neguse of colorado. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 167 -- 147, the gentleman from colorado, mr. neguse, and the gentleman from arkansas, mr. westerman, each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. neguse: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in strong support of en bloc number 1. these 18 amendments demonstrate the strong and bipartisan support for protecting our wilderness and our public lands. the amendments in this package include bipartisan legislation from representatives mckinley and tonko to unify the way national heritage areas are established and managed around the country. other amendments would seek to improve the diversity on public lands, including the swamp h.n.a. by representative mceachin. ensuring all americans have access to healthy outdoor recreation, especially in low-income cities, like the bill by representative barragan. and help veterans which is pursued by representative brownley. we have the panetta amendment. we add some n

delegate stacey plaskett, the virgin islands, representtive joe neguse of colorado.oth for being here. it's a real honor to have this time with you. congresswoman plaskett, let me ask you about what we saw a little bit of in public on saturday, what appeared to be a last-minute drama about the question of calling witnesses. can you just describe in your own words, just let us know what happened there and what was happening behind the scenes among you impeachment managers in terms of making these decisions? >> sure. as you saw prior to saturday, the prosecution had made what we believed to be an overwhelming, clear case against the president, laying out witnesses, giving eyewitness testimony, videos and a slew of information that outlined the case as we saw it and proved the article of impeachment. defense counsel made their attempt at a defense for the president, and then based upon the rules that have been outlined by the senate, there was the ability to call -- have a motion for witnesses. the night before on friday evening, we found out that one of our colleagues,

mr neguse has explained why president _ position.lained why president trump's _ position. mr neguse has explained why president trump's last - position. mr neguse has explained why president trump's last ditch . why president trump's last ditch first amendment arguments have nothing to do with the actual facts of the case. he's been impeached for inciting violent insurrection against the government, incitement of violent insurrection is not protected by free speech. there is no first amendment defence to impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. the idea itself is absurd. the whole first amendment smoke screen is a completely irrelevant distraction from the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors governing a president who has violated his oath of office. yet, president trump, we know has a good way of treating up as down and wrong is right. he tried to pop the biggest election fraud in american history by overturning the results of the 2020 election even as he insisted that his own fraud was in fact an effort to stop the steel.

neguse. and as the member designated by mr. huffman, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. huffman will vote yea on agreeing to the en bloc number 1 amendment offered by mr. neguse. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from indiana seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. banks of indiana, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. banks will vote nay on the amendments en bloc number 1. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. jacobs, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that ms. jacobs will vote aye on the amendments en bloc number 1. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. young of the state of alaska, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. young will vote nay on the amendments en

congressman neguse joins me now. first i want to start on that decision to include that moment, that veto override. i sort of went back and looked at that when i saw that in your speech. it was a remarkable moment because it was a remarkable rebuke to a sitting president, but it appeared to me you did sort of try to reach out to mitch mcconnell's conscience there. >> it's good to be with you, chris. i think the way that you described it as a hail mary is an apt description. look, my job and the job of my fellow managers was to do all we could to present the evidence to the senate and to persuade this jury, which was the united states senate, to reach the same conclusion that we had in the house on a bipartisan basis, which is the president clearly was guilty of the constitutional offense that he was charged with. and so i thought that perhaps making a candid appeal to the senators to try to harken back to moments in our country's history that did transcend party politics and coming up with a couple of particular exam

neguse will show you. and when he finished, i will return and show you why it's dangerous for us to ignore it and why you must connect and then we will rest. mr. neguse. neguse: mr. president, and senators good afternoon again. as my colleague rep. raskin mention. it's been long and i want to say thank you that we are very grateful for your patience, for your attention and the attention that you have paid to every 104 managers as they have presented our case. in his lead manager rep. raskin mention, i hope that we can agree that the president signs of violent insurrection against our government, that that is impeachable conduct. so what i would like to do is illegal is a case. his walking through flight are evidence overwhelmingly establishes that president trump committed that offense. now would you consider question, the question of whether president and cited insurrection . there are three questions that reasonably come to mind. was violence perceivable and did he encourage violence. and defeat packed w

neguse: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd yield 2 1/2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from california, mr. carbajal. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. carbajal: thank you, chairman neguse. i'm humbled to represent the central coast of california. one of the most beautiful districts in the nation, if not the most beautiful. places like los padres national forest contains one of the most stunning and diverse ecosystems found anywhere in north america. today, i am pleased to support h.r. 803, the protecting america's wilderness and public lands act. this bill would preserve the natural beauty and recreation activities available to communities in my district and beyond. this measure includes my legislation, h.r. 973, the central coast heritage protection act. i am proud to have worked with chairman grijalva, representative brownley, and representative panetta, and local stakeholders to ensure that california's central coast was included in this bill. in particular, i want to thank -- i want to t

neguse will show you. and when he finished, i will return and show you why it's dangerous for us to ignore it and why you must connect and then we will rest. mr. neguse. neguse: mr. president, and senators good afternoon again. as my colleague rep. raskin mention. it's been long and i want to say thank you that we are very grateful for your patience, for your attention and the attention that you have paid to every 104 managers as they have presented our case. in his lead manager rep. raskin mention, i hope that we can agree that the president signs of violent insurrection against our government, that that is impeachable conduct. so what i would like to do is illegal is a case. his walking through flight are evidence overwhelmingly establishes that president trump committed that offense. now would you consider question, the question of whether president and cited insurrection . there are three questions that reasonably come to mind. was violence perceivable and did he encourage violence. and defeat packed w

neguse explained why president trump's last ditch first amendment arguments got nothing to do with the actual facts of the case. he has been impeached for inciting violent insurrection against the government, incite. of violent insurrection is not protected by free speech, there is no first amendment defense to impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors, the idea itself is absurd. and the whole first amendment smoke screen is a completely irrelevant distraction from the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors governing a president who has violated his oath of office yet president trump we know has a good way of saying right is wrong and right is wrong he tried to put off the biggest election fraud in american history by overturning the results of the 2020 election even when he insisted his own fraud was in fact an effort to stop the steam, to stop a fraud, a vast conspiracy that he blamed on local and state officials of both political parties, the media, election officials, the judiciary, federal, state, members of congress, many -- anyone who wouldn't go along with him was part of

. >> i want to listen to what house manager joe neguse said about what the import of the senate trial is. let's listen to that. >> what you experienced that day, what we experienced that day, what our country experienced that day is the framers' worst nightmare come to life. presidents can't inflame insurrection in their final weeks and then walk away like nothing happened. and yet that is the rule that president trump asks you to adopt. >> is it your sense that your republican colleagues actually experienced something different from what congressman neguse describes experiencing on that day? >> i -- i -- this is a tough one for me to understand, the thinking of all my colleagues. i was very happy that we saw six colleagues take a significant stand, one changing their mind from the last time they voted. that was something significant to me. but i think that any honest appreciation of our founders knew how suspicious they were of despotism, how much they were writing against the sovereignty of a king or a demagogue. and i think congressman neguse did a great job in laying out what thei

listen to impeachment manager, joe neguse, who will be here in just a moment. but listen to what he said saturday night on the senate floor. >> this trial is not born from hatred. far from it. it's born from love of country, our country, our desire to maintain it. our desire to see america, at its best. 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. >> that was congressman and former-impeachment manager, joe neguse. does he think calling witnesses could have made a difference in the trial? the congressman is here, live, next. tor burrito from boca burritos right here in aurora. (doorbell rings) excellent as a local access show, we want everyone to support local restaurants. right cardi b? ye

neguse will begin. rep. neguse: good afternoon.e heard over the course of the last several days overwhelming evidence that president trump incited the insurrection. as lead manager raskin mentioned as we prepare to close, we would be remiss if we did not briefly address the arguments the president will offer to excuse his conduct, and that is the notion that he cannot be held accountle for what happened on january 6 because his actions are somehow protected by the first amendment . now, let's stop a moment and try to really understand the argument they are making. according to president trump, everything he did, everything we showed you that he did was perfectly ok for him to do, and for a future president to do again. i'm the constitution -- and the constitution, apparently in their view, forbids you from doing anything to stop it. that can't be right. and it isn't right. their argument is meant as a distraction. they are concerned not with the facts that actually occurred, the facts that can be proven, but with an alternativeet o

on day two of the trial, joe neguse outlined the case for impeachment, splitting it into three separatetion, the attack itself, and the ensuing harm. in his unique role as commander in chief of our country and as the one person that the mob was listening to and following orders from, he had the power to stop it — and he didn't. we will never give in. we will never give up. we will never back down. we will never, ever surrender. you will see that in the months as the president made these statements, people listened. armed supporters surrounded election officials�* homes. the secretary of state for georgia got death threats. officials warned the president that his rhetoric was dangerous and it was going to result in deadly violence. that's what makes this so different. because when he saw first—hand the violence that his conduct was creating, he didn't stop it, he didn't condemn the violence. he incited it further, and he got more specific. he didn'tjust tell them to "fight like hell." he told them how, where and when. most of the senators watching would be familiar with the footage of th

the statements, the videos, the affidavits proved beyond doubt, said joe neguse, that president trump power to stop. we humbly, humbly ask you to convict president trump for the crime for which he is overwhelmingly guilty of. because if you don't, if we pretend this didn't happen, or worse, if we let it go unanswered, who's to say it won't happen again? on day four, donald trump's legal team took over, and it took them just three hours to present their case. again, arguing it was unconstitutional to impeach a president no longer in office. in his opening remarks, michael van der veen called the proceedings a politically motivated witch hunt. how could the president's speech have incited the riots, he asked, when they were apparently preplanned? onjanuary 6th, a small group who came to engage in violent and menacing behavior hijacked the event for their own purposes. according to publicly available reporting, it is apparent that extremists of various different stripes and political persuasions pre—planned and premeditated an attack on the capitol. one of the first people arrested was a

i take no pleasure in playing congressman neguse's clip. year when they're trying the ex-president for sending supporters to sack disney world so he can move into cinderella's castle and declare himself "the emperor of fantasyland." one thing all the house managers seemed to have in common: the -- today, especially when they were closing, is they weren't grandstanding for their own ego. they were sincerely, desperately trying to make a human connection as fellow citizens to the republican senators in that gallery and convince them to put country before party. so, doomed from the start. because after watching the horrific images and damning timeline from yesterday's presentation, senate republicans are doing exactly what they did on january 6: running away from what they helped create. take south carolina senator and pillsbury proud boy, lindsey graham. after yesterday's session, graham had this review: >> i think most republicans found the presentation by the house managers offensive and absurd. >> stephen: (as graham) "that material was of

i mean, raskin and neguse are really, really good. they have done a great jock, as nicolle referenced, making it very digestible, very understandable for anybody watching. i think they really honed in on the president's failure to stop it. and buried in that, brian, is this powerful notion that he was only the one who could stop it, because he is the one who started it. so by proving he could have stopped it -- and, by the way, everybody in that room knows that, that he could have stopped it in a moment if he would have wanted to. and we learned that 80 police officers were injured, and one was murdered. the question is, how many of those police officers would not have been injured had the president spoken up when the violence broke out, instead of waiting? i guarantee that all those republican senators believe that trump thought it was okay what was going on, that he was reveling in it. and his own people, that was powerful. coming in second behind his own people, his chiefs of staff, his secretary of defense, maybe pointing out what

on day two of the trial, joe neguse outlined the case for impeachment, splitting it into three separateattack itself, and the ensuing harm. in his unique role as commander in chief of our country and as the one person that the mob was listening to and following orders from, he had the power to stop it — and he didn't. we will never give in. we will never give up. we will never back down. we will never, ever surrender. you will see that in the months as the president made these statements, people listened. armed supporters surrounded election officials' homes. the secretary of state for georgia got death threats. officials warned the president that his rhetoric was dangerous and it was going to result in deadly violence. that's what makes this so different. because when he saw first—hand the violence that his conduct was creating, he didn't stop it, he didn't condemn the violence. he incited it further, and he got more specific. he didn'tjust tell them to "fight like hell." he told them how, where and when. most of the senators watching would be familiar with the footage of the violence

. >> brennan: we'll talk with one of the prosecutor, colorado congressman joe neguse. plus an exclusive conversation with british prime minister bortion border patrol, abord --boris jo. >> after all of that, american democracy is strong. >> brennan: and we'll talk to the head of the centers for disease control, dr. rochelle walensky, about president biden's back to school plan. and heyward donigan will be with us to tell us how her company plans to help with getting americans vaccinated. plus we'll check in with dr. scott gottlieb. it's all just ahead on "face the nation." ♪ >> brennan: good morning. and welcome to "face the nation." the headlines this morning are similar to what they were almost exactly a day, aweek, and aa year ago, after being acquitted in the foreign interference impeachment case. now former president donald trump has been acquitted again, this time for incitement of insurrection. but this time seven republican senators broke with their party. it was still 10 votes short of conviction. we want to begin this morning with one of the impeachment manag

neguse will vote yes on h.res. 147. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. garcia: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. grijalva, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. grijalva will vote yea on h.res. 147. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. beyer: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. lowenthal, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. lowenthal will vote yes on h.res. 147. as the member designated by mr. lieu, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. lieu will vote yes on h.res. 147. as the member designated by ms. barragan, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that ms. barragan will vote yes on h.res. 147. as the member designated by ms. moore, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that ms. moore will vote yes on h.res. 147. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? steele mrs. steel: as the mem

neguse. >> martha: very quickly, we're going to bring in chad pergram. sounds like they're getting close to their closing arguments here. >> yeah, we think they're going to wrap up in the 4:00 hour, maybe another half hour or 45 minutes. the goal today by house impeachment managers is to reveal cause and effect. they replayed tape of the rioters. they stormed the capitol because the president told them to do so. jamie raskin has been arguing it's convict the former president because if he returns to argument, this could happen again. raskin says we will have no one to blame but ourselves. we expect them to wrap up in the next hour or so and tomorrow the defense will start presenting their case. according to president trump's attorneys, they don't think they'll take much time. that's why there's a lot of conjecture that this could be wrapped up saturday. >> or friday evening according to some reports, chat. thanks, chad pergram. jamie raskin, the lead impeachment manager acknowledged there's a high bar to prove incitement. he said it's a fact-based judgme

joe neguse did a particularly fantastic job.he fact that you knew how bad donald trump's actions was makes it worse. makes it worse than the behavior of the ted cruzes and the lindsey grahams of the world who you know were in bad faith. don't acquit donald trump when you know that he's responsible for the death of a police officer and then tell me you that kind of feel bad for it because of this constitutional technicality. how many cops would have had to die for mitch mcconnell to not care about the constitutional technicality? to bring the senate back from vacation before the inauguration so they could have held this trial in january. you know, what if one of his colleagues died? i just -- i'm disgusted by mitch mcconnell's behavior. so i don't love the tactics on the witnesses but i'm disgusted by mitch mcconnell. >> oh, yeah. >> those are my angry rants for the day. >> oh, no. indeed. and then they're going to try to use their votes for officer eugene goodman as some sort of pass away from that. no. everybody sees you for wh

neguse . pljts president, distinguished senators, good afternoon again.d manager raskin mentioned, i know it's been a long few days. and i want to say thank you that we're very grateful for your patience, for your attention, and the attention that you have paid to every one of our managers as they have presented our case. as lead manager raskin mentioned, i hope, i trust, that we could all agree that if a president incites a violent insurrection against our government, that that's impeachable conduct. so, what i'd like to do as we close our case is just walk you through why our evidence overwhelmingly establishes that president trump committed that offense. now, as you consider that question, that question of whether the president incited an insurrection, there are three questions that reasonably come to mind. was violence foreseeable? did he encourage violence? and did he act willfully? and i'm going to show you why the answer to every one of those questions has to be yes. first, let's start with foreseeability. was it foreseeable that the violence would

neguse made one thing perfectly clear. >> the president had every reason to know that this would happenuse he assembled the mob, he summoned the mob, and he incited the mob. >> stephen: word is he has also got a lot of connections to the mob, but the manhattan d.a. will look into that. then we heard from congresswoman madeleine dean, who introduced herself completely. >> i am lawyer. i'm a former professor of writing. i'm a sister. i'm a wife. i'm a mother. i'm a grandmother to three with fourth on her way. i am a person of faith. and i am an american. >> stephen: ( as dean ) i'm a joker, i'm a smoker, i'm a midnight toker some people call me the space cowboy. some call me the gangster of love some people call me maurice, to which i say "reereeaawrr! ( laughter ) then the house managers took it into overdrive with security video that hasn't been seen by the public before. first up was virgin island delegate stacy plaskett. she highlighted the actions of officer eugene goodman, who famously moved the rioters away from the unprotected senate chamber, saving lives. but she also revealed an

congressman joe neguse from colorado was one of the impeachment managers. 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. >> joe neguse is 36, the only millennial among the house impeachment managers. before i have to let you go, what do young democrats like joe neguse tell you about the future of the party? i think he really just as an or tore and a speaker and a thinker really distinguished himself this week. >> joe neguse moved me today. he should've moved all patriots. and so i think the future is strong. i mean the demographics of the country are changing. it is getting browner by the day, and that's the rub for republicans. and so it's time for democrats to feel proud about that and feel proud about members like joe neguse. i am. >> if you missed what he said in his closing remarks, stick around, we're going to share some more of that, including one particular piece of his remarks that we thought should give him the last word for the show. we'll get to that later on. fo

congressman joe neguse there at the end. the impeachment manager trying to make the stakes as clear as they can be here. that not only would an acquittal of the president after this trial legitimize this conduct by the former president last month, it would effectively legitimize conduct like this for hypothetical malevolent future presidents or even for the last nonhypothetical malevolent president to maybe try it again. and if he's going to try it again, if he's knowing to try to use violence to get his way politically again, what's to say he's not going to use it for people who are hearing that argument from congressman neguse here today. the president knows he's got a mob at his fingerprints. maybe some of them will go to prison for it but he golfed today. and even all the republican senators in that room know that trump would happily direct such a mob against them if it served his purposes, and he'd do it at the drop of a hat. >> if we don't draw the line here what's next? what makes you think the nightmare with donald t

neguse and mr. cicilline came to see me that day. dozens of members, lots of republicans, lots of democrats came to see me. and i felt a sense of being lifted up from the agony. and i won't forget their tenderness. and through the tears, i was working on a speech for the floor. when we would all be together in joint session. and i wanted to focus on unity when we met in the house. i quoted abraham lincoln's famous 1838 speech, where he said that if division and destruction ever come to america, it won't come from abroad. it will come from within. said lincoln. and in that same speech, lincoln passionately deplored mob violence. this is right after the murder of elijah lovejoy, the abolitionist newspaper editor, and lincoln deplored mob violence, and he deplored mob rule, and he said it would lead to tyranny and despotism in america. that was the speech i gave that day, after the house very graciously and warmly welcomed me back. and tabitha and hank came with me to the floor, and they watched it from the gallery. and it was -- when i

here are plaskett and neguse with rachel maddow tonight on the subject of why no witnesses. >> i know that so many people felt that, you know, maybe if we had more witnesses it could have changed more senators. but i think as you're seeing these statements come out of those 43 individuals, we know that there was no additional witness that was going to change their mind. we felt that we had made our case overwhelmingly, was able to get in the additional statement, and rested our case. >> it was fairly clear to us that any witnesses that might have some probative evidence to share could very well end up tying the impeachment in litigation for months, perhaps years. >> neal, i need two answers from you. your honest personal opinion. were you buoyed, but then crushed, when you woke up that morning and learned that by dint of sheldon whitehouse having spoken overnight, it was gaining currency, it was gaining traction, until it did not, until they cut a deal, no witnesses? the second part of the answer i'd like is, how much shenanigans to congressman neguse's point, how much shenanigans cou

second most famous quote after, "i'm not the pau when raskin was finished, impeachment manager joe neguse history lesson. >> in 1797, about a decade after our country ratified our constitution, there was a senator from tennessee by the name of william blunt, who was caught conspiring with the british to try to sell florida and louisiana. stephen: florida and louisiana to the british? that's crazy. everyone knows a great president offers to trade puerto rico for greenland to denmark. now, keep in mind, these constitutional originalists are arguing that you can't impeach someone once they've left office. well, neguse curb-stomped that with the founders' own boots. >> four days later, the house of representatives impeached him. a day after that, this body, the united states senate, expelled him from office, so he was very much a former official. despite that, the house went forward with its impeachment, proceeding in order to disqualify him from ever again holding federal office. and so the senate proceeded with the trial, with none other than thomas jefferson presiding. >> stephen: wow. jef

own words laid the crucial groundwork for the attack. >> alcindor: neguse played videos of presidentost-election rallies, and specific remarks that democrats say fueled his supporters anger. >> we will never surrender, we will only win. now is not the time to retreat, now is the time to fight harder than ever before. we have to go all the way, we're going to fight like hell. (cheers) >> the president had every reason to know that this would happen. because he assembled the mob, he summoned the mob, and he incited the mob. >> alcindor: representative joaquin castro of texas pointed to the former president's frequent tweets and false claims that the election was rigged. >> rather than calmly saying let's count the votes, if he told his supporters he actually won the election and the whole thing was a fraud. he said that on november 4th and has never recounted that statement since. >> alcindor: and, california congressman eric swalwell said that rhetoric escalated into“ combat terms.” he said that fueled real anger, including toward state election officials. >> he could have very easily

i want to thank the prosecutors thank you stacy thank you madeleine dean and joe neguse eric swalwell congresswoman to get congressman cicilline thank you ted lieu thank you joaquin castro and the manager on all of this. we couldn't be prouder. i've been hearing from my grandchildren who are very sad that it's done but by 15 votes the senate voted to convict the bipartisan statement about what has happened. it would not at then so without that presentation so i thank you for that and i want to thank all of you as i leave madam speaker thank you for your comments and i was going to go next to scott. [inaudible] >> he's been hedged on that. remember when he talked about the president he said he didn't think this rose to the level. he was hedging all over the place. i don't know what it was for, donors or what but whatever it was it was a very disingenuous speech and i say that regretfully because i always want to be able to work with the leadership of the other party. i think our country needs a strong republican party. it's very important for him to try to have it every which way but w

the second part of the answer i'd like is, how much shenanigans to congressman neguse's point, how much shenanigans could the minority have come up with? could they truly have bulloxed this up for weeks? >> i was buoyeds saturday morning, brian, we might finally hear the truth and humanize the story. i wanted to hear from pence, i wanted to hear from trump. i think the american people deserved that. i do think the house managers did an exquisite job. they were right to say in the end the problem wasn't the facts. they overwhelmingly proved the facts. but do i think humanizing is a good thing. now, with respect to the second part of your question, i think "the new york times" has reported that senators such as joni ernst and others threatened to shutdown the business of the senate if they had witnesses to the point of saying, no nominees, no covid legislation, and things like that, which is to me unbelievable. they need to be held be accountable for this. the idea that they were so -- the republicans were so afraid of the truth that they were willing to prevent coronavirus legislation an

show up on january 6 colorado congressman joe neguse says it worked and points to statements from trump supporters after the riot president trump is calling us to fight this isn't a joke. another one i thought i was following my president i thought i was falling we recalled to do. house impeachment managers also revealed new video and >>lead impeachment manager jamie raskin refuted the claims that trump's words are protected by the first amendment it's more like a case where the town fire chief. who's paid to put out fires sends a mob. not to yell fire in a crowded theater that actually set the theater on fire. >>and again we only heard from the democratic house impeachment managers today. they also showed other new pieces of video for example of officer goodman leading senator mitt romney away from that big mob that was headed right for him. >>alexandra certainly some very sobering moments as you just described with the officer leading rioters away from the senate chambers mitt romney turning around he was heading right into the mob we saw video from inside the capitol that can you giv

i want to play a little bit more of congressman neguse on this point. take a listen. >> the president had incited the crowd. he had to call it off because he was the only one who could. mr. president, you have got to stop this. you are the only person who can call this off. >> the president caused this protest to occur. he's the only one who can make it stop. >> the president's role in this insurrection is undeniable. >> emily, how did you view that substantively? this point at times has gotten lost i think in the public discussion that we actually know a great deal about what was going on in those few hours. it's pretty extraordinary. and we know now the president personally and his top lawyer who requested trial by combat looked at this as a positive that they could through physical violence and overtaking the congress delay that night that which otherwise would legally occur, that this was whether or not you can say, and i want to be as fair as possible, that they wanted people to die. evident arealy you need to be careful with this. they wanted this

neguse posing the questions that they had answered.raskin posing questions that will linger in the air tomorrow as the president's lawyer presents. the neguse questions. was violence foreseeable? check. they proved that. did he encourage violence? no doubt about it. we heard his words. and then the key question -- and did he do so knowingly? we saw tweets. we saw video. we saw the inaction. we saw the terrible behavior with pence that when he knew pence was fleeing he tweeted attacking him and the mob repeated it with the bullhorn. i think they proved their case. and the republican counsel for donald trump are not even going to try to rebut it. they're cutting their time down. they know they can't. >> thank you all. appreciate the insights. up next, with the outcome of the senate trial for all intents and purposes perhaps preordained sadly, what does that mean for the future of the republican party and its allegiance to the former president? i'll talk to "new york times" foreign affairs columnist tom friedman when we continue. lease th

neguse, impeachment is not to remove somebody from office. impeachment is set to keep each of us safe, to hold our freedom, to safeguard our democracy. it achieves that by deterring abuse of the extraordinary power that we entrust to our presidents from the very first day in office to the very last day. it also ensures accountability for presidents who harm us or our government. in the aftermath of a tragedy, it allows us an opportunity to come together and to heal by working through what happened and reaffirming our constitutional principles. and it authorizes this body and this body alone to disqualify from our political system anybody whose conduct in office proves that they present a danger to the republic. but impeachment would fail to achieve these purposes if you created, for the first time ever, despite the words of the framers and the constitution, a january exception, as mr. raskin explained. now, i was a former defense lawyer for many years, and i can understand why president trump and his lawyers don't want you to hear this case.

show up on january 6 colorado congressman joe neguse says it worked and points to statements from trump supporters after the riot president trump is calling us to fight this isn't a joke. another one i thought i was following my president i thought i was falling we recalled to do house impeachment managers also revealed new video and >>lead impeachment manager jamie raskin refuted the claims that trump's words are protected by the first amendment. >>it's more like a case where the town fire chief. who's paid to put out fires sends a mob. not to yell fire in a crowded theater that actually set the theater on fire. >>now tomorrow. we will also only hear from the democratic house managers and then after that we will hear from trump's defense lawyers for today's live in washington alexandra thank you alexandra. >>much of the evidence being presented by house managers is forcing senators to relive the drama of january 6 and of course that is making. >>a big impact on the catherine heenan is here now with reaction from a bay area republican official catherine you were taught by jonathan madis

neguse will begin. mr. president, distinguished senators, good afternoon. you have heard over the course of the last several days overwhelming evidence president trump incited and insurrection. but as the lead manager raskin mentioned as we prepare to close, we would be remiss if we didn't just briefly address the principal defense that the president will offer to excuse his conduct and that is the notion that he cannot be held accountable for what happened on january 6th because his actions are somehow protected by the first amendment. now let's stop him a moment and try to really understand the argument that they are making. according to president trump, everything he d did, everythinge showed you that he did was perfectly okay for him to do. and for a future president to do again.y and the constitution apparently in their view forbids you from doing anything to stop it. that can't be right, and it isn't right. their argument is meant as a distraction. they are concerned not with the facts that actually occurred and that we have proven, but an alternative

neguse will now provide a roadmap, the roadmap of our evidentiary case. >> mr.president, distinguished senators, counsel. like several of you, i am a child of immigrants, and as a son of immigrants i believe firmly in my heart that the united states is the greatest republic that this world has ever known. a hallmark of our republic since the days of george washington, has been the peaceful transfer of power. for centuries we have accepted it as fact. unfortunately, sadly, we know now that we can no longer take that for granted. because as lead manager raskin explained on january 6, peaceful transition of power was violently interrupted when a mob stormed this capital and desecrated this chamber. as you will see during the course of this trial, that mob with somebody, assembled, and incited by the former president of the united states, donald trump. and he did that because he wanted to stop the transfer of power so that he could retain power, even though he had lost the election. and when the violence erupted, when they were here in our building with weapons, he

neguse posed three questions, and i think the managers powp powerfully answered them.iolence foreseeable? did the president encourage violence? and did he do so knowingly? in that recital of evidence, the pence tweet, the video, the later tweet by the president embracing the violence. the failure to renounce to this day the president's inaction, his glee at watching the violence on tv. it's an overwhelming legal case, and to add to dana's point, they didn't only argue to the jury in the senate. they didn't only argue that case to history and posterity. they argued to the american people with jamie raskin at the end saying, senators, america, so there will be consequences for the senate. how many times before the republicans learn their lesson that there will be consequences if they defy this overwhelming case. >> you know, gloria borger, the house managers did present their case and it was really stark. we have people inside the senate that at times there were, what, p about 15 empty chairs on the republican side of the chamber. it's hard to have your mind change if yo

neguse will now provide a roadmap, the roadmap of our evidentiary case. >> mr.president, distinguished senators, counsel. like several of you, i am a child of immigrants, and as a son of immigrants i believe firmly in my heart that the united states is the greatest republic that this world has ever known. a hallmark of our republic since the days of george washington, has been the peaceful transfer of power. for centuries we have accepted it as fact. unfortunately, sadly, we know now that we can no longer take that for granted. because as lead manager raskin explained on january 6, peaceful transition of power was violently interrupted when a mob stormed this capital and desecrated this chamber. as you will see during the course of this trial, that mob with somebody, assembled, and incited by the former president of the united states, donald trump. and he did that because he wanted to stop the transfer of power so that he could retain power, even though he had lost the election. and when the violence erupted, when they were here in our building with weapons, he