of where the of the defense actually proving to my satisfaction. >> harris: i interviewed senator john call yesterday on "the faulkner focus" and of course he's been in focus since his whole insurrection on january 6, he spoken out against, he condemned what happened and he did so again on my programs. he just didn't see that impeachment was here, use our reports of senators expressing such emotional reactions to some of the videos they've seen and some of the footage and audio from the capitol hill police officers that we hadn't heard who were under duress and under attack, to a person, when you talk with republicans i've spoken with, these are heartbreaking situations but going from that to impeachment has been a journey that 44 of

them up until now say is just not constitutional. >> gillian: the argument that other republicans are making is essentially that impeachment is not the remedy and now where we are procedurally, they believe, conviction is not the remedy, they are saying this trial is unconstitutional in their eyes because the point of convicting is to remove a president from office and you can't remove a president from office who is already out of office. that was the surprising thing here, the degree to which republicans have really fallen in line behind this argument over the last couple of weeks whereas before we didn't know which way this was going to go. quick note on the house managers side, what surprised me yesterday and the day before while they are making their arguments is the degree to which they really expanded the timeline of their argument. evening on the opening day of the trial they were saying, a very specific, tailored case we are making has to do with inciting a riot on january 6th, we are looking at

president trump's words on january 6 but during the last few days they have brought into that, connecting dots from his refusal to concede the election back in november, court cases over many weeks to then inciting violence on january 6th. i'd be interesting to hear if ken thinks that's a winning strategy. >> harris: can, if you'll allow allow me before we have you answer that, you just saw the opening prayer today, now the pledge of allegiance. things move pretty much with staccato movement now after this so please go ahead, i may have to cut in on you. >> sure, yes, very briefly, i think at the end of the day what we saw was political theater as opposed to a truly serious effort to prove up a legal case. and political theater may work because this is a political process. i don't think it's going to work

and i don't think you would convince doubtful or concerned republicans to be upset, doesn't mean i'm going to vote to convict. >> harris: the sergeant of arms making the proclamation now and they should begin very shortly, ken, thank you for the brevity they are, you said so much with fewer words. you are so talented at that and we all need to catch that. but this is the point, too, that usually, senator leahy he, presiding over these proceedings will begin and this is senate majority leader chuck schumer, let's watch. >> a longer dinner break around 5:00 p.m. now, pursuant to the provisions of senate resolution 47, the council for the former president has 16 hours to make the presentation of their case.

and of the senate will hear counsel now. begin the presentation of the case for the former president, go ahead. >> good afternoon, senators. mr. president. the article of impeachment now before the senate is an unjust and blatantly unconstitutional act of political vengeance. this appalling abuse of the constitution only further divides our nation when we should be trying to come together around shared priorities.

like every other politically motivated witch hunt the left has engaged in over the past four years, this impeachment is completely divorced from the facts, the evidence, and the interests of the american people. the senate should promptly and decisively vote to reject it. no thinking person could seriously believe that the president's january 6th speech on was in any way and incitement to violence or insurrection. the suggestion is patently absurd on its face. no thing in the text could ever be construed as encouraging, condoning, or enticing unlawful activity of any kind. far from promoting insurrection against the united states, the

president's remarks explicitly encouraged those in attendance to exercise their rights peacefully and patriotically. peaceful and patriotic protest is the very antithesis of a violent assault on the nation's capital. the house impeachment articles slanderously allege that the president intended for the crowd at the ellipse to "interfere with the joint session's solemn constitutional duty to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election. this is manifestly disproven by the plain text of the remarks. the president devoted nearly his entire speech to an extended discussion of how legislators should vote on the question at hand. instead of expressing a desire that the joint session be prevented from conducting its

business, the entire premise of his remarks was that the democratic process would, and should, play out according to the letter of the law. including both the constitution and the electoral count act. in the conclusion of his remarks he then laid out a series of legislative steps that should be taken to improve democratic accountability going forward. such as passing universal voter i.d. legislation, banning ballot harvesting, requiring proof of citizenship to vote and turning out strong in the next primaries. not only -- these are not the words of someone inciting a violent insurrection. not only president trump's speech on january 6th but indeed his entire challenge to the

election results were squarely focused on how the proper civic process could address any concerns through the established legal and constitutional system. the president brought his case before state and federal courts, the u.s. supreme court, the state legislatures, the electoral college and ultimately the u.s. congress. in the past, numerous other candidates for president have used many of the same processes to pursue their own election challenges. as recently as 2016, the clinton campaign brought multiple postelection court cases, demanded recounts and ridiculously declared the election stolen by russia. many democrats even attempted to persuade the electoral college delegates to overturn the 2016

results. house manager raskin objected to the certification of president trump's victory four years ago along with many of his colleagues. you will remember it was joe biden who had to gavel them down. >> i have an objection because ten of the 29 electoral votes were cast by lectors not lawfully certified. >> i object to the votes from the state of wisconsin. >> mr. president i object to the certificate from the state of georgia to the ground that the electoral votes -- >> there is no debate. >> i elect to the certificate from the state of north carolina. >> i object to the 15 votes to the state of north carolina. >> i object to the certificate of the state of alabama, the electors were not lawfully certified. >> in that case the objection cannot be entertained. >> the objection cannot be

entertained. there is no debate in order. there is no debate for the joint session. >> there is no debate. >> there is no debate. >> there is no debate. >> please come to order, the objection cannot be -- the united states code prohibits debate in the joint session. >> i do not wish to debate, i wish to ask, is there one united states senator who will join me in this letter. >> there is no debate, there is no debate. the gentleman will suspend. >> in 2000, the dispute over the outcome was taken all the way to the supreme court which ultimately rendered a decision. to litigate questions of election integrity within the system is not incitement to resurrection. it is the democratic system

working as the founders and lawmakers have designed. to claim that the president in any way wished to, desired, or encourage lawless or violent behavior is a preposterous and monstrous live. in fact, the first two messages the president sent via twitter once the incursion of the capital began were "stay peaceful and no violence because we are the party of law and order." the gathering on january 6th was supposed to be a peaceful event, make no mistake about that. and the overwhelming majority of those in attendance remained peaceful. as everyone knows, the president had spoken at hundreds of large rallies across the country over the past five years. there had never been any

mob-like or riotous behaviors and a significant portion of each event was devoted to celebrating the rule of law. protecting our constitution. and honoring the men and women of law enforcement. contrast the president's repeated combinations of violence from the rhetoric of his opponent. >> i am your president of "law & order" and an ally of all peaceful protesters. >> the vast majority of protesters are peaceful. >> republicans stand for law and order and they stand for justice. >> i just don't know why there aren't uprisings over the country. >> my administration will always stand against violence, mayhem, and disorder. >> there needs to be unrest in the streets as long as there is unrest in our lives. >> i stand at the heroes of and order.

>> you tell them they are not welcome anymore. >> we will never defund our police, together we will ensure that america is a nation of "law & order." >> i think we need to go back and punch him in the face. >> we just want law and order, everyone wants that. >> i want to tell you, you have released a whirlwind and you will pay a price. >> we have to have "law & order." >> show me where it says protesters are supposed to be polite and peaceful. >> we believe in save space, secure communities and we believe in "law & order." >> tragically, as we know now, the january -- on january 6th, a small group who came to engage

in violent and menacing behavior hijacked to the event for their own purposes. according to a publicly available reporting it's apparent that extremists of various different stripes and political persuasions preplanned and premeditated an attack on the capital. one of the first people arrested was the leader of antifa. sadly, he was also among the first to be released. from the beginning, the president has been clear, the criminals who infiltrated the capital must be punished to the fullest extent of the law, they should be imprisoned for as long as the law allows. the fact that the attacks were apparently premeditated, as alleged by the house managers, demonstrates the ludicrousness of the incitement allegation against the president.

you can't incite what was already going to happen. law enforcement officers at the scene conducted themselves heroically and to her courageously and our country owes them an eternal debt but there must be a discussion of the decision by political leadership regarding forced posture and security in advance of the event. as many will recall, last summer, the white house was faced with violent rioters night after night. they repeatedly attacked secret service officers and at one point pierced a security wall culminating in the clearing of lafayette square. since that time, there has been a sustained negative narrative in the media regarding the necessity of those security measures on that night.

even though they certainly prevented many calamities from occurring. in the wake of the capital attack, it must be investigated whether the proper forced posture was not initiated due to the political pressures stemming from the events at lafayette square. consider this, on january 5th the mayor of the district of columbia explicitly discouraged the national guard and federal authorities from doing more to protect the capital saying "the district of columbia is not requesting other federal law enforcement personnel. and discourages any additional deployment." this sham impeachment also poses a serious threat to freedom of speech for political leaders of both parties. at every level of government.

the senate should be extremely careful about the precedent this case will set. consider the language that the house impeachment article alleges to constitute incitement. "if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore." this is ordinary political rhetoric that is virtually indistinguishable from the language that is been used by people across the political spectrum for hundreds of years. countless politicians have spoken of fighting for our principles. joe biden's campaign slogan was "bow for the soul of america." no human being seriously believes that the use of such metaphorical terminology is incitement to political

violence. while the president did not engage in any language of incitement, there are numerous officials in washington who have indeed used profoundly reckless, dangerous, and inflammatory rhetoric in recent years. the entire democratic party and national news media spent the last four years repeating, without any evidence, that the 2016 election had been hacked. and to falsely and absurdly claimed the president of the united states was a russian spy. speaker pelosi herself so that you do 2016 election was hijacked. and that congress has a duty to protect our democracy. she also called the president an imposter and a traitor.

and recently referred to her colleagues in the house as the enemy within. moreover, many democrat politicians endorsed and encouraged the riots that destroyed vast swathes of american cities last summer. when violent, left-wing anarchists conducted a sustained assault on a federal courthouse in portland, oregon, speaker pelosi did not call it an insurrection. instead, she called the federal law enforcement officers protecting the building "stormtroopers." when violent mobs destroyed public property, she said "people will do what they do." the attorney general of the state of massachusetts stated "yes, america is burning.

but that's how forests grow." representative anya presley declared "there needs to be unrest in the street for as long as there is unrest in our lives. the current vice president of the united states, kamala harris donated to a fund that bailed out violent rioters and arsonists out of jail. one of those was released and went out and committed another crime, assault, he beat the bejeezus out of somebody. she said of the violent demonstrations, "everyone beware. they are not going to stop before election day in november and they are not going to stop after election day. they are not going to let up and

they should not." such rhetoric continued even as hundreds of police officers across the nation were subjected to violent assaults at the hands of angry mobs. a man claiming to be inspired by the junior senator from vermont came down here to washington, d.c., to watch a softball game and kill as many senators and congressmen as he could. it cannot be forgotten that president trump did not blame the junior senator. the senior senator from maine has had her house surrounded by angry mobs of protesters. when that happened it unnerved her. one of the house managers, i forget which one, tweeted "crimea river."cry me a river."

under the standards of the house impeachment article, each of these individuals should be retroactively censored, expelled, punished or impeached. for inciting violence by their supporters. unlike the left, president trump has been entirely consistent in his opposition to mob violence. he opposes it in all forms, in all places. just as he has been consistent that the national guard should be deployed to protect american communities, wherever protection is needed. for democrats, they have clearly demonstrated that their opposition to mobs and their view of using the national guard depends upon the mob's political views. not only is this impeachment case preposterously wrong on the

facts no matter how much heat and emotion is injected by the political opposition, it is also plainly unconstitutional. in effect, congress would be claiming that the right to disqualify a private citizen, no longer a government official from running for public office, this would transform the solemn impeachment process into a mechanism for asserting congressional control over which private citizens are or are not allowed to run for president. in short, this unprecedented effort is not about democrats opposing political violence. it is about democrats trying to disqualify the political opposition. it is constitutional cancel

culture. history will record this shameful effort as a deliberate attempt by the democrat party to smear, sensor, and cancel not just president trump but the 75 million americans who voted for him. now is not the time for such a campaign of retribution. it is the time for unity. and healing. in focusing on the interests of the nation as a whole. we should all be seeking to cool temperatures, calm passions, rise above partisan lines. the senate should reject to this and unconstitutional effort and allow the nation to move forward. over the next, over the course of the next three hours or so,

you will hear about due process and a couple other points you'll be interested to hear. i will return with an analysis of why the first amendment must be properly applied here and then mr. castor will discuss the law as it applies to the speech of january 6 and then we will be pleased to answer your questions. thank you.

>> mr. president. >> mr. schoen. >> leaders, senators, throughout the course of today my colleagues and i will explain in some detail the simple fact that president trump did not incite the horrific, terrible riots of january 6 where we will demonstrate that to the contrary, the violence and looting goes against the "law & order" message he can conveys to every citizen of the united states throughout his presidency, including on januar. first, though, we would like to discuss the hatred, the vitriol,

the political opportunism that has brought us here today. the hatred that the house managers and others on the left have for president trump has driven them to skip the basic elements of due process and fairness and to rush and impeachment through the house, claiming "urgency." but the house waited to deliver the articles to the senate for almost two weeks, only after democrats had secured control over the senate. in fact, contrary to their claims of the only reason they held it was because senator mcconnell wouldn't accept the article, representative clyburn made clear that they had considered holding the articles for over 100 days to provide president biden with a clear pathway to implement his agenda. our constitution and any basic sense of fairness require that every legal process with

significant consequences for a person's life, including impeachment requires due process under the law which includes fact-finding and the establishment of a legitimate evidentiary record with an appropriate foundation. even last year's impeachment followed committee hearings and months of examination and investigation by the house. here, president trump and his counsel were given no opportunity to review evidence or question its propriety. the rush to judgment for a snap impeachment in this case was just one example of the denial of due process. another, perhaps even more vitally significant example was the denial of any opportunity ever to test the integrity of the evidence offered against donald j. trump in a proceeding seeking to bar him from ever holding public office again and

it seeks to disenfranchise some 75 million voters. american voters. on wednesday this week, countless news out outlets repeated the democrat talking point about the power of never before seen footage. let me ask you this. why was this footage never seen before. shouldn't the subject of an impeachment trial, this impeachment trial of president trump have the right to see the so-called new evidence against him? more importantly, the riot and the attack on this very building was a major event that shocked and impacted all americans. shouldn't the american people have seen this footage as soon as it was available? for what possible reason to the house managers withhold it from the american people and president trump's lawyers? for political gain? how did they get it? how are they the ones releasing

it? it is evidence in hundreds of pending criminal cases against the rioters, why was it not released through law enforcement or the department of justice? is that the result of a rush snap impeachment for political gain without due process? house manager raskin told us all yesterday that your job as jurors in this case is a fact intensive job but of course as several of the house managers of told you, we still don't have the facts. speaker pelosi herself on february 2nd called for a 9/11 style commission to investigate the events of january 6. speaker pelosi says that the commission is needed to determine the causes of the events. she says it herself. if an inquiry of that magnitude is needed to determine the causes of the riot, and it may very well be, then how can these

same democrats have the certainty needed to bring articles of impeachment and blame the riots on president trump? they don't. the house managers facing a significant lack of evidence turned to press reports and rumors during these proceedings, claims that would never meet the evidentiary standards of any court. in fact, they even relied on the words of andrew feinberg, a reporter who recently worked for sputnik, the russian propaganda outlet. you saw it posted. by the way, the report they cited was completely refuted. the frequency with which house managers relied on unproven media reports shocked me as i sat in this chamber and listened to this. >> there's a lot that we don't know yet about what happened that day. according to those around him, at the time, trump reportedly, reports across all major media

outlets. >> major news networks including fox news reported -- >> reportedly summoned. >> reportedly not accidental. >> according to reports -- >> president trump reportedly >> reportedly spoke to the guard. >> it was widely reported. >> media reports. >> reported. >> reportedly. >> is any trial lawyer will tell you, "reportedly" is a euphemism for "i have no real evidence." reportedly is not the standard in any american city in which any semblance of due process is of afforded an accused. reportedly he hasn't even, here is some circumstantial evidence. it is exactly as reliable as "i googled this for you" and if you are worried you might ever be tried based on this type of evidence, don't be. you get more due process than

this when you find a parking ticket. one reason due process is so important with respect to evidence offered against and accuses that it requires an opportunity to test the integrity, the credibility, the reliability of the evidence. here, of course, former president trump was completely denied any such opportunity and it turns out there is significant reason to doubt the evidence the house managers have put before us. let me say this clearly. we have reason to believe, the house managers manipulated evidence and selectively edited footage. if they did, and this were a court of law, they would face sanctions from the judge. i don't raise this issue lightly. rather, it is a product of what we have found in just the limited time we have had since we first saw the evidence here with you this week.

we have reason to believe that the house managers created false representations of tweets and the lack of due process means there was no opportunity to review or verify the accuracy. consider these facts. the house managers, proud of their work on the snap impeachment, staged numerous photo shoots of their preparations. in one of those, manager raskin is seen here at his desk reviewing two tweets side-by-side. the image on his screen showed that president trump had retweeted one of those tweets. members of the senate, let's look closely at the screen because obviously manager raskin considered it important enough that he invited "the new york times" to watch him watching it. what's wrong with this image? actually, there are three things very wrong with it. look at the date on the very

bottom of the screen on manager raskin's computer screen when we zoom into the picture. the date that appears is januar. not 2021. why is that date wrong? because this is not a real screenshot that is working with. this is a recreation of a tweet and you've got the dates wrong when you manufactured this graphic. you did not disclose that this is a manufactured graphic and not a real screenshot of a tweet. to be fair, the house managers caught this error before showing the image on the senate floor so you never saw it when it was presented to you. but that's not all. they didn't fix this one. look at the blue check mark next to the twitter username of the account retweeted by the president. it indicates that this is a verified account, given the blue checked by twitter to indicate it is run by a public figure. the problem?

the user's real account is not verified and has no blue check mark, as you can see. were you trying to make her account seem more significant or were you just sloppy? if we had due process of law in this case, we would know the truth. but that's not all that's wrong with this one tweets. house managers showed you this tweet this weekend reflected a call to arms. he told you repeatedly that this was a promise to call in the calvary for january 6. he led you to believe that president trump's supporters believed that the president wanted arm supporters at the january 6th speech, paramilitary groups, the cavalry ready for physical combat. the problem is the actual text is exactly the opposite. the tweeter promised to bring the calvary, a public display

of's crucifixion and a symbol of christian faith with her to the president's speech, a symbol of faith, love, and speech. they just never want to read the text and believe with the text means. you will see this in the reported in the media last evening also. words matter, they told you. but they selectively edited the president's words over and over again. they manipulated video, time-shifting clips and made it appear the president's words were playing to a crowd when they weren't. let's take a look. >> after this, we are going to walk down, and i will be there with you, we are going to walk down, walk down to the, walked down to the capital. and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women and probably not going to be cheering so much for some

of them. because you'll never take back our country with weakness, you have to show strength and you have to be strong. we have come to demand that congress do the right thing and only count to the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated. i know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. >> "and we are going to walk down to the capital," they showed you that part. where are we walking to the capital? they cut that off. to cheer on some members of congress and not others, peacefully and patriotically. the supreme court ruled in brandenburg that there's a very clear standard for incitement. in short, to paraphrase, whether this pete was intended to

provoke imminent lawless action and wasn't likely to do so. go to the capital and cheer on some members of congress but not others. they know it doesn't meet the standard for incitement so they edited it down. we heard a lot this week about "fight like hell" but they cut off the video before they showed you the president's optimistic, patriotic words that followed immediately after. >> we fight like hell and if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore. our exciting adventures and endeavors have not yet begun. my fellow americans, for our vote, for our children and for our beloved country, and i say this despite all that's happened, the best is yet to come. [cheers and applause] >> there is a famous quote like one of the house managers said,

"a liable hat travel halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to put his shoes on." well, this lie traveled around the world a few times, made its way into the biden campaign talking points and ended up on the senate floor. the charlottesville live. very fine people on both sides? except that isn't all he said and they knew it then and they know it now. watch this. >> but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. you had people in that group, excuse me, excuse me. i saw the same pictures as you did, you had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from robert e. lee. george washington was a slave owner, was washington a slave owner? so will george washington now lose his status, are we going to

take down -- excuse me, are we going to take down statues to george washington? how about thomas jefferson, what do you think of thomas jefferson? do you like him? good, are we going to take down the statue? he was a major slave owner, are we going to take down his statues? it's fine, you are changing history, you are changing culture and your people and i'm not talking about the neo-nazis or the white nationalist because they should be contempt totally but you had many people in that group other than neo-nazis and white nationalists and they were treated absolutely unfairly. and the other group, also, you had some fine people but you also had troublemakers and you see them, with the black outfits on the helmets and the baseball bats. you had a lot of bad people in the other group, too. >> are you saying the press has

treated white nationalists unfairly? >> no, there were people in that rally, if you look, there were people protesting very quietly, the taking down of the statue of robert e. lee. i'm sure in that group there were some bad ones, the following day it looked like they had some rough, bad people, neo-nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them. but you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest and very legally protest because i don't know if you know, they had a permit, the other group didn't have a permit so i only tell you this, there are two sides to a story. i thought what took place was a horrible moment for our country, a horrible moment. but there are two sides. does anybody have a final -- on infrastructure? >> this may be today the first time the news networks played those full remarks in their context. and how many times have you

heard that president trump has never denounced white supremacist? now you and america know the truth. here's another example. one of the house managers made much of the president's supposedly ominous words of "you have to get your people to fight" but you do what the president really meant, he meant that the crowds should demand action for members of congress and support primary challenges to those who don't do what he considered to be right. support primary challenges, not violent actions. i know what he meant because i watched the full video and so did the house managers. but they manipulated his words. you will see where they stopped it and to give it a very different meaning from the meaning it has in full context, let's watch. >> you have to get your people to fight. he told them. >> you had to get your people to fight and if we don't fight we

have to have a primary the hell out of the ones that don't fight, we are going to let you know who they are, i can already tell you, frankly. >> the people who need to fight our members of congress. why do we have to skip the necessary due diligence and due process of law and that any legal proceeding should have? it couldn't have been the urgency to get president trump out of office, house democrats held the articles until he was no longer president. hatred, animosity, division, political gain and let's face it, for house democrats, president trump is the best enemy to attack. >> i want to say this for donald trump, who i may well be voting to impeach. >> donald trump is already done a number of things which legitimately raise the question of impeachment. >> i don't respect this president, and i will fight every day until he is impeached.

>> those are grounds to start impeachment. those are grounds to start impeachment proceedings. >> yes, i think that's grounds to start impeachment proceedings. >> i rise today with a speaker to call for the impeachment of the president of the united states of america. >> i continue to say, impeach him! impeach 45! impeach 45! >> so we are calling upon the house to begin an impeachment hearing immediately. >> on the impeachment of donald trump would you vote yes or no? >> i would vote to impeach. >> we are going to go in there and impeach the [bleep]. >> i introduced articles of impeachment in july of 2017. >> if we don't impeach as president he will get reelected. >> the house requires me to have and impeachment hearing. >> the representative should begin impeachment proceedings against this president. >> it is time to bring

impeachment charges against him. >> bring impeachment charges. >> my personal view is that he deserves impeachment. >> at an impeachment rally, we are ready to impeach! >> we can impeach him at any day the week for anything he's done. >> that same hatred and anger has led house managers to ignore their own words and actions and set a dangerous double standard. house managers spoke about rhetoric, about a constant drumbeat of heated language. i'm sure everyone watching it affected, we need to show you some of their own words. >> i just don't even know why there aren't uprisings all over the country, maybe there will be. >> there needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there is unrest in our lives. >> donald trump, i think you need to go back and punch him in the face. >> i thought he should've punched him in the face. >> i feel like punching him.

>> i taken behind the gym if we were in high school. >> in high school i could take in behind the gym. >> i will go and take trump out tonight. >> the last time and after assassinated president. >> show me where protests are supposed to be polite and peaceful. >> you tell them they are not welcome anymore, anywhere. >> i thought an awful lot about blowing up the white house. >> in the face of some congresspeople. >> people will do what they do. >> i want to tell you, you have released and you will pay the price. >> we are going to go in there, we are going to [bleep]. >> this is just a warning, be careful. walk lightly, and for those of you who are soldiers, make them

pay. >> if you had to be stuck in an elevator with president trump, mike pence, or jeff sessions, who would it be? [laughter] >> and there's more. >> i promise to fight every single day, i am a fighter and i'm relentless but i'm a fighter and i'm relentless. i'm a fighter and i'm relentless. i will fight like hell. >> the way i see it now as we pick our tails up and we fight back, that's what i think it's all about, we stand up and we fight back. we do not back down, we do not compromise, not today, not tomorrow, not ever. if you lie down, you can whimper, you can curl up in a ball and decide to move to canada or you can stand your ground and fight back and that's what it's about, we do fight back. we are going to fight back.

we are not turning this country over to what donald trump has sold, we are just not. >> look, people are upset and they are right to be upset. >> now we can whimper, we can whine or we can fight back. >> me, i'm here to fight back! i am here to fight back! because we will not forget, we do not want to forget. we will use that vision to make sure that we fight harder, we fight tougher and we fight more passionately than ever. we still of a fight on our hands. fight hard for the changes americans are demanding. get in the fight, winning the fight. we will use every tool possible to fight for this change. we will fight. we will fight. fighting hard, about fighting.

and fight. fight back. we call them out and we fight back. i'm in this fight. i am fighting. i am fighting, i am in this fight. get in this fight. get in this fight. and fighting. we all need to be in the fight. we all need to stay in the fight. we stay in this fight. we fought back. we fought back. i am not afraid of the fight. i am in this fight all the way. you don't get what you don't fight for. our fight. our fight. we are in this fight for our lives. this is the fight of our lives. >> we are going to make sure that this fight does not end tonight. this is a fight for our lives, the lives of our friends and

family, members and neighbors. it is a fight. it is a fight that we are going to work to make sure continues. it's a fight, it is a fight. it is a fight and that's what this fight is for. >> i learned to fight anyone. i'm jon tester and you are damn right that i approve this message. >> we have lots of fights ahead of us and i'm ready to stand up and keep fighting. we're going to fight. we are going to fight. we need to fight, fight, fight. we need to fight. we are going to fight. we need to take the privilege of a few more fights and we have the biggest fight of all. we need to say loud and clear that we are ready to fight. >> now they are going to have to actually fight back against

people. >> fight that fight. >> i was fighting very hard. >> i think we should be fighting. >> i really believe we need to fight. >> we are definitely not going to take this lying down. we are going to keep fighting. i'm telling all my colleagues, this is the fight of our life. >> is fight are you on, who are you fighting for? >> we will fight back. we are not going to take this lying down. >> keep the fighter. >> what we have to do right now is high fight as hard, hard as we can. >> we have to rise up and fight back. >> we are going to fight and continue to fight. >> i'm going to be fighting. >> we kept fighting and we did. >> we have to be fighting every single day. >> we have to fight back and we have no choice but to do that. >> we were doing the right thing to do that. >> we have to fight. >> i'm asking for the support of

people across the country to fight back. >> jo to be fierce. >> fighting. >> i told president biden i will fight. >> now more than ever we have jeff i like hell. >> i'm going to be down there on the floor. >> we democrats are fighting as hard as we can. >> democrats are fighting as hard as we can. >> what we've got to do is fight in congress, fight in the courts, fight in the streets, fight online, fight at the ballot box. >> pushing around the clock, fighting, continue to be brave and be strong and keep fighting. getting people engaged in the fight. we are fighting. you've got to keep fighting and keep focused, continue to fight. >> this is going to be a fight. >> fight them and challenge him in every way that we can, in congress, in the courts, in the street. >> we each have an important role to play in fighting and this fight like so many before it has been a fight the american

people are going to have to fight. and about the importance of fighting. i will always fight. fighting. but we always must fight. joe biden has a deep, deep seated commitment to fight. >> and about the importance of fighting. >> we always loved a fight. >> as our willingness to fight continues. >> to fight. >> as joe biden says fights. >> it's about what we are fighting for. >> we will tell them about what we did to fight. >> but truly i believe we are in a fight. i believe that we are in a fight. i believe we are in a fight. i believe we are in a fight. there's a fight in front of us, a fight for all these things. we know how to fight. our ongoing fights. we know how to fight. we like a good fight.

this is our fight right now. >> there's the fight. there is the fight. there's the fight. >> that is the guiding purpose of house democrats. he is never forgotten who he is fighting for. who marched and fought. we just have to fight. >> this is a fight for our country. >> fighting the health prices. >> i led the fight. >> continue to fight. >> never, never, never give up this fight. i'm a citizen fighting for it. >> we fought for progressive change. >> a lawyer who fought for people his whole life. >> he's not proud to have him in his fight with me. above all it's time for america to get back up. and once again. we will fight. what kind of america are we fighting for? we need to fight. we also need to fight.

fight for in america. >> i'm going to wake up every day and fight hard. we are going to fight. we're going to fight. we are going to fight. and i will fight. >> we are in the fight of our lives right now. we fight like hell. >> fight. >> fight against the trump administration. >> democrats are standing up to fight. >> we are in this fight in a serious way. >> get in this fight. >> i have taken on the fight. >> is representative for the people, our job is to fight. >> which led us in this fight. >> the fight for this. >> this fight. >> i will fight. >> one of the things we do is fight. should fight. >> my constituents send me here each and every day to fight. >> we've been fighting this fight. we need to be side by side so we can seed so i hope you all join us in our fight. if we fight. and x the next as an ex-governor

of georgia i will never stop fighting. we can fight. >> my fight, to fight. >> to fight. >> this administration to requiring us to fight, to fight we will. >> when we fight the fight we are in. >> and we are fighting this fight. >> we will fight. we will fight. we are in a fight. it is a fight. it is a fight born out of patriotism. >> i say fight on. fight on. fight on. fight on. >> one more time, this is not the fight i wanted to take on but this is the fight in front of us now. >> every single one of you and everyone of you. that's okay. you didn't do anything wrong.

it's a word people use but please stop the hypocrisy. did you tone down the rhetoric last summer? did you condemn the rioters or did you stand with nancy pelosi who said people are going to do what they're going to do. >> everyone be aware because they not going to stop. they are not going to stop before election day in november and they are not going to stop after. >> and please, show me where it says protests are supposed to be polite and peaceful. >> and uprising all over the country. >> they shot and killed david in cold blood. >> destroying property which can be replaced is not violence.

>> it just collapsed. the building just collapsed. >> for no reason. >> some of the damage. >> i am proud of new york and i am proud of the protests. >> there is damage everywhere you look, honestly it looks like a war zone. >> it's heartwarming to see so many people turn out peacefully. >> and they keep doing it day after day after day. >> that's a nation of protesters, the patriots were protesters. >> st. john's church is on fire. >> that is a myth. >> i hope someone burns down your whole precinct with all of you all inside. >> anymore, anywhere.

>> they are not going to let us and they should not. >> you claim it is wrong to object to the certification of eight election results. you intend to cancel and sponsor members of this chamber who voiced concerns and objected to certification. manager raskin, you've been in congress only three days when you objected in 2017. it's one of the first things you did when he got here. >> i have an objection because ten of the 29 electoral votes cast were cast by electors not lawfully certified. >> is the objection in writing and signed not only by the member of the house of representatives but also by a senator? >> it is in writing mr. president. not >> is it signed by a senator? in that case the objection cannot be entertained. >> mr. president i object to the certificate on the state of georgia on the grounds that --

>> president biden: there is no