what you deserve. saying, you got what you deserve. let me say that again. not only was the president fully aware of the situation, the situation that we were all in when he was asked for help, when he was asked to defend the capital less than 30 minutes after inciting this violence against his own vice president, president trump refused that request for assistance. he told us why. his singularfocus assistance. he told us why. his singular focus stopping the certification of the election of his opponent. he incited the violence to stop the certification, he attacked the vice president and further inside of the insurrection to pressure the vice president to stop the certification and he called them all to stop the certification and he refused to send help to congress in this congress and the vice president of the united states were in mortal danger because he wanted to stop the

certification. and he did these things, attacking the vice president, calling senator talk with you read using mccarthys requests with full knowledge of the violent attack that was under way at that point. he chose retaining his own power over the safety of americans. i can't imagine more damning evidence of his state of mind. the call ended with a screaming match interrupted by violent rioters breaking through the windows of representative mccarthys office. senators, the president knew this was happening. he didn't do anything to help his vice president orany anything to help his vice president or any of you or any of the brave officers or other employees serving the american people that day. his sole focus was stealing the election for himself. and he apparently has

still not out of anyone else. according to more new facts revealed last night, the vice president steam does not agree with the presidents council or the president councils assessment either. the report and i quote, pence team does not agree with trump lawyers that trump was concerned about pence and safety. lynette trump didn't call him that they or five days after that. no one else on trump's team as pence was evacuated from one room to another. the screaming mob nearby. ob'ection, this is not in — the screaming mob nearby. ob'ection, this is not in evidence. * the screaming mob nearby. ob'ection, this is not in evidence. the _ the screaming mob nearby. objection, this is not in evidence. the council- this is not in evidence. the council will sit down. _ this is not in evidence. the council will sit down. senators, _ this is not in evidence. the council. will sit down. senators, remember... the chair has — will sit down. senators, remember... the chair has no _ will sit down. senators, remember... the chair has no way _ will sit down. senators, remember... the chair has no way to _ will sit down. senators, remember... the chair has no way to know - will sit down. senators, remember... the chair has no way to know of - will sit down. senators, remember... the chair has no way to know of the l the chair has no way to know of the evidence _ the chair has no way to know of the evidence or— the chair has no way to know of the evidence or not. _ the chair has no way to know of the evidence or not. so— the chair has no way to know of the evidence or not. so far— the chair has no way to know of the evidence or not. so far will- the chair has no way to know of the evidence or not. so far will have - the chair has no way to know of the evidence or not. so far will have a l evidence or not. so far will have a chance _ evidence or not. so far will have a chance to — evidence or not. so far will have a

chance to speak. _ evidence or not. so far will have a chance to speak. the _ evidence or not. so far will have a chance to speak. the chair - evidence or not. so far will have a chance to speak. the chair will . chance to speak. the chair will consider— chance to speak. the chair will consider the _ chance to speak. the chair will consider the issue. _ chance to speak. the chair will consider the issue.— consider the issue. senators, remember — consider the issue. senators, remember her _ consider the issue. senators, remember her as _ consider the issue. senators, remember her as one - consider the issue. senators, remember her as one of - consider the issue. senators, remember her as one of you | consider the issue. senators, - remember her as one of you said during this attack, they could have killed us all. our staff, the officers protecting all of us, everyone. and president trump not only incited it but continued it as it occurred with attacks on his vice president and then willfully refused to defend us. furthering his provocation and incitement by the mob. siding with the mob, siding with the violent insurrection is. criminals who killed and injured police officers sworn to protect us. because they were quote more upset about the election then leader mccarthy. those facts are undisputed. president trump has not offered any evidence or any argument to disprove them. his lawyers almost

entirely ignored these facts in their short presentation. we have only has councils false claim yesterday that quote, at no point was the president informed that the vice president was in any danger,". a claim that is refuted notjust by common sense but by the time line you have seen and also the vice president legal team. you have seen and also the vice president legalteam. so you have seen and also the vice president legal team. so there can be no doubt, at the moment we most need it president to preserve, protect and defend us president trump instead willfully betrayed us. he violated his oath. he left all of us and officers like eugene goodwin to our own devices against an attack he had incited and he alone could stop. that is why he must be convicted. i'd like to conclude by making it one final point. if follows directly from what i've just discussed. 0ur follows directly from what i've just discussed. our case and the article of impeachment before you absolutely

includes presidents trumps dereliction of duty onjanuary six. his failure as insider ofjeep to immediately quell a call mob his failure of commander—in—chief to immediately do everything in his power to secure the capital, that is a further basis on which to convict and that could be no doubt of that. the ongoing constitutional misconduct is like any continuing offence and the proof of that is overwhelming. most directly his dereliction of duty offers conclusive, irrefutable evidence that he acted willfully as we charge. he wasn't furious or sad or shocked like virtually everyone else in america. he was reported by those around him as delighted. rather than rush to our aid or demand his mob retreat, he watched the attack on tv and praised the mob to leader mccarthy as more loyal to him. more

upset about the election. and that was all that mattered. his reaction is also further evidence of his intent. he acted exactly the way a person would act if they had indeed incited the mob to violence to stop the steal. moreover, as i've shown, president trumps dereliction and desertion of duty includes his decision to further insight the mob even as he failed to protect us. while the mob hunted vice president mike pence. he attacked pence. while he tried to stop the steal he spread the big lie. we all saw how his mob responded in real time. this further incitement was part of his dereliction of duty. was also part of this course of conduct encouraging and provoking the mob to violence. president trumps dereliction of duty also highlights how foreseeable the attack was to

him. in his tojust how foreseeable the attack was to him. in his to just after 6pm how foreseeable the attack was to him. in his tojust after 6pm he said and i quote, these are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously and viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly and unfairly treated for so long. this tweet continued his endorsement of the attack, his failure to condemn it, his desertion of duty. but it also reveals his view that this was of course what would happen when congress refused his demand to reject the election that he continued to tell his supporters was stolen. and he had actually won in a landslide. again, he wasn't surprised. he saw this as a predictable result of his repeated demand that his followers stop the steal by any means possible. this was all connected, his dereliction of duty, his desertion of duty, it was part and parcel of the crime charged in the impeachment. and it

is certainly a basis on which to vote for conviction. if you believe that he willfully refused to defend us and a lot enforcement officers fighting to save us and he was delighted by the attack and he saw it as a natural result of his call to stop the steal and that he continued to incite and target violence as the attack unfolded, we respectfully submit you must vote to convict and disqualify. so that the events on january six convict and disqualify. so that the events onjanuary six can never happen again in this country. mr president i like to call it ms. dean — president i like to call it ms. dean. ~ . president i like to call it ms. dean. ~ , ,., ., president i like to call it ms. dean. ~ , ., ., dean. mr president, point of order. moments ago _ dean. mr president, point of order. moments ago house _ dean. mr president, point of order. moments ago house manager- dean. mr president, point of order. moments ago house manager says | moments ago house manager says iiiinim — moments ago house manager says illini. .. moments ago house manager says illini... , ., ., .,

illini. .. the senator will withhold. advise that _ illini. .. the senator will withhold. advise that debate _ illini. .. the senator will withhold. advise that debate is _ illini. .. the senator will withhold. advise that debate is not - illini. .. the senator will withhold. advise that debate is not in - illini. .. the senator will withhold. | advise that debate is not in order. debate _ advise that debate is not in order. debate is — advise that debate is not in order. debate is not in order because this is not _ debate is not in order because this is not debate _ debate is not in order because this is not debate. he _ debate is not in order because this is not debate-— is not debate. he said something that is not true. _ is not debate. he said something that is not true. the _ is not debate. he said something that is not true. the form - is not debate. he said something | that is not true. the form quorum has been — that is not true. the form quorum has been suggested.— that is not true. the form quorum has been suggested. courtney called the role. has been suggested. courtney called the role- ms- — has been suggested. courtney called the role. ms. baldwin. _ has been suggested. courtney called the role. ms. baldwin. -- _ has been suggested. courtney called the role. ms. baldwin. -- court. - has been suggested. courtney called the role. ms. baldwin. -- court. isl the role. ms. baldwin. —— court. [£3 there the role. ms. baldwin. —— court. there objection? objection is the role. ms. baldwin. —— courtl- there objection? objection is heard.

mr bennett. well, we seem to have some hold out. because there has been objection from the floor. we don't know what the objection is. we believe it might bejohn barrasso, senator of wyoming, a staunch trump loyalist. he appeared to be objecting to

something in david says illini these closing statements that he said was not true. we are still waiting for confirmation that that is indeed what happened and that the senate seems to be going into a short adjournment so that they can discuss the nature of the objection and work out how to handle it. of course this is the second time that this is happened today. when the proceedings have been adjourned for further debate about the rules of the proceeding. jane just remind our viewers what happened. that delay was all caused by the democrats saying that they wanted to bring in our witness testimony. and there was some discussion about how that would take place. and they adjourned for a while, they had a recess and they came back and there was another slight delay. in the end they agreed

to admitting a statement by republican lawmakerjaime herrera republican lawmaker jaime herrera butler republican lawmakerjaime herrera butler into evidence in this impeachment trial. and in that statement she had said that the top white house republican kevin mccarthy or house republican rather, kevin mccarthy had told her about a call he had with donald trump on january six or the riot when hundreds of trump supporters storm the capital. she said that he said that trump said, it's a bit, kate is in a? well, kevin i guess these people are more upset about the election then you are. and there's been some debate about whether she would have to give her witness testimony to the trial and they've agreed that they would admitted into evidence. it did threaten to extend proceeding despite many hours days or possibly weeks. it certainly did. we seem to be back on track now. a little updated throughout. it was apparently it might lead the senator from utah who made the objection

thatis from utah who made the objection that is now causing a further holed up that is now causing a further holed up in the proceedings. mike lee again, a very vocal, very staunch trump loyalist. we are seeing this slight delay going on at the moment. yes, all bets were off for a long, long while. we were sitting here wondering whether or not we're going to be for another week or whether the proceedings would resume. they did as you say strike a deal though. we now know that there are no further witnesses to be called. let's bring in an assistant research scholar at columbia university and presidential historian. the obvious question is, how will history look at the second impeachment trial of a president and the first trial to be held after a president has left office? �* . . held after a president has left office? �*, ., , ., office? it's a good question. i think that _ office? it's a good question. i think that it _ office? it's a good question. i think that it will _ office? it's a good question. i think that it will always - office? it's a good question. i think that it will always be . think that it will always be bracketed with the insurrection it sells. so while we can't look at a second impeachment as something that

is historically unprecedented, the impeachment of our former president as historically unprecedented, i think it will always be understood as response to another major unprecedented event. which is this insurrection. what we are giving here is our first chronological snapshot of what that insurrection look like. how history remembers this moment is going to be shaped by what impact is unfolding. both everything that is being read into the record is going to be part of the record is going to be part of the historical record. and also what happens next with the vote to acquit or convict. bud happens next with the vote to acquit or convict. �* . ., , ., or convict. and that was part of the --urose or convict. and that was part of the purpose at — or convict. and that was part of the purpose at the _ or convict. and that was part of the purpose at the democrats - or convict. and that was part of the purpose at the democrats made i or convict. and that was part of the i purpose at the democrats made clear. this is all about putting something on record. marking it for history. could there then been another way for them to do this? there's been an enormous criticism particularly of course from republicans that in impeachment trial was just not necessary. it was political vengeance. and if they wanted to

hold donald trump accountable there were other ways to do that. imere were other ways to do that. were the are? were other ways to do that. were they are? no. — were other ways to do that. were they are? no, not _ were other ways to do that. were they are? no, not really. - they are? no, not really. impeachment really is the way to hold the president accountable for his actions in office. you could imagine something much smaller even though there would be a challenge like censure. there's not a priest vision for censuring a president. evenif vision for censuring a president. even if the president was centre that would downgrade the event itself. to suggest that a centre is a enough in response to an insurrection seems to be historically a real problem. if you're not going to use all the tools at your disposal given how momentous and how tragic those events on the sixth actually were. i do think that there will be more investigation. there have been calls for a 9/11 style mission in order to look into the events at the capital. i don't think that this is the last thing congress is going to do in terms of airing out what happens in

terms of airing out what happens in terms of airing out what happens in terms of the insurrection.