opportunity, an opportunity to do what, achieve what? given the nature upon — to do what, achieve what? given the nature upon which _ to do what, achieve what? given the nature upon which the _ to do what, achieve what? given the nature upon which the democrats i to do what, achieve what? given the i nature upon which the democrats made their case, they have to prove the evidence before the united states senate sitting as a jury. if i'm sitting there as the president positive defence counsel and looking at their presentations looking at their foreseeability and looking at going back to english law and even early american law, i would've made it much more vigorous defence of this is the united states of america, this is not england, we are not bound by english law and precedent. i would've made a lot more about the notion the defence counsel provide heavily on alexander hamilton particular in federalist paper number 65 and i would have said the federalist papers were just

that, they were a guide for our constitution, a guide for every framers. but this is 2021. was i talk about the past. let's talk about the events leading up to january 6th. they made a lot about what happened after the attack. i would have confined if i were the defence counsel the time frame upon which we should be discussing if i was the council of january the 6th and before and then look and say wasn't foreseeable was meant but for the president positive words deeds and actions connected these individuals, and storm and was the incitement and was the insurrection? so when i say he really had more of an opportunity to mount a defence, i would have punched back much more strongly than his team did unders very critical points. just strongly than his team did unders very critical points.— very critical points. just carrying on with that _ very critical points. just carrying on with that argument - very critical points. just carrying on with that argument then. i very critical points. just carrying i on with that argument then. what's the threat? let'sjust on with that argument then. what's the threat? let's just assume mr trump gets acquitted. the threat? let'sjust assume mr trump gets acquitted.— the threat? let'sjust assume mr trump gets acquitted. which i think he will. trump gets acquitted. which i think he will- what _ trump gets acquitted. which i think he will. what is _ trump gets acquitted. which i think he will. what is more _ trump gets acquitted. which i think he will. what is more a _ trump gets acquitted. which i think he will. what is more a threat i trump gets acquitted. which i think| he will. what is more a threat here, his reputation _ he will. what is more a threat here, his reputation damage _ he will. what is more a threat here, his reputation damage or— he will. what is more a threat here, his reputation damage or the i he will. what is more a threat here, j his reputation damage or the united states's reputational damage on

this? i states's reputational damage on this? ., states's reputational damage on this? ~' ., ., , , this? i think we had to be very careful here _ this? i think we had to be very careful here because - this? i think we had to be very careful here because an i this? i think we had to be very i careful here because an impeachment in the united states senate after a vote in the united states house to put them in a jury pool of a position of conviction and removal from public office, if the sitting president or in this case removal from public life. we have to make sure this is not a weapon eyes event and not a politicised event. so i am hoping this evening as we head into a vote tomorrow or this weekend that this process will bear forth the best of the american democracy, that evidence has been presented, the jurors have been fair and impartial, and the deliberation of that evidence and if it is an acquittal or if it's a conviction that it was done forth in the best interest of america. but doing so just to vote on the republican or democratic side does a missed service and miss justice to our democracy.- does a missed service and miss justice to our democracy. what is our cut justice to our democracy. what is your gut saying. _ justice to our democracy. what is your gut saying, ron? _ justice to our democracy. what is your gut saying, ron? which i justice to our democracy. what is your gut saying, ron? which wayj justice to our democracy. what is i your gut saying, ron? which way do your gut saying, ron? which way do you think it will go? my your gut saying, ron? which way do

you think it will go?— you think it will go? my gut tells me that in _ you think it will go? my gut tells me that in this _ you think it will go? my gut tells me that in this climate - you think it will go? my gut tells me that in this climate with i you think it will go? my gut tells me that in this climate with the | me that in this climate with the only american president to have been impeached twice in american history, that there is a what a sentiment by republicans saying enough is enough, this is a political exercise, the house rushed over the article of impeachment without setting forth a record and having hearings. this was a fundamental process that was not fair to the accused and i believe that they will vote to acquit. and here is one thing that i think the defence did do well today, of talking about substantive due process. ordinarily if you have an impeachment trial of a president, you have the chiefjustice of the united states sitting as the arbiter of that trial. in this case, you had senator patrick leahy, the oldest and longest serving senator in the united states senate as the president pro tem presiding presently he voted to convict the president last time. how can you have an impartialjurist sitting there making decisions on behalf of there making decisions on behalf of

the trial when they are ready prejudge the president's and guilt of the last time around as someone who had said that he would vote to convict this time? that could have been a much more stronger argument that could have fleshed out. ran that could have fleshed out. ron don't move _ that could have fleshed out. ron don't move anywhere, i want to show the viewer is the view from the lobby, quiet at the moment but they are on recess for now. we are expecting the senate floor to fill once again and for the two lawyer teams come at the defence and the prosecution, to receive questions. let's go back to ron. ron how much does this matter to everyday americans? because you have got some people saying "enough already, it is what it is, let's just move on." doesn't matter to american people? in matters along partisan lines may be but what about everyday americans? i be but what about everyday americans?— be but what about everyday americans? ., . ., , , americans? i teach a class in the americans? i teach a class in the american presidency _ americans? i teach a class in the american presidency in - americans? i teach a class in the american presidency in new- americans? i teach a class in the| american presidency in new york university and we spoke last night about the two governments, what these member of congress and senator

stu in washington and what they do back home. i think there is a pusher in washington for democrats to have this trial and impeachment and convict them. then you look at a gallup poll from just a few weeks ago what was number one first and foremost on the minds of the american people? they were concerned about government competence. what was number two? about government competence. what was numbertwo? run about government competence. what was number two? run a virus. it was number three? they were concerned about health. you go all the way down, i did not see impeachment at all in the top of this gallup poll. so the american people i believe are sitting here looking and saying, "i'm worried about myjob, worried about my children going back to school, worried about my health." and those people in washington are focused on a man who is no longer in office as president of the united states. i think it is a pretty damning indictment of the political class in question more than anything else. ~ ., ., ,, class in question more than anything else. ~ ., ., .,~ ., class in question more than anything else. ~ ., ., ., , class in question more than anything else. ., ., ., , ., else. what do you make of this idea that they have _ else. what do you make of this idea that they have accused _ else. what do you make of this idea that they have accused the - that they have accused the democrats, the impeachment managers, of withholding evidence? is this the idea of discovery? how important is

this to americans? ii idea of discovery? how important is this to americans?— this to americans? if you are in a criminaltrial, _ this to americans? if you are in a criminal trial, the _ this to americans? if you are in a criminal trial, the prosecution i this to americans? if you are in a | criminal trial, the prosecution has to turn over all evidence that is exculpatory, in other words, that is in the best way to of the defence. but this is a hybrid, this was a criminal proceeding to be certain but this is also a very political process. and for most americans who are lawyers and aren't well versed in the wall, i think this went over the heads of many people. like, "what are they talking about? was haven't made a stronger case that that president present actions and words and deeds didn't bring about these actions was mac there's a lot more that could be done but talking about process and a political setting, if you are doing that, i think you are losing. yes setting, if you are doing that, i think you are losing.— think you are losing. yes or no answer, think you are losing. yes or no answer. that — think you are losing. yes or no answer, that fights _ think you are losing. yes or no answer, that fights video, i think you are losing. yes or no answer, that fights video, did | think you are losing. yes or no | answer, that fights video, did it work? no. ok, ron christie, thank you very much indeed. as ever, friend here on bbc world news. you are watching bbc news. we are covering the second impeachment

trial of former president donald trump. the day so far has included with the defence case, we are expecting questions from the senate floor, to stay with us, plenty more coming up. next week looks like it will be much milder next week looks like it will be much... we had this been a proud coming into the cold air we still have at the moment. temperatures are falling sharply where we have clear skies from a few snow showers in the northeastern parts of scotland, wet weather comes into the cold air and weather comes into the cold air and we are looking at widespread frost. not as cold though as it has been of late. but we need to focus on the weather for northern ireland late. but we need to focus on the weatherfor northern ireland because this band of wet weather coming into the cold air means it will be summing in northern ireland for most of the day, 5—10 to centimetres over the hills with blizzards and drifting. that same band of wet

weather sneaks eastwards going into the south of england... snow across prince of wales and into western scotland. not as much as in northern ireland. forthe scotland. not as much as in northern ireland. for the easier it will be dry, cloud over more and the wind will be strong on saturday feeling cold. temperatures may be even lower than they were today, seen below freezing for many parts of the uk but when you factor in the strength of the wind, it will probably feel more like —6 or —7 out there, so really cold day. that snow probably won't get much further east and it will gradually tend to peter out overnight. we wait for the next weather system to come in from the west and that will eventually bring in some more mild air. slowly but surely from the atlantic is to get in more south— south—west of the wind. but it would take a long time to reach eastern areas, so it looks like we have a frosty start across eastern parts of the uk, potentially icy as well. there is even the risk

of some freezing rain in scotland, perhaps even into parts of northern england in the morning on sunday as well. but out towards the west, we have these strong winds through the irish sea, north channel, western isles of scotland, rain and slowly pushing its way eastwards, it may stay dry most of the day across eastern parts of england and it's a very slow rising temperature here. so it is going to feel cold in the wind as well. further west when it is whether, eventually does temperatures getting into double figures. by monday we are all in mild air likely to say in it throughout next week. double figure temperatures, warmer at night, and maybe a bit of rain from time to time.

it as what about it? take us to that.

this is bbc news with the latest headlines for viewers in the uk and around the world. mr trump's lawyers make their case why the former president is not guilty of inciting the deadly storming of the us capitol last month. calling it a monstrous live. they argue that the violence was pre—planned, and that prosecutors failed to directly connect the actions of the rioters to mr trump. no thinking person can serious believe that the president's january six speech on the ellipse was in any way and incitement to violence or insurrection. and this is the senior right now on capitol hill were senators are questioning the lawyers for both the defence and the prosecution in the next phase of