welcome to our viewers here in the uk. the fifth day of the impeachment trial of donald trump. it's not quite going to wait most people expected it to go. we were expecting closing arguments today. possibly even a vote on whether or not to acquit or convict donald trump. the

democrats have thrown somewhat of a grenade into proceedings to introducing the idea of wanting to hear from witness. introducing the idea of wanting to hearfrom witness. let's introducing the idea of wanting to hear from witness. let's get more now. she drunk us out from cape court in massachusetts. we lost the lying to you. when i say that the democrats have blown this out, nobody was really expecting this to happen. isn't there a danger that it does more danger to the democrats by extending proceedings by delaying other proceedings that should be happening in the senate right now? that's up to the democrats and the republicans in the senate. majority leader schumer has been able to continue to do the work of the senate between these proceedings. so they've been doing this senate worked during the day and then doing the proceedings in the afternoon into the evening. i'm told that they fully expect a covert relief bill to come to the senate floor after the senate comes back from recess next week. the house has to finish their part of it. i expect them to do the work of the country, help get the

biden administration proposals through and at the same time hold donald trump accountable. it's not a mutual exclusive exercise was up but marianne, people looking at this who aren't scrutinising every twist and turn as we are in washington, must be looking at the whole process and thinking well, it is political theater. ~ , ., theater. where will it get us and wh isn't theater. where will it get us and why isn't the _ theater. where will it get us and why isn't the senate _ theater. where will it get us and why isn't the senate cracking - theater. where will it get us and why isn't the senate cracking on | why isn't the senate cracking on with the things that really matter to americans? getting the pandemic under control finding covid relief, you say they can do both but they're only so many hours in the day. isn't there a real risk that this is actually harming the senate as a whole, a body? i actually harming the senate as a whole. a body?— actually harming the senate as a whole, a body? i think they were rise to the _ whole, a body? i think they were rise to the occasion. _ whole, a body? i think they were rise to the occasion. we - whole, a body? i think they were rise to the occasion. we see - whole, a body? i think they were rise to the occasion. we see that whole, a body? i think they were i rise to the occasion. we see that in the past week in terms of how we've been able to handle the work in the senate. i think the bigger risk here is the threat to our democracy. we are here because nixon was part really got parted and not punished. we're here because donald trump was compete to leave back impeachment not convicted. donald trump may be

accorded again but if that happens every election it now becomes a life and death matter for our democracy. that's the real thing here. there won't be a senate, it won't be house, we won't have a democracy if we continue to have leaders in the white house whose insight riots and sedition against our country and constitution. so that is the real risk here. i'm confident that people of good faith can work hard and do both and uphold our constitution and our oath to office. the both and uphold our constitution and our oath to office.— our oath to office. the other issue of course is _ our oath to office. the other issue of course is that _ our oath to office. the other issue of course is that this _ our oath to office. the other issue of course is that this is _ our oath to office. the other issue of course is that this is not - our oath to office. the other issue of course is that this is not just i of course is that this is notjust about convicting president trump. democrats have made it very clear that they want to stop him from ever running office again. is that really the way a democracy operates, isn't that after the voters to decide who they want to put in office, who they want to elect? it they want to put in office, who they want to elect?— want to elect? it is. but there's also a set _ want to elect? it is. but there's also a set of — want to elect? it is. but there's also a set of rules. _ want to elect? it is. but there's also a set of rules. and - want to elect? it is. but there's also a set of rules. and it's - want to elect? it is. but there's| also a set of rules. and it's clear that on six donald trump was clearly subverting those rules. he spent mum talking about that the election is

not fair, read. he spent months getting a crowd of his supporters whipped up to come to washington, dc and go to the capital. and clearly from the case prevented it was exquisitely timed to the counting of those electoral votes in the certification of the election, to the minute frankly. i think what you have people like that, they have to be stopped and punished. you don't have a right under those circumstances to run for office again. but the process in this country is it requires a conviction of donald trump and a disqualification. and i think one of the house manager is the other day set a very well, he's not worried about donald trump running again, he's worried about him running and losing and pulling this stunt again. which could be the end of our democracy. we got very, very lucky and i think many people realise that when they watch the video in this case during the past week. even more sale delete not more so than what happened that day.— sale delete not more so than what happened that day. marianne, thank ou ve happened that day. marianne, thank you very much _ happened that day. marianne, thank you very much for — happened that day. marianne, thank you very much forjoining _ happened that day. marianne, thank you very much forjoining us. - happened that day. marianne, thank you very much forjoining us. let's i you very much forjoining us. let's take you live back to the senate floor where the recess is now over.

senators are reconvening, as you can see there. let'sjust senators are reconvening, as you can see there. let's just listen senators are reconvening, as you can see there. let'sjust listen in senators are reconvening, as you can see there. let's just listen in and see there. let's just listen in and see if there is much movement. well, if you joined us expecting to hear that there's going to be a speedy resolution to this trial today as we were all expecting, you can think again. all bets are now off as the democrats introduce the idea that they wanted to hear from a very particular witness. the washington republican congresswoman butler who had a conversation she claimed with kevin mccarthy a senior republican about what donald trump said in the aftermath of the riot on january the 6th. they want to hear

from her, they republican defence lawyers representing mr trump and liz have said that they can't introduce witnesses at this point. that they should have made those investigations earlier at the run—up to this trial that they haven't been doing theirjob properly. they also can't introduce evidence that pertained to the aftermath of the riot. because the charge against donald trump is that he incited the riot. so therefore, they cannot use that as evidence to convict him and his actions in the run—up to the riot. so we had a long, long recess. while senators quite frankly try to work this out. and i think we are about to hearfrom work this out. and i think we are about to hear from the lead impeachment managerjamie raskin who seems to be approaching, who spoke earlier on. , ., ., , ,

earlier on. first of all, this is the proper— earlier on. first of all, this is the proper time _ earlier on. first of all, this is the proper time that - earlier on. first of all, this is the proper time that we - earlier on. first of all, this is| the proper time that we were assigned to talk about witnesses. this is completely within the course of the rules set forth by the senate. there is nothing remotely unusual about this. i think we've donein unusual about this. i think we've done in exceedingly thorough and comprehensivejob with done in exceedingly thorough and comprehensive job with all the evidence available last night. this was breaking news and it responded directly to a question that was being raised by the presidents defence counsel saying that we had not sufficiently proven to their satisfaction. although week i think we've proven to the satisfaction of the american people certainly that the american people certainly that the president after the breach in invasion took place was not working on the side of defending the capital but rather was continuing to pursue his political goals. and the information that came out last night by congresswoman butler apparently backed up by contemporary venous notes that she had taken, i think will put to rest any lingering doubts raised by the presidents council. who now says he wants to interview hundreds of people.

there's only one person the presidents council needs to interview and that is their own client. bring him forward as we suggested last week. because a lot of this is it matters that are in his head. what why did he not act to defend the country after he learned of the attack? why was he continuing to press the political case? but this piece of evidence is relevant to that. finally, i was a little bit mystified by the point about the article of impeachment. which i referred to. the dereliction of duty, the desertion of duty is built into the incitement charge, obviously. if the president of the united states is out inciting a violent insurrection he's obviously not doing hisjob violent insurrection he's obviously not doing his job at the same time. just like if a police officer is bugging you, yeah, he's guilty of theft and armed robbery, whatever it

might be. but he's also not doing hisjob as a might be. but he's also not doing his job as a police officer. it's further evidence of his intent and what his conduct is. lead impeachment _ what his conduct is. lead impeachment manager i what his conduct is. lead - impeachment managerjamie what his conduct is. lead impeachment managerjamie raskin speaking earlier. we are still waiting for a purse feelings to resume. this is the chamber, the floor of the senate. it would seem that quite a few senators are in attendance. they've had this recess which has been going on for an hour or so. we are very much hoping that we would hear what happens next shortly. isn't forthcoming. anthony zucker is also following events for us anthony, is it surprising that they have come back and we still haven't heard from them? ida. they have come back and we still haven't heard from them? no, it's not surprising- _ haven't heard from them? no, it's not surprising. this _ haven't heard from them? no, it's not surprising. this is _ haven't heard from them? no, it's not surprising. this is a _ haven't heard from them? no, it's not surprising. this is a way - haven't heard from them? no, it's not surprising. this is a way the i not surprising. this is a way the senate work. they'll gavel things after recess but if they don't have an answer, if they haven't figured things out yet that they are going to keep waiting in the knocking to bring any official proceedings on the floor until they know what they're doing. we seem at the it looks like when the senate is in session and they don't know what they're doing for top that was all

of the confusion around the original vote for witnesses. i don't think anyone in the senate wants to be caught essentially come up with their pants down again. they need to have some sort of a decision before they bring any kind of a vote out. i love the way that theyjust leave love the way that they just leave the room and they don't know what they're doing. it's something i often wish i could perhaps do. i'm sure you feel do not share that feeling with me. how long is this going to take, do you think? what have they actually got to decide and how are they going to try to manage this? because we really now are into very uncharted territory. bearing in mind the impeachment hearings anyway have no rules. it’s mind the impeachment hearings anyway have no rules-_ have no rules. it's chaos, isn't it? it is confusion. _ have no rules. it's chaos, isn't it? it is confusion. as _ have no rules. it's chaos, isn't it? it is confusion. as has _ have no rules. it's chaos, isn't it? it is confusion. as has been - it is confusion. as has been mentioned by ted cruz and others. they didn't think this was can happen today so maybe they hadn't thought through what exactly happens next if there is a successful call for witnesses. there is some

precedent. if you go back to the clinton impeachment trials in 1999 they did end up subpoenaing some witnesses. at that point there is about a week delay in the trial while the witnesses including monica lewinsky who was a star witness were subpoenaed and recorded and then were presented as evidence during the trial. think right now what we are hearing our negotiations. and were hearing snippets of reports from negotiations on how to proceed on this. a democratic senator said there could be a two—week recess. meanwhile a former senator says that she was hearing that they mightjust introduce congresswoman herrera butler's testimony and her statement that she's already made in today. not call witnesses at all and then proceed with closing arguments and then hey, you've already wrap this up then hey, you've already wrap this up today. but i think the worst case scenario is if the senate can't come up scenario is if the senate can't come up with some sort of a negotiated agreement what will happen is that you will get a series of motions

introduced to call specific witnesses. butler being one of them kevin mccarthy may be another. it then you could get donald trumps defence team following through with their threat to one after another keep introducing new witnesses that they want to call. forcing the senate to have an up or down vote on each of them. they may have nancy pelosi, yes or no? would we call kamala harris, they need to have a vote on that. and that could conceivably take all day or even longer. i don't think there are any senators who want that to happen knowing that every single one of those proposals will probably get voted down by the democrats in the senate. , , ., voted down by the democrats in the senate, , ., ., ., senate. just to remind our what the 're senate. just to remind our what they're talking _ senate. just to remind our what they're talking about _ senate. just to remind our what they're talking about now - senate. just to remind our what they're talking about now is - senate. just to remind our what i they're talking about now is having a about a vote. it's not even preparing for a vote. it's discussing whether or not they should be a vote on whether to call a witness. ~ ., , should be a vote on whether to call a witness. ~ . , ., a witness. right. what they are havin: a witness. right. what they are having discussions _ a witness. right. what they are having discussions on _ a witness. right. what they are having discussions on individual witnesses. they did had a vote earlier today about whether to have

witnesses introduce. and they voted 55 to 45 to move forward with witnesses. but that didn't instantly give authorisation for both sides to run out and start subpoenaing people. they have to come up with individual proposals for people they want to talk to and then each person they talked it will have to be voted on up and down. that is where we are at this particular moment. {slate on up and down. that is where we are at this particular moment.— at this particular moment. give us a sense of what _ at this particular moment. give us a sense of what joe _ at this particular moment. give us a sense of what joe biden _ at this particular moment. give us a sense of what joe biden is - at this particular moment. give us a sense of what joe biden is making l at this particular moment. give us a | sense of what joe biden is making of sense of whatjoe biden is making of all this. this is valuable time. at the beginning of his presidency when he wants to get on with the legislative issues that include a big covid relief package, getting the pandemic under control. this is going to eat into the time needed to tackle all those things that americans really want sorted, isn't it? , , a, americans really want sorted, isn't it? , , ., ,~ americans really want sorted, isn't it? , , a, a a, it? there is definitely a risk of that. that's _ it? there is definitely a risk of that. that's why _ it? there is definitely a risk of that. that's why you _ it? there is definitely a risk of that. that's why you would - it? there is definitely a risk of l that. that's why you would have it? there is definitely a risk of - that. that's why you would have seen up that. that's why you would have seen up until nowjoe biden in the white house trying to keep all of this at arms length. they said that they

weren't following it closely. although joe weren't following it closely. althouthoe biden, he occasionally goes our scripts and he did say yesterday in the day before that he had watched those videos. the unrest in the violence at the white house at the capital like many americans did. ithink at the capital like many americans did. i think they were happy with the way this was progressing that this could get wrapped up today. because even before the impeachment trial started they had been pushing for delay so that he could get some legislation move through congress. he could get his nominees to cabinet secretary positions confirmed. you have to remember that the senate was going to be in recess next week. the trial so far has only resulted in the senate be an out of session or busy for three days. monday, tuesday, wednesday. that is normally days the senate would be doing business. while all this is happening the house is still working. the houses where they have to come up with this covid relief bill. once it passes in the house thenit bill. once it passes in the house then it will go over to the center. if this gets drawn out and there is

on ongoing senate trial and not some sort of suspension of the trial while interviews take place. then yeah, the senate could be considering that covid relief package. that is going to have a real effect onjoe biden is legislative and gender. joe biden realises that he's not going to be judged based on what happened to donald trump, what happens at this impeachment trial. he is going to be judged based on how he performs as president. the legislation sees gets past, how he addresses the economic consequence of covid, how people get vaccinated. when he is facing reelection in four years if he runs again that is the record he's going to have to run out. so he's thinking about the future in a way that may be the house impeachment managers aren't. �* ., , ., . ., be the house impeachment managers aren't. �* ., , . . ., . aren't. anthony and washington. we will be back — aren't. anthony and washington. we will be back with _ aren't. anthony and washington. we will be back with you _ aren't. anthony and washington. we will be back with you a _ aren't. anthony and washington. we will be back with you a little - aren't. anthony and washington. we will be back with you a little bit - will be back with you a little bit later. even as senators cast their vote in the house on whether to call witnesses. during the trout there was confusion over what they were actually voting for have a listen.

i'd like to change my vote to eyes _ i'd like to change my vote to eyes mr— i'd like to change my vote to eyes. mrgraham, aye. i'd like to change my vote to eyes. mr graham, aye. just i'd like to change my vote to eyes. mr graham, aye.- i'd like to change my vote to eyes. mr graham, aye. just a point of inquiry. — eyes. mr graham, aye. just a point of inquiry. there — eyes. mr graham, aye. just a point of inquiry, there is _ eyes. mr graham, aye. just a point of inquiry, there is a _ eyes. mr graham, aye. just a point of inquiry, there is a little - of inquiry, there is a little confusion was at a vote on one witness? , , ., ., ., witness? debate is not allowed durin: witness? debate is not allowed during the _ witness? debate is not allowed during the vote. _ witness? debate is not allowed during the vote. senator- witness? debate is not allowed during the vote. senator from i during the vote. senator from alaska — during the vote. senator from alaska. ~ , ., , ., during the vote. senator from alaska. ~ , ., ., alaska. mr president at the point of in . ui alaska. mr president at the point of inuui on alaska. mr president at the point of inquiry on what _ alaska. mr president at the point of inquiry on what we _ alaska. mr president at the point of inquiry on what we just _ alaska. mr president at the point of inquiry on what we just voted - alaska. mr president at the point of inquiry on what we just voted on. i inquiry on what we just voted on. i'd advise that is not allowed during — i'd advise that is not allowed during the vote.

the point of order and debate are not allowed during the vote. that is established senate procedure. and we always— established senate procedure. and we always follow. gk, established senate procedure. and we always follow-— always follow. ok, let's take you back to the _ always follow. ok, let's take you back to the senate _ always follow. ok, let's take you back to the senate floor - always follow. ok, let's take you back to the senate floor to - always follow. ok, let's take you back to the senate floor to see i always follow. ok, let's take you back to the senate floor to see ifj back to the senate floor to see if there is any movement. it's a bit like trying to read the future by reading the tea leaves, as in a? does a walk to the left mean that they are about to start discussion again or does somebody sitting down mean that they're not? we really don't know at the moment. we are in uncharted territory. let's bring in gary who is on the hill. gary, are you hearing anything more about what's happening, what's likely to happen? what's happening, what's likely to ha en? ., ~' what's happening, what's likely to ha en? ., 4' , happen? know. i think we will soon find out though. _ happen? know. i think we will soon find out though. the _ happen? know. i think we will soon find out though. the house - happen? know. i think we will soon i find out though. the house managers are starting to move back into their places. the defence team possibly as well. the question is whether or not they've done a deal. that's the key thing. have they done a deal to try and make this process manageable in

terms of agreeing witnesses for each side? may be the number of witnesses retired, maybe they will agree to put the testimony of jamie retired, maybe they will agree to put the testimony ofjamie herrera butler into the record and not call any witnesses. that would certainly put things back on track for a speedy trial. but the democrats have sort of upped the ante by talking about calling her as a witness. and the defence have threatened to respond with dozens and dozens of claims of their own. i don't think these senate will want to get into a position where it's voting on every single witness. there's a question of whether or not they've had any time in the past quarter hour to sort out some kind of compromise that they could get through on vote. remind us whyjamie raskin the leading house impeachment manager decided to throw in this grenade of calling a witness who by all intents is pretty inflammatory? gary, hold

that thought. we are going back to the floor. ~ ., , ., �* that thought. we are going back to the floor. ~ .,, ., �* , the floor. mr castor, i'm sorry. ma i the floor. mr castor, i'm sorry. may i be — the floor. mr castor, i'm sorry. may i be recognise? _ the floor. mr castor, i'm sorry. may i be recognise? yes, - the floor. mr castor, i'm sorry. may i be recognise? yes, you - the floor. mr castor, i'm sorry. may i be recognise? yes, you are| may i be recognise? yes, you are recognised. may i be recognise? yes, you are recognised-— may i be recognise? yes, you are recognised. senators, donald john trum b recognised. senators, donald john trump by his _ recognised. senators, donald john trump by his counsel _ recognised. senators, donald john trump by his counsel is _ recognised. senators, donald john trump by his counsel is prepared l recognised. senators, donald johnl trump by his counsel is prepared to stipulate _ trump by his counsel is prepared to stipulate that if the representative herrera _ stipulate that if the representative herrera butler were to testify under oath as— herrera butler were to testify under oath as part of these proceedings her testimony would be consistent with the _ her testimony would be consistent with the statement she issued on fehruary— with the statement she issued on february 12 2021. and the former presidents— february 12 2021. and the former presidents council is agreeable to the admission of that public statement into evidence at this time _ statement into evidence at this time. . ., statement into evidence at this time. ., ~' ,, statement into evidence at this time. ., ~' ~ statement into evidence at this time. ., ,, ~ ., statement into evidence at this time. ., ~ ., ~ time. thank you mr castor. mr raskin. thank— time. thank you mr castor. mr raskin. thank you _

time. thank you mr castor. mr raskin. thank you mr - time. thank you mr castor. mr i raskin. thank you mr president. time. thank you mr castor. mr - raskin. thank you mr president. the mana . ers raskin. thank you mr president. the managers are _ raskin. thank you mr president. the managers are prepared _ raskin. thank you mr president. the managers are prepared to _ raskin. thank you mr president. the managers are prepared to enter - raskin. thank you mr president. the managers are prepared to enter into| managers are prepared to enter into an agreement. i will now read the statement — an agreement. i will now read the statement. this is a statement jamie herrera _ statement. this is a statement jamie herrera butler february 12, 2021. in myjanuary— herrera butler february 12, 2021. in myjanuary 12 statement in support of the — myjanuary 12 statement in support of the article of impeachment i reference — of the article of impeachment i reference a conversation house minority— reference a conversation house minority leader kevin mccartney relayed — minority leader kevin mccartney relayed to me that he'd had with president — relayed to me that he'd had with president trump while the january six attack— president trump while the january six attack was ongoing. —— mccarthy. when _ six attack was ongoing. —— mccarthy. when mccarthy finally reached the president onjanuary when mccarthy finally reached the president on january six, when mccarthy finally reached the president onjanuary six, and asked him to— president onjanuary six, and asked him to publicly and forcefully call off the _ him to publicly and forcefully call off the riot the president initially repeated the falsehood that it was an t5 _ repeated the falsehood that it was an t5 that — repeated the falsehood that it was an t5 that had breached the capital. mccarthy— an t5 that had breached the capital. mccarthy refuted that and told the president that these were trump supporters. that's when according to mccarthy— supporters. that's when according to mccarthy the president said, well kevin _ mccarthy the president said, well kevin l _ mccarthy the president said, well kevin i guess these people are more upset _ kevin i guess these people are more upset about the election then you are. upset about the election then you are since —

upset about the election then you are~ since i— upset about the election then you are. since i publicly announced my decision— are. since i publicly announced my decision for— are. since i publicly announced my decision for impeachment i have detailed — decision for impeachment i have detailed in countless conversations with constituents and colleagues in multiple _ with constituents and colleagues in multiple times through the media and other public forums. i told her to the daily— other public forums. i told her to the daily news of longview on january— the daily news of longview on january 17, i've shared it with local— january 17, i've shared it with local county republicans executive board _ local county republicans executive board members as well as other constituents who asked me to explain my vote _ constituents who asked me to explain my vote i_ constituents who asked me to explain my vote. i shared it with thousands of residents — my vote. i shared it with thousands of residents on my telephone town hall on— of residents on my telephone town hall on february eight. mr president, i now moved at the senate admit _ president, i now moved at the senate admit this— president, i now moved at the senate admit this statement into evidence. objection— admit this statement into evidence. objection and without objection this statement will be admitted into evidence. and does either party wish to make any further motions? related to make any further motions? related to witnesses or documents at this time? mr to witnesses or documents at this time? ~ , , , time? mr president the presidents council have _ time? mr president the presidents council have no _ time? mr president the presidents council have no further— time? mr president the presidents

council have no further motions. i time? mr president the presidents i council have no further motions. and mr president. — council have no further motions. and mr president, we have no further motions— mr president, we have no further motions either. _ mr president, we have no further motions either.— mr president, we have no further motions either. then the chair would know that neither _ motions either. then the chair would know that neither party _ motions either. then the chair would know that neither party wishes - motions either. then the chair would know that neither party wishes to - know that neither party wishes to make further motions under section six of senate resolution a7. they are for the next question is on admission of the evidence admitted by both parties. pursuant to section eight of the resolution. the majority leaders recognise... more? majority leaders recognise... now that we moved _ majority leaders recognise... now that we moved to _ majority leaders recognise... now that we moved to another matter and advise _ that we moved to another matter and advise that _ that we moved to another matter and advise that the house managers have no objection to the admission of evidence — no objection to the admission of evidence proposed to be admitted by the former— evidence proposed to be admitted by the former presidents council under the former presidents council under the provisions of section eight of senate _ the provisions of section eight of senate 47— the provisions of section eight of senate a7 full—time and that the presidents council have no objections to the evidence proposed to be admitted into evidence by the house _ to be admitted into evidence by the house managers. pursuant to section ei-ht house managers. pursuant to section eight of— house managers. pursuant to section eight of the _ house managers. pursuant to section eight of the resolution as agreed to by leader— eight of the resolution as agreed to by leader mcconnell and myself a few days ago _

by leader mcconnell and myself a few days ago. both parties have made timely— days ago. both parties have made timely filings of this evidence with the secretary of the cited and have provided _ the secretary of the cited and have provided copies to each other. i therefore — provided copies to each other. i therefore ask unanimous consent that therefore ask unanimous consent that the senate _ therefore ask unanimous consent that the senate dispense with the provisions of section eight a of senate — provisions of section eight a of senate resolution a7. and that the material _ senate resolution a7. and that the material submitted by both parties be admitted into evidence subject to the provisions of section eight c of that resolution. which provide that the invention of this evidence does not constitute a concession by either — not constitute a concession by either party as to the truth of the matters — either party as to the truth of the matters asserted by the other party. and that _ matters asserted by the other party. and that each senator shall decide for him _ and that each senator shall decide for him or— and that each senator shall decide for him or herself the weight to be given— for him or herself the weight to be given such — for him or herself the weight to be given such evidence. this request has the _ given such evidence. this request has the approval of both parties and the republican leader.— the republican leader. without ob'ection the republican leader. without objection it _ the republican leader. without objection it is _ the republican leader. without objection it is so _ the republican leader. without objection it is so ordered. - pursuant to the provisions of senate

resolution a7 these senate has provided for up to four hours of closing arguments. it will be equally divided between the managers of the part of house of representatives and the council for the former president. in pursuant to rule 22, the rules and procedure and practice of the senate when sitting on an impeachment trial the argument shall be open and closed on the part of the house of representatives. the chair recognises mr manager raskin to begin the presentation on the part of the house of representatives. mr raskin under rule 22 you may reserve time if you wish. . ., rule 22 you may reserve time if you wish. ., ~' ,, ~ , wish. thank you, mr president. members _ wish. thank you, mr president. members of— wish. thank you, mr president. members of the _ wish. thank you, mr president. members of the senate. - wish. thank you, mr president. j members of the senate. before wish. thank you, mr president. | members of the senate. before i proceed — members of the senate. before i proceed it was suggested by defence counsel— proceed it was suggested by defence counsel that donald trumps conduct

during _ counsel that donald trumps conduct during the _ counsel that donald trumps conduct during the attack as described in congresswoman butler statement is somehow _ congresswoman butler statement is somehow not part of the constitutional offence for which former— constitutional offence for which former president trump has been charged — former president trump has been charged i— former president trump has been charged. i want to reject that falsehood and that fallacy immediately. after a new that violence — immediately. after a new that violence was under way at the capitol. — violence was under way at the capitol, president trump took actions — capitol, president trump took actions that further incited the insurgents to be more inflamed and to take _ insurgents to be more inflamed and to take even more extreme selective and focused action against vice president — and focused action against vice president mike pence. former president mike pence. former president trump also is described by congressman butler's notes, refused request— congressman butler's notes, refused request to _ congressman butler's notes, refused request to publicly, immediately and forcefully— request to publicly, immediately and forcefully call off the riots. and when _ forcefully call off the riots. and when he — forcefully call off the riots. and when he was told that the insurgents inside _ when he was told that the insurgents inside the _ when he was told that the insurgents inside the capital were trump supporters the president said quote, well kevin, _ supporters the president said quote, well kevin, i guess these people are

more _ well kevin, i guess these people are more upset — well kevin, i guess these people are more upset about the election then you are _ more upset about the election then you are. think about that for a 2nd. this uncontradicted statement that hasjust_ this uncontradicted statement that hasjust been stipulated as part of the evidentiary record, the president said well kevin i guess these _ president said well kevin i guess these people meaning the mobsters, these people meaning the mobsters, the insurrectionist are more upset about— the insurrectionist are more upset about the — the insurrectionist are more upset about the election then you are. that— about the election then you are. that conduct is obviously part and parcel— that conduct is obviously part and parcel of— that conduct is obviously part and parcel of the constitutional offence that he _ parcel of the constitutional offence that he was impeached for. namely incitement — that he was impeached for. namely incitement to insurrection. that is continuing — incitement to insurrection. that is continuing incitement to the insurrection. the conduct described not only— insurrection. the conduct described not only perpetuated his continuing offence _ not only perpetuated his continuing offence but also provides to us here, — offence but also provides to us here, today further decisive evidence _ here, today further decisive evidence of his intent to incite the insurrection in the first place.

when — insurrection in the first place. when my— insurrection in the first place. when my opposing counsel says that you should _ when my opposing counsel says that you should ignore the presidents actions _ you should ignore the presidents actions after the insurrection began. — actions after the insurrection began, that is plainly wrong. and it of course _ began, that is plainly wrong. and it of course it— began, that is plainly wrong. and it of course it reflects the fact that they have — of course it reflects the fact that they have no defence to his outrageous, scandalous and unconstitutional conduct in the middle — unconstitutional conduct in the middle of a violent assault on the capital— middle of a violent assault on the capital that he incited. senators, think— capital that he incited. senators, think about that for a 2nd. say you li-ht think about that for a 2nd. say you light a _ think about that for a 2nd. say you light a fire — think about that for a 2nd. say you light a fire and you are charged with— light a fire and you are charged with arson. in the defence counsel says everything that i did after the fire started is irrelevant. and the court _ fire started is irrelevant. and the court would reject that immediately say that's— court would reject that immediately say that's not true at all. it's extremely— say that's not true at all. it's extremely relevant to whether or not you committed the crime. if you run over and _ you committed the crime. if you run over and try— you committed the crime. if you run over and try to put out the flames, if you _ over and try to put out the flames, if you get— over and try to put out the flames, if you get lots of water and say help. _ if you get lots of water and say help, help there's a fire! you call for help. — help, help there's a fire! you call for help. a — help, help there's a fire! you call for help, a car not court will infer, — for help, a car not court will infer, could infer that you didn't intend _ infer, could infer that you didn't intend for— infer, could infer that you didn't intend for the fire to be late in the first— intend for the fire to be late in the first place. they would accept your defence, perhaps that it was all an—

your defence, perhaps that it was all an accident. it was all an accident _ all an accident. it was all an accident. accidents happen with fire _ accident. accidents happen with fire but — accident. accidents happen with fire but if— accident. accidents happen with fire. but if on the other hand when the fire _ fire. but if on the other hand when the fire erodes you go and you pour more _ the fire erodes you go and you pour more fuel— the fire erodes you go and you pour more fuel on it, you stand by and you wanted, _ more fuel on it, you stand by and you wanted, gleefully, any reasonable person would infer that you not— reasonable person would infer that you not only intended the fire to start _ you not only intended the fire to start but — you not only intended the fire to start but that once it got started and began to spread you intended to continue _ and began to spread you intended to continue to— and began to spread you intended to continue to keep the fire going. and that's— continue to keep the fire going. and that's exactly where we are, my friends — that's exactly where we are, my friends 0f— that's exactly where we are, my friends. of course your conduct while _ friends. of course your conduct while a — friends. of course your conduct while a crime is ongoing is relevant to your— while a crime is ongoing is relevant to your culpability. both to the continuation of the offence but also directly _ continuation of the offence but also directly relevant, directly illuminating to what your purpose was originally. what was your intent? — was originally. what was your intent? in— was originally. what was your intent? in any court in the land woutd— intent? in any court in the land would laugh out any would laugh out any criminal defendant that said

what _ any criminal defendant that said what i _ any criminal defendant that said what i did — any criminal defendant that said what i did after i allegedly killed that person is irrelevant to whether or not _ that person is irrelevant to whether or not i_ that person is irrelevant to whether or not i intended to kill them. i mean _ or not i intended to kill them. i mean come on, donald trumps refusal to not— mean come on, donald trumps refusal to not only— mean come on, donald trumps refusal to not only send help but also to continue — to not only send help but also to continue to further incite the insurgents against his own vice president, his own vice president provides— president, his own vice president provides further decisive evidence of both— provides further decisive evidence of both his — provides further decisive evidence of both his intent to start this violent— of both his intent to start this violent insurrection and his continued incitement once the attack had begun— continued incitement once the attack had begun to override the capital. all right — had begun to override the capital. all right. senators, that was in response — all right. senators, that was in response to this new evidentiary that came — response to this new evidentiary that came in. in my closing i want to thank— that came in. in my closing i want to thank you — that came in. in my closing i want to thank you for your remarkable attention— to thank you for your remarkable attention and your seriousness of purpose — attention and your seriousness of purpose befitting your office. we have offered you overwhelming and irrefutable and certainly unrefuted evidence _ irrefutable and certainly unrefuted evidence that former president trump

incited _ evidence that former president trump incited this _ evidence that former president trump incited this insurrection against us. incited this insurrection against us to — incited this insurrection against us. to quote the statement representative liz cheney made in january. _ representative liz cheney made in january, quote, onjanuary six, 2021 a violent— january, quote, onjanuary six, 2021 a violent mob attacked the united states— a violent mob attacked the united states capital to obstruct the process — states capital to obstruct the process of our democracy and stop... you're _ process of our democracy and stop... you're watching bbc news and the proceedings unfolding in the senate and the second impeachment trump of donald trump.... she and the second impeachment trump of donald trump. . . ._ donald trump. . .. she continued. representative _ donald trump. . .. she continued. representative cheney _ donald trump. . .. she continued. l representative cheney continued, much _ representative cheney continued, much more will become clear in coming — much more will become clear in coming days and weeks. but what we know now _ coming days and weeks. but what we know now is — coming days and weeks. but what we know now is enough. the president of the united _ know now is enough. the president of the united states summoned this mob, assembled _ the united states summoned this mob, assembled this mob and lit the flame of this— assembled this mob and lit the flame of this attack. everything that followed was his doing. none of this would've _ followed was his doing. none of this would've happened without the president. the president could have it immediately and forcefully intervened to stop the violence he did not _ intervened to stop the violence he did not. there has never been a greater— did not. there has never been a greater betrayal by the president of the united states of his office and

his oath—