castor: finish up. guest: i think any of us have said that 25 million of us who still do feel this election was stolen. that's a problem for america. how you vote that . castor: thank you for your comment in your experience on january 6 . were seen senators returned to the chamber the going to return for up to four hours of missions for the attorneys on both sides bring the house managers and former president stream . michael go-ahead party we may be going back to the senate floor shortly but welcome your comments. guest: i think you for taking my call. i wanted to real quick responded to the caller earlier. the music that was being played over the cliff. it is blatantly propaganda music. the drums of war. as the democrats are speaking in the slowly uplifting music when the president was speaking. it was clearly emotional. it i think it's insulting the intelligence of the american people by doing that . while accusing the house managers of the added footage. and even when they went on to try to reargue

bruce castor we move on from here. bruce castor we understand _ we move on from here.r we understand was _ we move on from here. bruce castor we understand was the _ we move on from here. bruce castor we understand was the lawyer - we move on from here. bruce castor we understand was the lawyer that l we understand was the lawyer that upset mr trump in the opening statement. regarding his performance today and his team's performance, what sense are you getting? bruce castor did not _ what sense are you getting? bruce castor did not play _ what sense are you getting? bruce castor did not play a _ what sense are you getting? bruce castor did not play a very - what sense are you getting? bruce castor did not play a very big - what sense are you getting? ef'lce: castor did not play a very big role today. you saw him at the very and making those closing statements, and he did have a very negative, did not make a very —— did make a very negative impact on mr trump and totally confused people in the senate and those of us watching us what with that very rambling opening state

mmm ( whistles ) there was one person who didn't think bruce castor did a bad job: bruce castor. the other side, castor crowed: "we only lost one, so i believe we had a good day." hot tip: never hire bruce castor as your lawyer or your babysitter. "look, just put everyone to bed. kacie and maggie ate all their vegetables. we only lost one kid, but trevor was pretty mouthy, so i think we had a good day!" at the end of the day, castor didn't seem to think the bad reviews were a big deal. "you put 100 people in the same room, you're going to get 100 different opinions." yeah, maybe so, but pretty sure the objective of a trial is to get the whole jury to have the same opinion. namely, that your client didn't do it. that's why the movie isn't called "12 men who all feel differently." the one man who really did not enjoy castor's performance was his client, because, reportedly, during castor's opening statement, the used-potus was "almost screaming" at the tv. when has he ever "almost" screamed? back in the white house, the tvs had so much spittle on them, they came with wiper blades.

castor.? the bumbling doofus -- the bumbling "duffus" who showed up to hearings with all of his files in a grocery store tote bag like he was dropping off a delivery order from whole foods? "just make sure you freeze the sprouted whole grain bread." as a client, you know you're in a bad spot when your lawyers don't even have briefcases it's like showing up to a potluck with a handful of loose crab cakes. "sorry, i couldn't find the tupperware also, it was pretty hot in the car, so we should eat these now. but we shouldn't judge bruce castor just because his cousin door dashed an impeachment trial. i'm sure he's much more professional and detail oriented, as evidenced by the very first words out of his mouth as the ex-president's defense lawyer >> my name is bruce castor i am the lead prosecutor, lead counsel for the 45th president of united states >> seth: "i'm the prosecutor -- i mean witness -- i mean accomplice -- i mean defendant -- no, wait, what's it called juror? am i the judge case di

a, because schoen was supposed to go first and then castor and then b, castor, when they decided he was going to go first, he completely winged it. he didn't even seem to do what he prepared at all today. >> i guess i don't know what they did with the extra time. but i can see the argument in favor of having castor go first and finishing on a slightly stronger note. many republicans, i think, would acknowledge that had they ended on whatever castor did earlier in that process, it would have been even more disastrous for them. they ended, instead, on a little bit of a stronger note. at least there was some semblance of an argument by schoen at the end there. >> there was some substance. >> probably if you're donald trump, the most fireable of offenses that his lawyers uttered today were the words "voters didn't elect him," admitting that the big lie is such during this trial. >> anderson, i have to say, i do -- theoretically, what would happen if these lawyers went before the senate and said, you know what? he did it. he incited it. and people died, and it's probably constitutional. what

mr castor, i'm sorry. ma i the floor. mr castor, i'm sorry. may i be — the floor.loor. mr castor, i'm sorry. may i be recognise? yes, - the floor. mr castor, i'm sorry. may i be recognise? yes, you - the floor. mr castor, i'm sorry. may i be recognise? yes, you are| may i be recognise? yes, you are recognised. may i be recognise? yes, you are recognised-— may i be recognise? yes, you are recognised. senators, donald john trum b recognised. senators, donald john trump by his _ recognised. senators, donald john trump by his counsel _ recognised. senators, donald john trump by his counsel is _ recognised. senators, donald john trump by his counsel is prepared l recognised. senators, donald johnl trump by his counsel is prepared to stipulate _ trump by his counsel is prepared to stipulate that if the representative herrera _ stipulate that if the representative herrera butler were to testify under oath as— herrera butler were to testify under oath as part of these proceedings her testimony would be consistent with the _ her testimony would be consistent with the statem

you're listening to bruce castor, her. you're listening to bruce castor. the — her.ning to bruce castor, the defence lawyer. castor, the defence lawyer represented donald trump, respond to the democrat prosecutors at the beginning of donald trump's second impeachment trial. let's bring in barbara plett usher, live with us on capital hill. i have not at all times been following the defence's argument. you and me both, you may have noticed mr castor has not asked a mention mr trump's name yet. he started out by condemning the attack on generally sixth, say whoever committed the crime should be punished, and then talking about how senators were really good people, and i thought he was winding up towards saying they should not be swayed by their passions to go in the wrong direction with this, but, yeah, it is quite a convoluted, long—winded discussion, perhaps he feels he has two hours to fill and he needs to take some time getting there. he doesn't have a video show thatjamie raskin had that there. he doesn't have a video show that jamie raskin had that we saw his last

> my name is bruce castor.the lead prosecutor-- lead counsel for the 45th president of the united states. >> stephen: ( as castor ) "i am the lead prosecutor-- sorry, the defense-- here to prove that the president is guilty-- sorry, innocent-- and should be sent to jail-- sorry, to mar-a-lago! wow. i guess freud's mom's got my penis-- i mean, my cat's tongue!" ( laughter ) cat's tongue! but i'm not sure which side castor thought he was on, given how impressed he was by the house managers' case. >> before i begin, i want to comment on the outstanding presentation from our opponents. i'll be quite frank with you: we changed what we were going to do on account that we thought the house managers' presentation was well done. >> stephen: ( as castor ) "and, uh, when it-- when it turned out the other guys were prepared, we called an audible and decided to be prepared ourselves. and you all can imagine how hard of a decision that was for us, since we are, again, completely unprepared." but i'll give castor this: the ma

but i'll give castor this: the man can talk. and talk. and talk. >> my name is bruce castor.el for the 45th president of the united states. i was assistant d.a. for such a long time.... senators of the united states, they're not ordinary people. they're extraordinary people.... it was happening in athens, and it was happening in rome.... "he who would trade liberty for some temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security. i worked in this building 40 years ago. i got lost then, and i still do. >> stephen: i can tell! castor was so rambling, there were times it seemed like his plan was to put everybody to sleep, then grab the articles of impeachment and just tiptoe out. even c-span tried to save their ratings by switching to live testimony from the house noasasmittee on paint dr stumbled onto an actual point, like when he argued impeachment shouldn't happen very much. >> until the impeachment of bill clinton, no one alive had ever lived through a presidential impeachment, not unless some of you are 150 years old. not a single person alive had lived through a presidenti

castor was meandering, and used few if any visual aids. obsessed with optics, this wasn't the kind of show he wanted to make the case that he's innocent. >> and the former president and his aides sent out talking points to gop senators. what did they say? >> reporter: from ben williamson, one of the staffers, it argues that this is an unconstitutional impeachment, this is cancel culture on the constitution, an attack on the first amendment. a number of other things that really swing and try to spin the president's involvement in the riot on january 6th. this just underscores the ineffectiveness of his legal team, and the third-string nature of their approach. allies of the president acknowledge he could be in very serious legal trouble if he faces criminal charges, because none of his former lawyers seem willing to stick their necks out for him. >> boris, i appreciate it. and i want to play a moment from my conversation earlier tonight with adam kinzinger of illinois. >> it's incredible. i've been friends with one of the gentlemen that was

castor was meandering, and used few if any visual aids. obsessed with optics, this wasn't the kind of show he wanted to make the case that he's innocent. >> and the former president and his aides sent out talking points to gop senators. what did they say? >> reporter: from ben williamson, one of the staffers, it argues that this is an unconstitutional impeachment, this is cancel culture on the constitution, an attack on the first amendment. a number of other things that really swing and try to spin the president's involvement in the riot on january 6th. this just underscores the ineffectiveness of his legal team, and the third-string nature of their approach. allies of the president acknowledge he could be in very serious legal trouble if he faces criminal charges, because none of his former lawyers seem willing to stick their necks out for him. >> boris, i appreciate it. and i want to play a moment from my conversation earlier tonight with adam kinzinger of illinois. >> it's incredible. i've been friends with one of the gentlemen that was

castor, but mr.he needs to get the president, not the former president, it means the same thing in every article. the simplicity in that article, the plaintiff leading, is compelling to me but that doesn't diminish the job, frankly, that the house managers did not just do making the case they were trying to make yesterday that is the constitutional question of jurisdiction of senate but really laying the groundwork for what i think we're going to see a lot more of over the course the next two days. >> which is the culpability question. how do you make a decision on that? fine, you don't think the trial is unconstitutional but other senators do. they will move forward on the rules. have you prejudged the outcome or are you considered an undecided vote when it comes to the conduct and culpability we're talking about? >> this is a really important question for a juror, realizing impeachment is more political, more political than a typical civil or criminal jury. first of all, i never start with the pres

. >> reporter: when it was time for the former president's defense, chris castor delivered a perplexingument, he changed their strategy on the fly, completing house managers. >> and if we go down the road my very worthy adversaries here, mister raskin asks you to go down the floodgates will open and partisan impeachments will become commonplace. >> reporter: castor's performance was panned by senators on both sides of the island his client, donald trump described by sources who told fox news the former president was, quote, furious and beyond angry at his defense team particularly on his rambling open. the president's other lawyer fared better on the constitutionality arguments. afterwards defending their case. >> there's nothing they showed today the ties into donald trump. it is a silly argument. what they are doing now, rousing the american public, that is what political speech is about. >> reporter: it starts up at noon, the 16 hours allotted for house managers to make their case followed by the defense team after both sides complete that, four hours allotted for questions, four hou

castor. on style he was akin to a checked-out, tenured college professor who did no preparation for a lecture that had been designed by his t.a. his manner was listless and utterly devoid of charisma-halting mumblecore, with castor frequently pausing for applause. there was none. he would have had more gravitas had he been replaced with the filter of a regal kitten. go ahead and steal our closing story for me. you know, it did strike strike me as i said to one of our first guest, tim, maybe they checked all the traffic courts. there's still barnes who they could have hired, though they got 44 votes. if they had had earl warren, would it have made a difference in that chamber where so many minds are made up? >> look, brian, i don't think this is a persuadable jury pool to say the least. i think it was a testament to just how poor of a job mr. castor did that one of the republicans actually flipped. senator cassidy of louisiana basically saying that castor was so bad, he had no choice but to vo

his career was going to disappear but castor thought he did a good job.ng of what happened on january 6th right now, you've got more than 200 federal cases happening related to the capitol riots. the fbi has linked at least 40 defendants to extremist groups, so an actual physical community of friends or allies like the proud boys or oath keepers and at least 59 other cases the defendants are linked to violent or extremist rhetoric, conspiracy theories or far right connections on social media including parler. remember parler? it's a site that doubled its number of users after facebook and twitter cracked down on the accounts spreading misinformation. as we told you about a month ago it's been dark after amazon, google, and other tech companies cut off parler because users were promoting calls for violence around the time of the capitol riot. this morning parler is back. it is revived by a new host, sky silk which is a web infrastructure company out of l.a. joining me reporter for the "washington post" and msnbc technology contributor tony rahm. good morni

castor has none of this. it's also a sign of disrespect to them, right?es the victims here. they were the ones under attack. and to come on the senate floor and really just have no plan at all, i think it's quite telling. >> i have a few things to say here, number one, they are the a-team in the sense of the affordable team. they got rid of the last lawyers because they're too expensive. as an aside, i was watching this with my wife. i was paying close attention. she was paying less attention. she kept asking me what's he saying? i want to know. i don't know, i can't figure it out. laura, to your point, i do think this is important, though, this has an impact going forward. it's like when you fix a fight, at least in the movies, you have to make it look like it's real, right? >> yes. >> if this is a fixed fight. if this is rigged like a lot of people say it is anyway, these attorneys are making the republican senators look awful at this point. and i believe, you know, cassidy witched. cassidy switched his vote on constitutionality because they were so bad

and you bruce castor you know said it best in his opening today. that the rooms are still raw for some of the democrats that they were certainly justifiably afraid when there was the assault on the capitol everybody understands that certainly no republicans including the president's lawyer bruce castor or myself because i represent the president in a civil case and from the u.s. supreme court none of us are defending what happened it was wrong and the people who did it should be prosecuted but. democrats are out for retribution and. i don't think that's what the american public wants i think the american public wants to move forward in unfortunate way nancy pelosi and chuck schumer have demonstrated over 40 years that their main goal wasn't to benefit the country but was to get back at donald trump. because he won the 2016 election and this impeachment is no surprise i mean some of the democrat members of the congress said they were going to impeach tunnel trump the day after he was elected in 2016. i don't i don't think it's good for the country a

castor is recognized. >> mr. president, good afternoon. it has been my great leverage over the past couple of weeks to lead this outstanding team of lawyers and dedicated professionals in the defense of the 45th president of the united states. one of the most difficult things and leading such a talented group is deciding who's responsible for what and the strategy in the order in which we will present our evidence. you have heard from mr. vanderveen and mr. david schoen on the importance of the first amendment and the importance of due process of law. because i had the opportunity to set out the schedule i decided that i would take the last substantive part of the case for myself. you can take that two ways. the first perhaps is the best and that would be that it's almost over. the second is that perhaps you have to wait another hour for it to be over. the reason why i chose this section, believe me, it was a very difficult decision to make because i thought the other arguments presented by mr. schon and mr. vanderveen were outstandingly r

it will have to be done by castor. trump reportedly hated castor's initial performance. their only other option is if they go for one of the other people they have at the very last minute added to their legal team. the other main lawyer on their legal team is apparently this michael van der veen, also a philadelphia lawyer. mr. vanderveen today had to publicly deny that he recently told one of his other clients that president trump was a, quote, f'ing crook. mr. van der veen defended a guy who was prosecuted for trying to hack into the irs to get president trump's tax returns. that defendant in that case says his lawyer, michael van der veen, told him during the course of representing him that trump was a f'ing crook! that was reported by "the philadelphia inquirer" yesterday. mr. van der veen today denied he ever said such a thing in a written statement, but that's awkward. mr. vander veen is also not denying that he sued president trump leading up to the 2020 election not that long ago. reportedly, trump is not happy with those things, but he may be the only other opti

the result of the 26000 election for 4 years what is interesting is that during his speech chris castor said donald trump essentially lost the election he used a phrase that. the donald trump himself hasn't used he called joe biden president biden that did the people of the united states decided they weren't happy with who was in the white house so they decided to change it not an argument that the donald trump has ever acknowledged since the election result was announced and we were told that it was unlikely that that donald trump's legal team would actually refer to joe biden is anything other than former vice president joe biden and certainly wouldn't acknowledge that donald trump lost the election that guidance was obviously clearly blown out of the water in and those 1st few statements from donald trump's legal team. that the democrats built up their case very strategically the they played the video of what happened appealing viscerally to to what happened to the senators because they were here when it happened they had to be a score to out of the chamber there were people who brok

has to be done by castor. their only other option is going for another people they have at the very last minute added to the legal team. the other main lawyer is apparently this michael van der veen, also a pennsylvania lawyer and had to publicly deny he told another client that president trump was a quote f'g crook. mr. van der veen did defend a guy prosecuted for trying to hack into the irs to get trump's tax returns. that guy, the defendant in that case, says the lawyer mr. van der veen told him that trump was an f'g crook, reported by "the philadelphia enquirer" today and he denied he said such a thing in a written statement. bet that's awkward. he is not denying the fact he did sue mr. trump presumably mr. trump is not happy with either of those things but he may be the other option besides the foghorn leghorn guy for running the whole second day of his defense. we shall see. the president's defense again will not start until the day after tomorrow. see the prosecution, they had the first day today. secon

castor yesterday.e delivered about arresting the former president. seems like a very strange thing to say about your own client. and i wondered if you could offer any explanation or just offer your perspective as someone who has dealt with a lot of these kinds of things before as to what exactly it was we saw there. >> i watched him yesterday. and to put it charitably, meandering was -- i think that is about as kind as you can get. when you have absolutely nothing to say and you say it for a very long time, that is how it sounds. and the notion that they were surprised by what the house did. there was no surprise there. their strategy was abundantly clear. so this notion that you had to shift your presentation around in response to that surprise delivery by house managers is also baffling. to your specific question, right, it makes no sense to me that defense lawyer would tell the senators that they don't have to convict him in an impeachment proceeding because the justice department can investigate hi

that was bruce castor, one of - senate will stand in recess. was bruce castor, one of mr senate will to see the start of some questions. just to remind you what has been said and this impeachment trial. they said that he did not incite the 6th of january right they said that he did not incite the 6th ofjanuary right in which the capital building was invaded by protesters. his team had indicated that it would take no more than four hours in total, far less than the 16 hours in total, far less than the 16 hours that are actually allocated to them. so so far, they have hit the three hour mark, just over three hours, but we will see more from the senate floor shortly. but essentially arguing on a number of points, due process,, freedom of speech, that is the first amendment and also the law regarding donald trump's speech ofjune the 6th. let's listen back to some of what donald trump's legal team said. in his opening remarks, michael vanderveen dismissed the house managers evidence. this is what he said. to claim that the president in any way wished, desired or encouraged lawless or viol

quote, furious and beyond angry with his impeachment defense team, especially upset attorney bruce castor, rambling opening arguments, the president spending the day watching the trial from inside his private quarters, mara largo, no golf, the same problem tomorrow. at a time when he could opt to reduce the political temperature in the country mister biden opting to not weigh in, despite what critics have called hypocrisy on the left and deafening silence from the white house. >> joe biden is the present, not a pundit. >> reporter: and won't weigh in, that is how the white house sees mister biden's take on the second impeachment of his predecessor. >> free, robust political speech. >> impeaching donald trump who urged his supporters to peacefully make their voices heard inspiring republicans to make a what about argument to democrats who said something like this. >> there needs to be unrest in the street as long as there is unrest in our lives. >> if you see anybody from that cabinet, in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gas station, you get out and push back on them. >> the forme

hours after they made the request, bruce castor called it

castor was widely panned from both sides of the aisle for making rambling argument.ats wasted no time making their case against donald trump. forcing senators on to relive the harrowing moments from a month ago. sitting in the chamber that came under attack. >> tater pence! >> traitor pence! >> there's a million of ur out there and we are -- >> reporter: house impeachment managers playing a graphic 13 minute video. reminding senators what the president told his supporters right before the capitol siege. trying to link trump's own words and the weeks and hours before the deadly riots to the chaos that played out in the capitol. senators watching in silence. >> you ask what a high crime and miss demeanor is under our constitution? that's a high crime and misdemeanor. if that's not an impeachable offense, then there is no such thing. >> reporter: lead prosecutor representative jamie raskin growing emotional. members of his family were with him that day at the capitol, recalling what his daughter said to me. >> you know what she said? she said, dad, i don't want to come

this is from bruce castor and david schoen. it's denied the phrase if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore had anything to do with the action at the capitol as it was clearly about the need to fight for election security in general as evidenced by the recording of the speech. that references an infamous quote from the president during that speech on january 6th when he says if you don't fight like hell you won't have a country anymore. we can move on to the next one and talk about that one. this one says it is denied that the 45th president engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the united states. the 45th president exercised his first amendment right under the

>> i think the key word for castor today is going to be scripted. i don't think he's going to be riffing on record players or anything else. i think he's going to have written out the arguments he's going to make so that he doesn't stray. and i think they are going to really hue to this, this is procedural. these are procedural problems. no due process which is ridiculous because they are there getting the process that's actually due to the former president. no constitutionality. the first amendment applies. they're going to be talking about procedure, procedure, they're not going to be talking about the facts. and i think bruce castor is very likely to be much more disciplined today than we saw the other day. >> the former president's mouth piece, john, jason miller, also just said that they are going to lay out their own timeline of events on january 6th which will be interesting, i have to say, and there will need to be fact-checking of that. also he said there will be video. even though they've criticized other video, they're going to present vi

. >> reporter: former president trump's lead counsel, bruce castor, praising the democrats' >> i'll be quite frank with you. we changed what we wergoing to do on account that we thought the house managers' presentation was well done. >> reporter: notably contradicting his client, acknowledging president biden won the election. >> the american people just spoke, and they just changed administrations. >> reporter: while pushing back on the democrats' argument that impeachment is the right way to hold a president accountable for

castor is a relative of someone i know well, steve castor, who litigated the prior impeachment on behalf republican partisan from the state of pennsylvania. but how far will they go, wolf. will they remember their ultimate loyalty is to the law as attorneys, that they're accountable to the state bars of which they're a member, or will they instead take a pledge of allegiance to trump above all. that ends up with not only the client but the lawyers getting in trouble. >> do you think the former president is trying to justify the behavior of rioters by saying their concerns over election fraud were indeed valid? >> well, there can be no justification. even the former president eventually, and it took him awhile, that will be one of the issues in the impeachment proving his intent to incite this insurrection. even he eventually was forced to repudiate the violence. i think the underlying issue that trump used to build up that insurrection for months, wolf, before the election, he said if i lose, it is rigged. that underlying pack of lysis a side show. the republican senators don't want to h

castor is still on the team, but mr. trump's other main lawyer, david schoen, who president trump reportedly didn't dislike quite as much as he disliked the other guy -- mr. schoen is only available to the president's defense team until 5:00 tomorrow and not at all on the second day they're afforded to make their case, which is saturday. for religious reasons, he can't be part of the trial any time after sundown tomorrow or any time on saturday. so, how are they going to handle that, if tomorrow they've got eight hours and saturday they've got another eight hours, and that's all their time to lay out the case? right? if mr. schoen can't be there for the bulk of that time, and if the other guy they've got president trump can't stand the sight of him, how are they going to deal? well, the reporting we've seen tonight would seem to indicate that the way they're going to deal with this problem is just by not mounting much of a defense at all. they have been allotted under the trial rules 16 hours over two days to make their

castor, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that ms. castor will vote yes on h.r. 447. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. nehls: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. carter from the great state of texas, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. carter will vote no on h.r. 447. as the member designated by mr. fallon from the great state of texas, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. fallon will vote no on house resolution 447. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from massachusetts seek recognition? ms. pressley: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. chuy garcia of illinois, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. garcia will be voting yea on final passage of h.r. 447. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? mr. lucas: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. mullin, and pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. mullin will vote no. the speaker pro tempore: for what pu

he was stunned by the opening arguments by bruce castor, especially castor complimenting the democrats. and republicans close to the former president are saying that it was an unmitigated disaster, the performance of his legal team. i'm sure donald trump is furious to see that senator cassidy has changed his vote and is now one of six republicans saying that this is a legitimate impeachment proceeding. the bottom line here, you had 44 republicans go on record, saying that they will not convict donald trump and as rachel scott pointed out, that is more than enough to assure that he would be acquitted at the end of the day, unless more minds are changed and that seems unlikely. >> seems to be an impossible hurdle. jon, thank you. >>> the white house stressing that president biden, meanwhile, is not focused on this impeachment trial, instead, focused on, quote, addressing the needs of the american people in this pandemic. the president himself asked about this today and here's what he has d to say. >> i have a job. my job is to keep people -- we've already lost over 4 a 0,000 people, we'r

castor: thank you. i'm not sure which question the senator was referring to but let me quickly, dispensed the council's invocation of bond versus floyd. this is a case i know well, julian bond was a friend of mine, a colleague at american university, great civil rights hero. in this case he got elected to georgia state legislature and is a member of the student nonviolent coordinating committee, the great committee headed up by the great bob moses for a long time, got elected to georgia legislature and they didn't want to allow him to be sworn in, wouldn't allow him to take his oath of office because he had taken a position against the vietnam war and so the supreme court said that was a violation of his first amendment rights not to allow him to be sworn in. that is the opposite of donald trump. not only was he sworn in on january 20th, 2017, but he was president for almost four years before he incited as violent insurrection against us and he violated his oath of office. that is what this impeachment

bruce castor, arguing that some of that will help them make their case that people have a right to go and protest, under first-amendment rights. and that certainly, donald trump, they are going to claim, was using that when he told his supporters to, quote, fight like hell and breach the grounds of the u.s. capitol. going there, of course, we know the former president never joined them, in doing that. and they did go far, and now we're going to be able to get a little bit more of a sense, though, from this pretrial brief that is due on monday. we got the first round, last week. but we are going to get a little bit more, from the former president's defense team. and they are going to be able to lay out a little bit more of their defense. but the key thing here, kendis and lindsey, is also what we don't know. will there be any other witnesses called? we know, for example, that donald trump, at this point, is not expected to testify or submit a written letter. the other question, is we now know there will be an additional lawyer, a third attorney, who has not yet been announced, who will

when asked if there will be any surprises, castor said, quote, it will be exciting.is politico's sam stein. sam, good morning! >> good morning. >> always good to see you. >> of course. >> we do have, as i mentioned before, the senate is awake and doing things at this very, very early hour of the morning. >> shockingly, yeah. >> but i want to talk about the coming impeachment trial, because clearly, this was a bid from the house managers to try and put trump on the spot. i think they're going to use his refusal to try and indicate that it means that he's guilty. but at the same time, even as we talk about how this is actually all going to unfold, it does seem like the outcome is preordained, that there doesn't seem to be any way trump is actually going to be convicted. so, what are the implications of how this unfolds next week? >> yeah, i think that's right. i mean, it's very hard, if not impossible, to imagine 17 senate republicans voting to convict, when 45 of them said that this whole process is unconstitutional, to impeach someone after they've left office. so, t

house and the impeachment court and the lawyers for president trump bruce castor and david schoen taking two full hours of oral arguments and legal arguments and the democrats, the democratic managers taking an hour and a half you start and jaime raskin at maryland who is the lead manager for the house yielding back that 33 minutes or so. we will open up our phone lines and the numbers are on your screen for your calls and comments. we may hear from senators with their cameras positioned outside of the u.s. senate possibly hear some comments from senators as they leave the senate floor possibly from house managers so we will watch for that. (202)748-8921 for republicans and all others (202)748-8922. one of the questions in the constitutionality of the case presented by the house managers wanted the questions answered was whether the president was a private senator and here's what david c. celini of rhode island one of the managers had to say in his presentation. >> the trial of the former official committed as official rising from impeachment occurred while he was an official poses absol

defense led by david schoen and bruce castor.are nine house managers, including the lead, jamie raskin of maryland. what can we expect from the trial and what strategies might be see from each side? joined by joyce vance, former u.s. attorney and professor at university of alabama school of law, msnbc contributor and cohost of the podcast "sisters in law," good to see you. >> good to see you too. >> question from a viewer gets at one of the underpinnings of all of this. kevin asks i'm having hardest time understanding why no one is stating the obvious. trump and lawyers trying to say unconstitutional to impeach former president. he was in office january 6th and when the act was passed. he's not former president. why do newscasters keep asking? he was president, so impeachment and trial are constitutional. that is what is obvious. professor, what do you think? >> well, i think kevin cuts straight to the heart of the matter and asks a really good question. his answer has to be the right one, that the proceeding is constitutional. t

you're reporting that there was tension within his orbit over castor and calls for him to actually be. i just want to remind viewers this is after the original legal team backed out days before the start of the trial. >> yeah. when everyone was widely panning that opening argument, you had to keep in mind these two attorneys have only had a little over a week to actually prepare for this. which is pretty extraordinary given they are defending the former president of the united states. but that's what happened because the other team left. they departed over differences with former president trump. and so now you've got this other team that's coming up. the president was deeply, deeply unhappy to say the least with how tuesday went and those opening arguments. and bruce castor has defend td by saying he wasn't expecting to speak that day and then he started to go, they swapped speaking places. basically, what that boils down to is there's concern over what tomorrow is going to look like. because jim is right. they do believe it's going to essentially be a home run and you can't really m

elvive dream lengths with a cocktail of vitamins and fine castor oil strengthens hair's length and helps seal split ends. now with more complete long hair care. elvive dream lengths from l'oreal paris. you're worth it. for 175 years, new york life from l'oreal paris. has been helping people act on their love. so they can look back and say, "we did good." >>> after months fending for themselves in the brutal wilderness, in spring, hope arrives. thomas lincoln returns to his family with a new wife, sarah bush johnston. >> with the arrival of his stepmother, everything changes. she brought pots and pans, the furniture, and she brought books with her. a bible, aesop's fables. >> those books changed his life. >> his stepmother saw something in him that his father preferred to ignore. >> his father criticized him and said that he should be working. he should be out on the farm. he should be learning useful skills. >> but abraham hates farm work. >> he wants to read. his father hits him when he reads. >> his relationship with his father was very, very complicated. he resented his father, who wa

at one point nearly yelling at his television while bruce castor was making his case.here were reasons for that one of them castor sort of meandered through the presentation. didn't drive home a lot of the points that president trump wanted specifically on the issue of the election fraud. and the repeated false claims coming from the president about the 2020 election being stolen from him. we didn't see that yesterday. part of the reason why he parted ways with his previous legal team. they didn't want to make that case either. further, we didn't really see any explosive made for tv moments. trump's legal team not presenting any visual aids. sort of rambling. this is a former president obsessed with optics. he really didn't get the emotional moments he wanted. in fact, castor at one point seemed to cheer on democrats saying their presentation led the trump legal team to change their strategy, so he was commending them for doing a good job. the president not the only one disappointed in the trump legal team performance -- former president, i should say. fellow republica

>> my name is bruce castor. i am the lead prosecutor -- lead counsel for the 45th president of the united states, i was an assistant d.a. for so long, i keep saying prosecutor, but i understand the difference. i don't want to steal the thunder from other lawyers. but nebraska, you're going to hear, is quite a judicial thinking place. when you're driving down the street and you look over at your wife, and you say, hey, you know what, that guy's about to drive through the red light and kill that person, we still know what records are, right? or the thing you put the needle down on and you play it. and here's little bruce 8, 9, 10 years old listening to this in the late '60s, there isn't a member in this room who has not used the term i represent the great state of fill in the blank. why? because they're all great. i know you're not allowed to talk, but i don't see them jumping up saying you're wrong. there are smaller countries that lasted for a shorter time that i don't know about off the top of my head. i saw a

schoen made clear and castor, bruce castor the lawyer lawyer made clear that's not appropriate.hat's not something they're going to argue here. that is something if they did argue that it would really risk alienating a lot of republican senators who don't want to hear that argued again, who do believe privately even if they don't say it publicly that what the president was doing fomented climate where that riot occurred. so i don't think you're going to see the falsehoods about the election told again. i do think you could see some reference to procedural changes or irregularities here or there. i don't think you'll see a broad-based argument. >> his lawyer's argument is that his words don't rise to the level of the incitement, somebody should tell the mob that because it sounds like the democrats, the impeachment managers are going to play the words of the rioters who say that they were taking their cues from president trump. >> well, that's exactly right. look, again, as i said, that's the main argument, that's the main thrust in the articles of impeachment. they're going to a

but now we're hearing from one of the former president's lawyers, bruce castor last night on fox news, who was asked how much he plans to rely on videos and interviews from last summer's unrest in washington, d.c., to try to bolster their case. they're going to try to make the argument that other people, when there have been protests, have also maybe possibly contributed. they're going to try to say that on january 6th, even though at the time, then president trump did appear at what they called the stop the steal rally and encouraged his supporters to go to the capitol and, quote, fight, that that is protected by his first amendment rights, and that's how they're going to try to push back on, of course, the charge that donald trump has already been impeached by, which is that incitement of insurrection. we're getting a couple more details, though, about how this may work, in terms of the former president's defense team. bruce castor and david schoen are the two attorneys we know who are on board, but they've now told our team there will be a third lawyer who's going to be joining the

castor off a little bit, quite honestly. and then of course it wasn't until about the 90th minute that mr. schoen got to the actual text of the constitution which dealt with the question of jurisdiction. so i think they were thrown off and unprepared. all of that said, however, both sides made relevant points to what's next. in the case of the president's defense team, they focused a lot on constitutional questions like due process, free speech, the casting of the wide net which was really more of a senate rules question. all of those are relevant. maybe they're even relevant to a potential dismissal, but none of them addressed the constitutional jurisdictional question, which is what today was supposed to be all about. >> right, it was supposed to be about. i will tell you, it was addressed very specifically and in great detail by congressman raskin when he talked about it. i should note obviously this is the second time, senator, that you voted to say that the trial itself was unconstitutional so you've been consistent the

bruce castor talked a little bit last night on fox news how they may use footage and interviews from last summer's social unrest following the death of george floyd in terms of how you saw people get together and protest. they're going to try to argue on behalf of the former president, that was well in their first amendment rights and when donald trump spoke at the stopped the steal rally and urged supporters to, quote, fight like hell and head to the u.s. capitol, of course, then they breached the ground and engaged in that deadly riot. but here's a little bit more from bruce castor on their thinking overall just days before the trial. >> there's an awful lot of tape of cities burning and courthouses being attacked and federal agents being assaulted by rioters in the street cheered on by democrats throughout the country, and many of them in washington using really the most inflammatory rhetoric that's possible to use when you have the president of the united states give a speech and says you should peacefully make your thinking known to the people in congress, he's all of a sudden a