trial where the rules are changing as we speak. so, too, the spillover what happened on that building on stimulus and so much more, including the covid and vaccine progress and the rest. it all suddenly changed right now. >> the surprise request for witnesses by the house impeachment managers a couple of hours ago now means it could take days if not weeks before we have a verdict in the senate trial of former president trump. welcome to america's news headquarters from washington, i'm john roberts. we're listening and we have been listening at least to senator ted cruz of texas talking about this, he said moments ago he thinks on the low end of the scale there would probably be 53 votes to convict and the high end of the scale 57, which means that the president would be acquitted. let's drop back in and listen to what else senator cruz is saying. >> and the defendant in the proceeding doesn't get to call any witnesses, i don't think

that passes the last test. i think you might see some democratic senators say, look, this is ridiculous if one side gets to call a witness, the other side does. i don't think we'll go down that road because it's so obviously unfair. but at this point it's pandemonium. (inaudible) >> i have no idea, i mean, it's hearsay or double hearsay. i spent a lot of my career as a practicing lawyer. i can tell you at any court in america, you have a witness who gets up who begins their testimony with, well, i don't know, but i heard a guy who told me-- that witness gets laughed out of court. that doesn't get allowed in any ordinary circumstance. the entire house manager's case is based on hearsay, double hearsay, someone told someone told someone. none of that is credible and reliable. i actually thought the president's defense lawyers did an effective job with their montage of all the times the house managers said well, this

has been reported, that's been reported. with all due respect to our good folks in the press the fact that it gets reported in some story does not establish it as a fact, that is considered proven in anything resembly a court of law and at this point that's the entire basis of the manager's case. >> all right, thank you, guys. >> all right, there, senator ted cruz of texas talking about where we are right now, describing it as pandemonium. the fact that just a couple of hours ago, as gavelled into session. congressman jamie raskin of maryland got up to include request for witnesses based on one piece of evidence that came to light, it's not new evidence, it's been out there for a while that came to light last night. so this is how we got to this point. kristin: . >> last night congresswoman jamie herrera buetler, reads in

part, when mccarthy finally reached the president january 6th by phone and asked him to publicly and forcefully call off the riot the president initially repeated the falsehood that it was antifa that breached the capitol and mccarthy refuted that and told that's trump supporters and said well, kevin, i guess these people are more upset about the election than you are. five republicans joining democrats to approve the request for witnesses that many thought would bring the end of the trial. in fact, we thought between now and 2 p.m. this afternoon the senate would have been voting on whether or not to convict the president, we should mention as we bring in chad at the capitol breaking down what happened that senator graham switched his vote on this motion. he was initially a nay and then he changed to an aye. the reason for that, chad,

would seem to be that senator graham said if they were to call witnesses, katie bar the door, if you want to call a couple of dozen than being on the record with a no vote. >> and that's what senator graham said a couple of minutes ago, the first witnesses on the republican side of the aisle should be the speaker of the house, nancy pelosi. that's clear on the republican side of the aisle. this has been an unscripted "oh henry" twist. the senate voting 55-45 subpoena witnesses and that means no witnesses in the trial today. they want to hear from representative jaime herrera beutler. and as you alettered to herrera

beutler says that the president said that antifa was breaching the building. and they say this is opening the door for a long process. >> there are a lot of depositions that need to be lapping. nancy pelosi's deposition needs to be taken. vice-president harris' deposition, absolutely needs to be taken, and not by zoom. these depositions should be done in person, in my office, in philadelphia. >> this could lead to a panoply of witnesses summoned by both sides. vice-president pence, perhaps, mccarthy, even g.o.p. alabama senator tommy tuberville. this could be a defacto review at the capitol. and one from speaker pelosi what she requested for the security posture on the 6th of january and the republicans are more than happy to stretch this out. they believe the democrats were

stretching authority with the trial. this could be the shortest impeachment trial of a president, five days. last year's two weeks. president clinton's trial five weeks in 1999. the trial of president andrew johnson in 1868 three months. the senate is it going to return at 12:30 eastern time and they have to work out a resolution how to proceed with witnesses and maybe we'll learn more about that at 12:30 and there could even be a vote, john. >> we should point out they mentioned andrew johnson, 41 witnesses for that trial and three for president clinton, but i'm curious, you know, help me out and help the folks out at home in terms of the rules. what power does the republican party or do republicans in the senate have to drag this out? because don't individual witnesses need to be voted on, the inclusion of witnesses need to be voted on by the senate? >> there has to be a resolution, what witnesses do you want to hear from?

what witnesses do you want to hear from on both sides and resolve that. they're subject if you read through the framework approved by the senate at the beginning of the trial. you have to approve that and they're both open after depositions, and do they insist on zoom or insist on it in the city of brotherly love. the other is discovery. a legal term and something they would have to do, you go in from both sides and see what the other side had. you know, this is why we might be weeks away from a verdict here in this trial. >> well, we don't know how many witnesses the republicans might be able to get through if any, but jason miller, one of the president's-- the ex-president's chief advisors is walking around with a list of potential witnesses, with the heading, 301 so far, not likely, chad, they would get all of those and not maybe anywhere near there, but they're preparing to do a long

battle. chad pergram, you've been great, stick with it. and joining us from kansas, roger marshall. senator marshall, thanks for joining us. first of all, your take on what happened a couple of hours ago? >> well, john, this is obviously a political hail mary and just proves my point that president trump lives rent-free in the heads of democrats. can you imagine what's going on yesterday and as the president's defense team took away the prosecution's lines and that radical part of the left part of the democrat party was in the ear of jamie raskin all night, we've got to do something. here is the political football they're throwing out and most importantly, i want to impress upon folks this is just the second chapter of the same book. a yearing a, nancy pelosi marching the impeachment orders over, inviting people to chinatown while i was on the house floor trying to stop this virus. today the virus is on the run. we heard immunity and what are

we doing, we're focused on an impeachment hearing now. >> you call it a political hail mary, to what end? >> i think what exactly is this impeachment about? and the single impeachment article did president trump incite a crowd? so now they want to call a witness who had no relevant information to this particular trial. it's information about another potential issue. look, this is like charging a person with speeding and then in the middle of the trial we're going to change it to robbing a bank. so this doesn't fall with due process. i don't think it's constitutional. america wants us to move on. we want to get vaccinations in people's arms. we want to get the economy going again. we want kids back in school. >> but when i say to what end, is there any expectation that calling jaime herrera beutler and what she says kevin mccarthy told her about the phone call will affect the outcome of the trial or heap more scorn on president trump

and potentially wound him politically to a greater degree in the past? will this change the outcome of the trial? >> this is not change the outcome of the trial. i just can't imagine that the-- president trump will be acquitted, i think that everybody has made up their mind. i can't imagine any any evidence coming forward. all i say, give the democrats more rope, i think they'll hang themselves on some issues probably they'll help president trump more. >> you talk about giving the democrats more rope to hang themselves with, what potentially will it do to hang up president biden's agenda if we spend days not weeks wrestling over this idea of depositions and witnesses and more proceeding in the senate? >> you're right. i have spent four years in the house and now the senate. we've done nothing up here except this impeachment. we should be getting the secretary of agriculture confirmed on the senate floor. he has 1 1/2 billion dollars of

coronavirus money sitting on his desk, money that would go to food banks, food to get to people who need it the most. this congress does not function by walking and chewing gum. i think he is that very evident. we're treading water. there's only one talk in town right now, the impeachment of donald john trump. >> lindsey graham changed his vote, and initially a nay and changed to an aye. chad pergram and is were talking about it, i don't know if you heard, that if they opened to witnesses. katie bar the door because republicans would call many of them. and it's easier to call witnesses if you changed your vote. >> and investigating the case after it was brought to the senate, it better for the country to go to a final vote. we could start with speaker

pelosi to answer the question whether or not there was credible evidence of pre-planned violence before president trump spoke. is that something that if they do call witnesses, you want to hear about? and what else, senator marshall, do you want to hear about and hear from? >> yeah, speaker pelosi has to be the first witness. what she knew and when she knew it. based on the evidence that the prosecutors brought forward, this event, the riot was planned weeks and months and surely that was presented to her. i had from good sources the day before president trump asked for 10,000 national guard troops to be at the capitol. and i don't know who stopped those, i want to know what nancy pelosi's, with stopping them here. >> my understanding as well a couple of days before january 6th the president and acting secretary of defense had a conversation in which the president authorized the secretary to use any and all

resources necessary to try to keep the capitol safe, but that those resources needed to be requested by the mayor of washington d.c. and that extra troops on the afternoon of january the 6th were not requested until that riot was well underway. >> you're right and i believe there will be multiple congress members that that conversation took place as well as the acting secretary. the riots had been going on across the country and only now do the democrats condemn the rioting. all along it takes governors to call on the national guard. the president can do only so much. we are the party of law and order. the son of a police of chief, i believe in law and order our party believes in law and order, it's amazing all of a sudden the democrats want law and order. >> quickly, senator, if this motion carries forward and witnesses are called. how long do you think this will be dragged out? >> oh, i think weeks, weeks or

months and depositions taken and come back as well. unfortunately until the gavel drops and president trump is acquitted this senate will be focused on one issue. instead we should be epg had-- helping out. >> thank you for spending time with us. >> you're welcome. >> and we have jason chief of staff vits -- let's start with you, did jamie raskin's request this morning surprise you? >> not particularly, because the information that came out last night what congresswoman herrera beutler said was stunning, we need that mccarthy pushed back on trump's allegation that it was antifa which was nonsense, but what we

didn't know was that mccarthy reported to those around him that trump was applauding the attack on the capitol, saying that they were more worried about the outcome of the election than you are, kevin. that's an enormously important piece of evidence about trump's state of mind. after all, the charge that he incited this riot and the defense claims that he didn't want there to be an attack on the capitol, this would suggest the opposite. >> jason, i was listening to the questions posited by the senators yesterday and the question that came up several times was when did the president realize what was going on in the senate and what did he do about it? this testimony from congresswoman herrera beutler would seem to go directly to that question. >> look, it shows that the house didn't do its full job. they rushed to judgment. they rushed this impeachment through and threw it out there and now i think they understood

that yesterday was a very good day for the trump defense team. if you're going to call one witness who is a hearsay witness about one sentence that the president supposedly, might have said. there are a whole lot of other people that should be called and a lot of discussions that should be had there. i think lindsey graham was very savvy in switching his vote. you can vote to say, hey, this is an ununconstitutional process, i happy to think that, but i think if the democrats are going to state witnesses all the republicans should stand up and say, yeah, we should bring in witnesses, the chief of police, nancy pelosi. there are a host of people we need know know what they were thinking, when they were thinking it, what did they do and not do. at the end of the day they still have not produced a single witness who said donald j. trump said this to the rioters. if you're inciting something, then you have to have the president saying something to those people who then broke the law, attacked police and

stormed the capitol. they never came up with that. it's still not there. >> go ahead, ben. >> that's ridiculous, he was doing it on television. he said we've got to fight 20 times into that speech. >> name one sentence that he did. and there isn't one. there isn't one. he said they were going to peacefully do this and you've got to look at the timeline. the other thing is, i do think if you're going to call witnesses, you're going to have to bring in the fbi and others, because there are a lot of people that believe that some of these people had pre-planned this attack. you don't come with zip ties and helmets and then suddenly get spontaneously ginned up by the president and storm the capitol. that presupposes there were a lot of people out there planning this attack before that event. >> let's go back to this idea of witnesses here. jamie raskin specifically said he wants to call one witness initially, that's the congresswoman, wants to depose her via zoom for maybe an hour

and the congresswoman said when she released a statement out there last night, if there's anybody else out there to say something, now is the time to come forward. >> republicans will want to call witnesses. and lindsey graham said it would open the flood gates to a slew of witnesses. all have to be voted on. do you think that the republicans will force the democrats, democrats want to call one or two witnesses we are going to need to call witnesses as well. and in the interest of fairness, you have to accede to our witnesses as well. could this be a snowball? >> it could, but i don't think it will. the democrats control the chamber, these are all political decisions. this is not a court of law. if it were a court of law, senator cruz could not come on your show and say he's decided how to vote. and the jurors cannot-- >> although mitch mcconnell did

come forward this morning and say how he would vote. >> that would be totally inappropriate in a court of law. he's not he's a senator in a trial of impeachment. what that means is that the rules in a court do not apply and a court the judge decides the law and the jury decides the fact. that's not what happens in the senate. so to your question, the answer is, democrats can control how many witnesses there are, and i think they probably will allow the defendant to have some, if they have some. but i don't think it will be a huge snowball and i don't think it will go on for weeks. >> jason, quickly to you, what will happen if democrat don't allow the republicans to call the witnesses they want? ments i agree this is all political theater. there's a reason why the chief of the supreme court is not there, john roberts is not there. there's a reason why the vice-president, who is the president of the senate, she's not there. this is political theater and i think the democrats know they're in a hole. they know they're going to lose this vote and if they don't

allow republicans to also call witnesses and do it one-sided it's going to further play into republicans' hands. >> all right, jason chaffetz and matt bennett. a vote is scheduled for 10 minutes from now, and we will see if that happens. more on fox news sunday. chris wallace talks to senators amy klobuchar and lindsey graham about the latest twist in this. it will be 2:00 eastern time check for channel. howard kurtz talks to ari fleischmen. and we'll being back short. coming up on america's news head kwerts, stay with us a lot more to come. research shows that people remember commercials with exciting stunts. so to help you remember that liberty mutual customizes your home insurance, here's something you shouldn't try at home. insurance is cool.

only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ ok everyone, our mission is to provide complete, balanced nutrition for strength and energy. whoo-hoo! great tasting ensure with 9 grams of protein, 27 vitamins and minerals, and nutrients to support immune health. at t-mobile, we have a plan built just for customers 55 and up. saving 50% vs. other carriers with 2 unlimited lines for less than $30 each. call 1-800-t-mobile or go to t-mobile.com/55. ♪ ♪ the chevy silverado trail boss. when you have a two-inch lift. when you have goodyear duratrac tires.

when you have rancho shocks and an integrated dual exhaust. when you have all that, the last thing you'll need... is a road. the chevy silverado trail boss. ready to off-road, right from the factory.

>> they set the rules of the trial we would like the opportunity to subpoena congresswoman herrera with regard to her conversation with kevin mccarthy and subpoena her contemporaneous notes regarding what president trump told kevin mccarthy in the middle of the insurrection. john: the chief house manager jamie raskin of maryland upsetting the apple cart of the

senate trial saying this morning after the session was gravelled in, we want witnesses. stunning just about everyone. let's bring in our legal panel to break down the latest in the senate impeachment trial, guy lewis. also the former executive of office for the united states attorneys and former prosecutor and professor at university of memphis law school, steve mulroy. guy, why don't you start us off. we've done from political territory into constitutional law and serious legal territory and witnesses in depositions and whatnot. how were you struck by what happened this morning? >> boy, oh, boy, john. those of us who walk into federal court, day in and day out. this is not what happens. you don't get surprise witnesses. you don't get all of this back and forth. it was a surprise to me.

i thought we'd come in today and there would be a vote and the senators would go home and the case would go down in history as a not guilty for the former president of the united states, but that's not to be. so the-- i think what happened it, i think the prosecutors, the house managers, last night they probably got together and they decided, listen, we don't-- we're not even getting close to the goal line here so therefore, what can we do to extend this, maybe get a witness or two, maybe three or four and who knows, once those witnesses testify, you may get some additional bad evidence against the former president of the united states. john: steve mulroy, do you think that was the case? this statement from congresswoman herrera beutler did short of explode onto the scene last night. we knew some of what was

contained in that phone call prior to this, but she seemed to add a layer of granularity to it that we didn't know before. does that demand to be vesseled investigated? >> i think it does and the willingness for congresswoman herrera beutler to go on the record. the key moment of time between representative mccarthy and president trump was new information to the house impeachment managers and they realized they had perhaps a willing witness who had probative evidence of president trump's state of mind during the key time after the riot started and it was the defense lawyers themselves during the trial who sort of opened the door saying, oh, it's clear that president trump had no idea that the vice-president was in danger and from the very moment he was doing everything he could to stop the riot. well, this conversation that congresswoman herrera beutler

is reporting directly reputs that and so therefore, i think it opens the door to look, we've got new information, let's put it into the record. >> a court of law, you call one witnesses, you can call as many witnesses as you like. but this is a different process the witnesses have to be approved by the majority vote in the senate. we don't know what's going to happen when they come back at 12:30. they may have come up with some sort of an agreement, but if there's not equity here in terms of the ability to call witnesses, again, it's not a legal process, it's a political process and with a legal spin on the side. what will that do, you know, in terms of joe biden talked about this idea of unity. if you have the democrats say we're calling one witness and the republicans get shut out? >> that's a great question. what it does from my perspective, yes, the senators are the jurors, but in reality,

because this is so political, it's not like what happens in federal court at all. because it is so political, the real jurors are your viewers, are the people at home. so if you see the democrats go one way and they don't grant equality or the same kind of rule for the other side, surely, surely the people at home are going to conclude that this is unfair. it's fundamentally unfair, which of course plays into what the republicans are saying and the defense lawyers are saying, that this whole process has been upsidedown from the beginning. john: so, steve, if the democrats are allowed to call at least one witness and maybe more than that, do they need to give parity to the republicans? >> oh, i think so. as a matter of fairness they should give the defense an opportunity to call witnesses, too, and it should be roughly equal between the two, as long as the number of witnesses isn't excessive, you know, the

idea that the defense lawyer was talking about calling a hundred witnesses. that does not seem very reasonable. and then the witnesses themselves have to have relevant information. they can't be bringing in witnesses for extraneous matters, but if there's relevant and probative evidence to come from witnesses then it should be roughly balanced i think that the prosecution and defense should be given opportunities to call witnesses that have relevant evidence and i suspect that's probably what will end up happening. john: we'll see, steve mulroy and guy lewis, thanks, appreciate it. >> thank you. john: it looks like things will be delayed a little in the senate. stand in recess until 12:30 and it's longer than that. and joining us now, a person in the chamber soon, north dakota senator cramer. good to see you. where do we go from here? >> that's a great question. i think we'll know hopefully within minutes or hours at least, whether some stipulation can be made, whether there's some agreement on what your panel was talking about, the

number of witnesses and how to move forward. all this have has been upsetting to what was otherwise a pretty clean and clear schedule and an agreement between the parties, but what has happened here to quote another famous politician is, they've unleashed a whirlwind and they now have, they being the house democrats, who have surprised even their own leaders in the senate, have to find preferably, i guess, a graceful way out of this. i can tell you there are a lot of people on our side that are ready to have this last for 10 months if it takes 10 more minutes. john: we've heard michael van der veen, the president's attorney saying there was an agreement with the house managers to not call any witnesses. do you know if in fact there was an agreement and was that agreement thrown out the window this morning? >> yeah, i think what the attorneys were talking about was an agreement between house-- or senate leadership, that a stipulation, if you will, or the idea that we would have no witnesses and either side would have no witnesses. of course, that all got blown

up when the house managers called for witnesses and changed their minds. the problem is, you might have noticed and i think this is a pretty important thing to keep track of, when mr. raskin changed his mind and then was asked were you coordinating this with senate democrats, he said no. and mr. van der veen said, i'd like to depose that because i'm-- you know, i think it's been pretty clear all along that the house managers and senate democrats have been coordinating. now, i don't take issue with that, politics, it's a political arena, but he did say they didn't. there's an awful lot of drama ma. john: we know that senator cruz and senator graham talking with the president's defense and saying no and then having a different thing. when you say 10 months could it go that long or could it be over the middle part of next

week. >> well, first of all, remember the senate is supposed to be in roux he cess-- recess next week. it would be my expectation there would be some sort of a motion that would include next week's president's day recess continuing. what's critical, the senate is not supposed to do anything, but impeachment when impeachment is going on. and when' get back to this whether it's in the next hour, tomorrow, next week, or the week after, we've been very generous as republicans. we've been having meetings with senate-- with nominees for the cabinet. we've even had markup votes in committee. we've even had committee hearings, all things that you're not, by senate rules, obligated to do. we've allowed that to keep the government functioning, even though we're in the minority. they need to have at least one republican to continue business on any day of the week in any chamber, including committees because they can't get a quorum

without one and the vice-president does not constitute a forum. our conversation is being flushed, if you ask me, by this action today. they've turned the united states senate into a kangaroo court and there's a lot of upset people, including me. john: senator cramer, we were looking at pictures on the right-hand side of the screen of senator romney talking to reporters and we don't have audio of that. let' continue with you. something you said maybe on your way over to speak with us and we appreciate you taking the time, there's talk that maybe there is he had an a stipulation of congresswoman herrera beutler's statement goes into the record and leave it at that? >> there is talk of that, that would probably be the most peaceful way for the house managers to back out of the mess they've made for themselves. we know why they got into it, they got their heads handed to them and the constitution read in and case law actually read and put on the screen and they got their heads handed to them

and their base got upset so they did this. i imagine they'd like a graceful way out. that would be a graceful way out if, you know, now it's hard for me to imagine, but maybe it's possible that the president's lawyers would stipulate to that without at least providing another, you know, another statement from somebody that might be on the other side. maybe somebody like kevin mccarthy, but if we go to full depositions, i'm telling you, nancy pelosi's going to have to be deposed about what she knew and when she knew it and why she didn't protect the capitol when house managers put in the record there's a lot of intel that, you know, predicted this stuff and so this could go on for a very long time if they want to continue with these kind of shenanigans. john: let me come back a with this idea. i know you've got to run. but the idea much entering congresswoman herrera beutler's statement in the record, what are the chances that could happen. >> i'm surprised it didn't happen. and every minute that goes by that hasn't been stipulated

makes me think it's not being stipulated. i thought a half hour ago that would be an easy one, maybe even 45 minutes to go or whenever i first heard about it as a suggestion, i thought, well, this is the easy way out and everybody can calm back down, relationships can, you know, that have been severed in the last hour or so can be rebuilt, which will have to happen. but the fact that we're still here outside of the chamber rather than inside of the chamber leads me believe it's not as simple as that. john: i can see on the right-hand side of the screen quorum call are up over the senate. we should probably let you go. we are watching what is transpiring and please come back and talk to us after a next break. let's go go to thirdway, matt bennett, let's start with you, what about the idea simply

stipulating that congresswoman herrera beutler's statement last night on the internet be entered into the record and then we do-- that's it, no witnesses, let's get on with the vote. >> look, that may work and i have a lot of faith in jamie raskin, if he and his team think that suffices, that makes a lot of sense to me. i think there's a risk. i don't disagree with the other guests who have noted there's a risk of this dragging on too long and getting in the way of the senate doing its work which is very, very important right now. so if there can be consensus around that, that sounds right to me. john: all right. jason, the fact that there was, according to senator cramer, this agreement between leadership to not call any witnesses, and then suddenly congressman raskin pulls the pin of the hand grenade and throws it into the senate chamber, do you think the senate is looking for a way out here?

>> yeah, i think every senator there anticipated a vote that they would be on their airplanes flying back home by late afternoon. i wish the statement from the congresswoman had come out on the house side. i know she spoke. but it's reasonable to take that statement, use unanimous consent and enter it into the record and i don't think it will change a single vote. john: we haven't had a chance to ask her this question, but matt bennett why do you think she waited this long. she's clearly had this information for a long time. was it the fact that this came up a number of times during the question and answer period yesterday? >> yeah, i really don't know, but look, you've got to feel for somebody like congresswoman herrera beutler. she's a conservative republican. she is just elected and she is taking a tremendous amount of heat. i can only imagine the abuse she's been taking online and in otherwise. so, i think she's been trying

to get the truth out, but in a, probably in a responsible and measured way and when she saw that the defense was making a mockery of the idea that the president thought that this attack on the capitol was a good idea, she wanted to make clear what she knew and that that just wasn't the case, that he had told mccarthy that these people were, you know, more worried about the election than he was. so i think she found it vital that she speak up when the defense distorted the record the way they did yesterday. john: let's dissect that for a second. jason chaffetz if we could, the fact that the president allegedly said that the people there at the capitol care more about the election than you do, leader mccarthy. is that -- is that an admission that the president was trying to let the capitol building, in a sense, in essence burn down? or was this a statement that

he's mad at mccarthy? >> take it for what it's worth, but i don't think it goes to the core of the case the democrats are trying to make, that somehow in front of thousands of people the president of the united states incited thousands of people to go try to knock down the united states capitol. these are comments that happened later, if they are true. it's hearsay, she didn't hear them directly. i have the greatest respect for her, i served with her for years, she's not a new member of the congress, she's been there for a number of years and i think widely liked on both sides of the aisle, but at the same time, this is coming very late. i don't think it goes to the core of the case. i don't think it will move anybody in any direction, but i don't see the evidence that, again, i think the democrats lack direct evidence that the president incited people in front of thousands and got them to go over there. they don't have a quote that they can use or point to that would lead to a justified

conviction in this case. john: so, matt bennett, this argument about incitement and as jason chaffetz just said, what does this have to do with that, if the president wanted it to continue, would that buttress the argument of incitement sore is this sort of tangential to the entire argument? because you're looking for the spark here. you know, if a let a fire continue to burn after you've lit it is that any worse than lighting the fire or prove that you wanted to light the fire in the first place? i'm not sure. well, this is all a question, a judgment question for the jurors in this case, which is the senators, but i think if the defense was trying to allege that somehow the president was horrified by what was going on in the capitol, that's obviously nonsense. it's proven by a variety of things and this is pretty strong evidence that he kind of liked what was going on, that he was supportive of the idea that these people had bowled into the capitol and killing and maiming police officers in

the name of, you know, trying to overturn the election in ways that he supported. so, yeah, i think it's relevant evidence and it goes directly to his state of mind because incitement requires that you have to prove that that's what he wanted and i think there's evidence of that. john: i do recall on the day as i was covering it from the white house back on the 6th, that when the president first tweeted it seemed that the tweet was a little bit of weak tea in terms of trying to stop what was going on at the capitol and that we did see the president come back with some more forceful tweets after that. stick with us for just a second and let's get an update from chad pergram as we're 12 minutes past when the senate was supposed to come back into session to find out where we are and what's happening. chad. >> good afternoon, john. timing in the united states senate is never swift. when they say they'll come back at 12:30 and do something, that means they're not going to come back at 12:30 and do something.

they're not even having a bed check, a call for quorum at 12:30. that's why they are a sitting there, we saw mitch mcconditional go into the chamber and senator majority leader chuck schumer walking around the floor. what is going off stage right now, they're trying to get some sort of an agreement, actual language to present to senators and say, okay, this is a resolution going forward or maybe not going forward on dealing with witnesses or a particular witness or even-steven on both sides. that's what we have to find out because the senate would have to approve that resolution, so that vote that we saw this morning after a little off 10:00, that was essentially a gateway vote. it opened ut the senate to get to this stage where they could consider under the parameters of the impeachment trial the possibility of witnesses. so, that's why we're saying, all right, we don't know how long this goes and this is where kevin cramer, the republican senator from north dakota says maybe they take

statement from jaime herrera beutler the congresswoman from washington state and that's that. would the president's attorneys accede to that. we've heard that lindsey graham, we'll have to hear from nancy pelosi, this could go down to the mat that they'll vote for this. keep in mind senators on republican side of the aisle last year, mitt romney and susan collins open the door for witnesses and they didn't have those and you had the witnesses in the impeachment trial of president clinton in 1999 earlier in the process. and this is a surprise because nobody literally knows what's going to happen. senators do not know what the text of the resolution might be. they don't know if they can't get an agreement and everybody just goes home. we don't know if any time here we might hear from chuck

schumer who could layout the schedule and debate back and forth so senators understand what they're voting. there was a question in the middle of the roll call vote from dan sullivan, the republican senator from alaska, wasn't clear exactly on what he's voting. keep in mind, i'm going to throw this out there, this is deep in the weed, but it's very important, this is why processen 0 capitol hill is very important. lindsey graham, the republican senator from south carolina, he voted no initially, and then he voted yes. now he has put out a statement saying i think we need to hear from lots of witnesses, including nancy pelosi. in senate and house practice, particularly in the senate, if you vote on the prevailing side of the issue, in other words, this time, the yea's won, the ideas to have witness is that side won and lindsey graham is on the prevailing side. what you can sometimes do if you've been on the prevailing side, you can ask for a revote. sometimes in the senate they review things and find

themselves in a parliamentary cul-de-sac and no, no, that's not where they want to go and unwind that. whether it's lindsey graham or even chuck schumer, he voted in the affirmative. he's the majority leader and therefore, he could unwind this. where this goes is anybody's guess at this shot. john: i'm going to need to get a new weed whacker. >> (laughter) the last time we talked about this, the idea that graham wanted to-- he said we're going to open the flood gates if the democrats go for any witnesses and it being on the voting side for witnesses gives you more moral high ground to call witnesses, than being on the no side. so, do we know which is it? was that the case or does he want to reserve the right to try to unwind all of this? >> well, you know, this is why it's always been good politics at least perceived good politics on the right to take on nancy pelosi and put her front and center, asking what

she knew and what her decisions were. her and mitch mcconnell, they are ultimately in charge of security at the capitol. i don't see any republicans asking, you know, to call mitch mcconnell and ask what his disposition was on the security situation at the capitol leading up to the events of 1-6. that could be a relevant question here. as long as they can put nancy pelosi front and center which has worked for them in 2010 when they flipped the house and it worked for them again a few years ago, they're always targeting nancy pelosi and it's no surprise that they would go after her in this instance, but again, again, the key is senators have to-- there has to be an agreement there's some sort of resolution that the counsel on both sides say this is what we want here today and again, the question that's even bigger here is nobody knows who this benefits politically. there's one school of thought that this benefits the former president and republicans and his supporters if they drag this out longer. there's another school of thought that maybe the democrats actually, you know, like some of this because they're able to continue to tar

the former president or they come up with something from this conversation from jaime herrera beutler in this phone call with kevin mccarthy and the former president, that is utterly damning that they can present and maybe that changes the vote total when it comes to a vote to convict or acquit. remember, that's what we were expecting probably this time of day a vote to convict or acquit. i would not rule out anything in the senate that they couldn't come back to that today. the fact that we're going to have a vote today or not a vote today. >> and chuckling, chad, because we had at 9:00 this morning, chad laid out the myriad possibilities of what might happen today and he said that nothing has gone according to how they said it was going to. [laughter] >> and today could go according to schedule or it could completely go off the rails. >> right. john: it's clearly the latter. they're gavelling back in. go ahead. >> just listen, it looks like--

>> i was going to say they're gavelling back in. here comes chuck schumer. >> majority leader. without objection, so ordered. mr. van der veen. >> no, mr. castor, i'm sorry. >> may i be recognized? >> yes, you are recognized. >> senators, donald john trump by his counsel is prepared to stipulate that if the-- if representative herrera beutler were to testify under oath as part of these proceedings, her testimony would be consistent with the statement she issued on february 12th, 2021 and the former president's counsel is agreeable to the admission of that public statement into evidence at this time. >> thank you, mr. castor.

mr. raskin. >> thank you, mr. president. the managers are prepared to enter into agreement. i will now read the statement. this is a statement congresswoman jaime herrera beutler february 12, 2021. in my statement supporting articles of impeachment i referenced the statement kevin mccarthy relayed to me he had with president trump while the january 6th attack was ongoing, here are the details. when mccarthy finally reached the president on january 6th and asked him to publicly enforcefully call off the riot, the president initially repeated the falsehood that it was antifa that had breached the capitol. mccarthy refuted that and told the president that these were trump supporters. that's when, according to mccarthy, the president said, well, kevin, i guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.

since i publicly announced by decision to vote for impeachment i've shared these details in countless conversations with constituents and colleagues and multiple times through the media and other public forums. i told it to the daily news of longview on january 17th. i've shared it with local county republican executive board members, as well as other constituents who asked me to explain my vote. i shared it with thousands of residents on my telephone town hall on february 8th. mr. president, i now move that the senate admit the statement into evidence. >> objection? without objection the statement will be admitted into evidence. and does either party wish to make any further motions related to witnesses or documents at this time? >> mr. president, the president's counsel have no

further motions. >> discuss? >> and mr. president, we have no further motions, either. >> excuse me. then the chair would note that neither party wishes to make further motions under section 6 of senate resolution 47. therefore, the next question is on admission of the evidence submitted by both parties pursuant to section 8 of the resolution: the majority leaders-- >> now as we move to another matter i'm advised that the house managers have no objection to the admission of evidence proposed to be admitted by the former president's counsel under the provisions of section 8 of senate resolution 47 and that the president's counsel have no objections to the evidence proposed to be admitted into efforts by the house managers pursuant to section 8 of the resolution as agreed to by

leader mcconnell and myself a few days ago, both parties have made timely filings of this evidence with the secretary of the senate and have provided copies to each other. i therefore ask unanimous consent that the senate dispense with the provisions of 8-a of resolution 47 and that the material submitted by both parties be admitted into evidence, subject to the provisions of section 8-c of that resolution, which provides that the admission of this evidence does not constitute a concession by period of time party as to the truth of the matters asserted by the other party and that each senator shall decide by him or herself the weight to be given such evidence. this request has the approval of both parties and the republican leader. >> without objection, it is so ordered.

okay, then pursuant to the provisions of senate resolution 47 the senate has provided for up to four hours of closing arguments. they will be equally divided between the managers on the house of representatives and the counsel for the former president. in pursuant to rule 22 and rules of procedure and practices in the senate when sitting on impeachment trials, the arguments shall be open and closed on the part of the house of representatives. so the chair recognizes mr. manager raskin to begin the presentation on the part of the house of representatives. mr. raskin, under rule 22 you may reserve time if you wish. >> thank you, mr. president. members of the senate, before i proceed, it was suggested by

defense counsel that donald trump's conduct during the attack as described in congresswoman beutler statement is not part of the constitutional offense for which former president trump is charged. i want to reject that falsehood and that fallacy immediately. after he knew that violence was underway at the capitol, president trump took actions that further incited the insurgents to be more enflamed and more extreme and selected and focused action against vice-president mike pence. former president trump also as described by congresswoman beutler's that forcefully call off the riot and when he was told the insurgents were trump

supporters, former president said, well, kevin, i guess these people are more upset about the election than you are. just think about that for a second. this uncontradicted statement that has just been stipulated as part of the evidentiary record, the president side said, well, kevin, i guess these people-- meaning insurrectionists are more upset than you are. that conduct is obviously part and parcel of the constitutional offense that he was impeached for, namely incitement to the insurrection. that's continuing incitement to the insurrection. the conduct described not only perpetuated his continuing offense, but also provides to us here today further decisive evidence of his intent to

incite the insurrection in the first place. and when counsel says you should ignore the president's actions after the insurrection began, that's plainly wrong and reflects the fact that they have no defense to his outrageous, scandalous and unconstitutional conduct in the middle of a violent assault on the capitol that he incited. senators think about it for a second. say you light a fire and you're charged with arson, and the defense counsel says everything that i did after the fire started is irrelevant and the court would reject that immediately and say that's not true at all. it's extremely relevant to whether or not you committed the crime. if you run over and try to put out the flames, if you get lots of water and say, help, help, there's a fire and you call for help, a court will infer that, could infer that you didn't intend for the fire to be lit in the first place, they would

accept your defense, perhaps, that it was all an accident. it was an accident. accidents happen with fire. but if on the other hand, when the fire erupts, you go and you pour more fuel on it, you stand by and you watch it gleefully, any reasonable person will infer that you not only intended the fire to start, but that once it got started, it had begin to spread, you intended to continue to keep the fire going and that's exactly where we are, my friends. of course your conduct while a crime is ongoing is relevant to your culpability, both to the continuation of the event and directly relevant, directly illuminating to what your purpose was originally, what was your intent. in and any court would laugh

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

unrefuted evidence that former president trump incited this insurrection against us. to quote the statement representative liz cheney made in january, quote, on january 6th, 2021, a violent mob attacked the united states capitol to obstruct the process of our democracy and stop the counting of presidential electoral votes. this insurrection caused injury, death, and destruction in the most sacred space in our republic. she >> much more will become clear in coming days or weeks. but what we know now is enough. the president of the united states summoned this mob, assembled the mob and lit the flame of this attack. everything that followed was his doing, none of this would have happened without the president. the president could have immediately intervened to stop the violence. he did not. there has never been a greater

betrayal by the president of the united states of his office and his oath to the constitution. i will vote to impeach the president. representative cheney was right. she based her vote on the facts, on the evidence and on the constitution. evidence, the video, documentary, eyewitnesses only grown right up to today, right up to 10 minutes ago over the course of the senate trial. and i have no doubt that you all noticed that despite the various propaganda and so on, president trump's lawyers have said almost nothing to contest or overcome the evidence of former president trump's conduct that we presented, much less have they brought their client forward to tell us his side of the story. we sent him a letter last week

which they rejected out of hand. the former president of the united states refused to come and tell us and i ask any of you, if you were charged with inciting violent insurrection against our country and you were falsely accused, would you come to testify? i know i would. i'd be there at 7:00 o'clock in the morning waiting for the doors to open. i'm sure that's true of 100 senators in this room. i hope it's true of one hundred senators in this room. senate was lectured several times yesterday about cancel culture. well, not even two weeks ago the president's most reliable supporters in the house -- i'm sorry, not the president, the former president's most reliable supporters in the house tried to cancel out representative cheney because of courageous and patriotic defense of the republic and the truth and the constitution. they tried to strip her of

leading role as chair of house republican conference. you know what, i hope everyone tells a second reflect on this. the conference rejected this plainly retaliatory and cowardly attempt to punish her for telling the truth to her constituents and her country and voting for impeachment. who says you can't up against bullies? who says? in my mind, liz cheney is a hero for standing up for the truth and resisting this retaliatory cancel culture that she was subjected to, but she beat them on a vote of 145 to 61. more than 2 to 1 vote. you know, ben franklin, a great champion, enemy of political fanaticism and cowardness, a

great philadelphian, i've observed that wrong is growing more wrong until there is no bearing it anymore and that right, however, opposed comes right at last. comes right at last. think about that. this is america. home of the brave, land of the free. the america of ben franklin who said if you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you. don't make yourself a sheep. the wolves will eat you. the america of thomas jefferson who said in another difficult moment, a little patience and we should see the rain of witches pass over and restore their government to its true

principles. america of tom payne said, the mind once enlightened cannot again become dark. now we showed you hour after hour of realtime evidence demonstrating every step of donald trump's constitution crime. we showed you how he indoctrinated the mob well propaganda about how the election he lost by more than 7 million votes and 306 to 232 in the electoral college which he described as landslide when he won by the exact same margin in 2016 was actually a landslide victory for him being stolen away by a bipartisan conspiracy and fraud and corruption. we showed you how 61 courts and 88 judges, federal, state, local, trial, appellate, from the lowest courts of the land to the united states supreme court across the street and 8 federal

judges he himself named to the bench, all found no basis in fact or law for his outlandish and deranged inventions and concoctions about the election. in the meantime, president trump tried to bully state level officials to commit a fraud on the public by literally finding votes. we examined the case study of georgia where he called to threaten republican raffensperger to find him 11,780. that's all he said. we want 11,780 votes. don't we all? it's all he want today nullify biden's victory and to win the election. raffensperger ended up with threats telling him he deserved a firing squad. a warning, indeed.

raffensperger ended up saying that he and his family supported donald trump, gave him money and now trump threw us under the bus. we saw what happened in michigan with extreme mob cultivated which lead to two capitol sieges and criminal conspiracy to kidnap and likely assassinate governor whitmer and disavow and overthrow election results and replace them with trump electors. we show you the process of summoning the mob, reaching out, urging people to come to washington for a wild time as we celebrate president's day on monday, think, imagine, is there another president in our history that would urge supporters to come to washington for a wild time? you saw how he embraced violent extremists elements like the proud boys who were told in a nationally televised debate to

stand back and standby and competed to be the lead storm troopers on the attack on this building. you saw the assembly of the mob on january 6th. and now beautiful that angry mob must have looked to donald trump as he peered down from the lecturn with the seal on it. the crowd with extremist and tactical gear, armed to the teeth and ready to fight and other brawling maga supporters, all of them saying stop the steal right now. and he said he was going to march with them to the capitol, even though the permit for the rally specifically and would march with them giving more comfort that what they were doing was okay. he stood back as he presumably didn't want to be too close to

the action at the capitol as the lawyers called it. not an insurrection they urged yesterday, it's an action. he didn't want to be too close to the action when all hell was about to break loose. now, incitement as we discussed requires an inherently fact-based evidentiary inquiry. this is what we did. we gave you many hours of specific factual details about to use congresswoman cheney's word, lit the match, sending them to the capitol as they cited they've been invited by the president of the united states and unlearned unparallel violence against our overwhelmed and besieged but heroic police officers who you thoughtfully honored yesterday when the officers got in their way as

they entered the capitol at the behest of the president of the united states to stop the steal. now, i'm convinced most senators must be convinced by the overwhelming and specific detail because most americans are, but say you still have your doubts. you think the president really thought that he was sending his followers to participate in a peaceful, nonviolent rally, the kind that might have been organized by julian bond who my distinguished opposing counsel brought up, alan baker, john lewis, maybe the president really thought this was going to be like the march on washington organized by bayor -- rustin. let's say you're still flirting with the idea that donald trump's conduct was totally appropriate as he proclaimed right off the bat and he's the innocent victim of a mass

accident or catastrophe like a fire or a flood as we were invited to frame it on our opening day by distinguished co-counsel or opposing counsel. and you think maybe we are just looking for somebody to blame for this nightmare and catastrophe befallen the republic, just looking for someone to blame. here is the key question in resolving your doubts if you're in that category. how did donald trump react when he learned of the violent storming of the capitol and the threats to senators, members of the house and his own vice president as well as the images he saw on tv of beating and harassment of our police officers? did he spring into action to stop the violence and save us? did he even wondered about his own security since out of control antigovernment mob could come after him too? did he quickly try to get in

touch with or denounce the proud boys, the old keepers, the rally organizers, the save america rally organizers and everyone on the extreme right to tell them that this is not what he had in mind? it's a big mistake and call it off as representative gallagher begged him to do on national television, no. he delighted in it. he reveled in it and he did not understand why the people around him did not share his delight. long period i -- insuit while they beat down police officers and proceeded to huntdown mike pence as trader and denounced and cursed speaker pelosi, both of whom you heard mob members say they wanted to kill. they were both in real danger and our government could have been thrown into absolute turmoil without the heroism of

our officers and the bravery and courage of a lot of people in this room. here is what republican representative anthony gonzález of ohio said, he's a former profootball player. we are imploring the president to help to stand up, to help defend the united states capitol and the united states congress which is under attack. we are begging essentially and he was nowhere to be found. nowhere to be found. and as i emphasize this morning, that dereliction of duty was central to his incitement of insurrection bound together, it revealed his state of mind that day as he provoked the violence and further violence. it showed how he perpetuated continuing offense on

january 1st, conduct charged on articles of impeachment as he further indicated the aimed at mike pence himself while fail to go quote it in either of his roles as commander in chief or his real role that day, inciter in chief. and it powerfully demonstrates that the ex-president knew, of course, that violence was foreseeable, it was predictable and predicted. that day since he was not surprised and not horrified. no, he was delighted. and through his acts of omission and comission that day he abused his office by siding with the insurrectionists at almost every point rather than with the congress of the united states, rather than with the constitution. in just a moment my colleague will address president's conduct and state of mind as he will establish yesterday's explosive

revelations about house minority leader kevin mccarthy dye -- desperate call to trump and confirmed that trump was doing nothing to help the people in this room or this building. it's clear beyond doubt that trump supporter the actions of the mob and so he must be convicted. it's that simple. when he took the stage on january sixth, he knew exactly how combustible the situation was and people engaged in violence on any signal that he needed them to fight like hell to stop the steal. that's what he told them to do. he aimed them straight here right here in capitol where the steal was occurring and we all know what happened next. they attacked this building, they disrupted the peaceful transfer of power, they injured and killed people, convinced that they were acting on his instructions and his approval

and protection. and while that happened, he further incited them while failing to defend us. if that's not ground for conviction, if that's not a high crime and misdemeanor against the republic in the united states of america, then nothing is. president trump must be convicted for the safety and security of our democracy and our people. mr. seciliny. >> mr. president, distinguished senators, as we demonstrate there's overwhelming evidence that president trump incited the violence and knew violence was foreseeable on january sixth. he knew that many were posed for violence at his urging and many

in the sea of thousands in the crowd were wearing body armored and helmets and holding sticks and flag poles. and then he not only provoked that very same proud but aimed them at the capitol. he literally pointed at this building, at us during his speech. he pointed to the building where congress was going to certify the election results and where he knew the vice president himself was presiding over the process. no one is suggesting that president trump intended every detail of what happened on january sixth, but when he directed the sea of thousands before him who were reportedly ready to engage in real evidence, when he told the crowd to fight like hell, he incited violence targeted at the capitol and he most certainly foresaw it. my colleague will stand up after me and walk you through the overwhelming evidence that supports those claims. i want to start, though, by talking about what happened

after that. there was a lot of discussion yesterday about what the president knew and when he knew it. there are certain things that we do not know on what the president did that day because the president and his former president trump has remained silent about what he was doing during bloodiest attacks on the capitol since 1812 despite full and fair opportunity to come forward, he refused to come and still the story and senator raskin said we would all do that. i would insist on that. if i was accused of a serious crime that i was innocent of, i would demand my right to tell the side of the story. president trump declined. but there are certain facts that are undisputed that we know to be true despite the president's refusal to testify which is counsel either ignored entirely or didn't and couldn't dispute. before i go to those facts, let

me quickly just touch on a few things. first president trump and his counsel have resorted to arguments that the evidence presented was somehow manufactured or hidden from them. i want to be very clear about this because it is important. in terms of the timing of when they received materials here, defense counsel had access to all materials when they were entitled to have them under senate resolution 47 and they cannot and have not alleged otherwise. as to their desperate claim that evidence was somehow manufactured, they have not alleged that one tweet from their client was actually inaccurate, nor can they. we got the tweets which are, of course, statements from the former president from a public archive and they are all correct. you also know the president's claims about evidence being manipulated also are untrue because they didn't even object to the introduction of the

evidence when they had the opportunity to do so. so i hope we can put issues aside and turn to the facts of this case and really set the record straight about the undisputed facts in this case about what the president knew that day and when he knew it. at the outset let me say this, in recall to response yesterday, at no point was the president informed that the vice president was in any danger, end quote. as we walk-through the undisputed facts, you will see quite clearly that is simply not true. as you can see here from just after 12:00 p.m. to just before 2:00 p.m., president trump delivered his statements at the rally which incited initial wave of -- of protestors coming down to the capitol. and his speech was still ongoing and you saw the evidence of people broadcasting that on their phones.

he finished his speech at 1:00 p.m., a much crowd raged to capitol. 30 minutes later at 1:49 p.m. as the violence intensified, president trump tweeted a video of his remarks tat rally with the caption, quote, our country has had enough, we will not take it anymore and that's what this is all about, end quote. during the half hour following that tweet, the situation here drastically deteriorated. insurrectionists breached the capitol barriers the steps and the complex itself. by 2:12 the insurrectionist mob overwhelmed the police and started violent attack on the capitol. as you all know, this attack occurred and played out on live television. every major network was showing

it. we've shown you during the course of this trial side by side exactly what the president would have seen on tv or his twitter account. also showing you that he would have seen around 2:12 images of vice president mike pence being rushed off the senate floor. i won't replay all of that for you but for timing purposes, here is the footage reacting to vice president pence leaving the floor. >> no audio. looks like -- >> it seemed like they just escorted mike pence out quickly. >> yes, they did. that's exactly what happened there. >> they moved him fast. i saw the motion too. >> defense counsel seems to suggest that somehow the president of the united states was not aware of this. the president had no idea that his vice president had been evacuated from the senate floor for his safety because violent rioters had broken into the capitol with thousands more coming. and with the capitol police

completely overwhelmed. this was on live television. so defense counsel suggesting that the president of the united states knew less about this than the american people, this is just not possible. that's the secret services failed to mention that his vice president was being rushed from the senate for his own protection. nobody in the white house thought to alert him and none of our law enforcement agencies raised a concern to the commander in chief that the vice president was being evacuated from the senate floor as the violent mob assaulted the capitol. that simply cannot be. and with each passing minute on the timeline of events on january 6th, it grows more and more inconceivable. let's continue forward in time. between 2:12 to 2:24 the senate recessed, speaker nancy pelosi was ushered off the floor.

the capitol police announced a breach and a lockdown and the insurrectionist mob began chanting hang mike pence. it was unfolding on live tv in front of the entire world. so, again, let me ask you, does it strike you as credible that nobody, not a single person informed the president that his vice president had been evacuated or that the president didn't glance at the television or his twitter account and learned about the events that were happening. remember, this was the day of the electoral college. remember, his obsession with stopping the certification, just not credible that the president at no point knew the vice president was in the building and was in real danger. senators, i submit to you these facts, this timeline is undisputed. at 2:24 p.m. after rioters

breached barriers and rioters stormed the building and after vice president pence was rushed from the senate floor, just before vice president pence was further evacuated for his safety, president trump decided to attack his own vice president on twitter. the undisputed facts confirm that not only must president trump have been aware of the vice president's danger but he still sent out a tweet attacking him further inciting the very mob that was in just a few feet of him inside of this very building. the vice president was there with his family. he was in danger for his life. they were chanting, hang mike pence and had erected a news outside. and as we shown the mob responded to president trump's tweet instantly. insurrectionists began chanting again about mike pence.

in those critical moments, we see president trump engaging in a dereliction of his duty by further inciting the mob in realtime to target the vice president with knowledge that the insurrection was ongoing and that's, of course, included in the conduct charge in this article of impeachment. the former president's counsel suggestion otherwise is completely wrong. his further incitement is impeachable conduct that continued during the course of this assault itself and it's part of a constitution crime and was entirely and completely a part of his indefensible failure to protect the congress. now there's been some confusion as the phone -- phone call that i referenced with senator lee.

senator lee confirmed that it was at 2:25 p.m. by this time the vice president has been evacuated on live television for his own safety and donald trump had after that tweeted an attack on him which the insurgence read on a bull horn and a few minutes after donald trump's tweet, he didn't reach out to check on the vice president's safety. he called senator to ask about delaying the certification, call was interrupted, the senator tuberville has since explained and i, quote, i looked at the phone and said the white house on it. i said hello. the president said a few words. i said, mr. president, they're taking the vice president out and they want me to get off the phone and i've got to go, end quote. that was his second evacuation that day. a minute later, live feeds

documented the insurgents chanting mike pence is a trader. at this point, even if he somehow missed it earlier it's inconceivable that the former was unaware that the vice president was in danger. and what does the president do after hearing that? does he rush to secure the capitol? does he do anything to quell the mob? does he call his vice president to check on his safety? we all know the answer to those questions too. there can be no dispute. he took none of those steps, not a single one. even after learning that senators were being evacuated and that vice president pence had also been evacuated, he did nothing to help the vice president. and here is some more evidence

that we've since learned, at some point following 30 minutes, the president spoke to kevin mccarthy and stipulated as part of the evidentiary record and pleading to do something and first tries to assign the blame to another group and leader mccarthy said, these are your supporters, mr. president. what does the president say in response? not send people right away, i denied realize you were in danger. well, kevin, and i quote, quote, well, kevin, i guess these people are more upset about the election than you are, end quote. i guess these people are more upset about the election than you are. the president just said he

conveyed in the tweet at 6:01 was essentially saying you got what you deserve. let me say that again. not only was the president fully aware of the vice president's situation and the situation that we were all in when he was asked for help, when asked in senate capitol after inciting violence against his own vice president. president trump refused that request for assistance. he told us why. his singular focus, stopping the certification of the election of his opponent. he incited the violence to stop the certification, he attacked the vice president and further incited the insurrection to pressure the vice president to stop the certification. he called senator tuberville to stop the certification and he refused to send help to congress and this congress and the vice president of the united states

were in mortal danger because he wanted to stop the certification. and he did these things, attacking the vice president, calling senator tuberville, refusing representative mccarthy's request with full knowledge of the violent attack that was under way at that point. he chose retaining his own power over the safety of americans. i can't imagine more damning evidence of his state of mind. the call ended with a screaming match interrupted by violent rioters breaking through the windows of representative mccarthy's office. senators, the president knew this was happening. they didn't do anything to help his vice president or any of you or any of the brave officers and other employees serving the american people that day. his sole focus was stealing the

election for himself and he apparently has still not thought of anyone else. according to more new facts revealed last night, the vice president's team does not agree with the president's counsel or the president's counsel assessment either. the report and i quote, pence and his team does not agree with the trump lawyer -- lawyers assessment. no one called that pence was evacuated from one room to another with screaming -- objection, this is not in evidence. if you wanted -- >> the counsel will sit down. >> senators, remember -- >> the chair has no way of knowing -- the counsel for the

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

disprove them. his lawyers almost entirely ignored these facts in their short presentation. we have only his counsel's false claim yesterday that, quote, at no point was the president informed that the vice president was in any danger, end quote. a claim that is refuted not just by common sense but by the timeline you have seen and also the vice president's legal team. so there can be no doubt at the moment we most needed a president to preserve, protect and defend us, president trump instead willfully betrayed us. he violated his oath. he left all of us, officers like eugene goodman to our own devices and that is why he must be convicted. i would like to conclude by making one final point that follows from directed from what i just discussed.

our case and the article of impeachment before you absolutely includes president trump's dereliction of duty on january 6th. the failure of inciter in chief to immediately quell or call off the mob, his failure as commander in chief to do everything in his power to secure the capitol, that's a further basis on which to convict and there can be no doubt of that. the ongoing constitution misconduct is like any continuing offense and the proof of that is overwhelming. most directly his dereliction of duty offers conclusive, irrefutable evidence that he acted willfully as we charged. he wasn't furious or sad or shocked like virtually everyone else in america. he was reported by those around him as delighted rather than rush to our aid or demand mob retreat. he watched the attack on tv and

praised the mob to leader mccarthy as more loyal to him. more upset about the election and that was all that mattered. his reaction is also further evidence of his intent. he acted exactly the way a person would act if they had, indeed, incited the mob to violence to stop the steal. moreover, as i have shown president trump's dereliction and desertion of duty includes his decision to fitter incite the mob even as he failed to protect us. well, the mob hunted vice president pence in these very halls, he attacked vice president pence. while he tried to stop the steal, he spread the big lie. we all saw how his mob responded in realtime. this further incitement was part of his dereliction of duty, was also part of course of conduct encouraging and provoking the mob to violence. president trump's dereliction of

duty also highlights how foreseeable the attack was to him. in his tweet just after 6:00 p.m. he said and i quote, these are the things and events that happen when a landslide victory is stripped away from great patriots that have been treated bad for so long. h tweet continued his endorsement of the attack, his failure to condemn it, his desertion of duty but reveals his view that this was, of course, what would happen when congress refused his demand to reject the election that he continued to tell his supporters was stolen and he had actually won in a landslide. again, he wasn't surprised. he saw this as a predictable result of repeated demand that his followers, dereliction of

duty was part and parcel of the crime charged in the impeachment and it's certainly a basis on which to vote for conviction. if you believe that he willfully refused to defend us and law enforcement fighting to save us and he was delighted by the attack and he saw it as a natural result to stop the steal and incite violence as the attack unfolded, we respectfully submit you must vote to convict and disqualify so that the events of january 6th can never happen again in this country. >> mr. president, mr. president, i have a point of order. mr. president, moments ago house manager cicilline reported --

>> the senator will withhold the advice by parliamentarian that debate is not in order. >> debate is not in order because this is not debate. he said something that's not true. >> quorum has been suggested. >> it's clearly a quorum. >> and the clerk will call the roll. >> ms. baldwin? >> consensus to suspend the quorum call. >> is there objection? objection is heard. >> mr. borrasso? >> so we have a brief break in

the proceedings after the house managers had presented part of their closing arguments. we believe that they still have some time ago and they were going to hear closing arguments from the president's attorneys. we understand, i am told, that there will likely be a vote to acquit or convict the president some time this afternoon. could come as early as 3:00, maybe in the afternoon. let's go back to chad on what is going on right now. chad. chad: well, this is an unexpected turn of events. there was an argument here and you might remember a couple of nights ago mike lee contested some of the things that the house impeachment managers said about him in this phone call with tommy tuberville and the president trying to get ahold of tuberville and lee's phone and vice versa. it was pretty confusing and lee was upset about that. lee contesting what is going on on the floor right now. here is the problem, you might have heard senator leahy who is presiding over the trial that

debate is not in order, the reason if you're operating as senate, you can make point of order saying the senate is not operating properly and you can make a motion but this is an impeachment trial. the senate is sitting as a court of impeachment and therefore those rules do not apply in these circumstances. the senate voted overwhelming to approve the framework for this trial and it says that you are in to the closing arguments by the impeachment managers and coming up soon the defense counsel and therefore anything that mike lee wants to do just doesn't apply in this circumstance. in fact, somebody could probably argue that they shouldn't be in a quorum call at this stage because, again, it doesn't apply for this. you heard at one point one of the president's attorneys jump up and object like you would in a regular courtroom. again, that doesn't apply in these circumstances. this is not a regular courtroom. this is the united states senate. and what senator leahy is an

issue that we can address later or you can address it in closing remarks coming up. they have to sort out issue with mike lee of utah in the next couple of minutes. we will do a reset, we will continue to hear from impeachment managers making close arguments and put up statement by jamie herrera butler, the republican congresswoman from washington state and then we will hear from the president's defense counsel and some time later this afternoon, the next actual vote should be up or down vote of guilt or innocence of the president of the united states. >> senator lindsey graham stepped out of the chamber and gave me a quick call to run me through it. about 11:00 o'clock last night he got a call in which he was told that there would not be any witnesses. he said fine with that and then the article containing the statement from congresswoman herrera butler started getting a lot of traction and the house

managers looked at, maybe we have the president's legal team on the ropes here. let's pummel them a little bit more so this morning in a conference call, the senate snort leader chuck schumer was told that the left wing of the party was putting a lot of pressure on senators to allow witnesses and that's when raskin came forward about an hour later and said, we would like to call at least one witness, herrera butler and maybe some others. after that, all happened and pan lindsey graham floated the idea, let's stipulate that we can put the statement from herrera butler that was circulating last night into the record. it's news that it had been out there for at least a number of days, the congresswoman attested to that herself. lindsey graham considered it to be hearsay evidence. it was not acknowledgment that it was true and they were going to enter statement into the record.

and so that compromise was struck and the statement was entered into the record. republicans do really believe, that the democrats, chad, overplayed their hand here and they were forced to vote on witnesses and had to walk it back. does that really leave them -- i don't want to say at a disadvantage but a little bit of egg on their face at the very least? >> it cuts two ways. it was interesting seeing a democratic put out a statement. they got the republicans to concede that they should admit this evidence so they can put that into the record and have senators consider that as part of the overall trial record before the vote. so that was an important statement, but i look at the language being very important. and, again, don't -- forget about the political consequences, political pressures especially that the democrats are feeling. they have a narrow majority. a lot of democrats on the left that would like to go to the mat with president trump and there are others that this doesn't

serve our purposes, we want to get to coronavirus aid and get to other issues like immigration or working out infrastructure or stuff like that. this just continues to be a problem. you have a divided democratic party here and so these are the, you know, trying to walking both sides of the street, the chuck schumer and jamie raskin, the hand they are trying to play. >> stay with us. let's turn to a member of former president trump's house defense team. louisiana congressman mike johnson. congressman johnson, since you're on the part of republicans that in the stipulation to enter congresswoman herrera butler's statement into the record and called the democrats bluff and put scenario in which the trial can drag on till july, if not beyond, your thoughts? >> i think that's exactly right. it would have opened up a pandora's box and they might ask a hundred witnesses to come forward. this is the kind of chaos that

you get when there's utter lack of due process. the house managers rushed the impeachment as we have all said so many times and this is the result of that. they didn't do their homework and they didn't take witness testimony. they didn't lay out appropriate evidence and now they just want to paint with a broad brush over that and ask the senators to use common sense. that's not how this works. it's not a trial. it's not a normal courtroom. we get that. but there has to be some sort of order to this. i thought what mr. sheldon said was appropriately. listen, senators, any of us would have more due process if we were charged with a parking ticket back home and that's what you're seeing and that's what's resulting from this chaos. >> lindsey graham said when he called me to run through on the vote of witnesses, he believed that a stipulation to enter into the record of congresswoman butler's statement didn't cause any harm because it's hearsay evidence and the story has been

out for a while as she said in her own statement. i told it to the daily news of long view on january 17th, i've shared it with local county executive board members as well as other constituents to ask me to explain my vote and shared in town hall on february 8th. lindsey graham was looking at this, nothing new under sun, we are just putting it in the record. >> that's exactly right. none of us know about that. the house managers could have put it in the record earlier on. i supposed they overlooked it in their haste to bring the snap impeachment. it's interesting what senator lee is doing here. he's in the room. he has the benefit of being there. he's been misquoted and mischaracterized and he has the ability to stand up and object to that. unfortunately people like my friend kevin mccarthy are not in the room and they are being cited and quoted for things that may or may not have been said. they don't have the ability to

testify to that and that's the problem here. that's the big problem that everybody has, not only is this whole proceeding unconstitutional as we argued over and over, the lack of due process should be a problem i think to all americans that are watching this. there's no sense of fairness here. john: to give more level of detail to what mike lee is objecting to, the afternoon of january the sixth the president called mike lee's cell phone. he was actually looking for senator tuberville, in fact, he addressed mike lee, senator lee asked tommy, senator lee said let me hand the phone to senator tuberville. and the contention was made by the house managers that lee overheard the president telling tuberville to put more pressure on senators to try to halt the counting to have electoral vote and lee is saying, i've never said that. i didn't hear what was said in the conversation. i didn't overhear anything in the phone. i just hung close to senator tuberville because i didn't want

to lose my phone in the chaos which also raises the question of if the president was calling senator tuberville at that point, was he fully aware of what was going on in congress at the time. mike: that's exactly right. we are all looking at this a month after after the event. hindsight is 20/20, we see the full scope now but none of that was known in those moments. again, it's so important that senator lee pointed out, having said or done simply didn't happen. i think the president's counsel was right yesterday to point out or at least ask the question how much more of the house managers' presentation would be categorized that way? in fact, how many facts did they misrepresent, how many quotes did they take out of context? how much of the video was accurate? i thought it was effective that the president's counsel layed the full context of some of those tapes where he was quoted and they -- they stopped the

tape right after he said something but the full context of the president's comments made sense and were reasonable. that's the problem with a situation, with an impeach meant proceeding like this. there's no accountability for what is being done and no sworn evidence to present here and i think that's a big problem that will overhang the proceeding and i think it will bother a lot of americans. john: one quick question before you go, senator cruz predicted that the votes to convict on the low side will be about 53 and high side 57, what are you thinking? mike: i think he's probably right. we are all reading between the tea leaves right now, some are projecting where they are leaning. i think the president will be acquitted of this. it's a sad chapter of american history will be behind us soon and has been said that the senate can get on to the important work that we need them to do. john: there could be a vote as

3:00, maybe at 4:00 o'clock with the latest delay. we will see, congressman johnson, thanks for spending time with us, we appreciate it. >> thank you, my friend. john: the senate voted to summon witnesses with 5 republican senators voting this. with more on this mercedes sclapp and harry litman. we heard the story from senator graham about how all this went down. do you believe the democrats overplayed their hand here? >> oh, absolutely, john. look, i think what you're seeing especially in the social media realm that a lot of the reporters are out there basically saying the democrats have caved, you know, first you have the case where the democrats were blindsided, the senate democrats were unaware that the house impeachment managers were going to move towards calling these witnesses and all of a sudden, there's this debacle happening --

john: let me stop you there. senator schumer just took the microphone. i think the proceedings are starting again. stay with us, we will get right back to you. >> the chair will advise everybody, the evidentiary record is closed. 47 described the scope of those things not admitted into evidence as those referenced in trial. new evidence is not permitted in closing argument. references to such new evidence will be stricken. the house managers have the floor if they wish to resume.

house managers. >> mr. president -- >> house manager. >> esteemed senators, good afternoon. we are grateful if for -- for your kind attention as we engage in a process formulated and put to paper from the founders of my home city of philadelphia which is getting fair share of attention this week in 1787, 234 years ago. my colleague mr. cicilline addressed the importance of the president's dereliction of duty. i will focus on 3 specific aspects of this case which the defense have raised questions about. first, the defense suggests that this was just one speech and one speech cannot incite

insurrection. and the defense suggested because the attack was preplanned by some insurrectionists, donald trump is somehow not culpable. both of these things are plainly not true nor what we allege. let's be clear, we are not suggesting that donald trump's january 6th speech by itself incited the attack. we have shown that his course of conduct leading up to and including that speech incited the attack. the defense is correct that the insurrection was preplanned. that supports our point. we argued and the evidence overwhelmingly confirms that donald trump's conduct over many months incited his supporters to believe, one, his big lie, that the only way he could lose was if the election was rigged. two, that to ensure the election

would not be stolen to prevent the fraud they had to stop the steal. and three, they had to fight to stop the steal or they would not have a country anymore. this conduct took time and it culminated in donald trump sending us save the date, 18 days before the attack telling his base exactly when, where and who to fight. and while he was doing this, he spent $50 million from his legal defense fund to simultaneously broadcast his message to stop the steal over all major networks. donald trump invited them, he incited them, then he directed them. here are a few clips that will help bring that story >> you give a direct answer, you will accept the election?

>> i have to see. look, i have to see. i'm not going to just say yes. this election will be the most rigged election in history. this is going to be the great election disaster in history. the only way they can take this election away from us is if this is a rigged election. we're going to win this election. >> that's right. [applause] >> it's a rigged election. it's the only way we're going to lose. >> do you commit to making sure there's a peaceful -- >> we want to get rid of the ballots and we'll are have a very peaceful -- there won't be a transfer, frankly, are there'll be a continuation. that's the only way we're going to lose, is if there's mischief. mischief. and it'll have to be on a big scale, so be careful. this'll be one of the greatest fraudulent, most fraudulent elections ever. we're not going to let this election be taken away from us. that's the only way they're going to win it. [cheers and applause] this is a fraud on the american public. this is an embarrassment to our country. we were getting ready to win

this election, frankly, we did win this let's. [cheers and . -- this election. [cheers and applause] we were winning in all the key locations by a lot, and then our numbers miraculously started getting whittled way. this is a case where they're trying to steal an election, they're trying to rig an election, and we can't let that happen. you can't let another person steal that election from you. all over the country people are together in holding up signs, stop the steal. if we don't root out the fraud, the tremendous and horrible fraud that's taken place in our 2020 election, we don't have a country anymore. we cannot allow a completely fraudulent election to stand. we're going to fight like hell, i'll tell you right now. [cheers and applause] if you don't fight to save your country with everything you have, you're not going to have a country left. we will not bend, we will not

break, we will not yield, we will never give in, we will never give up, we will never back down, we will never, ever surrender. [cheers and applause] all of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen. we will never give up, we will never concealed. it doesn't happen. you don't concede when there's theft involved. [cheers and applause] and to use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with, we will stop the steal. [cheers and applause] because you'll never take back our country with weakness. you have to show strength and you have to be strong. make no mistake, this election was stolen from you, from me and from the country, and we fight. we fight like hell. and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore. >> our point is this: this was not one speech. this was a deliberate, purposeful effort by donald

trump over many months that resulted in the well-organized mob's attack on january the 6th. that brings me to my second point, the violence. defense counsel argues that there is no way that donald trump could have known what would happen. yet we are not suggesting, nor is it necessary for us to prove that donald trump knew every detail of what would unfollow on january the 6th. unfold. or even how horrible and deadly the attack would become. but he did know. as he looked out on that sea of thousands in front of him, some wearing body armor and helmets, others carrying weapons, that the result would be violence. the evidence is overwhelming, the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates this. a few points on this. donald trump knew the people he was inciting leading up to

january the 6th. he saw the violence they were capable of. he had a pattern and practice of praising and encouraging supporters of violence, never condemning it. it is not a coincidence that those same people, the proud boys, the organizer of the trump caravan, the supporters and speakers at the second million maga march all showed up on january the 6th. and donald trump's behavior was different. this was not just a comment by an official or a politician fighting for a cause. this was the months of cultivating a base of people who were violent, praising that violence and then leading them, leading that violence, that rage straight to a joint session of congress where he knew his vice president was presiding. and donald trump had warnings about the crowd in front of him on january 6th. there were detailed posts online of attack plans.