washington, dc mayor withdrawn. the washington, dc mayor said the presence of the national guard was an affront to the safety of the district. it must be fully investigated whether political leadership here in washington, dc took an in adequate and irresponsible force posture on january six because of their commitment to the false narrative of what happened lastjune. hopefully, we can all now agree that the administration acted properly by taking action to stop a rightist mob establishing an appropriate security perimeter and prevent the the house managers argued this week that a brief delay in issuing a public statement from mr trump on january six was no evidence that he committed incitement or supported

the violence. yet for months last year, joe biden, vice president harris and countless other democrats repeatedly refused to condemn the extremism is as riots that were occurring daily as businesses were being ramshackle old. as neighbourhoods were being burned, as bombs were exploding. they repeatedly refused to tell their violent supporters to stand down. some even suggested that the mobs actions were justified. vice president harris literally urged her followers to donate money to a fund to bail out the violent, extreme rioters so that they could get out and continue to do it over and over again. she later said that those folks were not going to let up and

that they should not. all of this was far closer to the actual definition of incitement than anything president trump has ever said or done, never mind what he said or done, never mind what he said on the sixth. it is a hypocrisy. it is a hypocrisy that the house managers have laid at the feet of this chamber. the house manager suggested in this... that this recent history is irrelevant to the recent proceedings, but not only is democrats behaviour surrounding last year's riots highly relevant, as president, are not only does it reveal that dishonesty and insincerity of this entire

endeavour, it also provides crucial context that should inform our understanding of the events that took place onjanuary six. many of the people who infiltrated the capitol took pictures of themselves and posted them on social media. to some it seems they thought that it was all a game. they apparently believe that violent mobs, destruction of property, rioting, assaulting police and vandalising historic treasures were somehow now acceptable in the united states. where might they have gotten that idea? i would suggest to you that it was not from mr trump. it was not mr trump, it was not anyone in the republican party that spent the six months immediately prior to the capitol assault giving rhetorical aid and comfort to mobs, making

excuses for rioters, celebrating radicalism, and explaining that angry, frustrated and marginalised people were entitled to blow off steam like that. let me be very clear. there can be no excuse for the depraved actions of the writers here at the capitol or anywhere else across this country. —— rioters. 100% of those guilty of committing crimes deserve lengthy present sentences. but this trial has raised the question of words, actions and consequences. as a nation, we must ask ourselves, how did we arrive at this place where rioting and pillaging would become commonplace? i submit to you that it was month after month of political leaders and media personalities blood thirsty

for ratings, glorifying civil unrest. and condemning the reasonable law enforcement measures that are required to quell violent mobs. hopefully we can all leave this chamber in uniform agreement that all rioting, all rioting is bad. and that law enforcement deserves our respect and support. that has been mr trump's position from the very beginning. the real question in this case is who is ultimately responsible for such acts of mayhem and violence when they are committed? house democrats want to different standards. one for themselves and one for political opposition. they have carried out a grossly unconstitutional effort to punish mr trump for a protected first amendment speech. it is an

egregious violation of his constitutional rights. since he uttered not a single word encouraging violence, this action can only be seen as an effort to censor disfavoured political speech and discriminate against disapproved viewpoint. it is an unprecedented action with a potential to do grave and lasting damage to both the presidency and the separation of powers in the future of democratic self—government. yesterday, we pledge a video of countless democrat members of the senate urging their foot supporters to fight. we showed you those videos not because we think you should be forcibly removed from office for saying those things, but because we know you should not be forcibly removed from office for saying those things. but recognise the hypocrisy. yesterday, in

questioning house manager raskin admitted that the house democrats had invented an entirely new legal standard. in fact, they have created a new legal theory. the raskin doctrine. the raskin doctrine is based on nothing more than determining protected speech based on the party label next to your name. regardless of what you have heard of what you have seen from the house managers, if you pay close attention, you will see that any speech made by democrat elected officials is protected speech, while any speech made by republican elected officials is not protected. the creation of the raskin doctrine actually reveals the weakness of the house managers case. elected

officials, and we reviewed this in—depth under supreme court precedent would in bond, and by the way, bond did not earn his draft card, he actually still had had, it was part of his defence. but in bond and in wood, the court clearly directed all to know that elected officials hold the highest protections of speech, the highest protections. and i remind you why because you all need to be free to have robust political discussion. because your discussion is about how our lives are going to go. and that should not be squelched by any political party on either side of the aisle, no matter who is the

majority party at the time. why would the house manager make up their own legal standard? i will tell you why. because they know they cannot satisfy the existing constitutional standard set forth by the united states supreme court that has existed for more than half a century. they argue mr trump, as an elected official, has no first amendment rights. it is the complete opposite. we have shown you, without contradiction, that is wrong. they also know that they cannot satisfy the three—part test of brandenburg as elucidate it in the bible believers case. there was absolutely no evidence that mr trump's words were directed to inciting imminent

lawless action. there was no evidence that mr trump intended his words to insight violence. and the violence was preplanned and premeditated by a group of lawless actors who must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, but it proves that his words were not what set this into motion. what was the incitement? with no ability and no evidence to satisfy the existing constitutional standards, want to be house managers to do? they had to make up their own law. this is not only intellectually dishonest, folks, it is downright scary. what type of precedent would be set if the senate did vote to convict? can congress now ignore supreme court precedent on the contours of

protected free speech? will congress be permitted to continually make up their own legal standards and apply those new standards to elected officials speech? this would allow congress to use the awesome impeachment power as a weapon to impeachment power as a weapon to impeach their fellow colleagues in the opposing party. this is not a precedent that this senate can set here today. if the senate endorses the house democrats absurd new theory, you will set a precedent that will trouble leaders from both parties. literally for centuries to come. but that will not be the only disgraceful precedent to come from this case. this has been perhaps the most unfair and flagrantly

unconstitutional proceeding in the history of the united states senate. for the first time in history, congress has asserted the right to try and punish a former president who is a private citizen. nowhere in the constitution is the power enumerating or implied. congress has no authority, no right and no business holding a trial of citizen trump, little loan a trial to deprive him of some fundamental civil rights. there was mention of a january exception argument. the january exception argument. the january exception argument is a creation of the house managers own conduct by delaying. they sat on the article. they could have tried the president while he was still in office if they really believed he was an imminent threat. they did

not. the january exception is a red herring. it is nonsense. because federal state and local authorities can investigate. they are january exception always expires onjanuary 20. house democrats and this deeply unfair trial have shamefully trampled every tradition, norm and standard of due process. in a way, i have never, ever seen before. mr trump was given no right to review the so called evidence against him at trial. he was given no opportunity to question its propriety. he was given no chance to engage in fact—finding. much of what

was introduced by the house was unverified, second or third hand reporting, cribbed from a biased news media, including stories based on a anonymous sources whose identities are not even known to them, never mind my client. they manufactured and doctored evidence, so much so that they had to withdraw it. we only had... we had the evidence after we started the trial. they went on for two days, so in the evening i was able to go back and take a really close look at the stuff. myself and mr castor and miss bateman and mr brennan, we all worked hard and looked at the evidence. fourvolumes worked hard and looked at the evidence. four volumes of books in little tiny print. and we...

literally, 12—14 hours to really look at the evidence before we had to go on. just in that short time of looking at the evidence, we saw them fabricating twitter accounts, we saw the man sitting at his desk with the new york times are. and when we looked closely, we found that the date was wrong, the cheque had been added. they fabricated evidence. they made it up. they never addressed that. in their closing. as though it were acceptable. as though it were all right. as though that is the way it should be done here in the way it should be done here in the senate of the united states of america. fraud. flat out fraud.

where i come from, and the courts that i practice and, there are very harsh rupert questions for what they pulled in this trial —— repercussions. as we have shown, the house managers were caught creating false representations of tweets. manipulating videos and introducing into the record completely discredited lies, such as the fine people hoax, as factual evidence. most of what the house managers have said and shown you would be inadmissible in any respectable court of law. they were not trying a

case, they were telling a political tail. a fable. and a patently false one at that. house democrats have denied due process and rushed the impeachment because they know that a fair trial would reveal mr trump's in a sense of the charges against him. the more actual evidence that comes out, the clearer it is that this was a preplanned and premeditated attack, which has language in the way incited. because their case is so weak, the house managers have taken a kitchen—sink approach to the supposedly single article of impeachment. they allege that mr trump incited the january six violence, they allege that he abused power by attempting to pressure georgia's secretary of state to undermine the results of the 2020 election, and they allege that he gravely and endangered the

democratic system by interfering with the peaceful transition of power. three things there. under the senate rules, each of these allegations must have been alleged in a separate article of impeachment. i need not remind this chamber that rule 23 of the rules of procedure and practice in the senate when sitting on impeachment trials provides impertinent part that an article of impeachment shall not be divisible there on. why is that? because the article at issue here alleges multiple wrongs in the single article it would be impossible to know if two thirds of the members agreed on the entire article orjust on parts of it, as

the basis for a vote to convict. based on this alone, the senate must vote to acquit mr trump. you have got to at least obey your own rules if it is not constitution you are going to obey. in short, this impeachment has been a complete charade from beginning to end. the entire spectacle has been nothing but the unhinged pursuit of a long—standing political vendetta against mr trump by the opposition party. as we have shown, democrats were obsessed with impeaching mr trump from the very beginning of his term. the house democrats tried to impeach him in his first year, they try to impeach him in his second year, they did impeach him in his third year, and they impeached him again in his fourth year. and now

they have conducted a phony impeachment show trial when he is a private citizen out of office. this hastily orchestrated and unconstitutional circus, as the house democrats final desperate attempt to accomplish their obsessive desire of the last five years. since the moment he stepped into the political arena, my client, since my client stepped in, they have been possessed by an overwhelming zeal to vanquish an independent minor outsider, to shame, to demean, silence and demonise his supporters. in the desperate hope that they will never, ever pose an electoral challenge. we heard one of the congressmen on the screen. if you do not impeach him,

he might be elected again. that is the fear. that is what is driving this impeachment. when you deliberate over your decision, there are four distinct grounds under which you must acquit my client. first, isjurisdiction. there is no jurisdiction. and if you believe that, you still get to see it. to, rule 23. it had to be divisible. each allegation had to be singularly set out in front of you so it could be voted on, and to see if two thirds of you think that they proved that case or not. they did not do that. you have got to ask yourself

why. they know the senate rules. they got them and so did i. why did they do it? because they had not investigated first of all, but also what they found out as they were preparing all of this they could not do it. so if they throw in as much as they could and made as many bold, bald allegations as they could, then maybe two thirds of you would fall for it. that is why the rules do not allow it to go that way. due process, i have exhausted that subject. it is a really good reason for all of you, all of you in this chamber to stop the politics, to read the constitution and apply it

to this proceeding, and acknowledge that the lack of due process way over the top. shocking. and you must not stand for it. and of course, the first amendment, the actual facts of this case. there were no words of incitement. nobody gets to tell you which ground to pick, and nobody gets to tell you how many grounds to consider. senators, do not let house democrats take this magical crusade any longer. —— maniacal. we do not have to redound the stark path of division. you do not have to indulge the impeachment lost, the dishonesty

and hypocrisy. it is time to bring this unconstitutional political theatre to an end. it is time to allow our nation to move forward. it is time to address the real business pressing this nation. the pandemic. our economy. racial inequality. economic and social inequality. these are the things that you need to be thinking and working on for all of us in america. all of us. with your vote, you can defend the constitution, you can protect due process, and you can allow america's healing to begin. i urge the senate to acquit and vindicate the

constitution of this great republic. thank you. constitution of this great republic. thank ou. . .,, constitution of this great republic. thank ou. . ., , thank you. that was the trump defence. essentially _ thank you. that was the trump defence. essentially telling - thank you. that was the trump l defence. essentially telling those 100 senators that they should acquit. 100 senators that they should acauit. ,, ., ., , , ., ., acquit. senators, i understand i am told we have _ acquit. senators, i understand i am told we have around _ acquit. senators, i understand i am told we have around 27 _ acquit. senators, i understand i am told we have around 27 minutes, i acquit. senators, i understand i aml told we have around 27 minutes, but i will return — told we have around 27 minutes, but i will return all of that, but perhaps _ i will return all of that, but perhaps five back to you. there are 'ust perhaps five back to you. there are just a _ perhaps five back to you. there are just a few _ perhaps five back to you. there are just a few things i need to address. so, just a few things i need to address. so. in _ just a few things i need to address. so. in an— just a few things i need to address. so, in an extraordinary and perhaps unprecedented act of self restraint on my— unprecedented act of self restraint on my part, i will resist the opportunity to rebut every single false _ opportunity to rebut every single false and — opportunity to rebut every single false and illogical thing that you 'ust false and illogical thing that you just heard, and i'm going to be able to return _ just heard, and i'm going to be able to return to— just heard, and i'm going to be able to return to you and perhaps 20 or 23 minutes — to return to you and perhaps 20 or 23 minutes. one, we have definitely made _ 23 minutes. one, we have definitely made some — 23 minutes. one, we have definitely made some progress in the last few days _ made some progress in the last few days a— made some progress in the last few days a few— made some progress in the last few days. a few days ago, the president's team, although i think

it was— president's team, although i think it was perhaps a member of a senseless _ it was perhaps a member of a senseless routine, lectured us that this was— senseless routine, lectured us that this was not an insurrection. —— teft _ this was not an insurrection. —— left the — this was not an insurrection. —— left the team. impeachment managers were outrageous in using the words insurrection. today, council and his closing _ insurrection. today, council and his closing statement said it was a violent— closing statement said it was a violent insurrection, and he denounced it. iwould violent insurrection, and he denounced it. i would certainly love to see _ denounced it. i would certainly love to see president trump also call it a violent— to see president trump also call it a violent insurrection and announce it. i a violent insurrection and announce it i believe. — a violent insurrection and announce it. i believe, although i do not have _ it. i believe, although i do not have a — it. i believe, although i do not have a verbatim text, that council called _ have a verbatim text, that council called for — have a verbatim text, that council called for long sentences for the people _ called for long sentences for the people who were involved. again, i would _ people who were involved. again, i would love — people who were involved. again, i would love to hear that come from the president, as well. the distinguished counsel complains that there is— distinguished counsel complains that there is no— distinguished counsel complains that there is no precedent with the developed body of law that the senate — developed body of law that the senate has for impeaching and convicting a president who incites violence — convicting a president who incites violence insurrection against the congress — violence insurrection against the congress and the government of the united _ congress and the government of the united states. well, i suppose that is true _ united states. well, i suppose that is true because it never occurred to

any other— is true because it never occurred to any other president of the united states. _ any other president of the united states, from george washington to john adams to thomas jefferson, james _ john adams to thomas jefferson, james madison, to james monroe, to abraham _ james madison, to james monroe, to abraham lincoln, to ronald reagan, to george _ abraham lincoln, to ronald reagan, to george w bush, to barack obama to incite a _ to george w bush, to barack obama to incite a violent insurrection against _ incite a violent insurrection against the union. you are right. we have _ against the union. you are right. we have got— against the union. you are right. we have got no— against the union. you are right. we have got no precedent for that. they think that _ have got no precedent for that. they think that that somehow is a mark in their favour — think that that somehow is a mark in their favour. that is a score for then — their favour. that is a score for then the _ their favour. that is a score for them. the senate has to be the first one to _ them. the senate has to be the first one to define incitement of violent insurrection against the union. and so, the _ insurrection against the union. and so, the gentleman puts it on me. he says. _ so, the gentleman puts it on me. he says. inciting — so, the gentleman puts it on me. he says, inciting the president for committing incitement to violence insurrection against the union is the new— insurrection against the union is the new raskin doctrine. we have tried _ the new raskin doctrine. we have tried to _ the new raskin doctrine. we have tried to convince him that there are well-known— tried to convince him that there are well—known principles tried to convince him that there are well— known principles and tried to convince him that there are well—known principles and elements of incitement, which we have talked to you _ of incitement, which we have talked to you about, and that this is an

intrinsically— to you about, and that this is an intrinsically inherently fact —based judgment. but if that is the raskin doctrine, _ judgment. but if that is the raskin doctrine, that he president of the united _ doctrine, that he president of the united states cannot incite violent insurrection against the union and the congress, then i embrace it, and i the congress, then i embrace it, and i take _ the congress, then i embrace it, and i take it _ the congress, then i embrace it, and i take it as— the congress, then i embrace it, and itake it as an— the congress, then i embrace it, and i take it as an honour. most professors never even get a doctrine named _ professors never even get a doctrine named after them. sol professors never even get a doctrine named after them. so i will accept that _ named after them. so i will accept that. finally, the council goes back tojulian _ that. finally, the council goes back tojulian bond's case, because i think— tojulian bond's case, because i think in— tojulian bond's case, because i think in the final analysis, their final— think in the final analysis, their final argument, as pathetically weak as it is, _ final argument, as pathetically weak as it is, is _ final argument, as pathetically weak as it is, is about first amendment. but remember, they'd keep talking about— but remember, they'd keep talking about cycling president trump's speech — about cycling president trump's speech. somebody tell me when his speech— speech. somebody tell me when his speech has— speech. somebody tell me when his speech has ever been stifled. he says whatever you want whenever he wants _ says whatever you want whenever he wants if_ says whatever you want whenever he wants. if and when you for incitement, he will continue to say whatever— incitement, he will continue to say whatever he wants on that day. remember that they referred yesterday to interference with his

liberty, _ yesterday to interference with his liberty, which i found absolutely bizarre — liberty, which i found absolutely bizarre. everybody knows that he will not _ bizarre. everybody knows that he will not spend one minute in prison oriail _ will not spend one minute in prison oriail from — will not spend one minute in prison orjail. from conviction on these charges — orjail. from conviction on these charges it— orjail. from conviction on these charges. it is a civil remedy to protect— charges. it is a civil remedy to protect all— charges. it is a civil remedy to protect all of us, to protect the entire — protect all of us, to protect the entire country, our children, our constitution, our future. that is what _ constitution, our future. that is what impeachment trial conviction are all— what impeachment trial conviction are all about. are all about. i knew julian— are all about. are all about. i knew julian bond, — are all about. are all about. i knew julian bond, so forgive me, most people _ julian bond, so forgive me, most people say— julian bond, so forgive me, most people say do not even respond to the stuff — people say do not even respond to the stuff i— people say do not even respond to the stuff. i have to respond to this _ the stuff. i have to respond to this. julian _ the stuff. i have to respond to this. julian bond was a civil rights activist _ this. julian bond was a civil rights activist who decided to go into politics. — activist who decided to go into politics, like the people in this room. — politics, like the people in this room. like _ politics, like the people in this room, like all of us who are in politics — room, like all of us who are in politics. they try to keep him out. he was— politics. they try to keep him out. he was a — politics. they try to keep him out. he was a member of the student nonviolent coordinating committee, which _ nonviolent coordinating committee, which really launched the voting rights _ which really launched the voting rights movement in america. it was a

great _ rights movement in america. it was a great story— rights movement in america. it was a great story that bob moses tells in his book. — great story that bob moses tells in his book, called radical equations. he was— his book, called radical equations. he was a _ his book, called radical equations. he was a graduate student and he went— he was a graduate student and he went down to mississippi. because he saw a _ went down to mississippi. because he saw a picture in the new york times of black— saw a picture in the new york times of black civil — saw a picture in the new york times of black civil rights protesters, college — of black civil rights protesters, college students, i think in north carolina — college students, i think in north carolina. he saw a picture of them and they— carolina. he saw a picture of them and they were sitting in at a lunch counter _ and they were sitting in at a lunch counter he — and they were sitting in at a lunch counter. he looked at the picture and he _ counter. he looked at the picture and he said, they looked the way that i_ and he said, they looked the way that i felt — he said he had to go south to mississippi. that is where the phrase — mississippi. that is where the phrase one person one vote comes from _ phrase one person one vote comes from it— phrase one person one vote comes from it was— phrase one person one vote comes from. it was not invented by the supreme — from. it was not invented by the supreme court. they will go door—to—door to try to register people — door—to—door to try to register people. julian bond was part of that movement, the student nonviolent coordination. it was the end and the

means, _ coordination. it was the end and the means, nonviolence.