he zeroed in on this exact point during the belknap trial. this is his quote. a prohibition against doing more than two things cannot be turned into a command to do both or neither. and just imagine the consequences of such an absurd interpretation of the constitution. if president trump were right about that language, then officials could commit the most extraordinary, destructive offenses against the american people, high crimes and misdemeanors. they would have total control over whether they can ever be impeached, and if they are, whether the senate can try the case. if they want to escape any public inquiry into their conductor the risk of disqualification from office, they could just resign one minute before the house impeachment or during the senate trial if it's not looking so well. that would effectively erase disqualification from the constitution. it would put wrongdoers in charge of whether the senate can try them. third and final reason why president trump must stand trial. provision of article i of the constitution. you'll see here on the screen t

treatment —— and he _ william belknap's inc. treatment —— and be after— william belknap's inc.fter what you _ william belknap's inc. treatment —— and be after what you are _ william belknap's inc. treatment —— and be after what you are presentedj and be after what you are presented in the _ and be after what you are presented in the course — and be after what you are presented in the course of _ and be after what you are presented in the course of this _ and be after what you are presented in the course of this trial, _ and be after what you are presented in the course of this trial, if - and be after what you are presented in the course of this trial, if we - in the course of this trial, if we do not — in the course of this trial, if we do not convict _ in the course of this trial, if we do not convict former- in the course of this trial, if we | do not convict former president trump. — do not convict former president trump, what _ do not convict former president trump, what message - do not convict former president trump, what message will- do not convict former president tru

the 1st time that this direct question has been debated in this chamber 146 years ago during the belknap trial senator george edmonds of vermont he's one of the most prestigious republican senators of his time he he sat right where senator grassley sits today he zeroed in on this exact point during the belknap tropp this is his quote a prohibition against doing more than 2 things cannot be turned into a command to do both or not be turned into a command to do both or neither and just imagine the consequences of such an absurd interpretation of the constitution if if we're right about that language then officials could commit the most extraordinary destructive offenses against the american people high crimes and misdemeanors and they'd have total control over whether they can ever be impeached and if they are whether the senate can try the case if they want to escape any public inquiry into their misconduct or the risk of disqualification from future office it's pretty simple they just could just resign one minute before the house impeaches or even one minute before the senate trial or th

pretrial dismissal affirmed its jurisdiction and moved to a full consideration of the merits now belknap ultimately was not convicted but only after a thorough public inquiry into his misconduct which created a record of his wrongdoing it ensured his accountability and deterred anyone else from considering such corruption by making clear that it was intolerable the trial of them served important constitutional purposes now given that precedent that i've described to you given all that that precedent imparts you could imagine my surprise lead manager raskin surprise when we're reviewing a trial brief filed by the president in which his counsel insists that the senate actually didn't decide anything in the bell in that case they say it is not my words that are quote from their trial brief it cannot be read as for closing an argument that they never dealt with. never dealt with. the senate didn't debate this question for 2 hours the senate debated this very question for 2 weeks the senate spent an additional 2 weeks deliberating on the jurisdictional question and at the end of those deliber

blount, belknap and yours. the belknap case, they said he was acquitted because senators thought it was okay to hold the trial. he did not mention the trial was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. you're featured prominently in this, your writings after somebody had left official office. >> i was not impeached. i don't know those gentlemen. the only reason i know this, apparently according to the house managers, only a couple weeks ago this was my position on retroactive trials. what they're citing is an article from 21 years ago. i said it could be cited to have retroactive trials. where removal was not one of the options. they were there to achieve other things like the condemnation of officials, like disqualification. those are all worthy. i still believe that. what i have changed in the last three decades, i have become more textual. it's been well over 30 years. all of us agree this is a close question. i tend to keep up more with the text. i think better argument, the narrower argument, you don't have roo

same piece, he celebrated the belknap trial and described it as a corrective measure that help the system regain legitimacy . he wrote another article, several on this topic and this one is hundred 46 page study, very detailed and in that study he said quote, that the decision in belknap was correct in its view at impeachment historically had extended to former officials such as warren hastings, you heard the manager raskin described. as you can see professor turley argued the house could have impeached and the senate could have tried richard nixon after he resigned. his quote on this is very telling. future presidents would not assume that your resignation would avoid a trial of their conduct in the united states senate. finally, last quote from professor turley. that no man in no circumstance can escape the account which he owes to the laws of this country. not my words, not lead manager raskin's words professor jonathan turley's work . i agree with him. because he's exactly right. now, the question one might reasonably ask after going through all those quotes of such noted jurists and

most of them thought belknap was guilty as could be as the impeachment from the house was unanimous. they repeated the vote there was no jurisdiction. if i the president's lawyers i would emphasize the fact there is no jurisdiction. i read from the constitution. the president and all civil officers shall be removed by impeachment. that seems very clear the senate has jurisdiction only over the president. trump is not the president. the chief justice asserted that when he refused to preside over the trial. the senate has no jurisdiction. i would focus on that argument and move to the first amendment argument. the one argument i would stay away from is the augment senator cassidy just raised on your show, namely the election was stolen or not stolen. they would lose that. the election was not stolen. trump was wrong. i don't defend trump's speech at all. i think it was an appalling speech but i defend his right to make an appalling speech under the first amendment. they should not fall into the trap of trying to defend trump on the merits of his speech, only on the first minute. i thin

he zeroed in on this exact point during the belknap trial.gainst doing more than two things cannot be turned into a command to do both or neither. and just imagine the consequences of such an absurd interpretation of the constitution. if president trump were right about that language, than officials could commit the most extraordinary, destructive offenses against the american people, high crimes and misdemeanors and they would have total control of whether they could ever be impeached, and if they are, whether the senate can try the case. if they want to escape any public inquiry into their misconduct or the risk of disqualification from future office, it's pretty simple, they can just resign one minute before the house impeaches or just one minute before the senate trial, or they can resign during the senate trial if it's not looking so well. that would effectively erase disqualification from the constitution. it would put wrongdoers in charge of whether the senate can try them. third and final reason why president trump must stand trial. p

belknap was impeached and after the fact of leaving office. that is the precedent during president grant's administration. he was impeached and tried in the senate after he left office. that seems to be the controlling case from the prosecutor's side. is there a case that can be cited on the trump side to point to this being an illegitimate process? >> it will be very hard. not only is the belknap case the most on point, but there were two very high profile cases in britain before the constitution was drafted or while it was being drafted in which former british officials were impeached and tried. that was an experience of the framers when they were drafting the constitution. if they were going depart from it, they knew how to write it but they didn't. it was a conscious decision. the language of the text makes it clear. you can disqualify someone. that really only applies to people who are no longer in office because the moment they're convicted, they're removed from office and disqualification is a separate remedy. the trump defense may poin

he zeroed in on this exact point during the belknap trial. this is his quote.ainst doing more than two things cannot be turned into a command to do both or neither. and just imagine the consequences of such an absurd interpretation of the constitution. i mean, if president trump were right about that language, then officials could commit the most extraordinary, destructive offenses against the american people, high crimes and misdemeanors. they'd have total control over whether they can ever be impeached, and if they are whether the senate can try the case. if they want to escape any public inquiry into their misconduct or the risk of disqualification from future office, then it's pretty simple, they can just resign one minute before the house impeaches or even one minute before the senate trial or even during the senate trial if it's not looking so well. that would effectively erase disqualification from the constitution. it would put wrongdoers in charge of whether the senate can try them. third and final reason why president trump must stand trial. provision

explain why during the belknap trial, senator thomasto of delaware lar became the secretary of state and sat and found at this point sohi compelling he felt compelld to speak out on it and concluded they must allow the impeachment and trial and parties that are not civil officers was former officials and of course here like president trump. just so we are clear in full disclosure this is another argument that wasn't addressed by president trump in his rebuttal and we know why they didd it, because their argument doesn't square with the plain text of the constitution. there is one provision president trump relies on almost exclusively. article two, section four. i'm sure you will see it when they present their arguments. the argument is the language that you will see on the screen somehow presents you from the trial and the absolute requirement, but again where does, the language say that? where does it say anything and inthat provision about the jurisdiction? in fact this isn't even in the part of the constitution that addresses your authority. it is in article two, not article one.

resigned before his trial. >> and when his case reached the senate, this body, belknap made the exact same argument that president trump is making today. that you all lack jurisdiction, any power to try him because he's a former official. >> desjardins: ultimately, the senate voted that it had the right to go ahead anyway. >> the belknap case is clear precedent that the senate must proceed with this trial. >> desjardins: the trump team started with a different approach. >> have discovered whether it be democrats or republicans, united states senators are patriots first, patriots first. they love their country. they love their families they love the states that they represent. >> desjardins: pennsylvania attorney bruce castor began by extolling the senate and senators themselves. even praising his legal opponents. >> we changed what we were going to do on account that we thought that the house managers' presentation was well done. >> desjardins: he and fellow trump lawyer david schoen argued that the impeachment trial is an unnecessary and rushed partisan exercise, showing their own vi

at the center has dreadful officers before, voted in 1876 to try former secretary of war william belknapwho reside before being impeached. and also there were two penalties for conviction. one is removal, the others disqualification and it would make any sense say the defenders for an official to be able to avoid disqualification from office just by resigning moments before his trial takes place. >> live coverage of the trial getting underway momentarily as the senate gavels in. we are live outside now, outside of the senate chamber, the ohio clock corridor as senate is a right. just remind you they will come in and it will get underway with four hours, , up to four hours f debate on the constitutionality of this impeachment trial with a vote later today, simple majority vote needed to carry forward. live coverage of the senate, the impeachment trial of donald trump getting underway shortly. [background sounds] [background sounds] .. >>. [background sounds] >> the senate will be in order. the chaplain will leave the senate in prayer . >> let us pray. eternal god, author of liberty, take

historically war secretary william belknap had designed the impeachment receiving that began on march1876. they did actually have a trial for two secretaries even though he had not been in office. there is historical precedent saying that this is permitted. one of the defenses that the attorneys have been raising repeatedly is that because president trump has left office he can no longer face impeachment but there's a historical precedent that it is permitted even when the person has vacated office with secretary belknap. arthel: former president trump is refusing to testify in his impeachment trial declining the request by the house lead impeachment managers manager so how can this help his defense, how could it hurt it? c well that is something that most of that -- defense attorneys when they have clients that are facing any sort of allegations certainly allegations of this nature that president trump is facing is proceeding at a lot of defense attorneys will tell you that they caution their clients against testifying in something like this especially if any misstatements are made b

the black case the belknap case the constitution original intent of the constitution the original understanding of the constitution in setting precedence and so on but in any event the point is that no number of witnesses demonstrating that donald trump continue to incite the insurrectionist even after the invasion of the capitol would condense them. they wouldn't be convinced. they were hinging it on a matter of law which we thought we had settled back on tuesday of course when the senate elected to exercise jurisdiction and to reject that jurisdictional constitutional argument. but it is what it is great mitch mcconnell clearly feels that donald trump remains a huge problem for the republican party even if he's been disgraced and lies of the country and that is not my jurisdiction and i don't have anything to say about that. i think they will have to deal with the political dynamics within their own party. so, we did get, we did get donald trump to admit he is a former president now so that's good news. he's not asserting that somehow he is still president and they are recognizing in a de fac

avoid is a basement trial in the senate and the senate decided it had jurisdiction of course yes belknap was acquitted in 1976 because he had it up political allies in the senate to secure the one 3rd of the senate required to get an acquittal and unfortunately i see here a grave danger that the republicans and the senate will not stand up for the constitution will not stand up for their future of the republican party that i was a member of 30 years until i saw donald trump tear apart what is your what is a long one to acquit what is your feeling on whether or not there said be witnesses in this trial because this is an issue that still hasn't been settled. there should be witnesses and we went through this with the last impeachment trial when later at mcconnell the republican leader in the senate made sure there were no witnesses there was only rhetoric on the floor of the senate and deranged law professors defending donald trump's right in that case to use the government of ukraine to investigate his opponent joe biden this time around the democrats do control the senate and the 1st th

everybody -- or many people refer to the belknap case. that's the last case that the senate tried a former official. one person did change his mind similarly, only one though. first of all thinking that the senate didn't have jurisdiction, then the senate gave itself jurisdiction voting on the basis of the evidence to convict secretary belknap. that's what burr did this time. that shows that in this case senator burr was willing to be a juror, which meant listening to the evidence and deciding on the basis of the evidence what's the right thing to do. and he did the right thing. but he's alone. he is alone because near him was mitch mcconnell who had already decided that donald trump was guilty but had also believed that he had a technical out so that he didn't have to make the tough choice. and that's the difference between richard burr and mitch mcconnell. >> yeah, that's an important difference. doug, we've now had the second impeachment of former president trump in the books. but we also still have millions of americans out there who

is about this we reject that completely it's totally at odds with our history the blunt case the belknap case the text of the constitution the original intent of the constitution the original understanding of the constitution the senate's own precedents and so on but in any event the point is that no number of witnesses demonstrating that donald trump continued to incite the insurrection as even after the invasion of the capital would convince them they wouldn't be convinced they were hinting on a matter of law which we thought we had settled back on tuesday of course when the senate elected to exercise jurisdiction and to reject that jurisdictional constitutional argument. but it is what it is mitch mcconnell clearly feels that donald trump remains a huge problem for the republican party even if he has been described in the eyes of the country and that is not my jurisdiction and i really don't have anything to say about that i think you know they will have to deal with the political dynamics within their own within their own party so. we did get we did get donald trump at least admit th

have to reach back 150 years nearly to get it and that is when a secretary of war named big william belknap was impeached in the senate for graft during his term which had already ended now in the end in that case a majority of senators voted to convict but not the 2 thirds you need in order to convict him so he resigned after that but was able to escape any further prosecution so then there will be 16 hours or up to 16 hours for each side to argue its case for and against impeachment and going to break for the jewish sabbath on saturday at the request of one of donald trump's devout lawyers and so that makes it pretty likely that with senators having up to a day to question each side that this will push into next week but right now everyone seems to want to get this wrapped up within a week this is what chuck schumer one of the democratic leaders in the senate had to say. the trial is clearly constitutional by every frame of analysis by constitutional text historical practice senate precedent and basic common sense. president cannot simply resign to avoid accountability for an impeachable

jurisdiction and that is they repeated their original vote and most of them thought that president belknap was guilty as could be after all the impeachment in the house was unanimous but they repeated the vote that there was no jurisdiction soea if i am the president's lawyers i emphasize that there was no jurisdiction. i would read again from the constitution, the president, not a president or former president but the president, vice president and all civil officers shall be removed from office by impeachment. that is seems clear that the senate has jurisdiction only over the president. trump is not the president. chief justice assured that when he refused to t preside over the trial and so the senate has no jurisdiction. i would focus on that argument and then moved to the first amendment argument. the one argument it would stay away from is the argument that senator cassidy just raised on your show namely that the election was stolen or not stolen. they lose that. the election was not stolen. trump was wrong. i don't defend trump's speech at all and i think it was an appalling speech an

as a house manager in the belknap case and i quote there is no likelihood that we shall ever a number that clumsy and faulty monster piece of ordinance to take aim at an object which all danger has gone by end quote. president trump's cases different. the danger has not gone by. his threat to democracy makes any prior abuse like any government official pale in comparison. moreover, allowing his conduct to pass without the most decisive response was itself -- would itself. extraordinary danger to the nation but inviting further abuse of power of the congress of the united states is unable or unwilling to respond to insurrection and cited by the president. think about that. to paraphrase robert jackson who said that president i just described would lie about like a lowly weapon ready for the hand of any future president who decided in his final months to make a play for unlimited power. think of the danger. here is the rare case in which love of the constitution and commitment to our democracy requires the house to impeach and for the same reason the senate can and must try this this ca

jurisdiction exactly the way it has done since the very beginning of the republic, in the blunt case, in the belknapave a president who committed his crimes he can theor public well he was in office, he was impeached by the house of represent lives while he was in office, so the hypothetical suggested by the gentleman from florida has no bearing —— house of representatives for some because i do nothing you're talking about an official who was impeached while they were in office for conduct that they were in office for conduct that they committed while they are in office. ., . ., ., office. the council for the former resident office. the council for the former president has _ office. the council for the former president has two _ office. the council for the former president has two one _ office. the council for the former president has two one half - office. the council for the former i president has two one half minutes. could i have the question again to make sure i have it right and can answer it directly?— answer it directly? voting to convict the _ answer it directly? voting to convict the forme

> in presenting your case, you relied on past precedents from impeachment trials such as william belknap's impeachment. if we do not convict former president trump, what message will we be sending to future presidents and congresses? >> president trump engaged in a course of conduct that incited an armed attack on the capitol. he did so while seeking to overturn the results of the election and thwart the transfer of power. when the attack began, he further incited violence aimed at his own vice president even as demonstrated, his state of mind by failing to defend us and the law enforcement officials that protect us. the consequences of his conduct were devastating on every level. police officers were left overwhelmed, unprotected. congress had to be evacuated. our staff barricaded in this building, calling their families to say good-bye. so many of us like mr. raskin had children here. and these people in this building, some of whom were on the fbi's watch list, took photos, stole laptops, destroyed precious statues, including one of john lewis. desecrated the statue of a recently decease

we have the 1876 belknap case.cuse to not pay attention to what really happened on january 6th. luckily, that 13-minute video today caught everybody shorthanded, and it reminded us what a heinous and hideous crime the trump insurrection really was. >> and according to "the washington post," some republican senators were not looking at it very much. and with the trial held at the scene of the crime, and the jurors were esesentially witnesses and victims of the crime. >> that's what is so remarkable. every one of the senators know what happened. they were in the building. we have traumatic moments. the kennedy assassination, you have the warren commission report. but you're not going to the site. here we are in the building where the insurrection of january 6th occurred. and i couldn't help thinking that someday there will be a museum, a memorial about what happened there. i don't know why the republican senators that keep wanting to cut donald trump a break, because i don't think they'll look well in history. there

belknap raced to hand in his resignation to try to avoid the impeachment remedy that is in the constitution and again we don't want to incentivize our leaders to abuse the public cotrust and try to avoid the constitutional remedy of impeachment by handing in their resignation to avoid an impeachment vote or so on. i would also note that the impeachment here never called impeachment did occur or pass by the house under the constitutional authority while president trump was still in office.ti that was a senate trial. i think we talk about you know, what the constitution requires we looked at the constitution itself and the constitution set, as a conservative lawyer chuck cooper argued in the wall street journal was essentially a mandatory minimum use of language of criminal law for impeachment which is the mandatory minimum of the constitution is removal from office but there is also this second penalty if someone is convicted under article two of impeachment which is disqualification from future office. that is extreme importancech in thiss particular case. maybe those other cases like presi

there's no trial of impeachment after the officer is not in office, even though the plain press of the belknap case of 1876 contradicts that, and he just ran right past it. >> right. >> it is reverse engineered on the fact looking for cover. >> right. >> this is what they have come up with to hide behind it. >> right. there shall one or two scholars who take this view but hundreds and hundreds don't and the consensus is obviously based on the constitution's text, the history. our whole history is based on the idea that you have to have a way of permanently disqualifying someone who shows himself to be an existential danger and the moment you convict and remove somebody they're no longer an officer of the united states and that meant you couldn't go on to sentence them to permanent disqualification then that part of the constitution would be erased. >> trump's lawyer one point appeared to want to argue it's an affront to the constitution to consider disqualification despite the fact that in said constitution there is the option of disqualification. >> right. >> in precisely those words. >> and

we have the 1876 belknap case.excuse to not pay attention to what really happened on january 6th. luckily, that 13-minute video today caught everybody shorthanded, and it reminded us what a heinous and hideous crime the trump insurrection really was. >> and according to "the washington post," some republican senators were not looking at it very much. and with the trial held at the scene of the crime, and the jurors were essentially witnesses and victims of the crime. >> that's what is so remarkable. every one of the senators know what happened. they were in the building. we have traumatic moments. the kennedy assassination, you have the warren commission report. after 9/11 you're not going to the world trade senate site but here we are in the building where the insurrection of january 6th occurred. and i couldn't help thinking that someday there will be a museum, a memorial about what happened there. i don't know why the republican senators that keep wanting to cut donald trump a break, because i don't think they'l

i think what this does is almost exactly what the 1876 belknap case did. case, we had a vote on jurisdiction, and it was actually the same. it was 56%, the senate was smaller then. 56% of the senate saying we have jurisdiction. enough to have the trial go on, but not enough to get a conviction. the difference was in that case the republicans controlled the house and about a third of the republicans said, well, you know, actually looking at the legal arguments we have to concede that even though our guy is on trial here that there is jurisdiction. if you had one-third of the republicans doing it now, you would have two-thirds. but ultimately it will be a model precedent. it will say, you can go forward with this, but you can't get a conviction. a conviction of someone who already left office, that would be a much stronger precedent. this one is going to be just the same as the last one was. >> it does feel like the partisan content of the senate is much more determinative now in terms of how those votes are going to go. but i've learned not to project anyth

when they voted on belknap in the 19th century to impeach, guess what, an ex-official. john quincy adams said i could be impeached to my dying day. so whatever the back and forth, this is not a close question. that's why it's not resonating, that's why it's being seen as partisan ducking and dodging by the republicans and the mere fact that the -- i think it is a false symmetry to say that both sides are taking their political -- their usual political sides. no, this is not a close question. you can impeach an ex-president. >> why not argue the facts, michael, that, you know, okay, fine -- >> because the facts are not on his side. >> why not? >> the facts are not on -- the facts -- no, chris, the facts are not on trump's side. i began by telling you both -- >> right. >> i find the case for incitement to be compelling. >> right, why? >> i think donald trump incited that rally. so you know the way -- >> you heard him say -- >> if the facts are on your side, you argue the facts. >> you heard him say -- >> if the facts aren't on your side, then you argue the law. >> you hea

that is what happened in the belknap case. you should do it now. not matter how you get to the acquittal. you can do it on jurisdictional grounds, you can do it on first amendment grounds, you can do it on drew's process grounds, the goal of these lawyers today was not to lose, not to le more than the six republicans they may already have lost, and they did a masterful job in narrowing the issues, making the senator's focus on it, and i think it was a winning argument. i think they redeem themselves. >> sean: professor, you do not give it a+s easily. i know that for a fact. both secretary of state pompeo and ted cruz were your students. you do not give out many a. i never heard you give an a+. all right, let me ask this last question, because it is important. you are a democrat, intellectual honesty test here, okay, if they are going to define the presidents language as inciting insurrection, doesn't it apply to all the tapes we saw and heard, that we have been playing, that they played today? >> yeah. it applies certainly to some of them, where th

the vote margin yesterday was almost identical to the vote margin in 1876 in the belknap trial. by five or six votes. the senate remains divided. half don't think the trial should go forward at all. and that bodes well for the president. he can count on at least 44 votes and it guarantees acquittal. >> harris: let me ask you this. newt gingrich was on with me earlier this hour and he said i think it was a totally unacceptable riot. most people agree on that. the democrats cleverly switched what the topic was. he said even they didn't touch much on constitutionality. >> and what will happen today they'll have to shift over to the merits of the trial. when you read their brief it doesn't sound like they actually have a strategy to win. no discernible strategy to convict. more intended to enrage than convict. they don't talk about the president's intents but how his words were interpreted. they just impeached him for inciting an actual rebellion, not negligence. that will be more and more obvious. >> harris: brilliant. that is really interesting. jonathan turley, i know you will be

it was decided in the 18th century in the blaunt case and again in the belknap case.of the senate. it was also clear in the text of the constitution, the original intent of the framers, the structure and purpose of the constitution. that argument was a weight for these shameful 43 republican senators who did not honor their oaths as jurors to follow the law and the facts to the only possible conclusion. donald trump committed a high crime and misdemeanor by inciting an insurrection. and the proof that came out was so definitive, so shocking, so overwhelming that both civil litigants and prosecutors starting with fanny willis, the very capable d.a., very experienced trial lawyer in georgia, but not just georgia, pamela. this was a nationwide conspiracy. and any place where the conspiracy happened, any state, donald trump was a part of it, and he is potentially, allegedly liable. >> david, this was the shortest impeachment trial in history and also the most partisan. how do you think history will look back on what we just saw? >> well, i think history will record that i

. >> the belknap case is clear precedent that the senate must proceed with this trial. >> one thing iscovered whether it be democrats or republicans -- united states senators are patriots first. patriots first. they love their country. they love their families. they love the states that they represent. >> pennsylvania attorney bruce castor began by extoling the senate and senators themselves even praising his legal opponents. >> we changed what we were going to do on account that we thought that the house manager's presentation was well done. >> he and fellow trump lawyer david schen argued that it's an unnecessary and partisan exercise showing their own video of democrats calling for impeachment years ago. >> i rise today mr. speaker to call for the impeachment of the president of the united states of america. >> i continue to say, impeach him! impeach 45! >> they argued the trial is divisive and unconstitutional. >> the section i read, judgment, in other words, the bad thing that can happen, the judgment in cases of impeachment, i.e. what we were doing, shall not extend further than

. >>> the bell belknap case is clear precedent that the senate must proceed with this trial since it rejected dismissal, observed and moved to full consideration of the merits. >> donald trump's lawyers counted the presentation by the house . with a trip to fantasy land. it's always my senator. why is it that we say my senator? we say that because the people you represent are proud of their senators. they absolutely feel that connection. we expect our united states senators not reacting to popular will and not reacting to popular emotions, we expect them to do what is right. >> and as befits a lawyer representing donald trump, one of the defense counsels filled the senate chamber with hatred. >> a great many americans see this process for exactly what it is, a chance by a group of partisan politicians seeking to eliminate donald trump from the american political scene and seeking to disenfranchise 74 million-plus american voters and those who dare to share their political beliefs and vision of america. they hated the results to the 2016 election and want to use this impeachment proce

in the blunt case, in the belknap case. and you'll remember both of them former officials and in this case a president who committed his crimes against the republic while he was in office. he was impeached by the house of representatives while he was in office. so, you know, the hypothetical suggested by the gentleman from florida has no bearing on this case because i don't think you're talking about an official who was impeached while they were in office for conduct that they committed while they were in office. >> the counsel for the former president has two and a half minutes. >> thank you. could i have the question read again to make sure i have it right? i can answer it directly. >> voting to convict the former president would create a new precedent that a former official can be convicted and disqualified by the senate. therefore, is it not true that under this new precedent, a future house facing partisan pressure to "lock her up" could impeach a former secretary of state and a future senate before forced to put her o

in the belknap case, back from the 1800s, the last time this happened, senators took all of those differentthe senators who thought there was no jurisdiction. most voted not guilty, but some took other paths. it will be interesting to watch which approach these senators take. >> ross, we really appreciate having you here, laying out the history and the law. margaret, we love having you here for the politics. thank you both so much. >> a lot going on in the country. president biden pushing ahead with his agenda. we'll tell you about the new plan to get more coronavirus vaccines into arms of americans, next . we made usaa insurance for members like martin. an air force veteran made of doing what's right, not what's easy. so when a hailstorm hit, usaa reached out before he could even inspect the damage. that's how you do it right. usaa insurance is made just the way martin's family needs it with hassle-free claims, he got paid before his neighbor even got started. because doing right by our members, that's what's right. usaa. what you're made of, we're made for. ♪ usaa ♪ your grooming business

it was done in the belknap decision after the civil war and there's no problem with it. yet, they decided to hang their hat on that very dubious hook in order to basically cater to trump and the forces within the party that are still loyal to him in a really cultish and dangerous way. >> i want to get to three specific what-ifs, okay, or back seat driving people might be doing. maybe you're doing it to yourself. what if number one is this: when it was clear that the trial wasn't going to start until after joe biden was inaugurated, was there any thought of taking an extra week, an extra two weeks before starting the trial for you to do more investigating? >> well, actually we did take an extra two weeks. it was supposed to start before that. nobody said to us -- nobody on any side -- that we didn't make our case. it was absolutely overwhelming and meticulous and comprehensive. i don't think anybody can watch that without coming away saying donald trump incited that violent insurrection. he named the date of the rally, the time of the rally. it was timed with the counting

and, by the way, the earlier case you're referring to i believe was secretary of war belknap who served under president ulysses s. grant, resigned before his impeachment. you don't get a free pass in the last couple of weeks of your tenure as president. that would be nonsense. and by the way, katy, there's also a really interesting 1993 supreme court case called nixon, different nixon, not richard, walter, a federal judge from mississippi, and the supreme court held in that case when walter nixon complained of defects in his senate impeachment trial that the senate has the sole power of impeachment, sole means sole. if the senate wants to try a former president, it can. it seems like it may not want to, but it certainly can constitutionally, logically, and jurisdictionally. >> garrett, do republicans just not want to go there any longer? do they not see or remember what happened on january 6th, as dangerous not only for their personal safety but dangerous for this democracy? >> oh, they remember. but the prospect of going back and relitigating it and casting blame on the president of th

most of them thought belknap was guilty as could be as the impeachment from the house was unanimous.y repeated the vote there was no jurisdiction. if i the president's lawyers i would emphasize the fact there is no jurisdiction. i read from the constitution. the president and all civil officers shall be removed by impeachment. that seems very clear the senate has jurisdiction only over the president. trump is not the president. the chief justice asserted that when he refused to preside over the trial. the senate has no jurisdiction. i would focus on that argument and move to the first amendment argument. the one argument i would stay away from is the augment senator cassidy just raised on your show, namely the election was stolen or not stolen. they would lose that. the election was not stolen. trump was wrong. i don't defend trump's speech at all. i think it was an appalling speech but i defend his right to make an appalling speech under the first amendment. they should not fall into the trap of trying to defend trump on the merits of his speech, only on the first minute. i think it

in the belknap case and you will remember both of them former officials and in this case we have a presidentho committed his crimes against the republic while in office. impeach by the house of representatives while he was in office. the hypothetical suggested by the gentle man from florida has no bearing on this case because you're not talking about and official impeach while in office for conduct they committed while office. >> the counsel for the former president has two and half minutes. >> and i have the question read again so i can answer it directly? >> voting to convict the former president would create a new precedent that a former official could be convicted and disqualified by thee senate. therefore is it not true under the new president dave future house facing partisan pressure to lock her up could impeach a former secretary of state and a future senate be forced to put her on trial and potentially disqualify from any future office? >> if you see it their way, yes. if you do this, the way they want t it done that can happen and to the example of former secretary of state. it can

. >> in presenting your case relying on past precedent from impeachment trials such as william belknap's impeachment after what you have resented in the course of this trial if we do not convict former president trump what message will we be sending to future presidents and congresses? >> president trump engaged in the a course of conduct that incited an armed attack on the capitol. he did so while seeking to overturn the results of the election and the transfer of power and when the attack began he further incited violence into his own vice president even has demonstrated his state of mind by failing to defend us and the law enforcement officials who protect us. the consequences of this conduct were devastating on every level. police officers were left overwhelmed, unprotected. congress had to be evacuated. staff were barricaded in the building calling their families and saying good by. some of us like mr. raskin had children here and these people in this building, some of whom were on the fbi's watch list, took photos, laptops destroyed precious statues including one of john lewis. des