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.

law enforcement warned that these posts were real threats and even made a arrests in the days leading up to the attack. there were credible reports that many would be armed and ready to attack the capitol. despite these credible warnings of serious danger and stress to our capitol, when the crowd was standing in front of the president ready to take orders and attack, he said, "we're going to the capitol, and we fight, we fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore." here's a clip. >> what do you want me to call them? [inaudible conversations] proud boys, stand back and stand by. >> welcome to the -- ♪ ♪ yeah -- >> it is something. do you see the way our people,

you know, they were protecting his bus yesterday. [laughter] [cheers and applause] they had hundreds of cars, trump, trump. trump and the american flag. you see trump and the american flag. >> at the fourth million maga march we promised if the gop did not do everything they could to keep trump in office, then we would destroy the gop. [cheers and applause] and as we gather here in washington for a second million maga march, we're done making promises. it has to happen now, we are going to destroy the gop! [cheers and applause] >> let's go! >> destroy the gop! destroy the gop! >> because you'll never take back our country with weakness. you have to show strength and you have to be strong.

[background sounds] ♪ ♪ >> senators, the violence on january the 6th was demonstrable foreseeable. trump even said so himself at 6:01 p.m. the day of the attack. the last thing he said before he went to sleep, quote: these are the things that happened -- that happen, end quote. he foresaw this and he admitted as much. that brings me to my final point, the insurrectionists. defense counsel has suggest these people came here on their own. the defense brief states that the insurrection is, quote, did so for their own accord and for their own reasons and are being criminally prosecuted. it is true that some insurrectionists are being prosecuted,but it is not true that they did so of their own accord and for their own reasons. the ed makes -- the evidence makes clear the exact opposite,

that they did this for donald trump at his invitation, at his direction, at his command. today said this before the awe attack -- during the attack, they said it after the attack. leading up to january 6th in post after post, the president's supporters confirmed this was for donald trump. it was at his direction. one supporter wrote, and i quote: if congress illegally certifies biden, trump would have absolutely no choice but to demand us to storm the capitol and kill/beat them up for it. they even say publicly, openly and proudly that president trump would help them commandeer the national guard, so all they have to do is overwhelm 2,000 capitol police officers. during his speech on january the 6th, trump supporters chanted his words back to him. they even live tweeted his commands as ms. degette showed

you. during the attack, the insurrectionists at the capitol chanted donald trump's words from his tweets, rallies and from the speech on the 6th. they held signs that said and chanted "fight for trump," "stop the steal." they read his tweets over bullhorns, amplifying his demands. another rioters, while live streaming the insurrection from the capitol, said quote: he'll be happy. we're fighting for trump. what's more, the insurrectionists were not hiding. they believed they were following the orders from our commander in chief. of -- they felt secure enough in the legitimacy of their actions to take selfies, so post photos and videos on social media. after the attack rioter after rioter confirmed this too. jenna ryan, who was later accused for her role in the insurrection said, quote: i thought i was following my president. i thought we were following what

we were called to do. and president trump requested that we be in d.c. on the 6th. when it became clear that donald trump would not protect them, some of his supporters said they felt duped, they felt tricked. listen to some of this evidence. >> even if they think for a second that they're going to get away with it today -- [cheers and applause] they got another thing coming. because today is just the day. and today is just the beginning. they haven't seen a resistance until they have seen a patriot fight for their country! [cheers and applause] >> parties, parties will withhold. >> this is crooked. >> the parties will withhold.

>> it is in the record. >> the evidentiary record is closed. s. 47 described the scope of those things entered into evidence as those entered into trial. new evidence is not permitted in closing argument. references to such new evidence will be stricken. [inaudible conversations] >> who yields time? >> mr. president, the statement was in evidence, the slide was not, so we will withdraw the slide. but the statement was in evidence. >> [inaudible] >> they told you themselves, they were following the president's orders. and you'll see something clearly, donald trump knew who

these people were. as the slide shows, the people he cultivated, whose violence he crazed were all there on january the 6th; the proud boys who donald trump told to stand back and stand by in september of 2020, keith lee, organizer of the trump caravan that tried to drive the biden campaign bus off the road, katrina pierson, the speaker at the second million maga march. they were all there. [background sounds] [inaudible conversations]

>> the video you're about to see is in the record. [inaudible conversations] >> oh, correction. the record did include, appropriately, the last video. so we will keep that in the record, and i will keep it in my closing remarks. [inaudible conversations] >> can we play the next video? >> [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] >> -- going to have to show us what's in the record --

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> all right. you are watching live coverage of the closing arguments in the second impeachment trial of now-former president donald trump. they seem to be having a few technical difficulties this afternoon, so let's bring in our capitol hill producer and reporter chad pergram who can explain for us -- there's been a

lot of whiplash today, chad. of we thought this thing was going to wrap up, then there was talk of voting for witnesses, then they reached a deal, they admit canned one statement into the -- admitted one statement into the record. it looks like we're going down the home stretch, what can you tell us? >> reporter: sometime in the next couple of hours there should be a vote on the guilt or innocence of president trump. that is what is next in the queue. you're into these final arguments here. four hours total of debate are allocated total between the house impeachment managers and also the defense counsel. we're about an hour and change what the managers have been doing to close the door. there was an issue earlier about whether or not there was new evidence being entered into the record during closing arguments, and this is where mike lee, the republican senator from utah, made a point of order about that. the problem is you're not actually operating under usual senate rules which you could

contest something like that. there's an agreement for the parameters of the trial, and now what they seem to be having are some issues about the video that's being played, whether or not this is new video and even playing the appropriate video, the proper video. and that's why much what you see in a courtroom, you have counsel for both sides approach the dais there, and they're trying to sort this out. again, we just can't predict how long these little interruptions will take because they are somewhat ten call in nature both to procedure and both to audio/visual. so we don't know exactly how long this could take to work out, and that's why you're seeing a lot of milling around there. but do know this: they will with these closing arguments from the impeachment managers and the president's defense counsel, and at some point late later this afternoon for the vote. and i see madeleine dean is back at the dais, so i suspect they're about to start again with her closing argument momentarily. shannon: so much of these presentations have been about video.

it's been a big part in communicating the events of that day, things that led up to that day. both sides have used it to call each other out. it is something you don't see a ton on the senate floor, but it is something you're seeing as part of this presentation, the house managers, the ones prosecuting the former president, essentially, even though this is not technically a legal trial. they are working to get back in action there. and, chad, this is really more political in nature than it is legal. there's so many things that wouldn't be admitted. let's listen back in as senator law leahy presides and see if they're back on track. >> congresswoman may continue. >> thank you, mr. president. i have to say that of all the trials i have ever been a part of, this is certainly one of them.

[laughter] as the slides show, the people he cultivated, whose violence he praised were all there on january 6th. the proud boys who donald trump told to stand back and stand by in september of 2020, keith lee are, the organizer of the trump caravan that tried to drive the biden campaign bus off the road, katrina pierson, the speaker at the second million maga march, they were all there. here is one final clip, also submitted in the record. >> we need to have 30,000 guns! >> senators, some of the insurrectionists are facing criminal charges. donald trump was acting as our commander in chief. he was our president. he used his office and the authority and command to incite and attack. and when congress and the constitution were under attack,

he abandoned his duties, violated his oath failing to preserve, protect and defend. that is why we are here, because the president of the united states, donald j. trump, incited and directed thousands of people to attack the legislative branch. he knew what his supporters were capable of. he enflamed them, sent them down pennsylvania avenue not on any old day, but on the day we were certifying the election results. as they were banging on our doors, he failed to defend us because this is what he wanted. he wanted to remain in power. for that crime against the republic, he must be held accountable. senators, the insurrectionists are still listening. before i end, i must admit until we were preparing for this trial, i didn't know the extent of many of these facts. i witnessed the horror, but i didn't know, i didn't know how deliberate the president's planning was, how he had invested in it, how many times

he incited his supporters with these lies, how carefully and consistently he incited them to violence on january the 6th. while many of us may have tuned out his rallies, i also did not know the extent that his followers were listening, were hanging on his every word. and, honestly, i did not know how close the mob actually came to their violent ends, that they were just steps away from all of us, that the death toll could have been much higher but for the bravery of men and women who protected us. but now we know, we know the bravery of people like officer goodman and all the men and women of the capitol police, of the custodians who, with pride and a sense of duty in their work, clean ared up shattered glass, splintered wood and blood-stained floors. we know the sacrifice of life and limb. we know what donald trump did,

we know what he failed to do. though it is difficult to bear witness and face the reality of what happened in these halls, what happens if we don't confront these facts? what happens if there is no accountability? for those who say we need to get past this, we need to come together, we need to unify, if we don't set this right and call it what it was, the highest of constitutional crimes by the president of the united states, the past will not be past. the past will become our future. for my grandchildren and more fair children -- for their children. of senators, we are in a dialogue with history, a conversation with our past with a hope for our future. 234 years from now it may be that no one person here among us

is remembered. and yet what we do here, what is being asked of each of us here in this moment will be remembered. history has found us. i ask that you not look the other way. >> i'd now like to bring up mr. naguse. >> mr. president, distinguished senators, there's an old quote from henry clay, son of kentucky, that courtesies of a

small and trivial character are the ones that strike deepest in a grateful and appreciating heart. i want to say on behalf of all the house managers, we are very grateful for the courtesies that you've extended to us and to president's counsel during the course of this trial. you've heard my colleague, manager dean, go through the overwhelming evidence that makes clear that president trump must be convicted and disqualified for his high crime. i'm not going to repeat that evidence. it speaks for itself. earlier in this trial, you might recall a few days ago that i mentioned my expectation that president trump's lawyers might do everything they could to avoid discussing the facts of this case. and i can understand why. i mean, the evidence that all of us presented, that manager dean just summarized is pretty

devastating. and so rather than address it, the president has offered up distractions. excuses. anything but actually trying to defend against the facts. they said things like president trump is now a private citizen, so the criminal justice system can deal with him. or that we haven't set a clear standard for incitement. they talked a rot about due process and that all politicians say words like fight. i'd like to take a minute to explain why each of those distractions are precisely that, distractions. and why they do not prevent in any way the senate from convicting president trump. number one, every president is one day a private citizen again. so, i mean, the argument that

because president trump has left office he shouldn't be impeached for conduct committed while he was in office doesn't make sense. i mean, why would the constitution include the impeachment power at all if the criminal justice system serves as a suitable alternative once a president leaves office? it wouldn't. impeachment is a remedy separate and apart from the criminal justice system and for good reason. the presidency, i mean, it comes with special powers, extraordinary powers not bestowed on ordinary citizens. and if those powers are abused, they can cause great damage to our country. and they have to be dealt with in a separate forum. this forum. and it would be unwise to suggest that going forward the

only appropriate response to constitutionallal offenses committed by a president are criminal charges when the president returns to private life. that's not the kind of political system any of us want. and it's not the kind of constitutional system the framers intended. second, it is true we have incited -- we haven't cited criminal statutes because, again, this isn't isn't a criminal trial. it's not a criminal case. president trump is charged with a constitutional offense. and you are tasked with determining whether or not he committed that high crime as understood by our framers. so the relevant question which president trump's lawyers would have you ignore is, would our framers have considered a president inciting a violent mob

to attack our government while seeking to stop the certification of our elections? would they have the considered that an impeachable offense? who among us, who among us really thinks the answer to that question is no? third, due process. so just to be absolutely clear, the house -- with the sole power of impeachment -- determines what the process looks like in the house, and the senate does the same for the trial. during this trial the president has counsel. they've argued very vigorously on his behalf. we had a full presentation of evidence, adversarial presentations, motions. the president was invited to testify.

he declined. the president was invited to provide exculpatory evidence, he declined. you can't claim there's no due process when you won't participate in the process. and we know this case isn't one that requires a complicated legal analysis. you all, you lived it. the managers and i, we lived it. our country lived it. the president, in public view right out in the open, incited a violent mob. a mob that temporarily at least stopped us from certifying an election. if there were ever an exigent circumstance, this is it. number four, we all know that president trump's defense, as we predicted, spent a lot of time,

a whole lot of time comparing his conduct to other politicians', using words like fight. we saw the hours of video. as i said on thursday, we trust you to know the difference. because what you will not find in those video montages that they showed you is any of those speeches, those remarks culminating in a violent since rex on our nation's capitol -- insurrections on our nation's capitol. that's the difference. the president spent months enflaming his supporters to believe that the election had been stolen from him, from them, which was not true. he summoned the mob, assembled the mob, and when the violence erupted, he did nothing to stop it. instead, inciting it further.

senators, all of these arguments offered by the president have one fundamental thing in common, one. they have nothing to do with whether or not factually, whether or not the president incited this attack. they have given you a lot of distractions so they don't have to defend what happened here on that terrible day. and they do that because they believe those distractions are going to work. that you'll ignore the president's conduct instead of confronting him. i think they're wrong. some of you know this already, i'm the youngest member of our manager team by quite a few years, so perhaps -- [laughter] perhaps i'm a bit naive, but i

just don't believe that. i really don't. i don't believe their effort is going to work, and here is why: because i know what this body is capable of. i may not have witnessed it, but i've read about it in the history books. i've seen the c-span footage, archives, sometimes watched them for hours. and, yes, i've actually done that. and the history of our country in those books and in those tapes, the history of this country has been defined right here on this floor. the 13th amendment, the amendment abolishing slavery, was passed in this very room. in this room. not figuratively, literally where you all sre i stand. in 1964 this body, with the help

of senators like john sherman cooper and so many others, this body secured passage of the civil rights act. we made the decision to enter world war ii from this chamber. we've certainly had our struggles, but we've always risen to the occasion when it mattered the most. not by ignoring injustice or cowering to bullies and threats, but by doing the right thing, by trying to do the right thing. and that's why so many nations around the world aspire to be like america. they stand up to dick dictatorsd autocrats and tyrants because america is a guiding light for them. a north star. they do so, they look to us because we have been a guiding light, a north star in these moments. because the people who sat in

your chairs, when confronted with choices that define us, rose to the occasion. i want to offer one more example of a decision made in this room by this body that resonated with me. the first day id stood up in this trial, i mentioned that i was the son of immigrants like many of you, and many senators graciously approached me after my presentation and asked me where my parents were from. and i told those who asked that my folks were from east africa. in 1986, 1986, this body considered a bill to override president reagan's veto of legislation imposing sanctions on south africa during apartheid. two senators who sit in this room -- one democrat and one republican -- voted to override that veto.

that vote was not about gaining political favor. in fact, it was made despite potentially losing political favor. and i have to imagine that that vote was cast like the decisions before it because there are moments that transcend party politics and that require us to put country above our party because the consequences of not doing so are just too great. senators, this is one of those moments. many folks who are watching today's proceedings may not know this, but house members like me, manager raskin, fellow managers, we're not allowed on the senate floor without express permission. no one is, certainly the senators are aware of that. this floor is sacred. it's one of the reasons why i, like so many of you, was so

offended to see it desecrated by that mob, to see those insurrectionists diminishing and devaluing and disrespecting these hallowed halls that my whole life i have held in such awe. because of those rules that i just mentioned, this'll be the only time i have the privilege to stand before you hike this. like this. when the trial's over, i'll go back to being not impeachment manager if, but back to being just a house member. the trial will end, and we'll resume our lives and our work. but for some there will be no end. no end to the pain of what happened on january 6th. the officers who have struggled to recover from the injuries they a sustained to protect us, they struggle to recover today.

the families who continue to mourn those who they lost on that terrible, tragic day. i was, i was struck yesterday by defense counsel's continued references to hate. one of my favorite quotes of dr. martin luther king jr., it's one that has sustained me during times of adversity, i suspect it's sustained some of you. that i've decided to stick with love. that hate is too great a burden to bear. this trial is not borne from hatred. far from it. it's borne from love of country, our country. our desire to maintain it. our desire to see america at its

best. and in those moments that i spoke of -- the civil rights act, so much more -- we remember those moments because they helped define and enshrine america at its best. i firmly believe that our certification of the electoral college votes in the early hours of january 7th, our refusal to let our republic be threatened and taken down by a violent mob will go down in history as one of those moments too. and i believe that this body can rise to the occasion once again today. by convicting president trump, defending our republic. and the stakes, the stakes could not be higher.

because the cold, hard truth is that what happened on january 6th can happen again. i fear, like many of you do, that the violence we saw on that terrible day may be just the beginning. we've shown you the ongoing risks, the extremist groups who grow more emboldened every day. senators, this cannot be the beginning. it can't be the new normal. it has to be the end. and that decision is in your hands.

>> prime mr. president? >> mr. raskin? >> senators, my daughter hannah said something to me last night that stopped me cold and brought me up short. the kids have been very moved by all the victims of the violence, the officers and their families. but hannah told me last night she felt really sorry for the kid of a man who said good-bye to his children before he left home to come and join trump's actions. their father had told them that their dad might not be coming home again, and they might never see him again. in other words, he was expecting violence, he might die. as insurrectionists did. and that shook me. hannah said, how can the president put children and

people's families in that situation and then just run away from the whole thing? that shook me. and i was filled with self-reproach, because when i first saw the line about, you know, your father going to washington, you might not see him again, i just thought about it, well, like a prosecutor, like a manager. i thought, what damning evidence that is. that people were expecting lethal violence at a protest called by the president of the united states. saying their final good-byes to their kids. but hannah, my dear hannah thought of it like a human being. she thought of it, if you'll forgive me, like a patriot. someone who just lost her brother and doesn't want to see any other kids in america go through that kind of agony and grief. senators, when i say all three

of my kids are better than me, you know that i am not engaged in idle flattery. maybe some of you feel the same way about your kids. they're literally better people than me. they've got a lot of their mom. they're better than me. and hannah saw through the legality of the situation, she saw through the politics of the situation all the way to the humanity of the situation. the morality of the situation. that was one of the most patriotic things i ever heard anybody say. the children of the insurrectionists, even the violent and dangerous ones, they're our children too. they are americans, and we must take care of them and their future. we must recognize and exercise these crimes against our nation, and then we must take care of our people and our children,

their hearts and their minds. as tommy raskin used to say, it's hard to be human. many of the capitol and metropolitan police officers and guards men and women who were beaten up by the mob also had kids. you remember the officer who had a heart attack after a being tased and roughed-up for hours, and then begged for his life telling the ips rexes that he had four daughters. and that just about broke my heart all over again. we talked about this for a long time last night. my kids felt terrible that other kids' fathers and mothers were pulled into this nightmare by a president of the united states. senators, we proved he betrayed his country. we proved he betrayed his constitution. we proved he betrayed his oath of office. the startling thing to recognize

now is that he is even betraying the mob. he told them he would march with them, and he didn't. they believed the president was right there with them somewhere in the crowd fighting the fantasy conspiracy, the steal the election and their country away from them. they thought they were one big team working together. he told them their great journey together was just beginning, and now there are hundreds of criminal prosecutions getting going all over the country. people getting set to say good-bye to members of their family. and the president who contacted them, solicited them, lured them, invited them, incited them, that president has suddenly gone and dark. nowhere to be found. he cannot be troubled to come here to tell us what happened. and tell us why this was the patriotic and the constitutional thing to do.

senators, this trial in the final analysis is not about donald trump. the country and the world know who donald trump is. this trial is about who we are. who we are. my friend dara williams says sometimes the truth is like a second chance. we've got a chance here with the truth. still believe in the separation of powers? president trump tried to sideline or run over every other branch of government. the will of the people at the state level, usurp the people's choice for president. this case is about whether our country demands a peaceful, nonviolent transfer of power to guarantee the sovereignty of the people. are we going to defend the

people who defend us? not just honor them with medals, as you rightfully did yesterday, but actually back them up against savage, barbaric, insurrectionary violence? will we restore the honor of our capitol and the people who work here? will we be a democratic nation that the world looks to for understanding democratic values and practices and constitutional government and the rights of women and men? will the senate condone the president of the united states inciting a violent attack on our chambers, our offices, our staff and the officers who protect us? when you see the footage of officer hodges stuck in the doorway literally being tortured by the mob, government did that

to you, that would be torture. and when you see that footage and he's shouting in agony for his dear life, it's almost unwatchable. when the vice president of the united states escaped a violent mob that's entered this capitol building seeking to hang him and calling out, "traitor, traitor, traitor," then when they shut down the counting of the electoral college votes, is this the future you imagine for our kids? is it totally appropriate, as we've been told -- or as representative cheney said, is it the greatest betrayal of the presidential oath of office in the history of our country? and if we can't handle this together as a people, all of us, forgetting the lines of party and ideology and geography and all other things, if we can't handle this, how are we ever

going to conquer the other crises of our day? is this america? is this what we want to bequeath for our children and our grandchildren? i was never a great sunday school student. actually, i was pretty truant most of the time. but one line always stuck with me from the book of exodus as both beautiful and haunting even as a kid. after i asked what the words meant. thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil. thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil. the officer who got called the n-word 15 times and spent hours with his colleagues battling insurrectionists who had metal poles and baseball bats and hockey sticks, bear spray and confederate battle flags posed the right question to the senate and to all of us: is this

america? dear senators, that's going to be up to you now. in whatever committees and subcommittees you're on, whatever you came to washington to do, to work on from defense to agriculture, to energy, to aerospace, to health care, this is almost certainly how you will be remembered by history. that might not be fair, it really might not be fair, but none of us can escape the demands of history and destiny right now. our reputations and our legacy will be inextricably intertwined with what we do here. and with how you exercise your oaths to do impartial justice. impartial justice. i know and i trust you will do impartial justice driven by your meticulous attention to the overwhelming facts of the case and your love for our constitution which i know dwells

in your heart. the times have found us, said tom payne -- the namesake of my son -- is this america, what kind of america will we be, it's now literally in your hands. godspeed to the senate of the united states. we reserve any remaining time. >> the house has reserved 28 minutes. shannon: okay. you are watching now the u.s. senate as the house managers continue their case against president trump, now-former president trump. they have been wrapping up closing arguments, the president's team will have his chance as well to present their defense and some final arguments to the senators there.

in the meantime, we want to check in with john roberts who's been tracking this and, john, you followed him when he was still the -- hold on a second, defense counsel has stepped right up. let's listen in to former president trump's defense team. >> -- because i think the ending's pretty good. what they didn't -- they started off by misstating the law, and they started off by misstating the intent of our stipulation. what we did today was stipulate to an article that was published in a magazine apparently they've had for weeks according to the documents they produced today, but for some reason this morning popped up with it. the stipulation was that they can put that in. we did not stipulate to its contents for truthfulness. and they tried to portray that in their closing as the stipulation.

the stipulation was read into the record. the proponents of that conversation, the real up ones, have denied its content, its veracity. with respect to -- i'm not going to talk much about the torture analysis of our arson wars that started off or the truly sideways analogies that were used with fires. what i do want to talk about though is the doctoring of evidence. first of all, they sent us their evidence on tuesday the 9th at 2:32 p.m. by mail if. i was in this room trying the case already when they sent their evidence. due process. they used evidence that was flat wrong two or three nights ago with senator lee and had to

withdraw it. they tried to use it again today. they tried to use evidence that they had never presented in the case in their closing argument. that is a very desperate attempt by a prosecuting team, nine of them, by a prosecuting team that knew that their case has collapsed. their closing did not mention one piece of law. they didn't talk about the constitution once. they didn't talk about the first amendment and its application. they didn't talk about due process and how it applies to this proceeding for my client.

[background sounds] >> the basic rule of think court is that when you close a case out, you close on the facts that were admitted in the trial. it's a basic, fundamental principle of due process and fairness. and it was violently breached today on multiple occasions. and you have to ask yourself, why? why did they resort to those tactics at this moment in time?

senators, good afternoon. what took place here at the u.s. capitol on january 6th was a grave tragedy. over the course of this trial, you have heard no one on either side of this debate argue that the infiltration of the capitol was anything less than a heinous act on the home of american democracy. all of us, starting with my client, are deeply disturbed by the graphic videos at the capitol attack that have been shown in recent days. the entire team condemned and have repeatedly condemned the violence and law breaking that occurred on january 6th in the strongest possible terms. we've add advocated -- advocated that everybody be found, punished to the maximum extent of the law. yet the question before us is not whether there was a violent

insurrection of the capitol. on that point everyone agrees. based on the explicit text of the house impeachment article, this trial is about whether mr. trump willfully engaged in incitement of violence and even insurrection against the united states. and that question they have posed in their article of impeachment has to be set up against the law of this country. no matter how much truly horrifying footage we see of the conduct of the rioters and how much emotion has been injected into this trial, that does not change the fact that mr. trump is innocent of the charges against him. despite all of the video played, at no point in their presentation did you hear the

house managers play a single example of mr. trump urging anyone to engage in violence of any kind. at no point did you hear anything that could ever possibly be construe thed as mr. trump -- construed as mr. trump encouraging or sanctioning an insurrection. senators, you did not hear those tapes because they do not existment because the act of incitement never happened. he engaged in the no language of incitement whatsoever on january 6th or any other day following the election. no the unbiased person honestly reviewing the print of mr. trump's speech on the ellipse could possibly believe that he was suggesting violence. he explicitly told the crowd that he expected the protests outside the capitol to be peaceful and patriotic. they claim that's not enough. his entire premise was that the

proceedings of the joint session should continue. of he spent nearly the entire speech talking about how he believes and senators and members of congress should vote on the matter. it's the words the supreme court ruled in brandenburg that there is a very clear standard for incitement. in short, you have to look at the words themselves. the words have to either explicitly or implicitly call -- the words -- call for lawlessness or violence. you'll have to determine whether the speech was intended to provoke the lawlessness and whether the violencing was the likely result -- the violence was the likely result of the word itself. they fail on all three prongs. the false and defamatory claim that mr. trump gave a speech encouraging his supporters to go

attack the capitol has been repeated so often uncritically without any examination of the underlying facts that the americans listening at home are probably surprised to learn it's not true. furthermore, some of the people in this room followed mr. trump's statements and tweets in the weeks leading up to january 6th very closely. we know that he was not trying to foment an insurrection during the time because no one from the speaker of the house to the mayor of washington, d.c. behaved in a fashion consistent with the belief that violence was being advocated for. mr. trump did not spend the weeks prior to january 6th inciting violence. he spent those weeks pursuing his election challenge through the court system and other legal procedures exactly as the constitution and the congress prescribe. to believe based on the evidence

you have seen that mr. trump actually wanted and, indeed, willfully incited an armed insurrection to overthrow the u.s. government would be absurd. the gathering on january 6th was supposed to be an entirely peaceful event. thousands and thousands of people -- including mr. trump -- showed up that day with that intention. a small percentage, a small fraction of those people then engaged in truly horrible behavior. but as we now know that those actors were preplanned and premeditated and acted even before the speech was completed to which is the basis of the article of impeachment. it was preplanned and premeditated by fringe lift and

right groups. they hijacked the event for their own purposes. the house managers' false narrative is a brazenly dishonest attempt to smear, to cancel constitutional cancel culture, their number one political opponent taking neutral statements, common place political rhetoric, removing words and facts from context and ascribing to them the most sinner the and malevolent intentions possible. their story was based not on evidence, but on the sheer personal and political animus. the flimsy theory of incitement you heard from the house managers could be used to ill peach, indict -- impeach, indict or expel countless other political leaders. many leading figures in other parties have engaged in far more

incendiary and dangerous rhetoric. and we played some -- i'm not going to replay it. i'm not going to replay you the words. you all saw the evidence. i'm not going to replay ya mob scenes. i don't want to give those people another platform, any more view from the american people as to what they did. they should be canceled. democrat politicians spent months prior to january 3th attacking -- january 6th attacking the very legitimacy of our nation's most cherished institutions and traditions. they didn't just question the integrity of one election, they challenged the integrity of our entire nation. everything from our founding fathers, our constitution, declaration of independence, law enforcement officers and the united states military. they said that our society was

rooted in hatred. they even said that america deserved, and i'll quote, a reckoning. as you heard yesterday, throughout the summer democrat leaders including the current president and vice president repeatedly made comments that provided moral comfort to mobs attacking police officers. during that time, many officers across the country were injured. as we all know, two sheriff's deputies in los angeles were ambushed and shot at point-blank range. members of this very body have been in danger. senators from to kentucky and most points in between have been harassed by mobs. i saw as a menacing left-wing mob swarmed senator rand paul

and his wife as they left the white house, and they had to be rescued by police. for months our federal courthouse in portland was placed under siege by violent anarchists who attacked law enforcement officers daily and repeatedly and tried to set fire to the building. speaker pelosi did not call the violent siege of the federal building an insurrection. she called the federal agents protecting the courthouse "stormtroopers." the white house complex was besieged by mobs who threw bricks, rocks and bolts at secret service agents, breached a security fence to infiltrate the treasury grounds. when my client's administration sent in the national guard to secure the nation's capital city the amidst the violence,

democrat leaders demanded that the forces be withdrawn. the washington, d.c. mayor said the presence of the national guard was an affront to the safety of the district. it must be fully investigated whether political leadership here in washington, d.c. took an inadequate and irresponsible force posture on january 6th because of their commitment to the false narrative of what happened last june. hopefully, we can all now agree that the administration abouted properly by taking action to stop an appropriate security perimeter and prevent the white house from potentially being overrun. the house managers argued this week that an allege belief delay in issuing public statement from mr. trump on january 6th was somehow evidence that he

committed incitement or supported the violence. yet for months last year joe biden, vice president harris, and countless other democrats repeatedly refused to condemn the extreme as riots were occurring daily as businesses were being ram shackled as neighborhoods were being burned. as bombs were exploding. they repeatedly refused to tell their violent supporters to stand down. some even suggested that the mobs actions were justified. vice president harris literally urged her followers to donate money to a fund to bail out the violent extreme l rioters so they could get out and continue to do it over and over again. she later said that those folks

were not going to let up and that they should not. all of this was far closer to when the actual definition of incitement and anything president trump has ever said or done never, nevermind what he said on the 6th it is a hypocrisy. it is a hypocrisy that the house managers have laid at the feet of this chamber. the house manager suggested in this recent, that this recent history is irrelevant to the current proceedings. but not only is democrats behavior surrounding last year riot highly el vaunt as precedent not only does it reveal the dishonesty in

sincerity of the entire endeavor, it also provides crucial context that should inform our understanding of the events that took place on january 6th. many of the people who infiltrated capitol posted them on social media. to some it seems that they thought it was all a game they apparently believe that violent mobs, destruction of property, riotings, assaulting politician and vandalizing historic treasures was somehow now accept nbl acceptable in the united states. where might they have gotten that idea? i would suggest to you that it was not from mr. trump. it was not mr. trump. it was not anyone in the republican party that spent the six months prior to capitol

assault giving rhetorical aid to comfort to mobs making excuses for rioters celebrating radicalism and explaining that angry frustrated and marginalized people were entitled to blow off steam like that. let me be very clear, there can can no excuse for deprave action of the rioters here at the capitol for anywhere else across this country. 100% of those guilty of committing crimes deserve lengthy prison sentences for shame full and depraved conduct but this trial has raised the question about words, actions, and consequences. as a nation, we must ask ourselves, how did we arrive at this place where rioting and pillages would become common place? i submit to you that it was -- month after month of political leaders and media personalities

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

first amendment speech, it is an egregious violation of his constitutional right since he uttered not a single word encouraging violence this action can only be seen as an effort to sensor disfavored political speech. and discriminate against a disapproved view point. it is an unprecedented action with the potential to do grave and lasting to the presidency and future and self-government. yesterday we played you a video of countless democrat members of this senate urging their supporters to fight. we showed you those videos not because we think you should be forcibly removed from office. for saying those things, but because we know you should not be forced to be removed from office for saying those things.

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

weakness of the house manager's case. elected officials we revealed this in depth yesterday under supreme court precedent bond and bond didn't burn a draft party still had it it was part of his defense. but in -- bond and in wood, the court clearly directed all to know that lengted officials hold the highest protections of speech. the highest protections and i remind you why. because you all need to be free to have robust political discussion because your discussion is about how our lives are going to go. and that shouldn't be squelched by either political party on

either side of the aisle no matter who's the majority party at the time. why would house managers make up their own legal ?arnd i'll tell you why. because they know they cannot satisfy the existing constitutional standard set forth by the united states supreme court that has existed for -- for more than half a century. they argue president trump as elected official has no first amendment right it is the complete opposite of the law. we've shown you without contradiction that is wrong. they know also they cannot satisfy the three part task of brandenburg in the bible believer case and there was no evidence that mr. trump words

were directed to inciting eminent lawless action. there was no evidence that mr. trump intended his words to incite violence. and the violence was preplanned and premeditated by group of lawless actors who must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. but it proves that his words weren't what set this into motion. what was the incitement. with no ability and no evidence to satisfy the existing constitutional standards, what are the house managers to do? they have to make their own law. this is not only intellectually dishonest, folks, it is down right scary. what type of precedent would be set if senate did vote to convict? can congress now ignore supreme

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

unfair and fray graduately unconstitutional proceeding in the history of the united states senate. for the first time in history, congress has asserted right to punish a former president who was a private citizen nowhere in the constitution is the power enumerated or implied congress has no authority, no right and no business holding a trial of citizen trump let alone a trial for deprive him of some fundamental civil rights. there was mention of a january exception argument. the january exception argument is a creation of the house managers own conduct by delaying. they sat on the article. they could have tried the president while he was still in

office if they really believed he was an eminent threat. they didn't. the january exception is a red heiring it is nonsense because federal state and local authorities can investigate. their january exception always expires on january 20th. house democrats and this deeply unfair trial have shamefully trampled every traditional, norm and standard of due process. in a way, i have never ever seen before. mr. trump was given no right to review the so-called evidence against him at trial. he was given no opportunity to question its propriety.

he was given no chance to engage in fact finding. much of what was introduced by the house was unverified second or third-hand reporting cribbed from a bias news media including stories based on a anonymous sources whose ideas aren't even known to them nevermind my client. they manufactured and doctored evidence. so much so that they had to withdraw it. we only had, we had the evidence after we started the trial. they went on for two days. so in the evening, i was able to go back and take really close look at the stuff. myself and mr. castor and ms. bateman and mr. brennan, we all worked hard and looked at the evidence four volumes of books little tiny print.

and we started with him literally -- 12, 14 hours to really look at the evidence before we had to go on. and just in that short time of looking at the evidence, we saw them fabricating twitter accounts. we saw the mask man signature at his desk with a "new york times" there. and when we looked closely, we found that the date was wrong, check had been added. they fabricated evidence. they made it up. they never addressed that. in their closing -- as though it were acceptable as though it were all right. as, though, that's the way it should be done here in the senate of the united states of

america fraud flat out, fraud. where i come from in the courts that i've practiced in, they're very harsh repercussions for what they pulled in this trial. as we've shown the house managers were caught creating false representations of tweets, manipulating videos and introducing into the record completely discredited laws such as fine people hoax as factual evidence. most of what the house managers have said and shown you would be

admissible in any respectable court of law. therethey were not trying a cas, they were telling a political tale, a fable. and a patently false one at that and rushed impeachment because they know that a fair trial would reveal mr. trump's innocence of the charges against him. the more actual evidence that comes out, the clearer it is that this was a preplanned and premeditated attack which along wage in no way incited because their case is so weak, the house managers have taken a kitchen sink approach to the supposedly single article of impeachment they allege that mr. trump incited i can 6th violence they allege that he abused power by attempting to pressure georgia secretary of state ravens burger

to undermine election and allege that he gravely and endanger democrat system by interfering with a peaceful transition of power. at least three thing there is. under the senate rules, each of these allegations must have been alleged in a separate article of impeachment. i need not remind this chamber that rule 23 of the rules of procedure and practice in this senate when sitting on impeachment trials provide impert that article of impeachment shall not be devisable thereon. why is that? because the article at issue here alleges multiple wrongs in the single article. it would be impossible to know if two-thirds of the members agreed on the entire article.

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

and they impeached him again in his fourth year. and now they have conducted a phony impeachment show trial when he's a private citizen out of office. distastefully orchestrated and unconstitutional circus as house democrats final desperate attempt to establish their obsessive desire of the last five years. since the moment he stepped into the political arena, my client since my client stepped in, they have been possessed by an overwhelming deal from the outso shame, demean, silence, and demonize his supporters. in the desperate hope that they will never ever pose an electoral challenge. we heard one of the congressmen on the screen.

if you don't impeach him, he might be elected again, that's the fear. that's what is driving this impeachment. when you deliberate over your decision, there are four distinct grounds under which you must acquit my client. first, is jurisdiction. there is no jurisdiction. and if you believe that, you still yet to say it. two, rule 23 it had to be devisable. each allegation had to be singularly set out in front of you so it could be voted on and to see if two-thirds of you think that they prove that case or not.

they didn't do that. you've got to ask yourself, why? they know this senate rules. they got them and so did i. why did they do it? because they hadn't investigated, first of all. but also the, what they powngdz out is they were preparing all of this, they couldn't do it. so if they threw in as much as they could and made as many bold, bald allegations as they could, then maybe two-thirds of you would fall for it. that's why the rules don't allow it to go that way. due process, i've exhausted that subject. it's a really good reason for all of you, all of you in this chamber to stop the politics, to

read the constitution and apply it to this proceeding and acknowledge that the lack of due process way over the top, shocking. and you must not stand for it. and, of course, the first amendment, the actual facts of this case. there were no words of incite ment fore grounds nobody gets to tell you which ground to pick and nobody gets to tell you how many grounds to consider. senators, do not let house democrats take this crusade any further the senate does not have to go down this dark path of

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

i urge the senate to acquit and vindicate the constitution of this great republic. thank you. >> time. >> president -- senators, i understand i'm told we have around 27 minutes but i will return all of that but perhaps five back to the few things that i need to address, and so in an extraordinary perhaps unprecedented act of self-restraighten on my part i will resist the opportunity to use every false and logical thing that you just heard an i'm going to be able to return to you, in perhaps 22, 23 minutes. few points, one, we have definitely made some progress in the last few days. because a few days ago the

president's team although i think it was perhaps a member who since left the team. lectured us that it was not an insurrection and said that, that impeachment managers were outrageous in using word insurrection. today, counsel closings statement said it was a violent insurrection and denounced it and i would love to see president trump also call it a violent insurrection denoun is too i believe although i don't have a very bait -- that he call for long sentences for the people who were involved again i would love to hear that come from the president as well. the distinguished counsel complains that there's no precedent with the develop body of law that the senate has for impeaching and convicting a president who incites violent insurrection against the congress and the government of the united states.

well i suppose that's true because it never occurred to any other president of the united states from george washington to john adams, to thomas jefferson, to james madison, to james monroe, to abraham lincoln, to ronald reagan, to george w. bush to barack obama, to incite a violent insurrection against the union. you're right, we've got no precedent for that and so they think that that's somehow is a mark on their favor that's a score for them. that this senate has to be the first one to define incitement of violent insurrection against the union. and so, the gentlemen puts it on me. he says, inciting the president for committing incitement to violent insurrection against union the new doctrine and tried to convince them that they were well known principle and elements of incitement which we

have talked to you about. at that it is inherently fact based judgment. but if that is the doctor that the president of the united states cannot incite violent insurrection against the union and congress then i embrace it and i take it as an honor. most of all professors never get a doctrine named after them. so i will accept that. and finally, the counsel goes back to julianne bond's case because i think in the final analysis their best argument is pa pathetically weak as it is about first amendment but remember they keep talking about stifling president trump's speech someone tell me when his speech is ever been stifles he says exactly what he wants whenever he wants, if and when you convict him for incitement of insurrection he will continue to say whatever he wants on that day.

remember, that they referred yesterday to intertbeerns his liberty i found absolutely bizarre because everybody knows, that he will not spend one minute in prison or jail from conviction on these charges. it is a civil remedy to protect all of us, to protect the entire country, our children, our constitution, our future. that's what impeachment trial conviction, are all about. all about. julianne bond see i knew july i will respond to that julian bond was a civil right activist who decided to go into politics like people in this room people all of us who are in politics. they tried to keep him out. he was a member of snick. student nonviolent coordinating committee which really --

launched the voting rights movement in america. the great story that bob moses tells in his book called radical equations about, you know, he was a graduate student mathematic and harvard went down to mississippi. you know why? because he saw picture in the new york in "the new york times" of the -- of black civil rights protesters college students. i think in north carolina at&t he saw a picture of them on cover of "the new york times" and they were sitting in at a lunch counter he looked at picture and he said they looked the way that i felt. they looked the way i felt and had to go down south to mississippi and then they launched the voting rights movement that's where the phrase one person one vote comes from it was not invented by the supreme court they would go door to door, to try to register. but anyway, julian bond was part of that movement. the student nonviolent coordinating committee nonviolence it was the end and

it was the means nonviolence. and he ran for he ran for the state legislature in georgia. a path other civil rights activist followed like our great late beloved colleague john lewis. who is in our hearts today, and when he got elected, they wanted to try to keep him from being sworn into the georgia legislature and so, they said the student nonviolent coordinating committee taken a position against the vietnam war you remember of snick, we're not going toed admit you because you took a position against the vietnam war, and the supreme court in its wisdom said you cannot prevent someone from swearing an oath to become a member of a legislative body because of a position that they took or group they were part of took before they got sworn in. that's the exact opposite of donald trump. he got elected to office, he swore an oath to the constitution. to preserve protect and defend

the constitution, he served as president for four years right up until the end when he wanted to exercise his rights under the imaginary january seption exception with a mob and insurrection to come up here and we all know what happened. he is -- being impeached and convicted for violating his oath of office that he took. he's not being prevented from taking his oath in the first place. the first amendments on our side. he tried to overturn the will of the people, the voice of the people. he lost that election by more than 7 million votes. some people don't want to admit it. counsel for the president, could not bring themselves to admit that election is over. and answer to question from the diminished gentlemen from vice vermont said it was irrelevant despite evidence you're heard about the big lie and that set the stage for incitement of the insurrection and violence against us.

first amendment, our side. we are defending the bill of rights. we are defending the constitutional structure. we are defending the separation of powers. we're defending the u.s. senate, and the u.s. house. against a president who acted no better than a member of that mob by inciting people to come here and many way he was worse. he named the date he named the time, and he brought them here and now he must pay the price. thank you mr. president. >> thank you mr. raskin. mr. president, the majority leaders recognized. mr. president. >> the senate is now ready to vote only the article of impeachment and after that is done, we willed adjourn the cout of impeachment. >> the court will read the article of impeachment.

[silence] >> we are going to pause just a minute to let our fox affiliate join us covering vote on the second impeachment trial of now former donald trump and listen in as senator leahy and begin

roll call vote to acquit or to convict. >> conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors further, sections 3, of the 14th amendment to the constitution products any person who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the united states from holding office under the united states in his conduct, while president of the united states and in violation of his constitutional oath fatefully to execute the office of the president of the united states and to the best of his ability preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the united states, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care of the laws be faithfully executed donald trump incites violence against the government of the united states in that, on january 6th, 2021 pursuant to 12th amendment to the constitution of the united states, the vice president of

the united states, the house of representatives with and the senate met with the united states capitol for joint session of congress to count the votes of the electoral college. in the months proceeding joint session, president trump repeatedly issued false statements asserting that the presidential election results with the product of widespread fraud and should not be accepted by the american people or certified by state, or federal officials. shortly before the joint session commenced president trump addressed a crowd at the ellipse in washington, d.c. reiterate false claims that we won this election and we won it by a landslide he also willfully made statements that in con tex encourage and foreseably resulted in lawless action at the capitol such as if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore. incited by president trump members of the crowd he had

addressed in an attempt to among other objectives interfere with joint sessions solemn constitutional duty to certify the results of the 2020 president presidential election unlawfully breach and vandalize capitol injure and kill law enforcement personnel vice president and congressional personnel and engage in other violence deadly destructive and acts. president trump's conduct on january 6th, 2021, followed his prier efforts to subvert certification of the results of the 2020 president presidential election those prior efforts include a phone call during which president trump urminged the secretary of state of georgia, brad ravensberger to overturn election results to threaten security, if he failed to do so. in all of this, president trump gravely endangered security of

the united states and institutions of government. he threatened the integrity of the democratic system, interfered with peaceful transition of power and a imperialed a coequal branch of government and he therefore betrayed trust of president to manifest injury at the people of the united states. donldz john trump by such conduct has demonstrated he will remain a threat to national security, democracy, and the constitution if allowed to remain in office and has acted in a manner of grossly compatible self-government and the rule of law. donald john trump warns removal from office disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the united states. and demand that you the said donald john trump should be put to answer the accusations as set forth in this article and that such proceedings examinations, trials and judgments might be

there had as agreeable to laws and justice. >> each senator when his or her name is called will stand and his or her place and they'll vote guilty or not guilty as required by rule 23 of the senate rules of impeachment. article 1 section 3 clause 6 of the constitution regarding the vote required for conviction of impeachment, provides that, quote, no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members present close quote. the question is on the article of impeachment. senators, i'll say to you is respond donald john trump guilty or not guilty? a roll call vote is required and the clerk will call the roll.

>> ms. baldwin. >> guilty. >> ms. baldwin. guilty. >> mr. brothers and brasoo? >> not guilty. >> not guilty. >> mr. bennett? >> mr. bennett, guilty. >> mrs. blackburn? >> not guilty. >> mrs. black burn, not guilty. mr. blumenthal? >> mr. blumenthal, guilty. >> mr. blunt. >> not guilty. >> mr. blunt, not guilty. >> mr. booker. >> guilty. >> mr. booker, guilty. >> mr. bozeman. >> not guilty. >> mr. boseman, not guilty. >> mr. brawn, mr. brawn, not guilty. >> mr. brown.

guilty. >> mr. brown, not guilty. >> mr. burr. >> mr. burr, guilty. >> ms. cantwell, guilty. >> mr.capto, not guilty. >> mr. cardin, mr. cardin, guilty. >> mr. carper, mr. carper guilty. >> mr. casey >> mr. casey, guilty. >> mr. cassidy. mr. cassidy, guilty. >> ms. collins. >> guilty. ms. collins, guilty. >> mr. coons >>. guilty. >> mr. coons, guilty. mr. cornyn.

cornyn, not guilty. >> mr. cortez masto, guilty. >> mr. cotton. mr. cotton, not guilty. >> mr. cramer. >> not guilty. >> mr. cramer, not guilty. >> mr. crapo, not guilty. mr. cruz, not guilty. >> mr. cruz, not guilty. >> mr. danes. >> mr. danes, not guilty. >> ms. duckworth, guilty. mr. durbin, guilty. >> ms. urnst. >> not guilty. ms. feinstein.

mrs. feinstein, guilty, mrs. fisher mrs. fisher, not guilty. mrs. gillibrand, mrs. gillibrand, guilty. >> mr. graham. mr. graham not guilty. mr. grassley not guilty. >> mr. grassley, not guilty. >> mr. haggerty, not guilty. >> ms. hassim, guilty. >> mr. hawley, mr. hawley, not guilty. >> mr. heinrich, mr. heinrich, guilty. mr. hickenlooper, mr. hickenlooper, guilty. >> ms. mirono not guilty.

mr. hoeven mr. hoeven, not guilty. >> mrs. hyde-smith, not guilty. mr. inhofe. mr. inhofe, not. mr. johnson, not guilty. mr. johnson, not guilty. mr. cain. >> guilty. >> mr. cain, guilty. mr. kelly. >> guilty. >> ? kelly, guilty mr. kennedy not. mr. king. >> mr. king, guilty. ms. klobuchar ms. klobuchar, guilty mr. lankford not guilty.

mr. leahy guilty. >> mr. leahy, guilty. mr. lee, not guilty. >> mr. lee, not guilty. mr. lewhan guilty. >> ms. lummus, ms. lummus not guilty. mr. manchin guilty. >> mr. manchin guilty. >> mr. marquise, guilty mr. marshall not guilty. mr. mcconnell. >> mr. mcconnell, not guilty. mr. menendez, guilty, mr. menendez, guilty. >> mr. merkley. mr. merkley, guilty. mr. moran, mr. moran, not guilty.

ms. mccowski, guilty. >> mr. murphy, guilty. >> mr. murphy, guilty. >> ms. murray. >> guilty. >> ms murray guilty. >> mr. ossoff, guilty mr. padilla, guilty. >> mr. paul, not guilty. >> mr. paul, not guilty. >> mr. peters, guilty. >> mr. peters, guilty. mr. portman. mr. portman, not guilty. mr. reid. >> guilty. >> mr. reid, guilty. mr. risch. >> not guilty. mr. risch, not guilty. mr. romney. >> guilty. >> mr. romney, guilty. ms. rosen.

guilty. mr. rounds, not guilty. >> mr. rounds, not guilty. mr. rubio mr. rue rubio, not guilty. >> mr. sanders, guilty. >> mr. sasse. >> mr. sasse, guilty. mr. shots guilty. mr. schumer, mr. schumer, guilty. mr. scott of florida. >> mr. scott of florida, not. >> mr. scott of south carolina. >> not guilty. >> mr. scott of south carolina, not guilty. mr. shaheen. >> mrs. shaheen guilty. >> mr. shelby. mr. shelby, not guilty. ms. sinema. >> ms. sinema, guilty. ms. smith ms. smith guilty. >> ms. stabenow. >> ms. stabenow guilty.

>> mr. sullivan. >> mr. sullivan, not guilty. mr. tester. >> mr. tester, guilty. mr. soon not guilty mr. tilis not guilty. mr. toomey, guilty mr. tubberville. >> not guilty. >> mr. tubberville, not guilty mr. van halen. >> mr. van halen guilty. mr. wariner. mr. wariner, guilty. mr. warnock. >> gts. guilty mr. warnock, ms. warren guilty. mr. white house. mr. white house guilty mr. wicker. mr. wicker, not guilty. mr. wyden, mr. wyden, guilty.

mr. young, not guilty. >> mr. young, not guilty. [silence]

[silence] you've been watching live as now president trump has going on live, 57 vote guilty 43 vote not guilty. let's listen in. >> 43, our two-thirds of the senators present not having voted guilty, the senate and judges that respond donald john trump former president of the united states is not guilty as charged in the article of impeachment preside office director judgment to be entered in accordance of the judgment as follows senate having tried donald john trump former president of the united states by 1 article of impeachment and two-thirds of the senators present not having found hem guilty to the charge contain therein, is thereof ordered and judge that the said donald john

trump be and hereby acquitted for the charge in said article. >> mr. president, majority leader is recognized. >> mr. president i send article to the desk. >> clerk will order. >> ordered that secretary be directed to communicate to the secretary of state as provided by rule 23 of the rules procedure and practice in the senate when sitting on impeachment trials and also to the house of representatives judgment of the senate in the case of donald john trump and transmit a certified copy of the judgment to each. >> it is official now you have watched as the vote in the second impeachment trial of now former president trump has taken place and once again, he has been acquitted you can see 57 vote guilty votes there 43 not guilty votes. they have to have two-thirds of the senators vote. those who were present, and that would be 67 so ten votes short of acquitting now former

president trump his second impeachment acquittal and 7 republicans who crossed over in joining in voting guilty. that not enough for the in democrats to achief official impeachment and removal of office of now former president trump. you've been watching live stay tuned to fox news channel and fox station for continuing corning coverage of this story from washington i'm shannon bream. okay let's bring in chad program or capitol hill guru producer reporter he does it all. chad this is now the end of the second impeachment trial for now former president trump. second time he's been acquitsed so many more republicans crossed other this time john. >> for the second time in a year u.s. senate acquit donald john trump vote today 57-43 there were 7 republicans who voted yes probably the big surprise here. it was richard burr, the republican senator from north carolina, now four impeach the

trials much american president four verdicts rengdered all declared not guilty andrew johnson in 1868 bill clinton in 1999, and donald trump in 2020 and the same verdict this year as well. now, the higher number of republicans voting to convict is the closest the senate has ever gotten to conviction since andrew johnson in 1868 johnson was innocent by one vote back then and senate only recorded 50 votes on one of the two articles of impeachment level against president clinton in 1999 now more republicans breaking with the former president that significant because that represents a greater fisher inside the really party. also, this was one of the shortest impeachment trials we've ever had the shortest one for president in american history. five days, last year's trial took about two week and change. president clinton trial lasted rn many a month trifle andrew johnson dragged out three months shortest all overall federal

judge thomas in 2010 two days to convict himg and also notable that mitch mcconnell senate majority leader he notedded to vote to convict excuse me to acquit trump there was question as to whether or not he might actually vote to convict that could give republicans air cover who wanted to vote to convict. you know, look at the internal politics of this shannon where you have liz shane e-cheney republican congresswoman from wyoming also chair of the house republican conference, keep in mind you know that she was one of the ten house republicans who voted for impeachment to send this soul article of impeachment over in january. and she, you know, really got lit up in the house republican conference people accounted her to be kicked out of leadership. she is staying for now. but, of course, mitch mcconnell in this vote what he's essentially doing is staying with the votes that he needs. staying with the rest of his conference. again a majority of senate republicans voting to acquit

former president that's pangt so what is next okay this impeachment trial is over. some time later this afternoon, we're going hear from the house impeachment managers, nine house impeachment managers, we might hear from president trump's counsel. but this is done. in fact, it is done 22 years and one day after the verdict in the president clinton trial in 1999 so this is over for now and now it is probably on to covid relief on capitol hill shannon. >> all right chad thank you very much keeping us up to date there on the hill bring in a legal panel. kimberly what i whaley also youe all watched this and it is very much not like the average legal trial this is much more political in nature we saw all things admitted that we know in a courtroom would never get admitted but this is a unique beast, and it ends the second way second time the way it did first time for president trump with acquittal as we discuss anymore senators on gop side feeling call on conscience to vote guilty.

saul. >> yes, i think that is significant. the largest number for conviction since andrew johnson's time and i think that house managers even though they knew going in that they would probably lose, they're looking to history and they're looking to make an impact that political in historical impact here by the way i thought overall house managers did -- a very, very goods job. and so you know, this is for -- this will have an affect on the body politic, and they -- evidence they put on i think for the most part was damming. i do want to say that the position taken by most of the republicans that, the proceeding was unconstitutional is not in any way a frivolous position it was a position adopted by youssef story, the great constitutional scholar in 1833. so i know there's -- the great disagreement and most constitutional psychological

scholars go the other way but nothing dishonorable that 45 republican senate republicans tack few days ootion. >> kimberly one of the first things we learned in law school as a young attorney is that you have to make an emotional connection to you can with your jury that was done. i think through a lot of these videos, these senators, though, not like regular jurors they live through that day and they certainly came in knowing the parties, knowing arguments, it is a very unusual and all of its nature but serge certainly emotional use of the videos this week by both sides. >> i suspect congress would have considered that an impeachment offense. >> kimberly are you there can you hear us? >> defense counsel said that president trump was not responsible for the violence -- >> what i was saying was -- a lot of these people were triggered by those videos, they

were, they have some trauma effects. not just members of congress but the hundreds of people that participated in that so we saw some choking up some weeping. boats on the floor and afterwards i think that what's important to keep in mind with the closing argument by defense counsel is there's a lot of stuff that was not disputed it was not disputed january 6th was a grave tragedy a heinous act on home of the u.s. democracy that he said those who participated should be found and punished to maximum extent of the law, and many of -- our viewers probably know people that might have participated in that, and we're reminded of leviticus this conduct of a scapegoat with people on the sins of the goat out in pasture that is this bizarre moment we're in where the person with tremendous power more power than anyone else in the country, is -- has no responsibility no accountability. but there are people who participated and know whether

they thought they were following the president. they are going to pay the price and we will see those prosecutions go forward and some will do jail time. >> uh-huh. yeah. what we shannon: what we understand is there are already over 20 people who have been charged $200 people have been charged, assaulting law enforcement officers and destruction of property. quickly, those who say the house should have done more, they should have depose witnesses, they should have flushed this out more making a better cause, what do you think? >> i think it was close enough for government work, that's what i think. they wanted to do it quickly, and they did a good enough job and the article, could have, would have, should have, you could always say that. but you make a very good point, this is an active investigation by mike sherwin, a very energetic acting district attorney of the district of

columbia, so the story is by no means over. shannon: there are people across the united states who are now facing charges. thank you both for joining us. you've been here live for the acquittal. griff jenkins and gillian turner are going to pick it up here. gillian: the senate falling short of the votes neated to -- needed to convict the 45th president. seven republicans joined all fifty democrats in voting to convict trump. 67 votes were needed for a conviction. hello, everyone, welcome to a brand new hour of "america's news headquarters" here in washington, d.c., i'm gillian turner. griff: and i'm griff jenkins. the trail ending after both sides came to an agreement to skip witness testimony, senators initially voting to allow withinses after a statement from