mr. chairman i have 24 -- >> >> you are watching c-span, your unfiltered view of government. c-span was created by america's table -- cable television companies in 1979. today, we are brought you by these television -- by these television companies as a public service. >> coming up this morning on "washington journal," washington post reporter, and then alan dershowitz joins us to discuss the second impeachment trial of the present and a look

at economic impact of the pandemic with center for american progress senior fellow jocelyn frye. join us with your phone calls, facebook comments, text messages, and tweets. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: good morning. it is the "washington journal" for february 12. this morning, the president's legal defense team will counter the arguments of house impeachment managers. on the charge of incitement of right against former president trump. you can watch that on c-span, listen along on our free c-span radio app. we will take your calls. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats.

independents (202) 748-8002. if you wish to text us, you can do so at (202) 748-8003. post on twitter @cspanwj and on facebook. a lot of tweets this morning highlighting the strategy that the president's defense lawyers plan to take throughout the course of today. the defense team plans to show video today of the certification process surrounding the 2016 election when a handful of democrats objected to the electoral college results. she adds that the president's lawyers will focus on four key points on impeachment, that it is unconstitutional, there is no due process, it violates the first amendment, and it will not unify the country.

also that the pre-riot rally was planned. and that the president's words did not directly incite the attack. as far as the strategy is concerned, saying that they built a false dichotomy, after you condemn what he said, found him guilty, there is no middle ground. there is no possibility of thinking what he said was inappropriate. i happen to think if you analyze that speech, under no circumstance could it be incitement. when you use the word fight, it is clear they are talking about legislative fighting for our rights, people fighting to advocate, and people overlook the word peaceful. that is what to expect as the

president's defense team takes to the senate to make their case . you can watch that at noon on c-span2. when it comes to the highlights yesterday, the lead house impeachment managers talked about the original intent of impeachment, the current charges of incitement and the violent insurrection. [video clip] >> what greater offense could one commit then to incite a violent insurrection at our seat of government during the peaceful transfer of power? when a crowd is poised for violence, to provoke a mob of thousands to attack us with weapons and sticks come in to bludgeon and beat our law enforcement officers and deface these sacred walls and trash the place and to do so to stop us

from fulfilling our own oats, duties, to stop us from counting the votes from our free and fair elections and then to sit back and watch as insurrectionists attack us, violating a sacred oath and engaging in a profound dereliction of duty. how can we ensure our commander-in-chief will protect, preserve, and defend us and our constitution if we do not hold a president accountable? what is impeachable conduct if not this? if you think this is not impeachable, what is? what would be? president trump's lawyers endorse his breathtaking assertion that his conduct was totally appropriate and the senate acquits donald trump. any president could incite and provoke insurrectionary violence against us again.

if you do not find this a high crime in misdemeanor today, you have set a new terrible precedent for presidential misconduct in the u.s. did we prove that donald trump incited a violent insurrection against the government? incitement is fact-based, which is why we commend you all for your scrupulous attention for everything that took place. we believe we have shown you overwhelming evidence in this case that would convince anyone using their common sense that this was incitement, meaning donald trump's conduct encouraged violence, violence was foreseeable, and he acted willfully and the actions that encouraged violence. host: as far as reaction from

republican senators, senator john boozman, republican, will vote to acquit. he said thursday, saying the senate lacks jurisdiction, that does not keep the president from being charged in criminal court or civil court. this is to your call, democrats line, what did you think about yesterday's proceedings? caller: they are not going to do anything because he is too powerful, and they are too scared of him. they have ted cruz, lindsey graham last night coaching the attorneys for trump. you have got ron paul believing it is not justified. if it was a by partial jury, he

would be guilty. host: when you said they made their case, how do you think? caller: he never should have been there. he lost the election. hillary clinton lost by the same numbers. she did not do this. she might have said something, but she did not do this. she accepted the loss. if he accepted the loss, we would not be paying all this money for the capitol police. he told them to show up. host: stanley's point, it was reported by many sources about senators crews, graham, and lee meeting with the president's defense team. larry and maryland, republican line. caller: the house managers, it

is political theater. they don't have nothing. this is a deception. eric swalwell is connected to a chinese spy. diane feinstein is a chinese spy. host: when you set the house managers had nothing, what do you mean? caller: it is political theater. those guys did it on their own. one of the proud boys founders was an fbi informant before he founded the proud boys. biden is illegitimate. he is going to fall. the country will fall in 24 months. host: democrats line, st. louis, missouri. caller: hi. yeah. hi. these three guys met with trump's lawyers to tell them how to run the case.

people died from this. we have these two republicans. we all decided not to get them in again. never vote for these folks again because one of them is doing the paperwork. they got nobody. they are not going to convict him. they are going to take up for him. it is terrible for have a person like that. host: in new jersey, stella, good morning. caller: good morning. i feel compelled to preface my comments with the fact that i am not a trump supporter. i did not beaufort donald trump you'd i thought -- i did not support donald trump. i thought the house impeachment managers made an excellent case.

homeland security, the fbi, the house police, the d.c. police, all knew, trumps staff knew this group presented a clear and present danger to the capitol building, and yet it was left unprotected. my sincere question is why, with all of these entities knowing the clear and present danger, nothing was done in advance to defend the capitol? host: as far as the charge of incitement, how do you think the managers proved that? caller: i think if the capitol building was properly defended, was donald trump the only person authorized to put up fencing, to

call in the house police and d.c. police to prepare for this clear and present danger? i don't understand why the homeland security, the fbi? host: you made that point. independent line. caller: i did vote for trump. i think he did incite the riot. he incited the people. i have to say i understand the mob overran the capitol. it is getting to the point where it does not make sense anymore. they are going to acquit donald trump like they did in the first impeachment. this is a sham.

i wish they would get on with joe biden agenda and do it that way input efforts that way. let the guy go. he is no threat. he connected on social media. he cannot get on facebook. host: as far as the house impeachment managers, you said you thought the president incited the crowd. did they make that case and how? caller: i have to say that when i saw the d.c. police officer shoot that woman in the head, and she fell back, that was the one thing that sticks with me. actually, that lady died, and for what? for donald trump, to get them

into the capitol building. that bullet to the head is sickening. host: that is steve in illinois. one of the case managers bringing up aspects of the case against the president. talking about the president and what he describes as the president was eight dereliction of duty. -- president's dereliction of duty. [video clip] >> there are two parts of his dereliction of duty i have to emphasize for a moment. first, what he did to vice president mike pence. the vice president of the united states of america, his own vice president was in this building with an armed mob shouting "hang him." what did president trump do?

he attacked him more. he singled him out by name. it is honestly hard to fathom. second, our law enforcement. the brave officers who were sacrificing their lives to defend us, who could not evacuate or see cover because they were protecting us. i will not go through again what my fellow manager showed you yesterday. let me say this, those officers serve us faithfully and dutifully, and they follow their oath's. they deserve a president who upholds his, who would not risk their lives and safety to retain power, a president who would preserve, protect, and defend them, but that is not what he did. when they, the police, still

barricaded and being attacked, he said, in his video to the people attacking them, we love you. you are very special. what more could we possibly need to know about president trump's state of mind? host: that whole presentation, the previous two days, you can see on our website, c-span.org. the presence defense team -- presidents defense team expected to make their case. reports saying they will wrap up their case today, and then it will move into the next aspects before the final vote takes place. mark in maryland, democrats line. caller: good morning.

one thing that was made clear by the managers, said there was security cameras that monitor activity. those monitors are monitored by other security people, and we saw the second most powerful person in the country, the vice president and family, endangered. the third most powerful person, the speaker of the house, whisked away by security. the fbi is just a short distance away from congress. all of these security people, including the ones in the white house, talk to each other, yet there was no response. a dictator who directs a mob,

race riots in nashville and tulsa, the mob boss in the white house did nothing. host: how did those lead to the incitement charge? caller: i interrupted you. i apologize. host: i am asking you a follow-up question. you explained those things about the security cameras. how do you think it leads to the incitement charge? caller: they are bringing two things. the incitement charge, interruption of their constitutional process, and nothing was done. that is what they are saying. the jury needs to deliberate and wait until next week to decide. if the senate reads george washington's letter about transfer of power, and it will give security a mindset of their

own to hear from their constituents. host: that is mark. thank you for the call and perspective. we will go to tiny in texas, republican line. caller: this is nothing but a show the democrats are putting on. how dare them. host: what do you base that opinion on? let me ask you before you go on, what do you base that opinion on? caller: what do i base it on? all the writing and looting in the cities, when kamala harris was paying to get looters out of jail. what do i base it on? nobody wants to talk about that. host: what do you think about the incitement charge and why doesn't it hold up? caller: nobody want to hear

that. host: as far as the incitement charge, why does that relate to the lack of evidence as you see it? caller: because they plotted it all. if you all think conspiracy, yes, it was all preplanned by the democrats. host: phil in north carolina, independent line. caller: i would just like to say the people that were actually at the rally for trump that day were there because of all of the hate that the democratic party has inflicted on trump and republicans over the last four years. the democrats have been after trump to be ousted from office from day one. trump did not say anything insightful at the rally.

i think the mob is reacting after being pressed by the democrats over four years over all of the hate rhetoric that has been happening over the last four years. host: if it is not the president's fault, who do you place blame on? caller: i placed the blame on the hateful rhetoric the democrats have been using over the last four years. host: you are placing the blame on the democrats? caller: i am. host: let's go to chris in maine on our line for democrats. hello. caller: i am so baffled by some of the callers. if all you listen to is rush limbaugh, sean hannity, other right wing commentators, democrats hate freedom, america, the truth.

host: nobody knows for sure that any of the people listen to those people. what do you think? caller: it is so repetitive. they say the same things over and over again. the most telling part was when they talk about how governor whitmer and the michigan state house was raided by gangs of trump people, and trump egged them on. if you go in front of a crowd of people that are going to feed the homeless, and you say, let's fight like hell. they are probably not going to beat up homeless people. when rudy giuliani says we need a trial by combat, it is pretty obvious with that crowd of angry people is going to do. it is useful to compare the impeachment of bill clinton. there are 24 people in the senate who still voted on the impeachment of bill clinton.

they thought it was the worst thing in human history that bill clinton lied about an affair in a private disposition -- deposition. trump lying constantly and stirring up so much hatred for the american political process, the case is obviously proven. if all you listen is to right wing media, there is no case. host: george on our republican line, if i push the right button, george, go ahead. caller: good morning. if you look at the patter over the years and months leading up to this, and there are three things that prove. they say we showed up because of donald trump. he went for pence after that tweet.

when it was over, they asked them why they went home. trump told us to go home. it is a pattern of history. i am a republican. how can you talk like this? i don't follow somebody just because i am a republican blindly. host: when you say it is a pattern, direct your thoughts to january 6, and what do you think the president's role was? caller: he told them we have to fight. everything leading up to january 6, all the tweets, and the guy was right, sean hannity, rush limbaugh, all of them should be charged. they are the ones saying the election was stolen, these people have to fight for trump. it is ridiculous. trump is a con man. he always has been.

i am from new jersey. you know the way this guy has been his whole life. he has never done anything for anybody. anything he did when he was president, he just did it to make himself look better. he did not do it for america. host: mark is next, florida, democrats line. caller: i would like to know why when the first doors were breached and the glass was broken the capitol police did not start shooting and kill a bunch of them? when somebody comes into your house like that, you don't wait around to ask questions, you start shooting. host: how does that relate to the case of the house managers were trying to make yesterday? caller: they would have retreated, left the area, and gone down to ask trump. host: independent line, thomas,

nevada. caller: the report barack obama did on trump is treason. he tried to unseat the president. the truth is out there. why is nobody talking about that? washington motivated his soldiers to fight the british. let's relax. not the same as what trump said. why was nancy pelosi not there, but her computer was? host: when it comes to the incitement charge, what do you think about the case made by the managers? caller: i don't think it holds any water. you can tell people whatever you want. it does not mean they have to do it. i think that woman earlier, it was done by the democrats.

trump ever since he became president, they are still trying to impeach him. host: you think the president's rhetoric on that day had no impact on the crowd? caller: absolutely not. there were lots of people marching peacefully. they were there to support him. you can tell anybody, i don't even know what his words were. that does not mean -- it is like rhetoric. you just said yourself. it is rhetoric. i believe there were paid agitators. that is what i believe. they have been trying to impeach him ever since he was president. they are still trying. host: that is thomas in las vegas. as far as reactions from other members of the senate on the republican side, the new york times captures things they said.

"my view is changed as to whether or not he had the authority to do this. i'm not bound or go that was -- i am not bound." "what happened on january 6, it was a crime. the fundamental question for me is i don't know about anybody else whether an impeachment trial is appropriate for someone who is no longer in office. " it was senator rick scott filling out a blank map of asia. thom tillis retreated to the cloakroom to read on his phone.

jim inhofe, republican of oklahoma, saying the managers are losing credibility the longer they talk. arlington, virginia, republican line. caller: i was going to vote for trump until the monday before the election, and then i switched to another candidate. it was not biden. democrats have screwed up on this situation. they put up a single charge of incitement, and i am pretty sure the lawyers will show today that trump clearly had language that said go peacefully and let your voices be heard. the overwhelming majority of the people that went down there,

like you heard, black lives matter demonstrate -- black lives matter demonstrations, the overwhelming majority were peaceful. the thing that bothered me was they could not put in a censure resolution on the basis of dereliction of duty. he should have supported pence and the congressional leadership by picking up the phone, asking what he could do to help out. he sat back and did not do anything. that was a reasonable thing to be censured for, not impeached, now they are trying to add that on, but it is too late. host: that is john in arlington, virginia, talking about possible extensions. the daily caller saying senate

majority leader chuck schumer was invoking the 14th amendment to ban president trump from office. he did not say he was against the idea when asked if he would introduce legislation to ban trump from running, saying we are going to finish the impeachment trial, and then democrats will discuss where we go next. there is more there at the daily caller website. one of the senators still in the deliberative process, senator tommy tuberville, this is jake sherman of politico reporting that senator tuberville said multiple times he is open-minded and has not made up his mind on whether to vote to convict preston trump, but he is going to look at the facts. that is followed up by a tweet -- sorry for the clicking.

that was sent by brian lyman, reporter for the montgomery advertiser and posts this on his twitter feed, tempora built is open to conviction, someone should tell his fundraising team. it highlights an ad, saying i'm standing up and fighting to acqu it. you can find that on brian lyman's twitter feed. jane in georgia, democrats line. caller: good morning, pedro, and thank you to c-span. it goes without saying that the house managers overwhelmingly provided evidence that trump incited this riot. these set of republicans who will vote not to convict are

doing this strictly for job security. they know if they vote yes to convict, trump steam -- trump's team will use all that donated money to find the most egregious far-right candidates to primary in the 2022 midterms and beyond. if these republicans were so confident in their ability to serve the nation, they would stand up to trump and release the control he has over them. it is job security and party security. i do not like what about is him -- aboutism and what if. i ask these republicans that support trump, if they were to replace trump's name with obama and biden, would they defend

obama and biden as they defend trump? host: you said the managers made an overwhelming case. give me a specific how. caller: the video evidence, when they did the side-by-side, what was going on in the capitol, outside the capital, inside the capitol, trump's tweets --i am losing my train of thought. i did not expect you to ask me a question. host: i just wanted to get your sense. people hear the argument. i am wondering which one weighed more in your mind. caller: it was trump's inaction during the siege, police saying

you have the voice, you can stop these insurrectionists from continuing to hunt down mike pence, nancy pelosi, and everyone, and he did not do that. if anything, when mike pence was being escorted out, trump sent a tweet saying that he failed. to me, trump was actively participating in harming mike pence. that, for me, was very damn ing. host: watching those last two days of proceedings, you can see them on c-span.org. if you go to the website, there is a special section where we have lined up all the impeachment related articles and information. today, the house managers

finished up yesterday. today, the president's defense team steps up to make their defense of the president on the charge of incitement. here to walk us through what to expect, jaclyn all meaning, thank you for joining us. guest: thank you for having me. host: as far as -- before we go into the house impeachment managers and what to expect -- as far as what to expect the next two days. guest: shock and horror and disgust with a lot of the video footage they have been forced to watch, but few mines changed. there are only six senators that appear open to convicting donald trump, and senator bill cassidy is the only senator who has

actually switched his vote since that vote against the constitutionality of the trial before the start of the trial, and then he switched that vote to in favor of the constitutionality of the trial. so far, no other republicans have come forward and said they believe the president has committed impeachable offenses. there have been glowing reviews about the performance of house impeachment managers who laid out the case for why president trump deserves to be convicted of impeachment and barred from running for office ever again, ending with the concluding message that he is a threat to democracy, and if he does take office, and there is political violence, the only people to blame are the jurors sitting in

that chamber. host: what is their expected strategy today? caller: they are planning -- guest: they are planning on a truncated defense. they are only going to use one of the two days for their defense. we will see more of the arguments they have laid out in brief summary. the fact that trump did not commit the actions, and that this trial is unconstitutional, therefore the senate lacks jurisdiction. and that trump is protected by the first amendment, that he has the right to say the things he said and the results of the election, and is not guilty of inciting insurrection. host: we saw a video being used by the impeachment managers. will that strategy be employed by the president's team?

guest: we have supporting showing that the president was unhappy with his team's performance on the first day of the trial, and then they were scrambling to put together a presentation more in line with what we are seeing from house impeachment managers, very polished and highly produced montage of the videos and compelling evidence. we know that previously the president's defense team resisted going high-tech and modernizing their presentation and using slides and images. that might be because there is not much visual evidence that favors the president. they were scrambling to put together a more polished presentation. we will see if that pans out. this is potentially a defense that is aimed at pleasing this president right now because his acquittal seems all but

predetermined. host: some sharp criticisms from the first day on their opening arguments. what pressures faced them for those republican senators they have to convince? guest: i think there is a lobar. -- low bar. they just need to get the defense done, not make too many errors, probably not praise the house impeachment managers again, which we saw bruce castor due monday. he was rambling. what we heard from republican senators is he did not address the heart of the matter, which is the trial is unconstitutional. today, though senators are hoping they state targeted and -- stay targeted and focused on that matter. when the senators are forced to cast their vote, likely in favor

of acquitting, it does bolster the arguments they have been making from a political standpoint, but i think the expectations are not that high right now. host: assuming they finish today, walk us through what is next. guest: if they finish today, there will be a vote on whether or not the house impeachment managers are going to call witnesses. that is still being debated in a public sense, but i think democrats have their minds made up that they want to proceed, and they have presented is much evidence as possible and made as compelling a case as possible without witnesses. there are some democrats and republicans who feel witnesses could be valuable and potentially changing minds. they think calling people like

officer goodman to provide firsthand testimony could be compelling because it undercuts the law & order messaging we often see from republicans if we have a police officer recounting violence and potentially president trump's culpability in that violence in a senate impeachment trial. what we are hearing from democrats is that this is all but a lost cause. there is little indication that any republicans are going to change their minds. the witness card, that is still tbd. in the case that they move on and do not call witnesses, we could have an acquittal of president trump by tomorrow. host: to your piece today you talked about the role mitch

mcconnell might have in all of this. can you elaborate on that? guest: mitch mcconnell is straddling an interesting line. it is clear that they have not spoken since december 15. they still have not spoken. you have seen mcconnell explicitly blame president trump for the january 6 insurrection and condemn him for his false claims of election fraud and express how horrified he has been by the president's behavior, and he has blamed president trump for the loss of the republican senate majority. that is something he pins on president trump. all that being said, this is still the senate majority leader, someone who prides himself as a consensus builder and who has voted against impeaching the president in that

vote about the constitutionality of the trial and earlier this week when he voted with his caucus against proceeding with the trial on the grounds that it is not constitutional to impeach a former president. he has also said he is still open to impeaching donald trump and voting to convict him. he is trying to be an impartial juror. it is a dramatic contrast to the position he took in the first impeachment, when he said he was not an impartial juror. mitch mcconnell said at the end of the day he is torn between protecting the legacy of conservatism, the republican party, something he has spent his career working on, but also protecting his caucus and the

will of his members. host: this is jaclyn, the author of the power up news article you can see every morning. you can find that at washingtonpost.com. guest: thank you for having me. host: some reaction coming from kristin, the case was well done and educational. not being afraid that trump would run again and win, but if he loses, how many lives would be lost? incitement was not proven. trump's mob is a conflation that assumes what is still to be proven. george says the trial is a waste of time come and he will not be found guilty of high crimes. this is a political game by democrats.

this should not be impeachment. it should be a simple criminal trial. let's hear from bill in maryland. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. just one observation before i share my thoughts. it seems that you interrogate the more uninformed trump supporters more so than you do the uninformed liberals. i just want to throw that out for your consideration. i like the follow-up questions. i would welcome a follow-up question. it seems like cutting somebody off when they first start and interrogating does not seem like a good moderator. host: i interrogate everybody. go ahead. before i go on, and i apologize, i just want to show the white house, the president and first lady taking a walk around the

grounds. sorry for the interruption. go ahead. caller: i have not been able to watch this or listen to much of it. you have asked several times if trump is not responsible for the incitement, who is? when you look at five years of attacks on trump supporters, beginning with the basket of deplorables and all of the stuff they have done to attack him and those of us who support him, that is incitement in its own right. i cannot look into everything, but it seems to me i have heard there were 60 court cases, 59 thrown out, but there was never a trial of the allegations come in there were a lot of allegations, affidavits, video,

the circumstantial evidence of covering windows and keeping observers away. if the court system had done its job and had an open, fair, public trial and given those of us who question the results of this election the opportunity to view the evidence, maybe we would not be in a position where people are resorting to political violence. host: then you have to consider the events of january 6, and that is what is being considered by house impeachment managers. what do you think of their charge of incitement? caller: like i said, i have not been able to watch this. it is political theater. i would like to see the republican defense layout the case and really defend trump. the idea that you shout fire in

a crowded theater, well, if the theater is on fire, you should let the other people know that it is on fire. to me, there was a lot of smoke and some fire. he was calling it out. host: apologize. we will let you go. ohio, democrats line, louise. caller: i just want to say, i am waiting to hear from trump's lawyers to make my decision, but i wish, and i know it is too late, i wish that cruz and hawley and the other ones you have already mentioned in the paper you read, what all they were doing during the presentations, i just wish, and this morning, by the way, i don't know how true it is, don't know what is true anymore, i heard that cruz was tweeting

about breast-feeding. it is like, what? this was during the presentation yesterday. i was a republican. i am a senior citizen. i am not their mother. i am disappointed in cruz and hawley and the other stuff going on. i am a nobody. they should be the one listening to both sides. host: you said you wanted to wait to hear from the trump defense team. what are you looking for as far as formation you want to hear from them? caller: whatever -- i think his name is ramekin -- whatever he said at the end of the presentation. please answer these points.

i just want to hear something from them. like the caller before me, i did listen to the trump lawyers, and, wow. i agree with cruz when he said how bad they were that first day. wow. host: to louise's point, the house impeachment managers, the lead manager, questions to president trump's defense team in their efforts to testify on president trump's behalf. [video clip] >> donald trump turn down our intention to testify for his actions. during the course of their 16 hour allotted presentation, we would propose these poor

luminary questions to his lawyers, which i think are on everybody's minds right now, which we would have asked mr. trump himself if he chose to come to testify about his actions and inactions. why did president trump not tell his supporters to stop the attack on the capitol as soon as he learned of it? why did president trump do nothing to stop the attack for at least two hours after the attack began? as our constitutional commander-in-chief, why did he do nothing to send help to our overwhelmed law enforcement officers for at least two hours on january 6 after the attack began? why did president trump not at any point that day condemned the

violent insurrection and the insurrectionists? i will add a legal question, if a president did invite a violent insurrection against our government, if a president incited a violent insurrection against our government, would that be a high crime and misdemeanor? can we all agree on that? host: if you go to thehill.com, there is a story that highlights a piece politico published. just to give you a couple of lines from the hill, the former ambassador issued stunning remarks breaking with the former president, telling politico friday that she believes he let us down. haley served as ambassador under trump, we went under a path we

should not have come and we should not have followed him. we cannot let that happen again. haley's remarks are the strongest yet against the president. that is the hill. if you go to politico, you can see that full interview at their website. tim in rochester, new york. caller: hi. how you doing? this question is about trump on january 6. it was not him that was saying codewords. it was his son. i think mo brooks from alabama. trump is not going to tell people to go berserk and go crazy. it is just codewords. they the one hyping the crowd up. host: so the president is not guilty of incitement? caller: no, he is guilty.

he just had them do it. he let them get everybody riled up, trial by combat, all this stuff. we coming after you. it is ridiculous. one more thing, like he said, trump runs, he is going to lose again. i hope he win again so he can lose. i hope it is no more violence. host: he mentioned senator lewis, part of his presentation. [video clip] >> president trump spent months inflaming his supporters to incite an attack on our capitol and law enforcement and all of us. then he lied to his face to tell him this was ok, that this was acceptable, and that is why president trump is so dangerous

because he would have all of us, all americans believe that any president who comes after him can do exactly the same thing. that is why it lack of remorse is an important factor in impeachment because impeachment, conviction, and disqualification is not just about the past. it is about the future. it is making sure that no future official, no future president does the same exact thing president trump does. president trump's lack of remorse shows he will undoubtedly cause future harm if allowed because he still refuses to account for his previous high crime against our government. i'm not afraid of donald trump running again in four years. i'm afraid he is going to run again and lose because he can do this again.

host: that is representative ted lieu from california, one of the house impeachment managers. see the presentations on our website at c-span daughter -- c-span.org. if you go to the impeachment section, you can find everything leading up to the second impeachment trial on the website. when it comes to viewers that watched the events of the last couple of days, the new york times reporting that more than 12 million people have watched live television coverage of the second impeachment trial of former president donald trump, an audience larger than the one for the first trial a little more than a year ago. 12.4 million tuned into the three major cable news networks tuesday afternoon when prosecutors started making their case. 11 million watched the opening arguments in the impeachment trial of january 21, 2020.

last year, viewership fell to 8 million on the second day. nbc's figures are not yet available, 12.3 million viewers according to nielsen. that is just some of the television watchers when it comes to those events. we white all of you -- we invite all of you to watch on our network. 12:00 noon is when you can start watching today's proceedings featuring the president's defense team. if you need to watch it on your computer, c-span.org. maybe you want to listen along as you go about your day. we invite you go to your device and download the free c-span radio app. i will take about a half-hour more of your calls on this topic. if you wish to make your thoughts known, (202) 748-8001

for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. independents (202) 748-8002. republican line, paul from fort lauderdale. caller: that jamie raskin talked about the lies donald trump had. let me tell you what the biggest lie is. the republicans are in favor of violence and rioting. leading up to this election from the democrats fostered a culture of violence and rioting, and in many of the democrat cities, it is still going on. there are still buildings being burned. if you want alive, there is one for you, and that woman that appeared on your show, i wish i would have appeared. i would have let her have it. she is saying we must prevent the american people from

electing the president that they want. there is nothing more totalitarian about that. host: i think she was only presenting what was being heard over the case being made by senators the last couple of days. go ahead. caller: what is really dangerous is the squelching of debate. there is no real debate going on. there is no openness. for someone like that to appear on your show without being countered by someone else who has different views. host: we invited her on to account what happened yesterday and what is going to happen in the days ahead. in this case, no debate needed. what did you think of the events of the last couple of days? caller: investigated for the voting fraud and the machines, this will not go away. mark my words. host: ok. andre is in maryland, glendale. caller: good morning.

thank you. i think the president incited him not responding to it also should be a charge. there is evidence he incited this insurrection. also, could he be tried twice? could he be tried in a regular court for criminal charges? i don't know if that is possible. host: some senators said that is a route that could be pursued. back to the charge of incitement, why do you think the case made by the house managers holds up? caller: because they said this is a steel. you tell people this is a steal and ask them to stop the

steal, it is telling them to take action. if you tell me something [inaudible] i have the duty to defend it. he knew the country was not being stolen. he was losing the election. i think in that way he was inciting them to go and carry this act. a lot of people tried to compare that with the black lives matter protesters. the difference is the current president -- whether the majority was peaceful and we condemned the violence, republicans don't condemn any violence. even the part that was violent. the democrats did condemn.

the current president now did condemn the violent part in clear words. he said he does not agree with them committing crimes. host: that is andre. hendersonville. this is cindy. caller: good morning. our country is so divided over everything now. i think a lot of this stems out because of covid. everybody has been shut in. everybody's tensions are high. i wish everybody would calm down and look at the facts. in 2017, raskin protested the election and said in his own words let's fight for our democracy. yes, words matter. but let's get to the facts and the truth.

host: the fact of the matter is january 6 is under consideration. what you think about the charge against the president? caller: it all stems out on stealing a the vote. if you look at all the rallies trump has had, 20 30,000 -- 20,000, 30,000 in a group, and they even picked up their trash when they left. i voted republican. we are not violent people. trump is still speaking any d he used the word fight. nobody plate on the democratic side in their presentation the whole truth. they took soundbites. they had a big hollywood production to do that. i just think everybody needs to calm down and go by the law.

host: that is cindy in north carolina. ohio, rosalie. republican line. caller: i watched the whole thing as it was going on. it was absolutely ridiculous. but donald trump had no voice. how was he going to get in there? do you think they will take a tv set or put twitter on there to yell to the people, don't riot, don't write it. thank -- riot. think about it. how could anybody listen? host: he made a video talking about the events of the day directly addressing his crowd. could he have done that earlier? caller: how many people rioting could see his message? get real. those people would not have

listened because they couldn't hear it. it makes no sense. host: go ahead. that is rosalie in ohio. wall street journal reporting when it comes to the proud boys, saying five elected members arrested over this attack. kansas resident william testerman and three others in missouri. allegations that five people coordinated their efforts to advance together on the capitol grounds dressed in tactical gear. according to several of mr. chesterman's friends, he developed more radical views over the years. they said before his facebook page was deleted he posted conspiracy theories about vaccines and qanon and engaged with people in heated online debates. go to the new york times.

another group being profiled as far as the events, the oath. -- the oath keepers. it included allegations a member of the militia group was " awaiting direction for mr. trump." "potus has the right to activate units too," jessica watkins wrote on november 9 according to court papers. "if trump asks me to come, i will." tim in tucson, arizona. caller: i keep thinking back to the testimony that congress -- that lawyer michael cohen. he said his boss, mr. trump, had an uncanny knack for making it

known what he wanted without ever saying it. one of the committee members just asked him point-blank, did trump tell you to write that check? he said it is hard to explain. trump never comes right out and tells you to do anything. but he has some charisma, some code. host: how does that relate to january 6? caller: i wish the house managers had hit on that more. the parsing of words like fight does not necessarily mean violence and things like that. it won't cut it with whether or not trump communicated exactly what he wanted. this guy testified. he was hard-pressed to give a quote. a verbatim -- sort of like a jailhouse circumspection, if you will. he just knew exactly how to let

it be known what he wanted without using the words. host: alexandria, virginia. independently. -- independent line. caller: i think this country is in trouble right now. both parties are trying to score political points. concerning trump, i think the bar is so low with him. i don't like him. i think his supporters -- host: do you think he was guilty of incitement or not? caller: i think so. he is mocking people. bullying them. they find it funny. i don't think it is funny.

someone bullying your children or parents in front of you. i don't think you will find it funny. the turkish president, he will go along with him. he is behaving like dictators. -- after killing jamal khashoggi. after cutting him into pieces. host: how does that relate to january 6? caller: everyone on twitter knew there would be a mob on the sixth of january. everyone knew. the police were not ready. the capitol police were not ready. you can say it was staged. they knew they were coming and they just wanted them to go in. host: when it comes to the idea

of witnesses, the potential of not having witnesses, most likely that will not happen. a little bit from the washington post about some of the reasonings why that is. the managers eye testimony from single officials such as mark short, chief of staff to mike pence. they concluded they would run into a legal thicket trying to compel participation. they canvas federal agencies with additional details of what happened on in around january 6 but made little headway. what option that appears exceedingly unlikely is ther calling of theioter -- is the calling of the rioters themselves. at least one, known as the q shaman, has offered to testify at the impeachment.

his attorney said in an interview he has been offering his client's testimony for weeks but no one involved has responded. he said that was a mistake. in short, they have to prove but for the words and actions of the president, those who walked down pennsylvania avenue and entered the capital would not have done so. otherwise everything is hearsay. let's go to spanish fork, utah. democrats line. frank. caller: i have a question and the comment. i tuned in for the program. did i hear three of the republican senators were conferring with president trump's defense team? host: that has been reported in several outlets. caller: they are supposed to be acting as jurors, aren't they? host: that is the role, yes. caller: have you ever seen a

trial before where members of the jury confer with the prosecution or the defense? rather than just sitting in the jury box and listening to both sides? host: i believe that. i will let others answer that if they wish. missy on the republican line. jennifer jacobs reporting this morning that jason miller mentioning mike lee, ted cruz and lindsey graham were with the president. they came to the impeachment, is war room -- his war room to help the lawyers. it was an honor for them to give us additional ideas. that is the reporting of jennifer jacobs. missy, thanks for waiting. caller: that's really interesting. i wanted to make a comment. hopefully the impeachment

managers would get a chance to realize what americans are listening to. especially out here in the middle of america. they are listening to fox news and right-wing media. it is really destroying our country honestly. it is sad because families are fighting. they can't go to holidays together. one family is on one side. when trump came to washington -- what trump came to washington to do, he did. they have done everything they can to just poke at all these different areas. it is hard to explain. host: what you think about the actions of january 6 which is under consideration in the senate? caller: january 6. not everybody there went up to the capital to storm it -- capitol to storm it. democrats have to be careful

when they say trump supporters as a monolith because they are not a monolith. some voted because they are sick of the system, sick of watching jobs go. they are mad. they voted for obama but because they so hope. hope was dashed so they voted for trump because they saw something else. you have to be careful you speak to them. you have to reach them in places that democrats are not going, like fox news. especially during the impeachment trial, fox went away from the programming, from the impeachment and is showing the video of what happened. people who watch fox do not see videos like that. they do not hear -- host: i will tout our own network's coverage. we will not pull away and show you everything that takes place when it starts at noon eastern standard time.

c-span2, where you normally watch the senate anyway if this was a normal week of proceedings. you can watch it there. you can go to c-span.org and listen to the radio app if you want to listen along. south carolina, stephen. caller: how are you doing this morning? a couple of things. the independent line. i live in south carolina. very red state. i voted for tim scott multiple times. he is one of the few republicans i have voted for. on certain occasions i would vote republican. i am a true independent. the last two independent callers have not been. they have been very republican. i find it offensive. that is part of the problem with the republican party. they don't like to follow the rules. as far as january 6 goes, vice

president pence. his exit is down the stairwell -- exodus down the stairwell. if you look at president trump's tweets, they all coordinate. there is a reason behind that. he called pence almost a traitor. trump walks a tight rope. he knows just how far he can go and does not quite cross that line. host: do you think he crossed the line into incitement? caller: severely. how so? lack of tweets. 90% of the time he is tweeting all day long. i don't mean that everyday but on a regular basis he puts out a lot of tweets a day. i think you put out five or six. very few tweets. a lady said, how could he possibly stop it? like you said, a video. they followed his tweets

religiously. it is like god is talking to them. nikki haley. who was my governor. i have a little bit of a clue about her. i think she did a good job in south carolina. she brought a lot of industries here. she has finally found a bit of a backbone today. i want to thank her. host: you are referencing the article she is highlighted in? caller: i am. with that last lady said about family. right now my brother, my sister and i can't even be in the same room. we have come to the point where we dislike each other because of this whole political thing. i know we are not the only ones. it is done intentionally. there is a term called divide and conquer. if you can divide us, you can conquer us. that is what this man has done.

host: stephen and south carolina. gary from maryland. caller: how are you doing, pedro? i have been listening to your show for a while now. [indiscernible] host: is there a way of getting closer to your microphone? we are hearing a lot of car noise. caller: yes. i do believe president trump has incited that crowd. the democrats did a marvelous job with the information they provided in the trial. i also want to say the part where everybody is concerned about when trump said peacefully, that can be used against him also. the fact of the matter is when he said it -- the people went down there as a mob. he never said -- he had no

remorse about them doing the things they did. yes, he did say go down there peacefully. they never did and he never tried to stop them from going down there. when the congressmen were calling for him to help, he never helped. the evidence is right there. whether he said peacefully and fight for your rights and all that, hey, get all ties together. host: gary in maryland. people are traveling in the metro area. you can text us if you want. (202) 748-8003. phone lines are available for the next few minutes. twitter and facebook also available if you want to post your thoughts there from the wrapping of the second aim the house impeachment managers.

among them, diana degette making the case about insurrectionists and how they were incited. [video] >> the president told them to be there. they actually believed they would face no punishment. the defense argued in their briefs, and the argued again here on tuesday that the insurrectionists were acting on their own. they were not incited by president trump or acting in his direction -- at his direction. "they did so of their own accord and for their own reasons and are being criminally prosecuted." but that is not the case. it is now with the insurrectionists actually said. they said they came here because the president instructed them to do so. leading up to the attack, the insurrectionists said they were

coming to d.c. for president trump. he invited them with clear instructions for a specific time and place, and with clear orders. stop the fight -- fight to stop the certification in congress by any means necessary. the crowd at donald trump's speech echo and chanted his words. when people in the crowd followed his directions and marched to the capital, they chanted the same words as they breached the building. let's return to the speech for a moment. during the rally president trump led the crowd in a stop the steal chant. here is what that chant sounded like from the crowd's perspective. >> all of the people came up with, we will stop the steal. [cheering] >> stop the steal, stop the

steal. >> soon after the president basked as the crowd chanted, "fight for trump." people responded. they stormed the capital, invaded the capital. here are both of those moments but from the crowd's perspective. >> [crowd chanting "fight for trump."] >> thank you. >> yes. [cheering] >> invaded capitol building. -- invade the capitol building. host: that was part of the final

day of the house impeachment managers' presentation. jeffrey. caller: thank you for taking my call. there is so much i am taking in on your program this morning. the most important thing that's important is how they are presenting the case as you stated, or the followers listening to this. there is the senate as a jury. they are hearing definitive evidence from his tweets, his own statements he made on tv. it was a call. from that point on he has not once spoken about the death number that was increasing with covid. it was irrelevant. it was not even important anymore. to have all these educators, these people that are elected and those positions to be able

to answer his team make their assessment of this and say we don't find what this tragedy was on january 6 was definitely a tragedy all the way around. and to have them vote for non-impeachment, what is the point of us wanting to have a democracy? host: that is jeffrey in north carolina. one of those senators that came into close consideration after the vote to proceed with the trial was senator bill cassidy, republican of louisiana. a website says senator cassidy has been censured by the east baton rouge parish of the gop. you can find it at their website. senator cassidy going up of four cameras yesterday about the house -- going up in front of the cameras yesterday but the house impeachment case. [video]

>> there were a few things they laid out with great care. the timeline in which you see events unfold. and during that timeline the president's inaction in calling out support for the police officers. you hear the police officers say -- go back. you will hear from officer 50 in a panic stricken voice. they are using weapons on us. the president was calling to try to get more senators to decertify the election. presumably, since we were at that point being evacuated and he was told that, there was some awareness of the events. what i hope the defense does is explain that. one charge is you should have called off people and you didn't even know it was clear the police officers were under assault.

please explain that. i think the other thing i want to hear the defense speak to, because the house managers made much of this, is that the president continued to say the election was stolen. people back home squared emitting machines -- swear dominion machines were rigged, even though they were printed retractions and apologies then otherwise disassociated themselves from that story. that clearly had an impact. when the point was made people felt they had no recourse because their vote was being stolen, the president built that story. how do you defend that? people will still be telling me that dominion had rick machines. -- rigged machines.

ask me after i hear the defense arguments. your mind is persuaded but you should hear the other side. somewhere in proverbs chapter 10. >> 's remind persuaded but you need to hear the other side? >> you don't make a decision as a juror until you hear both sides, period. that is why if you asked that question, i don't make a decision until i hear the other side. host: jennifer jacobs adding it was the president's advisor jason miller doing an interview on newsmax television saying this about senator cassidy. "it would be tougher senator cassidy to sway back the other direction after what was put on today." devoted for five other republicans of the president's impeachment trial. is that constitutional?

previewing what is expected today by the president's defense team that will take their place at noon. bill in new jersey on the independent line. caller: good morning. i take the democratic party -- nancy pelosi, adam schiff, jerry nadler, chuck schumer -- those people should be charged with malfeasance of office. from the date president trump was elected they did everything they could to try to come up with some way to impeach him. and now as he has left office they are trying to impeach him. these people have abused their office in an illegal manner and told so many lies. i'm not saying president trump is a perfect individual. none of us are. but these people are not using

their office in a proper way. host: and the charge of incitement, doesn't hold or not? -- does it hold or not? caller: i don't think it does. i think the congress and senate have to take a lot of responsibility for what happened on january 6. the people are fed up with these moneygrubbing, dishonest people that come on tv and spout lies and words against logic all the time. the people are fed up with them. host: bill finishing off his round of calls concerning the impeachment trial. you will have a chance to do so in the last half-hour of the program. we will talk about was going on this week in the senate with our next guest, alan dershowitz, who wrote "the case against

impeaching trump." we will get his thoughts on what has been going on. later on in the program we will talk about issues concerning women in the workforce, and what's going on due to covid. that is jocelyn frye joining us for that discussion. more coming up on washington journal. ♪ >> the senate impeachment trial continues today at noon when former president trump's lawyers present their case against the charge of inciting an insurrection. watch live coverage of the senate impeachment trial at noon eastern on c-span2, c-span.org, or listen on the c-span radio app. if you miss any of the proceedings, watch any time on demand at c-span.org/ impeachment. >> book tv on c-span2 has top

nonfiction books and authors every weekend. saturday night, the president of the national association of scholars on his book " 1620: a critical response to the 1619 project." on sunday on afterwards, former president of -- heather mickey with her book, "what racism -- the sum of us." watch book tv this weekend on c-span2. >> washington journal continues. host: joining us is alan dershowitz, author of the book "the case against impeaching trump," professor emeritus from harvard. thank you for joining us.

guest: i think they will answer their effective arguments made by my law student jamie raskin. jamie raskin made a clever argument. he said the senate has already decided to have jurisdiction. you senators have no right to consider that your vote. you must vote as if the senate had jurisdiction. that is just wrong. it is clever but wrong. the senators have a right to vote to acquit on either ground. either on the ground they don't agree the senate has jurisdiction or on the ground even if it has jurisdiction, the speech was protected and all the speeches were protected by the first amendment. in the famous belknap case where a cavity memory was put on trial, 23 senators who voted the senate did not have jurisdiction voted for acquittal on the

ground the senate did not have jurisdiction. they repeated their original vote. most of them thought belknap was guilty as could be as the impeachment from the house was unanimous. they repeated the vote there was no jurisdiction. if i the president's lawyers i would emphasize the fact there is no jurisdiction. i read from the constitution. the president and all civil officers shall be removed by impeachment. that seems very clear the senate has jurisdiction only over the president. trump is not the president. the chief justice asserted that when he refused to preside over the trial. the senate has no jurisdiction. i would focus on that argument and move to the first amendment argument. the one argument i would stay away from is the augment senator cassidy just raised on your

show, namely the election was stolen or not stolen. they would lose that. the election was not stolen. trump was wrong. i don't defend trump's speech at all. i think it was an appalling speech but i defend his right to make an appalling speech under the first amendment. they should not fall into the trap of trying to defend trump on the merits of his speech, only on the first minute. i think it will get there one third plus one that precludes a conviction by the senate and precludes his being disqualified. host: over the last two days, did they make their case for incitement? guest: no, i think they made a case for as many of them said that the president invited the people to go to the white house. there's a big difference between inviting and inciting. incitement is shouting fire in a crowded theater. everybody leaves. that is not a message to the mind, it's a message to the legs.

the president spoke to thousands of people. some went and someone home. of those who went, some broke in and some didn't. some committed violence, some didn't. that is not incitement. that's an invitation. when the president said peacefully and patriotically, it makes it clear what he was doing was asking them to protest with their voices. what happened in the capital was inexcusable. there is no justification for that. the people arrested cannot defend themselves on the ground that he made me do it or the president maybe do it. the other points the democrats keep making is the keep referring to trump as our commander-in-chief. as a matter of constitutional law, the president is not our commander-in-chief. he's only the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. he cannot tell you to do anything. if a president says wear our mask, you can say i don't want to wear a mask. you should wear a mask, but the president has no authority to

command anybody but the armed forces. he is not our commander-in-chief. in totalitarian societies presidents are the people's commander in chief. we are own conscience. the legislature can pass laws, the president can't. he's only the commander-in-chief of the army. if people followed what he said, they did it of their own free will. host: for republicans --(202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 free democrats. -- four democrats. -- for democrats. what stops them asking with impunity just before resigning? guest: the constitution. let's take the best either side agent. the best precident leaves

is aaron burke. he left office and started an insurrection. they prosecuted him for treason. they had a great trial presided over by john marshall. he was acquitted. there is no january exception. the president can be prosecuted for his speech if he violated the first amendment. the president can be violated for his call to georgia. all that is possible. there is no january exception, but also know trump exception to the first amendment. what trump said was covered by the first amendment. we cannot twist and turn the first amendment to create a trump exception. host: let's hear from jim from silver spring, maryland, democrats line. you are on with alan dershowitz. caller: thank you very much. good morning, jenna meant. what a privilege to speak with you. i would like to introduce myself.

my great-grandfather was the last signer of the declaration of independence. he was chief justice of the supreme court of pennsylvania. he was the first jeffersonian governor of the u.s. i have two questions. one relates to the house of representatives. did the house err possibly in not raising the impeachment on the point of dereliction of duty? number two, can the senate simply move to a billet disqualification -- bill of disqualification and just go to disqualification? guest: those are great questions. to the second, no. they have to convict before they can disqualified. they have to vote by two thirds to convict. the house has not made a mistake. dereliction of duty is not a

constant to should know -- constitutional basis. madison said no, that would have the president serve at the pleasure of congress. that is the english system where the parliament can simply have a vote of no-confidence. the introduced four qualifications for being impeached. treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. by other, they admit crimes and misdemeanors -- the framers meant crimes and misdemeanors. abuse of power, obstruction of congress. none of those are grounds for impeachment and removal. i argued that successfully last, wrapped about a year and two weeks ago. i proved conclusively the framers had in mind criminal type behavior akin to treason and bribery. maladministration or any of these other criteria that could

result in anybody else being fired does not apply to a duly elected president. he has to be impeached and satisfy his criteria. host: wilhelm in missouri on the republican line. caller: yes. donald john trump, what he said on january 6 -- i was watching all of this on cnn. donald john trump told his people to go march down to the capitol. he should never do that. people should not be marching on the capitol. republicans need to understand donald john trump is a businessman. a businessman does not belong in the white house. he owns property. he owns hotels, casinos, golf courses. the white house does not belong to donald john trump.

guest: you make a good argument for not voting for donald trump. i did not vote for donald trump. i am not a republican. i am a liberal democrat. i am not a trump supporter. i did not like his speech. you are right. he should not have made it but he was entitled to say march on the capitol. fight back with your voices. many people have said that. it's a very common argument. i have defended -- i'm a lawyer that defended virtually every important first amendment case in the last half of the 20th century. the pentagon papers tears, the wikileaks case, the chicago seven case. they yelled blood on the streets in the bruce franklin case. all these cases, the aclu supported the right of free speech.

the arguments you make are very strong arguments for why trump should not be president. that is why we have elections but that's not why we have impeachments. we have impeachment and removal only if the four criteria are met. hamilton and the federalist 65 said the greatest danger to our constitution would be from impeachment to turn on who has the greatest number of votes rather than on whether the constitutional criteria for guilt has been met. if i've are writing a book about this impeachment, i would call it "hamilton's nightmare." since the time bill clinton was improperly impeached, and i consulted with his legal team, ever since bill clinton was impeached the impeachment has been weaponized for partisan purposes. removing an absolutely -- we are moving in absolutely the wrong direction. it will become a normal part of the political process. whenever a controversial president is elected, there will be movements towards impeachment. that is not with the framers had

in mind. host: regarding this trial in case, give your thoughts on the due process. was that satisfied in the lead up? and the lack of witnesses we are expecting not to appear in the process. guest: this was the quickest impeachment in history. all prior impeachments had hearings. i testified as a witness against the impeachment of bill clinton. this one was a snap impeachment. it was just done quickly, probably because it was towards the end of his term. he was denied due process. as far as witnesses, the defense is making a motion to dismiss. the speech was -- the speeches before that were all covered by the first amendment. the democrats played into trump's hands when they broadened the context to show he was making speeches like this since the day of the election. that proves this was part of a

political protest. political protests are permissible. jamie raskin protested the 2016 election. i protested the 2000 election. i wrote a book about it called "supreme injustice." i did not think the 2000 election was fair and i'm entitled to make that argument. jamie raskin was entitled to make his argument about 2016. donald trump was entitled to make his argument about 2020. host: donna, hampton, virginia. caller: i have a couple of questions for you. as far as this riot supposedly, it is not a riot. it is five years of people that have been dumped on and not be able to hear their voices. their votes were not counted. i know you don't believe that but i believe that. i am an 80-year-old independent

who has voted both ways. i feel the anger has built up so bad it is not going to end. i do believe in the 22 and 24 elections that the republicans are going to gain back a lot of seats because of it. you won't let people hear the evidence. i have not heard journalists say anything about it. newsmax has had mike lindell on with the document terry called -- documentary called "absolute proof." have you watched it? it is absolute proof. if they let the courts listen to these cases, we would have never had this disaster. host: that is the one question for mr. dershowitz. what is the second? caller: i would like for journal

to have mike lindell on and have them take questions about this. have you seen " absolute proof"? it's on youtube, facebook, newsmax over again and you have never mentioned it. guest: everybody is entitled to present their views on the election. i am unpersuaded the election was stolen or unfair. even if it had been, that doesn't justify what happened at the capitol. it was a riot. it was not terrorism. it was the other things any are saying it is. it was a riot, a violent ri ot. the people who participated should be prosecuted even if they had good reason for believing the election was stolen. that does not justify violence. does not justify breaking into speaker pelosi's office or trying to stab a policeman with an american flag.

the republicans are going to win, god bless them. i'm not voting for them but that's the prerogative of every voter. impeachments are reserved only for situations where presidents have committed one of four specified crimes and still in office. there are two core violations. putting a private citizen on trial, a bill of attainder says you cannot put private citizens on trial in the senate or the house. not only that, you are putting him on trial for first amendment-protected speech. the constitution says congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. no law has been interpreted to mean no action. you cannot impeach a president or former president for making a speech protected by the first amendment. i know 144 scholars disagree with me. they are wrong, i'm right. i'm happy to debate any one of

them. i offered to debate them. not a single one has been prepared to debate me. -- legally frivolous. that's outrageous. host: i hate to interrupt but your camera is off on your computer. if you could attend to that so we can see you and hear you. we appreciate it. we will take taking calls. peter in massachusetts, democrats align with alan dershowitz. go ahead. caller: first of all i went to commend c-span. the coverage you have brought to this event is exceptional. i hope you win an emmy. professor dershowitz, i feel honored to speak with you about this trial that is unfolding in

congress. i think one of the things -- while the managers have done a good job of putting their case forward, the video, the weight is being presented and handled as opposed to the first impeachment, i believe that managers have done an exceptional job. but my one question is, you know, president trump has a relationship with the proud boys. the proud boys were cofounded by canadian. -- a canadian. canada has said they are a terrorist organization that can to al qaeda or any number of terrorist organizations. we do not know enough about them. i am very surprised and disappointed that the managers did not bear down on the issue of the role of the proud boys,

who is behind the scenes in that group. what other motivations? why did canada designate them as a terrorist organization? host: we will leave you there and let mr. dershowitz respond. guest: i think you are right about the proud boys. i think the are an awful organization and there is a good reason designating them terrorist. there are other organizations. we need to look into antifa which is try to prevent me from speaking and liberals who support israel. antifa tries to prevent them from speaking. there is too much violence in this country. we ought to take steps to curtail violence. looking into relationships between any political figure and any violent radical group is a useful thing to do. we should not engage in mccarthyism, not generalize. we should look at the evidence. i see no evidence to connect

president trump to the proud boys. when he said stand out and stand whatever he said, he said he did not know who the group was. it is worth looking into but i don't think there is a close connection between proud boys and president trump. host: bobby off of twitter asking why you are not currently defending trump in this trial. caller: i was -- guest: i was asked. i didn't want to be part of a legal team that might have to defend president trump's speech on its merits. i believe the election was fair. if i hear evidence, i'm willing to change my mind. i advocated creating a voter integrity panel from former supreme court justices, college professors. come to a conclusion. i don't think the media can be trusted. the very divided media can't give us a fair assessment of the

facts. i don't believe the election was stolen. i did not want to be in a position to make that argument. democrats are trying to spring a trap on the trump people by focusing so much on president trump's alleged lies about the election. i hope they don't fall into that trap. if they try to argue the election was stolen, they will lose mcconnell and other senators who at the moment would vote to acquit. if it becomes a referendum on the election, they may will vote the other way because they don't believe the election was stolen. host: ohio, jenny. caller: hi. i wanted to say why is this country is getting to be where they want to blame other people for what somebody says? i am sure trump freaked out when all that happened. i don't know why it's not ok for

me to be republican. i get attacked because i'm a republican. he is protected under the first amendment. guest: you are protected under the first amendment. one the white house managers say the president is a protected, they forget the first amendment operates two ways. it gives the president the right to speak. but it also gives us the right to listen to him. even if he somehow -- if there is a trump exception to the first amendment, there is no exception for us. we are entitled to hear what he has to say. c-span has a first amendment right to broadcast. one of the reasons they have that first amendment right is because i had a first of them it right to listen to c-span. i have a right to listen to trump. i have a right to ignore him, our right to disagree with him,

but i have a right to listen to him. when the house managers say president trump no first amendment rights to speak, they are denying all us listeners there first amendment right to listen to what he has to say. that is clearly in violation of the spirit of the first amendment. host: the first amendment was never extended to include speech that promotes violence, murder or treason. guest: it is. the bible promotes violence. the toronto promotes violence -- the quran promotes violence. it does not promote speech that incites violence. there is a difference between advocacy. you are entitled to say you educate the violent overthrow of the government. you are not entitled the standard front of a crowd and say break into the capitol, takeover pelosi's office.

that's the difference. use the word promote. the first amendment does allow you to promote violence. you can get up and say, i believe violence is the right course of events. you should do it. that is what brandenburg did. he got up and said i when to take revenge against the senators. i want you to send the jews back to israel, the black spect africa, march on the capitol on july 4. the supreme court said if that promotes violence, it not incite violence. therefore it is protected. i believe president trump has that same right in his speech comfortably fits within the protections of brandenburg, notwithstanding the 144 scholars saying it would be unethical even to race that argument -- raise that argument. that is mccarthyism, threatening lawyers. it would be legally frivolous to

even raise the first amendment argument. they say no reasonable scholar or jurist would offer that argument. i'm a reasonable scholar and jurist. i taught at harvard for 50 years. i am making that argument that the president's speech was protected. how dare you say no reasonable scholar or jurist would make that argument? how dare you say it would be unethical for a lawyer to raise that argument? it's an attempt to intimidate scholars. it's an attempt to intimidate lawyers. it is not the american way to try to silence people who disagree with you. host: sam on the democrats line. sam in reston, virginia, go ahead. caller: my question to mr. alan dershowitz is how in the world we can get a fair trial while the jury is working with the

defense and the jury is coming out clearly supporting the defense? what kind of trial can be get? guest: let's understand the whole context. the trial is presided over by senators who have expressed their views. verdict first, trial after. the jurors are not only witnesses, they are victims of what happened in the capital. this is not a fair trial. yes, republicans made up their mind. if they go the wrong way, they get sanctioned. democrats have made up their minds. that is one of the reasons i don't love arguing these kinds of issues in front of the senate. i like to argue in front of open-minded judges and jurors. you have most of the senators that have probably made up their minds. some may have open minds. i think today's arguments by the defense team might influence a handful of votes. if they make serious mistakes,

there may be enough republicans to vote to convict. if they don't, if they focus on the jurisdictional issues, the constitutional issues, the first amendment issues, i suspect there will be enough votes to prevent the two thirds supermajority necessary for conviction. host: this is carroll -- carol in new york. caller: i had the privilege of meeting mr. dershowitz a number of years back. i got his books and things like that. i love to hear from him. i am not only a republican but i also vote democrat. i hope for the person, at least i try to. unfortunately everybody is forgetting what trump actually said. they are leaving off the last part, which was to do it peacefully.

they keep leaving that off. i happen to be a trump supporter. i also believe the election was stolen. i think they have been abusing this poor man since before he even ran for president. i think it is horrible what they have been doing. i think it is horrible what the media has been doing. mr. dershowitz, i would love it if you would get a group together to actually look into this entire election. guest: i would like to try to do that. i want to comment on the media. trump -- they had a show that will be nominated for all kinds of awards and which they presented the case against president trump. they presented two speeches. one he made in charlottesville. they deliver the left of the partner he said fine people, but not including white supremacists and neo-nazis. they should be condemned. they had a speech in the capital

and left out -- capitol and left out the part he said i want you to march to the capital peacefully and >> it is another thing for frontline and cnn to omit those statements. during the presentation they omitted those statements. the public needs to see everything, that is why c-span does such a good job, it does not pick and choose. during my last presentation, they doctored and edited the tape, they took out my words unlawful and illegal and made it sound like i think the president could do anything. they made me say the opposite of what i said. the media is often irresponsible in the way it edits presentations. it is important to hear everything in context.

i am confident when the senators here everything in context, they will vote according to the constitution. the constitution requires them to apply the criteria for impeachment, which has not been met and the criteria for jurisdiction. the text of the constitution supports that. i think the constitution mandates president trump acquittal, -- president trump's acquittal, not that his speech should not be condemned. it has been widely condemned. host: the author of the case of impeaching trump and the podcast host of the dersh show. thank you for your time. guest: coming up -- thank you. host: coming up we will turn to the economic impacts of the

pandemic, and white women are bearing the brunt of the pandemic. jocelyn frye of the center for american progress joining us. ♪ >> american history tv on c-span3, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. coming up this weekend, saturday at 6:00 eastern, on the civil war, and other talks about his book every drop of blood about abraham lincoln's second inaugural speech is considered one of the greatest speeches in american vertical history. sunday at 2:00 eastern, virginia, and describes her experiences as a chemist for the manhattan project in oak ridge to build the atomic bomb. add to 7:30 eastern on american artifacts, photographer and

storyteller, on the 42 giant bus of american presidents created by a sculptor decaying on a private property in virginia. explore the american history -- the american story on american history tv this weekend on c-span3. >> washington journal continues. host: jocelyn frye serves as a senior fellow at the center for american progress. here to talk about the impacts of the pandemic and particularly women in the workforce. guest: thank you for having me. host: paint the picture of the workforce and their impact, how do women get impacted particularly? guest: there are a couple of things with the pandemic. everybody has been affected. it has been devastating for all workers. one of the reasons for the

unique impact is two things. women are more likely to be caregivers. one of the underlying stories of this pandemic is our lack of policy support or folks who have caregiving needs. the ability to balance work and family. as a result, women who are mostly characters when -- caregivers when faced with being sick, fairly resource act or children are home learning virtually, and many women take on the responsibility. that means they are leaving the workforce or losing third job because they do not have access to protection. the other dynamic is many of the industries that have been most affected by the pandemic are industries that employed women. leisure and hospitality, education and health care, even the government and public sector.

all of these are where women disproportionately work. and where women of color disproportionately work. those dynamics are having a larger, outsized impact on women compared with the volatility of the economy. the unpredictability has meant the pandemic has had a larger impact. host: your organization tells us when it comes to net job losses since february of last your, women with a 5.4 million net job loss compared to men at four-point four -- 4.4 million. the labor force since february of last year, if jobs recovery and the trends continue, what is the likelihood women can recover? guest: as you look at those

numbers, that are troubling. some of the problems that have been exacerbated by the pandemic were problems before. the challenge of people being able to care for their families and maintain their jobs was a pre-existing problem. we do not have sufficient policies. many people do not have paid family leave for sick leave, in adequate support for affordable childcare. even as the economy rebounds we will see the same problem, unless we fix those core problems. the other thing is as long as we have these challenges and a slow recovery, many of the jobs that are coming back are not coming back sufficiently for women to catch up.

the recovery is a slow recovery. it is not fast. we know there are certain low-wage workers, women of color , for whom it is taking longer to find new jobs and earn better wages. those dynamics impact employment as we try to figure out how we recover. host: the gender disparities dealt with during covid-19 is our topic with our guest to talk about the impact on women. some of the statistical information from the bureau for labor statistics, jocelyn frye is our guest. you can ask your questions, we have divided the lines (202) 748-8000 for women, (202) 748-8001 for men, you can tweet us your thoughts at @cspanwj.

we heard president biden talk about the impact of losses of women in the workforce. what does this mean for the administration is there anything that tailors to their plight? guest: the president was correct to call this out. he is aware of what we have known, which is if you are pushing women out of the workforce, you're not only harming them but their families and our economy. there is ample evidence that shows the presence of women in our economy working and being productive grows our gdp. he recognizes that if we do not fix the problem, we are not going to have the recovery. one of the things he has talked about is investing in paid family and medical leave, paid six leave -- sick leave,

childcare not only with the resources for people to support what childcare but invest in the infrastructure. all of those are needed. the people who are most in need, most striking are the people who do not have access to these policies. those are on the horizon. these policies enjoyed wide support even though there is a political divide. the public is pretty clear, they understand why these policies work, across republicans, democrats, white, black. we should figure out how to do that. host: on the issue of childcare care, marco rubio published a piece taking a look at a proposal premade. he said senator mike lee and i made a proposal that would expand the child tax credit, the key difference apart from the

larger tax credit is ours is tied to work which is critical because it would provide support to families while maintaining the vital connection of work, a government check cannot replace the above the two earn high ages. and fulfill the wreck and promised that if you work hard you will flourish. how do you respond? guest: you cannot approach these albums piecemeal, while it is useful for folks to have tax credits that can cover the cost of childcare. the problem with childcare is bigger. with a pandemic, unprecedented pandemic, many childcare facilities are not set up to handle the protocols and needs required to have a system that is safe and sound and high

quality. what people are talking about his robust investments in infrastructure. let's help these providers do what is necessary to provide care. you have to provide support that allows people to pay for high quality childcare. this was a problem before the pandemic. this is not new. there are people who have higher childcare payments them for their rent or mortgage. this is more than a tax credit, they need immediate relief it we need to think about strategies. we have to pay childcare workers themselves better. they are underpaid. if you ask parents, they will tell you, they understand that higher wages for childcare workers will lead to higher quality. you have to talk about the whole package. you cannot pick and choose.

this is a complicated problem that requires multifaceted solutions. host: our guest works as a senior fellow at the american center for progress, director of policy and special projects for the special -- for the first lady, jocelyn frye, our guest. our first call is from eva in california, you work. . -- you are first up. caller: good morning, i called the professor and they hang up. i had something to say for the professor. host: i apologize, i really do because we have moved on. from tennessee, this is steve. hello. caller: thanks for taking my call. i have a question. maybe your guest can give an answer.

about the covid relief package. i have not heard them talk about it. the stimulus checks they sent out, i have not received any yet , because i was claimed on my older brother's income tax as a dependent, i am 62 years old. biden says he wants to -- about a month ago that he wants to send us a check because we did not get one before. do you know anything about that? have you heard? host: you can respond to that. and add to that the proposals for a $15 minimum wage? guest: i appreciate the call. i am so sorry that the relief

you are looking for has not arrived. you are like many are sorely in need of additional economic support. we have seen problems in terms of people receiving the support they need. you are absolutely correct, one of the things that president biden has talked about is the need to get more income to people. that is a priority. michael congress moves quickly -- i hope congress moves quickly, because americans need that support. we know that is an infusion into our economy. you are correct to ask about it. i hope we can move forward on an increased amount. the other thing that is important is many of those, it may be a work in this situation, many folks on a good day for the

pandemic were struggling to make ends meet. we have eight minimum wage that is very low. -- a minimal wage that is very low. it has not been raised in years. one of the things the president has advocated, republicans and democrats across the country is raising the minimum wage to $15. to add to our current topic, it will help the women. because women are much more likely to beat minimum wage, women of color, work in many of the industries affected by the pandemic. industries with jobs that are low-wage. this would not only raise the wages for workers general but have an impact on women and women of color, more specifically and help families. all of this is important to boost wages. host: sherry from portsmouth,

virginia, go ahead. caller: i have a two-part question. can i get a definition of a quota and what is that regarded with such disdain? when you talk about socialism versus capitalism, why does that create such angst amongst capitalist moving forward? why is that a dirty word? host: why the question? what do you want to learn? caller: how can we utilize it? we need to get people employed that are underemployed were not employed, if we set a quota, we get them employed. host: thanks for the clarification. jocelyn frye? guest: thanks for the question

and i appreciate the remarks that helps me understand what you are getting out. when people talk about quotas in eight legal contact -- in a legal context, you have a hard target you're trying to reach no matter what. the reason there are legal problems is that people do not want to just try to get at a number that they are ignoring other factors that are relevant whether they are qualified, they are the right fit for the position. we have legal precedent that says we cannot try to reach quotas, simply because a person is a particular race or gender. that is the challenge from eight legal context -- a legal context. what i think you're trying to get out is why can't we be more targeted, are there certain

groups of people underpaid or undervalued or disproportionately affected? why can we not target support? you are correct, there is no reason we cannot, and we ought to. when we look at the pandemic, we see the fact that women are disproportionately affected. women of color have the highest unemployment rate among women, then you've got to be thinking about what are the strategies to get them back to work. we note -- we know that when they are in the workforce they support their family. paid family leave, sick leave, are things to boost women's wages and the wages of low wage workers because those are targeted. that will have a disproportionate effect. we are trying to come up with strategies that are underlying the problem. that is the approach.

thank you for the question. we ought not to operate as if we cannot see the patterns. we have to be cognizant. and come up with solutions. host: one of the efforts you spoke about and democrats are speaking about is the topic of childcare and entitlement funding. on wednesday the house ways and means committee met, to -- where a member argued for two -- to increase that income. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2021] >> --[video clip] increasing annual entitlement care to states for -- per year. it includes money to indian tribes and u.s. territories. $75 million per year. this committee is no stranger to

the difficulties that working parents face during this pandemic. antacids become more obvious. over the summer we heard from working mothers who shared their struggles during the time of the pandemic. one mother said this idea that you can pivot and make a career disappear because schools and daycare is closed is so absurd and others said and i quote it is not possible for my husband and i to work and care for a three-year-old and nine-year-old. even before the pandemic, finding and affording quality childcare was a source of financial stress for too many. especially for women, low-wage workers and people of color. unemployment has only exacerbated the problem. this is not an issue of underfunding, it is about equity and economic recovery. during the pandemic, people have

been disproportionately impacted by childcare access. according to usa today analysis, the number of women would childcare absences doubled from 2019 to 2020. women accounted for 84% of all workers who missed work in the average month due to childcare issues. 84%. host: your perspective? guest: he rightly is pinpointing the problem. we have had eight long-term-- a long-term challenge and problem in terms of how we access affordable childcare. in a country where people -- where women are called upon to provide that care if we do not have solid policies about childcare that is affordable. that effect is going to

disproportionately impact women. what we have seen is that women have dropped out of the workforce or their work participation is uneven because of this disruption. we have to think about how we get this back to looking forward. part of that is fixing problems that were there before and anticipating future problems in the light of the pandemic. he talked about large investments in childcare that are situated to getting it back up and running. money that helps to pay childcare workers more. moneys that help folks to be able to afford childcare. all of it is needed. not one or another. we have to confront the problem. this is a consistent problem. the connection to work is critical.

if you do not have it, people cannot go to work. this is not just a personal problem that people are supposed to handle on their own, this is a problem that we can support as a nation and across the country. this is overdue. the time is now. host: let's hear from alabama, joseph. caller: can you hear me? host: yes sir. caller: i have different concerns about everything she is saying. a lot of things i agree with. the whole childcare being the way it is, unaffordable, even before the pandemic. i live in an area that is not highly populated. i have a six euros and

three-year-old, even before the pandemic, it was high. me and my wife would have to split our hours and not get time together. one has to close, one has to open. there is room to get that fixed. the women in the workforce, try to build it up and get women back into organize, i agree. unfortunately, me and my wife did not lose much in terms of the workforce due to our jobs. they are both deemed very useful, i guess you would say. host: what would you like our guest to address? caller: i would like for the customer to address, personally speaking, back home where i come

from, the area i lived in was predominantly people of color. i believe these ravings that people are trying to feed us are slightly falsified. mind does not come from numbers from cnn, abc, fox, my comes from working with people. host: we will leave your thoughts. anything you want to respond to? guest: i appreciate the comments. i will say a couple of things. the challenges around childcare you are experiencing, that our challenges all families are experiencing. a lot of times in the nation where we get caught up in partisanship around issues, it is important to recognize there are common challenges that we

share. low income family, high income family or in the middle, white, black, latino, asian american, native americanwe should all bet

that we should have a huge priority of making sure that people are getting the support they need. we are to be figuring out ways to make sure that people get more support and not less. that is critical to our recovery. when people get more money they can spend more money what we need is to restart our economy. i am sorry that you are experiencing that problem.

the most important thing that we can all do is make sure that our representatives understand this is a priority. to make sure the resources are there to get money to people and get people enough money to actually support themselves. host: natasha will be our last call. caller: how are you? host: i am fine. caller: as far as childcare goes. i have two children 18 months apart. and childcare back in the 90's was a problem. as far as -- i chose to go to work my husband did not want me to go to work, childcare took up 80% of the money i was making.

i understand with the pandemic and the challenges that are faced as far as women go. think about the women who worked like the head of the household. and having to try to work having school at home, it is a big problem. host: thank you. guest: thank you for your question and comment. you said it better than i could. your point about childcare is on target. the challenges around affordable childcare is not new. several colors have raised that this is an old problem, for many

proms and this is disproportionately true for low income families, african-american families and hispanic families, the cost of childcare takes up an enormous percentage of their income. we have to fix that problem. there is no other answer, we have to offset those costs. it is essential. most families with kids with two parents have both parents working the notion that somebody can handle it on their own is no longer the norm. we have to do better. that has to be a priority. we also have to do a bunch of other things in the context of a pandemic. this pandemic has been in norma's sleep challenging for all of us what it has done is highlight problems that were already there. one is around childcare, what is

around wages, one is making sure that the support that folks need to address their works -- that folks have the support they need to support their needs. we have these problems way before -- we had these problems way before. it is one of the lessons of the pandemic. it ought to be incumbent on all of us. to make sure that families do not have to go through this again. host: jocelyn frye with the center for american progress, if you want to see her work on this topic and other topics. thank you for your spreadspectrum and time -- for your perspective and time. until the end of the program we will take your calls on the day of the impeachment trial, the defense team is set to make the

case and push back against the case from the house impeachment managers. (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 democrats and independents (202) 748-8002. we will take those calls went washington journal continues. ♪ >> visit the new online store at c-span shop.org. to check out the new c-span products. with the 117th congress in progress, we are taking preorders for the congressional directory. shop today at c-spanshop.org. >> the senate impeachment trial continues today after death at noon when former president trump lawyers refute the case of inciting insurrection. watch our coverage at noon eastern on c-span two, c-span.org work listen on the

radio app. if you missed any of the proceedings, what's anytime on demand at c-span.org/ impeachment. >> washington journal continues. host: besides calling you can text us at (202) 748-8003, post on our twitter at @cspan and if you want to post on facebook too, facebook.com/c-span is how you do that. one of the impeachment managers we heard from yesterday was joaquin castro, he talked about the attack on the capitol. [video clip] >> we have spent trillions of dollars building the strongest military in the world. billions of dollars on the most sophisticated weaponry on the planet. to prevent the kind of attack that occurred at this capitol.

here is what the insurrectionists did. [video clip] >> let's make a scene. >> we took this shit. [indiscernible] >> in many ways this room is sacred. and so are the traditions it represents. they have been carried on for centuries . congress has declared 11 wars on this floor including entering world war ii. when congress passed the civil rights act and expanded the right to vote to ensure that no matter the race or gender you

had the voice. this floor is where history has been made. now our intelligence agencies and -- now our intelligence agencies have the burden of filtering out what was stolen, ransacked and compromised. the acting u.s. attorney explained that, "materials were stolen and we have to identify what was done to mitigate that and it could have national security equities." these investigations are necessary because of the actions of president trump. host: some slight reaction from the president and vice president about the acts of the impeachment trial as they have seen it play. president joe biden when asked says he believes that some minds might be changed when it comes

to the attack, especially from the videos. you can see that story on yahoo! news. and the vice president when asked says she is focused on the american rescue plan and getting back to work and that the sun is going to do its job. the bottom line is we are going to do our peace working on getting america on its feet. that is the reaction from the white house. we turn to you. in california, michael, democrats line about the impeachment. caller: thanks i love c-span. i cannot believe what is going on and how people cannot see how this is affecting the country. mike pence seems like he has stopped him syndrome -- stockh olm syndrome. host: from richmond, virginia,

republican line. caller: i thought the democrats had a strong case. it is regrettable that the consensus seems to be there will not be witnesses. if anything we need more witnesses than we did than the zero amount of the last impeachment. we have a glut of critical issues. what is critical is there. -- is the apparent break of military command. how wasn't -- how was the national guard called in when president trump was apprehensive, the report says mike pence did, that is at peace of important evidence as to intent. a ghost to power our military is structured, if the president of the united states is commander-in-chief can be usurped by his vice president when he refuses to protect the capital. host: george from sharpsburg,

georgia, democrats line. caller: i think it is plain to see how corrupt and evil our ex-president has been and done. i looked at -- why can't the republicans that was in the senate at the time of the riot, why can't they see how people this is -- people this -- evil t his is? i watched the game on sunday and i looked at how they praised tom brady for being the greatest quarterback. host: let's stick to the trial, what was the starkest aspect of the case? caller: the comparison is, we cannot see that he was cheated,

but it was never mentioned, just like the republicans cannot see that donald trump cheated. host: okay. that is george. let's go to mel in california. republican line. caller: good morning pedro. i am calling that -- i am calling because the trump lawyers are not presenting welcome of the events of the summer set the bar for what is acceptable behavior. people are upset because they are not being heard or represented with the exception of the past three years. we have three choices -- three chances to exercise our rights, one is to vote. which is abandoned. two is freedom of speech. we are not being heard. why are people protesting government buildings instead of the news media? host: as far as the trump

lawyers are concerned, how did they fail? caller: the third is to withhold our taxes. they are not making the case, they did not make it simple. they did not counter that they were not -- they were not prepared it seemed like. they are playing by the rules and the democrats are playing by emotion. host: it is the opening argument that you heard previously as far as the defense team, they start making their case. they have been allotted 16 hours. report saying there will not take that much time from other reporting saying it will most likely as far as the case they present will be wrapped up by today. you can see that play out in the senate starting at noon. eastern standard. you can watch that on c-span two. if you want to go to our website at c-span.org and the radio app is available.

at any time you can go to the impeachment section on the website for what we have compiled. in terms of what is expected, arguments of the first amendment are expected. it was one of those aspects that a democrat from colorado talked about when he was wrapping up his presentation. and what he expected from the president's team. [video clip] >> thanks points what so many lawyers who have dedicated their lives to protecting free speech, including many of the most prominent conservative free-speech lawyers have described president trump's claims as frivolous. another quote from a recent letter, prominent free-speech lawyers that quote the first amendment is no bar to the senate convicting former president trump convicting former desk and disqualifying

him from holding future office. their argument is wrong on the facts, law and would flip the constitution upside down. let's start with the facts. his free-speech claim depends on an account of what he did. that has no basis in the evidence. to hear his lawyers tell it, he was just some guy at a rally. expressing unpopular opinion. they would have you believe that this impeachment is because he said things that we disagree with. really? make no mistake, they will do anything to avoid talking about the facts of this case. that i can assure you. instead we expect they will talk about a lot of other speeches,

including some given by democratic officials. and insist that the first amendment protects all of this as if it were the same. we trust you to know the difference. you have seen the evidence we have seen. you have seen as we have proven over the last three days, that his arguments miss described the reality of what happened. they really -- they leave out everything that matters about why we are here and what he did. because president trump was not just some guy with a political opinions who showed up at a rally and delivered controversial remarks. he was the president of the united states. he had spent months using the

unique power of that office. of his elite pulpit to spread that -- bully pulpit to spread that lie, to assemble his followers blocks away from here on january 6 at the very moment we work meeting to count the electoral college. where he knew it had been widely reported that they were primed and eager and ready for violence. host: this is courtesy of axios, the team plans to show video of the certification process around the 2016 election when a handful of democrats with that lead impeachment manager, representative jamie raskin objected to the results making trump presidency. also the lawyers a focus on four

key points, no due process, violates the first amendment and will not unify the country. she goes on to say that they will point to a series of facts showing that the pre-had been planned. the evidence the defenses that the words did not directly inside. that is a flavor of what to expect. noon is when you can start seeing what they will present at eastern standard. tony in indiana, independent. caller: how are you doing on this cold morning? host: i am fine, how cold is it? caller: 20 degrees but sunday we go below zero. i do not call to talk about the weather. host: go ahead. caller: i wanted to voice my opinion on this trial.

i have been watching it regularly, because i have nothing better to do. i watched jamie give his opening statement. i voted for trump the first time but fighting the second time -- joe biden the second time because i wanted unity. that is what he promised. there is no unity from joe biden, he has not had a lots of time. i am sure it will pick up. to get back to the trial. what did that fellow do? with perfect timing he went into tears. what did castro saint yesterday, this is sacred ground, talking about the chambers? what about the ground that all

the demonstrators earned to the ground, the stores they polluted, that is sacred to them. i think somebody better do some thinking in this country and put it together. host: let's hear from norm in new york, democrats line. caller: you read a statement that three of the republican senators met with the defense team for the next president -- for the x president -- ex -president. jurors are supposed to be impartial. we do not know that is true. to have senators give advice or whatever term used in the statement you read. host: i will show you the tweet that came from. it was from jennifer jacobs and

she highlights the fact that the president's advisers said that mike lee, ted cruz and lindsey graham were talking with the defense team. caller: did not sound like a logical trial set up. host: lucio, los angeles, democrats line. caller: good morning and thank you for delivering such good programs. i feel badly because i feel a of republicans were duped -- a lot of republicans were to boot -- were duped. nancy pelosi was trying to tell people that he has eight track record, like the people in college trying to follow his pattern to make money. he deceived charities, the country. his hatred, racism is so bad.

he did not think about running for politics until barack obama won. host: how does that relate to the impeachment? caller: he is saying that he is innocent, he feels that he is appropriately handling everything. he asked for the uneducated and they flocked. host: you are saint that he -- you are saying that he did insight the events -- incite the events? caller: the woman who was killed thought they were being supportive of the calling, he takes responsibility. host: daniel in ohio, independent line. hello. daniel in ohio? caller: indiana?

host: are you daniel? caller: yes i am. host: go ahead. caller: i voted democrat the majority of my life. president trump switched me from democrat to a republican, i am not a republican i am independent. by his policies not his behavior. i believe this is a show ended his embarrassment to the united states what they are trying to do caller -- what they are trying to do. to convict this man of doing something wrong. the question not being asked is why did this happen at the capitol? why are the american people so angry? they are not looking at

themselves and asking what are we doing to incite this aggregation and dividing our country. host: correct me if i'm wrong, do you think the president had a role caller: i think he did not, i think he has the right to speak. i think it was motivating. he did not insight and attack -- incite an attack. it was motivation towards a positiveness of his base. host: glenn from reno, nevada coming on the independent line, good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i would like to say that i think it is overwhelming the evidence. way back i could tell that trump

-- i talked with a friend of mine who was involved in politics. at that point in time without he was reckless and pompous. and dangerous. host: what evidence would you point to as far as january 6? caller: the evidence that the team has put up? the chronological events of that day in accordance with what was going on with attacks and what was actually going on. he started grooming these groups along time ago. as a private tool. if i were they, i would be embarrassed that i allowed myself to be used. host: rick, dayton, ohio,

democrats line. hello. caller: hello this is rick from ohio. good morning. host: go ahead. caller: first and foremost, the attack on the capitol was craziness, a bunch of lunatics with nothing better to do. we did not need that to show that trump had broke the constitution by illegally trying to overthrow the election by calling georgia's secretary of state to drum up more votes. that to meet broke the constitution -- to me broke the constitution. in 1981 there were 11,500 men and women fired for breaking the constitution, it is nothing new, if you break the constitution, you get fired. host: as far as the actions in

georgia, with that been the stronger case? caller: i believe so. he tried to overthrow. he tried to overthrow the election. host: what do you think about the case of incitement, what is the strongest piece? caller: it is what he did for years and months, trying to tell these people that it was going to be a great election. if you got nothing better to do than watch tv all day, and believe what he is trying to say, this is what happens. it happens in other countries, it happened in hours. -- in hours. -- in ours. host: joe, california, republican line. caller: this started minutes

after this meant was elected president of the united states, they attacked this man. one more attack on him and his family. the wind from his wife to his son, this has been tacky from day one. all of these people comment about white people. i admit white republican, i have never done a thing for -- to a black person, i have thought for a black person. we need to stop this racist crab. host: what do you think of his actions on january 6? caller: he is fighting for his own rights. every has eight rights, they were taking his rights, from everybody. host: what rights were infringed on? caller: he is not the only one that lost this election illegally. by disenfranchising everybody,

like attacking white people, it is not helping. defeating the purpose. we are here as one nation. when we went to fight wars, we did not look at colors. host: let's go to brian in hamilton, virginia from a independent line. caller: i do not think president trump ever had any intention of leaving office. even from the primaries in iowa, he claimed if ted cruz one it was stolen -- won it was stolen. he claimed the election was stolen before the election occurred, he had no intention of giving office. host: how does that relate to january 6? caller: it was his intention to stop the count which would certify joe biden won. he knew at that point he would have to leave office unless he declared martial law and tried

to do a coup. heaven help us if that had happened. i do not think the military would have done it. it would have been a disaster. i think he praises putin and kim jong-un because he loves out the rule there countries -- their countries. host: we go to missouri and the democrats line. caller: i think there is a conspiracy with the republican party, my senator from missouri, was going to hold accountable long enough so the gang would get there. and get a hold of the ballot boxes, they did not get a hold of them. hold up long enough for the gang to get up there and go back to the state senate which is all republican. host: what do you base this on?

caller: it all worked out like they had it planned. they got there in time to stop the count. host: the president of the united states is currently joe biden because without count occurred just because -- because that count occurred. caller: it did not work out quite as they plant, they got away. it is to be inspected by a special counsel. host: one more call, robert in abilene, texas, republican line. caller: why is everybody putting this into another trial? we have all of these things going on, he may have incited some of those people, but most of the people work going to do something stupid -- were going to do something stupid. you're taking with the people that protect us, why is this?

wasted money by the democrats. go to work, quit messing around. get something done. host: if you say he may have incited, is there not a possibility he is guilty? caller: not really because he had an amount of free speech. why did they change laws -- we have a dictator -- fought forever >> that is robert in texas. the final thought of this program looking at the senate trial. the trump defense team takes to the floor. watch it on c-span2 starting at noon eastern standard time. you can follow at the website and the radio app. we will continue our discussions as the senate trial continues on

our program tomorrow which starts at 7:00 a.m. we will see you then. ♪ >> you are watching c-span, your unfiltered view of government. c-span was created by america's cable companies in 1979. we are brought to you by these companies provide c-span to viewers as a public service. >> today, white house press secretary jen psaki will be

holding a news briefing. you can watch coverage at 12:30 eastern. >> the senate impeachment trial continues today at noon when former trump -- number president trump's lawyers defend the accusation of incitement of insurrection. watch live on c-span2, c-span.org, or the free radio at. -- radio app. watch anytime on demand at c-span.org/impeachment. >> isabel guzman, administrator at the sba, spoke to members of the small business and entrepreneurship committee for her hearing before a committee hearing -- for a confirmation