it was not surprising has signed jamie raskin quoted marcus raskin in the opening of wednesday's remarksill say it right "democracy needs ground to stand upon and that ground is the truth." denny raskin on wednesday in many of his remarks around the scum that i do that truth and fact are the tools by which you hold a leader to account, particularly a leader who has done the damage to a country that jamie raskin and the other impeachment managers assert, i think, correctly that donald trump has done. amy: as we wrap up, i want to ask you about anne feeney, the legendary pittsburgh folk singer, songwriter, self-described rabble-rouser who died of covid 19 at age 69 month surrounded by family and friends. you written about her in written about her -- this is a clip of her singing. >> ♪ amy: what we're are listening to and watching is anne feeney singing in the wisconsin state capitol building during the wisconsin uprising 10 years ago most of john, we just have about 30 seconds was a bit he could talk about the significance of anne feeney's life, music, art. >> i think was summed up in the

if that's not an impeachable offense, there is no such thing. >> reporter: raskin emotional himself, breaking down while discussing his daughter, tabitha, who witnessed the attack one day after raskin buried his son >> she said, "dad, i don't want to come back to the capitol. >> 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

kevin cramer, who had called raskin a back bencher. he did a superior job, it's just stating the reality. nia, one other thing senator cramer said, basically, if there's something there, i don't think it's constitutional for us to deal with it, put it in a criminal court. that was also referenced by the trump team. we have reporteding that trump worried about criminal prosecution. how significant do you think this is, that there are republicans who will say we're not going to do it but they seem perfectly happy for trump to be held to account in a criminal setting? >> i don't know that they are actually perfectly happy with that. they're perfectly happy with using procedural arguments as a way to duck their own responsibilities and really look at holding him accountable. but yes, if you are donald trump, you are certainly scared of this post-presidential life that he is getting used to now and what might be coming down the pike in terms of criminal prosecution, not only in this case but in other cases that we already know are being loo

raskin: mr.has just explained why these last-ditch arguments have nothing to do with the case. he has been impeached or inciting violence against the government. incitement to -- for incitement against the government. incitement to insurrection is not covered by free-speech. the idea is absurd. the whole first amendment smokescreena completely irrelevant distraction from the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors governing a president who has violated his oath of yet president trump, we know, has a good way of treating up as down and wrong as a right. he is trying to pull off the biggest election fraud in the history of america by overturning the results of the election. he bmed a conspiracy on local and state officials, the media, elected officials, the judiciary, members of congress, anyone who would not go along with him was part of the conspiracy. he violated his oath of office by inciting mob violence to prevent congress from counting electoral votes as it is assigned to do. he attacked vi

mr - raskin. thank you mr president. the mana . ers raskin. thank you mr president.gers are prepared _ raskin. thank you mr president. the managers are prepared to _ raskin. thank you mr president. the managers are prepared to enter - raskin. thank you mr president. the managers are prepared to enter into| managers are prepared to enter into an agreement. i will now read the statement — an agreement. i will now read the statement. this is a statement jamie herrera _ statement. this is a statement jamie herrera butler february 12, 2021. in myjanuary— herrera butler february 12, 2021. in myjanuary 12 statement in support of the — myjanuary 12 statement in support of the article of impeachment i reference — of the article of impeachment i reference a conversation house minority— reference a conversation house minority leader kevin mccartney relayed — minority leader kevin mccartney relayed to me that he'd had with president — relayed to me that he'd had with president trump while the january six attack— president trump while the january six attack was ongoing. —— mccart

the raskin doctrine.askin doctrine is based on nothing more than determining protected speech based on the party label next to your name. regardless of what you have heard of what you have seen from the house managers, if you pay close attention, you will see that any speech made by democrat elected officials is protected speech, while any speech made by republican elected officials is not protected. the creation of the raskin doctrine actually reveals the weakness of the house managers case. elected officials, and we reviewed this in—depth under supreme court precedent would in bond, and by the way, bond did not earn his draft card, he actually still had had, it was part of his defence. but in bond and in wood, the court clearly directed all to know that elected officials hold the highest protections of speech, the highest protections. and i remind you why because you all need to be free to have robust political discussion. because your discussion is about how our lives are going to go. and that should n

the lead impeachment manager, jamie raskin of maryland, apparently allowed them to break around halftime of the super bowl to be with their families, to allow capitol police, who were providing support, to watch the second half of the football game, but as we know, the game was pretty much over by then. but these managers say that this is going to be a very different impeachment trial from the first one just a year ago. they say that they have overwhelming evidence, largely supported by the video that was taken at the white hous ell ipse, when trump gave his save america speech. they have overwhelming video over than's they are going to show -- video evidence that they are going to show from the capitol itself, from the insurrectionists, often livestreamed by the insurrectionists themselves. they have hours of video. they say that has made their job in convincing these senators and the american people much, much easier than the last impeachment trial, where it was an extremely technical trial. the legal arguments were technical. it was a much more convoluted argument that the investigato

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. why they don't want you to see the evidence but the argument that you lack jurisdiction rests on a purely fictional loophole, purely fictional. it is designed to allow the former president to escape all accountability for conduct that is truly indefensible under our constitution. you saw the consequences of his actions on the video that we played earlier and i would like to emphasize in greater detail the extraordinary constitutional offense that the former president thanks you have no power whatsoever to adjudicate. while spreading lies about the election outcome and a brazen attempt to retain power against the will of the american people he incited and armed, angry mob to riot and not just anywhere but here in the seat of our government and in the capital during a joint session of congress when the vice president presided while we carried out p

and as mr i raskin said the faxjust show raskin said the fax just show that— raskin said the fax justn said the fax just show that in the video i thought was powerfuh _ that in the video i thought was powerful. the presentation about — powerful. the presentation about being witness to the culmination of all of his dangerous rhetoric was powerful. and it all amounted to showing that this president was really un—opponent of the constitution and an opponent of the idea — constitution and an opponent of the idea that a president is supposed to preserve, protect and defend that document. the donald trump _ and defend that document. tie: donald trump team says and defend that document. ti2 donald trump team says it is not constitutional free to be tried because he's out of office. does it say anywhere in the constitution and former president cannot be tried for alleged crimes committed when that person the president? there is nothing explicit but what — there is nothing explicit but what it _ there is nothing explicit but what it does say is certainly that — what it does say is certainly th

raskin you are recognized. >> senate thank you very much mr. president and speakers and members of the m senate good afternoon. my name is jaime raskin and it's my honor to represent the people of the congressional district in the house and also to serve as the lead house manager. mr. president we will indeed reserve time for rebuttal. thank you. as it professor of constitutional law for three decades another a lot of people that are dreading endless lectures here please breathe easy but i remember well that a professor someone who speaks while other people are sleeping. you will not hearing extended lectures from me because our case is based on cold, hard facts. it's all about the facts. president trump's and his lawyers here today to try to stop the senate from hearing the facts. they want to call the trial over before any evidence is even introduced. .. w in other words, conduct that would be a high crime and misdemeanor in your first year as president, in your second year as president, in your third year as president and for the vast majori

jamie raskin is now on the floor of the senate. the head of the house impeachment managers. >> it should be common sense to everybody, common sense about this understanding of the first amendment as it applies to public servants, cops, firefighters, teachers, everybody across the land. my daughter who i mentioned earlier, she's a teacher in a public school. the courts have said teachers teach but if they go off script and start advocating totalitarianism or treason, they can be fired. everybody knows that. it happens all the time, by the way. including to cops and firefighters and people on the front lines. happens all the time. in fact, it happened countless times to people fired by president trump for their statements or ideas about things including on election fraud not long ago. there's people in the government who lost their jobs because the president didn't like what they said or what they wrote. now, as i mentioned yesterday and i can't help but repeat it, justice scalia got it right on this. he wrote on these cases about ho

as charlie raskin used to say, it's hard _ charlie raskin used to say, it's hard to— charlie raskin used many of the capitol and metropolitan police men and women who were beaten up by the mob atso _ and women who were beaten up by the mob also have kids. you're a officer phenom _ mob also have kids. you're a officer phenom who — mob also have kids. you're a officer phenom who had a heart attack after being _ phenom who had a heart attack after being tased and roughed up for hours by the _ being tased and roughed up for hours by the bob _ being tased and roughed up for hours by the bob. and then begged for his life telling the insurrectionist that he — life telling the insurrectionist that he had four daughters. and not 'ust that he had four daughters. and not just about _ that he had four daughters. and not just about broke my heart all over again _ just about broke my heart all over again we — just about broke my heart all over again. we talked about this for a again. we talked about this fora lon- again. we talked about this for a long time — again. we talked about this for a long tim

raskin unveiled 13 minutes of horrifying video at the open.'m supposed to warn you that it is disturbing and the language is profane. but truthfully, americans should be more concerned about the reality of what happened in the capitol than dirty words on tv. >> hey! >> now! >> ahh ! >> so, as stirring as it was, our reporting is that some republican senators couldn't be bothered to watch. a maskless rand paul, doodle squiggle lines on a white pad of paper, rick scott, tom cotton and marco rubio studies on their mats. >> the case laid out by impeachment manager was in sharp contrast to trump's legal team which let's just call it meandering. some republicans say it was a weak defense. including senator bill cassidy who voted with democrats and republicans that, yes, this trial is unconstitutional. >> president trump's team was unorganized. they did everything put talk about the question at hand and when they talked about it they kind of glided over it almost as if they're embarrassed of their arguments. now, i'm an impartial juror. one side is d

jamie raskin gave maybe the best oral argument i've heard. it was both head and heart, about the grave stakes that face the country. this isn't political theater. this is really the soul of what american democracy is about, and i thought representative raskin really captured that. and by contrast, you had trump's lawyers who were meandering and impossible to follow. but most importantly, trump's lawyers never responded to the two main arguments the house managers made. number one, trump wasn't a former official when he was impeached. he was the sitting president. and, second, that we can't have a so-called january exception to impeachment and allow a president to do anything he wants. and you heard nothing about that in the trump lawyers' presentation today. and if i'm donald trump, i'm a little worried at this point because, yes, they got away today. they only had six republican votes against trump. they got away on a dry constitutional issue, which the american public doesn't really want to focus on, and it's a way for republican senators t

the republicans main argument just tell us what we've seen so far and what raskin had to say. ok 2 things that are quite important we've seen in the 1st 15 minutes 1st of all the video it's the a in the way it's edited is to bring the visceral feelings that the senators had on the 6th of january when they were taken out of the senate because there was a real risk to their safety and this video is reminding them of the chaos of that moment because remember this impeachment trial is actually being held on a crime scene there is still an ongoing investigation into the 5 deaths here particularly the death of the capitol hill police officer there's still an investigation going there $2211.00 people have been charged with offenses related to that there are 500 ongoing investigations 211 people have been charged in 43 states jimmy raskin made the point very early on this is based on facts this is what we're going to present to you it's not going to be some sort of abstract argument we're presenting facts to you he's a former constitutional professor he said he's not going to bore peo

jamie raskin had to sa . ., manager the democrat jamie raskin had to sa. ., ., ., ., had to say.d there is no such thing. that impeachable offence, there and there is no such thing.— is no such thing. that is some of, one of several— is no such thing. that is some of, one of several speeches - is no such thing. that is some of, one of several speeches we - is no such thing. that is some of, j one of several speeches we heard from democrats. just to be clear, the democrats have first been laying out their arguments. in theories specifically focused on the constitutionality of an impeachment trial of a president who is no longer in office. in fact they spoke more expensively than just that issue. we are in a short break on this date one of the impeachment trial proceeding. these are live pictures from washington, dc. you can see that those taking part are not in position yet. but the next thing that's going to happen, and you'll see that here on bbc news is for donald trump's defence team to start pushing back at two things. one, that they should actually be happening at all. and t

as you say jamie raskin arguing there that just defending the decision not to call witnesses which has faced some criticism by saying that it would let you say it would have made a difference anyway if the perception was that the senate didn't have jurisdiction to hold this trial in the 1st place allen but it was that what was the what was your feeling about the republican response to this was that a decision not to call witnesses seen as a victory for them. it was certainly seen as a victory for donald trump i'm told that the people around don't tom were absolutely delighted it would have meant extending the period of this trial probably by 3 maybe 4 days possibly even as much as a week and the. democrats are aware that joe biden has a legislative agenda he wants to to push through he still has to get a number of cabinet positions confirmed he wants to put a 1.9 trillion dollar bill for covert relief through the house and through the senate he also wants to discuss immigration so there's a great deal to do there and of course that the opportunity for that when you have legislative goo

i may be missed it but i haven't seen congressman raskin speak about this insanity at all. has he lambasted the brutalization of children's learning by the craven teachers union? of course not. the real raskin is like a lot of his democrats, a rapid partisan, he's abusing the impeachment process to bar trump from the process that she's adam schiff but with better hair. that's the angle. joining me now is congressman steve scalise. you know the consequences of leftist smears, they have been leveling insane accusations against the president for years and now they turn around and bash trump's rhetoric as incendiary and even dangerous? >> when you look at all of the different things that were said by democrats through the summer of love as they called it, mostly peaceful protest where cities were getting burned down, cops were being murdered left and right. violence of any kind needs to be decried, i don't know of anybody on our side that was okay with january 6th, i called it out myself, so many others have too. the difference is during the summer when we were calling out that

jamie raskin is facing another struggle with astonishing dignity and grace. one who lost his son, matthew, when he was 34, wrote this today. "when i lost my son i was in a fog for weeks nearly paralyzed with grief. to imagine secretary raskin has not just gotten up every day but has done this master class and constitutional law, philosophy, logic, patriotism, and more, with eloquence, force, passion, my god, what a hero." yes, there are heroes in the that room. there are more cowards in that room. they're speaking to the cowards in a noble hope of trying to change their minds. they're not trying to turn cowards into heroes. they're trying to turn cowards into minimally decent human beings for the first time since those cowards surrendered themselves completely to donald trump. congressman raskin told the cowards what they should be listening for tomorrow when donald trump's lawyers speak in his defense. >> we would pose these preliminary questions to his lawyers. which i think are on everyone's minds right now, in which would have asked mr. trump, himself, if

jamie raskin was entitled to make his argument about 2016. donald trump was entitled to make his argument about 2020. host: donna, hampton, virginia. caller: i have a couple of questions for you. as far as this riot supposedly, it is not a riot. it is five years of people that have been dumped on and not be able to hear their voices. their votes were not counted. i know you don't believe that but i believe that. i am an 80-year-old independent who has voted both ways. i feel the anger has built up so bad it is not going to end. i do believe in the 22 and 24 elections that the republicans are going to gain back a lot of seats because of it. you won't let people hear the evidence. i have not heard journalists say anything about it. newsmax has had mike lindell on with the document terry called -- documentary called "absolute proof." have you watched it? it is absolute proof. if they let the courts listen to these cases, we would have never had this disaster. host: that is the one question for mr. dershowitz. what is the second? caller: i would

senator leahy: mister raskin. senator raskin: thank you, mister president. first of all, this is the proper time to talk about witnesses. this is completely within the course of the rules set forth by the senate. there is nothing remotely unusual about this. i think we have done an exceedingly thorough and competent of job with all the evidence available. last night this was breaking news and it responded directly to a question that was being raised by the president's defense counsel saying we had not sufficiently proven to their satisfaction, although we have proven to the satisfaction of the american people certainly, that the president, after the breach and invasion took place, was not working on the side of defending the capital -- capitol but his political goal and the information that came out last night by congresswoman butler, backed up by contemporaneous notes she had taken will put to rest lingering doubts by the president's counsel who now says he wants to interview hundreds of people. there is only one person the president's council really needs

congressman raskin's words will air in full on rachel maddow's show in a few minutes.er reaction, i'm joined by rashida tlaib. what was your impression of today's proceedings? >> i was incredibly proud of the leadership, of representative raskins and many others that are ruly truly putting the love of country first. one of the most passionate speeches i have heard where he talks about democracy is personal. and it is. i mean, chris, from my district alone, they were intentionally trying to throw out black votes. right here in detroit. and so for us, it was extremely personal that they were trying to use white supremacist rhetoric, that racist tone, and these conspiracy theories that led to the violence of january 6th. raskin is right, this is extremely personal and extremely, very much about us being able to keep our right to have a voice at all levels of government, and especially again, pushing back against that violence that we saw on january 6th. >> now, one of the arguments presented by the lawyers, which was a stitched-together video, is actually a reprisal of wh

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. why they don't want you to see the evidence but the argument that you lack jurisdiction rests on a purely fictional loophole, purely fictional. it is designed to allow the former president to escape all accountability for conduct that is truly indefensible under our constitution. you saw the consequences of his actions on the video that we played earlier and i would like to emphasize in greater detail the extraordinary constitutional offense that the former president thanks you have no power whatsoever to adjudicate. while spreading lies about the election outcome and a brazen attempt to retain power against the will of the american people he incited and armed, angry mob to riot and not just anywhere but here in the seat of our government and in the capital during a joint session of congress when the vice president presided while we carried out pe

raskin.ple of maryland's 8th congressional district in the house and also to serve as house manager. mr. president, we will indeed reserve time for rebuttal. thank you. because i've been a professor of constitutional law for three decades, i know there are a lot of people who are dreading endless lectures about the federalist papers here. please breathe easy, okay? i remember well w.h. oddin's line that others sleep while a professor is speaking. you will not hear a lecture here because our case is based on cold, hard facts. it's all about the facts. president trump has sent his lawyers here today to try to stop the senate from hearing the facts of this case. they want to call the trial over before any evidence is even introduced. their argument is that if you commit an impeachable offense in your last few weeks in office, you do it with constitutional impunity. you get away with it. in other words, conduct that will be a high crime and misdemeanor in your first year as president and your sec

my name is jamie raskin. it is my honor to represent the people in the 8th district in the house and also to serve as the lead house manager. we will indeed reserve time for rebuttal. thank you. i have been practicing constitutional law for three decades, i know there are people dreading endless lectures about the federalist papers. please breathe easy. i remember well hw autumn's line that a professor is someone who speaks while other people are sleeping. you will not be hearing extended lectures from me. our case is based on cold hard facts. it's all about the facts. president trump sent his lawyers here today to try to stop the senate from hearing the facts of this case. they want to trial the call over before any evidence is even introduced. their argument is that if you commit an impeachable offense in your last two weeks in office, you do it with constitutional impunity. you get away with it. in other words, conduct that would be a high crime and misdemeanor your first year as president, in your second

for raskin, the trial is personal.he part of the house will be received and escorted to the well of the senate. >> reporter: it is his most high-profile moment yet. >> donald john trump thus warrants impeachment and trial. >> reporter: congressman jamie raskin, the lead impeachment manager, tasked with prosecuting the case against former president trump. >> removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the united states. >> reporter: it's a role that raskin has been preparing for his entire career, before coming to congress in 2016, he was a constitutional law professor for more than two decades. it was for that reason he was chosen by speaker pelosi to write the article of impeachment against donald trump for incitement of insurrection. >> she wanted me to do, because she knows that i've devoted my life to the constitution. >> reporter: but as he takes on the most consequential moment of his professional career, he is battling a horrible personal tragedy at home

in fact, they've created a new legal theory, the raskin doctrine. raskin doctrine is based on nothing more than determining protected speech based on the party label next to your name. regardless of what you have heard or what you have seen from the house managers, if you pay close attention, you will see that any speech made by democrat electedma officials is protecte speech, while any speech made by republican elected officials is not protected. the creation of the raskin doctrine actually reveals the weakness of the house managers' case. elected officials, and we reviewed this in depth yesterday, under supreme court precedent, wood and bond -- and by the way, bond didn't burn his draft card. he actually still had it. defense.rt of his but in bond and in wood, the court clearly directed all to know that elected officials hold the highest protections of speech, the highest protections, and i remind you why. because you all need to be free to have robust political discussion, because your discussion is about how our lives are going to go. and that s

. >> reporter: lead impeachment manager jamie raskin making that case on a personal level. >> my youngestghter tabytha was there with me on wednesday, january 6th. it was the day after he buried her brother, our son tommy, the saddest day of our lives. i told her how sorry i was and i promised her that it would not be like this again the next time she came back to the capitol with me. and you know what she said? she said dad, i don't want to come back to the capitol. [cr [crying] of all the terrible brutal things i saw and heard that day, and since then, that one hit me the hardest. >> ryan nobles joins us now from capitol hill. six republicans joined democrats to vote that this impeachment trial is constitutional. what has been the reasoning from the senators why they didn't vote with their party? >> reporter: well, the simple answer, anderson, they thought the arguments made by the democratic house impeachment managers were more convincing than those made by the trump legal team. listen to what louisiana senator bill cassidy had to say. >> president trump's team were disorganized. they

raskin, the congressman raskin, who is the lead manager on the house side, told his personal story, it was so compelling. it really spoke to the heartbreak we feel for the reputation of our government and the building that many of us have called the center of our lives for so many years. >> one of the things that senator raskin came to at the end of those personal remarks which we just played in full, after talking about his own experience, hiown family's incredibly tragic experience recently, and how heart rending that is, he talked about the officers who were hurt. he talked about the fact that two officers have taken their own lives, have died by suicide since the attack. one officer lost, he said lost three fingers. we have heard that another officer whose eyes were gouged, there may be another officer who will lose sight or potentially lose an eye. we all saw the solemn ceremony honoring officer brian sicknick when he laid in honor at the u.s. capitol. i find myself thinking more and more frequently about the fact that we don't know who killed officer sicknick, there have been no

and this was not lost on a lead house manager, jamie raskin. >> all means all. there are no exceptions to the rule. that's it. that's all you ever hear from the right about the constitution, right? if it's not in there, it's not in there. it's not in there. in fact, there is no rule that even allows the senate to do what it did today. i don't know why the democrats allowed this. this let's debate if we need to do our job. it was another chance though. here was the value in this whole process. you got to see how even in the face of such clear proof of what is right, there are so many willing in their number to do what they know is wrong. i was frankly shocked that only one more republican joined the 55 other jurors in the vote to proceed. senator cassidy of louisiana changed to a yes after last week and explained why. >> you listen to it, it speaks for itself. it was disorganized, random, they talked about many things but not the issue at hand. the house managers made a compelling, cogent case, and the president's team did not. >> that should have been obvious to

i think jamie raskin and the house managers made that record with clarity. even -- let's be honest with you. even mitch mcconnell acknowledged that last night in his speech. so we have that record. that's the important historic record to show this generation of doubters and any future generation. >> it sounds like you think we have done a big chunk of this investigating. senator dick durbin, democrat from illinois, thanks for coming on and sharing your perspective. >> thanks, chuck. >>> joining me is the republican governor marland, governor hogan. you have a special sort of relationship and insight to congress being the son of a member of congress who voted as a republican on those impeachment articles against richard nixon. i'm curious, what did we -- what did the senate do yesterday in terms of donald trump in your view? >> well, you know, there's what the vote was and what the result of the senate -- the republicans in the senate did opinion. quite frankly, i think the democrats made a strong case, even though leader mcconnell didn't vote to impeach, his

congressman raskin, welcome to "meet the press." >> good morning. thanks for having me. >> so this feels like one of those -- the glass -- the water glass metaphor, is it half empty or half full? you got seven republicans to convict. mitch mcconnell felt like he used your closing argument to make his repudiation even though he voted to acquit. so do you feel like this was a success, or do you feel like because you failed to convict, that you can't look at it any other way than a failure? >> well, i think it was a dramatic success in historical terms. it was the largest impeachment conviction vote in u.s. history. it was by far the most bipartisan majority that's ever assembled in the senate to convict a president, which has traditionally been a kind of partisan thing in american history. we got seven republicans, and if you look at the ten republicans in the house who joined us, it was by far the most bipartisan decision and a complete repudiation of the president's conduct. now, unfortunately, it didn't reach the two-thirds majority in the senate.

the creation of the raskin doctrine actually reveals the weakness of the house managers case elected officials and we reviewed this in depth yesterday under supreme court precedent would and by and by the way bond didn't burn his draft party actually still had it it was part of his defense. but in bond and in would the court clearly directed all to know that elected officials hold the highest protections of speech the highest protections and i remind you why because you all need to be free to have robust political discussion because your discussion is about how our lives are going to go and that shouldn't be squelched by any political party on either side of the aisle no matter who's the more jordi party at the time why would the house managers make up their own legal standard of tell you why because they know they cannot satisfy the existing constitutional standard set forth by the united states supreme court that has existed force for more than half a century. they are you mr trump as an elected official has no 1st amendment rights it's the complete opposite of the law we've shown

raskin. >> thank you, mr. president.tely within the course of the rules set forth by the senate. there's nothing remotely unusual about this. i think we've done an exceedingly thorough and comprehensive job with all the evidence that was available. last night this was breaking news and it responded directly to a question being raised by president's defense counsel saying that we have not sufficiently proven to their satisfaction, although, we have proven to the american people satisfactory that the president after the breach had taken place was not working on the side of defending the capitol but rather was continuing pursue his political goals, and the information that came out last night by congresswoman beutler backed up by contemporaneous notes she'd taken would put to rest any lingers doubts raised by counsel. now he wants to interview hundreds of people. there's only one person that counsel really needs to interview and that's their own client. bring him forward as we suggested last week, because a lot of this is m

senator raskin said we'd all do that. in fact i insist on it if i were convicted of these crimes, and our innocent, i would demand my side of the story. president trump declined. there are certain facts undisputed that we know to be true despite the president's refusal to testify which is counsel, either ignored entirely or didn't and couldn't dispute. before i go to those facts, let me touch on a few things. first, president trump and his counsel havee resulted evidence, somehow manufactured or hidden from them. the time, i want to be very clear about this. in terms of the timing when they received the materials here, defense counsel had access to all materials when they were entitled to have them in senate resolution 47. they cannot and have not alleged otherwise. their desperate claim the evidence is somehow manufactured, they have alleged that one tweet from their client was actually inaccurate. we got theset tweets, which are statements from the former president from a public archives. they are all correct.st the pre

raskin. before i begin, i want to comment on the outstanding presentation from our opponents and the emotion that certainly welled up in congressman raskin about his family being hereduat. and you will not hear any member of the team representing former president trump say anything but in the strongest possible way denounce the violence of the rioters, and those who breached the capitol, the very citadel of our democracy, literally the symbol that flashes on television whenever you're trying to explain that we're talking about the united states symbol, to have it attacen of te word. the loss of life is horrific. i spent many long years prosecuting homicide cases, catching criminals that committed murders. i have quite an extensive experience in dealing with the aftermath of those things. certainly, as an f.o.p. member and member of many police organizations myself, we mourn the loss of the capitol police officer, who i understand is laying not too far away from here. and, you know, many of yo

raskin.f you, i was evacuated as this violent mob stormed the capitol's gates. 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. i urge you, we urge you to decline his request, to vindicate the constitution, to let us try this case. >> mr. president, distinguished senators, my name is david cicilline. i have the honor of representing the first congressional district of rhode island. as i hope is now clear from the articles of mr. raskin and mr. neguse, impeachment is not merely about removing someone from office. fundamentally, impeachment exists to protect our constitutional system, to keep each of us safe, to uphold our freedom, to safeguard our democracy. it achieves that by deterring abuse of the extraordinary power that we entrust

raskin, under rule 22 you may reserve time if you wish. >> thank you, mr. president. of the senate, before i proceed, it was suggested by defense counsel that donald trump's conduct during the attack as described in congresswoman beutler statement is not part of the constitutional offense for which former president trump is charged. i want to reject that falsehood and that fallacy immediately. after he knew that violence was underway at the capitol, president trump took actions that further incited the insurgents to be more enflamed and more extreme and selected and focused action against vice-president mike pence. former president trump also as described by congresswoman beutler's that forcefully call off the riot and when he was told the insurgents were trump supporters, former president said, well, kevin, i guess these people are more upset about the election than you are. just think about that for a second. this uncontradicted statement that has just been stipulated as part of the evidentiary record, the president side said, well, kevin, i guess these people-- mea

it was left to jamie raskin to sum up the whole thing. he gave up 33 minutes of his time, decided the case was already made. in a dramatic hand, he talked about the fifth of january. the rest of his family had come here to capitol hill on january to see what was meant to be the peaceful transfer of power. the confirmation of the electoral college votes. but he said it was an experience that left him shaken. >> when they were finally t, rescued and we were together, i hugged them and apologized, and i told my daughter, tabatha, -- my daughter, tabatha, who was 24 and an algebra teacher, i told her how sorry i was. and i promised her it would not be like this again. the next time she came back to the capital with me -- the capitol with me. you know what she said? she said, "dad, i don't want to come back to the capitol." of all the terrible and brutal things i saw and heard on that day, and since then, that one hit me the hardest. >> an emotional moment. there's been some criticism of trump's defense team, as you alluded to. they will now h

manager raskin to begin the presentation of the case of the house of representatives. >> thank you very much. mr. president, members of the senate, good morning, good day. as some people think this trial is a contest of lawyers or even worse, a competition between political parties, it's a moment of truth for america. my late father marcus raskin once wrote, democracy needs a ground to stand upon with that ground to the truth, america needs the truth about ex-president trump's roll in inciting the insurrection on january 6 because it threatened our government and disrupted and easily could have destroyed the peaceful transfer of power in the united states for the first time in 233 years. it was suggested yesterday by president trump's counsel that this is really like a very bad accident or a natural disaster where lots of people get injured or killed and society is just out looking for someone to blame and that's natural and normal human reaction according to president's council but he said that's totally unfair in this case. president trump, according to mr. castor essentially as an in

said that even until the last minute it was up in the year and i said when will we find when jimmy raskin stands up jimmy raskin stood up just about an hour ago and said yes he wanted to call witnesses specifically he wanted a deposition which is a witness statement from the congresswoman from washington state to see what she had to say and also left open the opportunity that he could then expand that because if she said so and so also have this he can then say well i want to interview them the me will go as far as kevin mccarthy donald trump's lawyer stood up and said look if you're going to call lawyers cole witnesses we're going to call it a. call hundreds of witnesses everyone who's been charged and said that donald trump was responsible we're going to depose them we're going to depose the vice president we're going to depose the speaker of the house he got quite show at one point and he said i'm going to take them to my office in philadelphia to do it the people in the senate chamber then actually laughed at him and this is why here's the rule the senate decides who gets to call witn

you will hear from my colleague lee manager raskin that many myriad reasons why the argument that they make is wrong on the law, completely. not just around the edges. they make major fundamental mistakes of constitutional law, the kind that leave manager raskin tell me wouldn't cut it in his first year law course which of course he certainly would know since he has taught this subject for decades. and that explains why so many lawyers who have dedicated their lives to protecting free speech, including many of the nation's most prominent conservative free speech lawyers have described president trump's and first amendment claims as quote legally frivolous, another quote from a recent letter, prominent free speech lawyers that quote the first amendment is no bar to the senate convictioning convicting former president trump and disqualifying him from holding future office. their argument is wrong on the facts, wrong on the law, and would flip the constitution upside down. let's start with the facts, because as you will see, his free speech claim depends on an account of what he did, of w

i think the answer there carol said i thought one of the highlights was jamie raskin the first e-mailed issue where he said like you know, crying fire in a crowded theater, which is not protected by the first 5e78d. this is like having the fire chief set a fire and sthaning that it's protected first amendment activity so i just think the first amendment issue is one that has no traction. >> i think the key which i think we're going to hear a lot more about is this difference between foreseeable versus unticipated,hich w really gets at the president's intent. was it foreseeable to him that there would be this kind of or with this unanticipated. and i think his -- the former president's reaction on january 6th in terms of what he did not do is not only itself impeachable but it also is an indication of his intention toss can't want to see happen, and he did not react in the way that an innocent person would react. and i think that is -- that remains to be argued and i suspect we're going to hear a rot more about it this afternoon. >> yeah. and i mentioned there is part of the president's

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. why they don't want you to see the evidence. but the argument that you lack jurisdiction rests on a purely fictional loophole. purely fictional. designed to allow the former president to escape all accountability for conduct that is truly indefensible under our constitution. you saw the consequences of his actions on the video that we played earlier. i would like to emphasize in still greater detail the extraordinary constitutional defense that the former president thinks you have no power whatsoever to adjudicate. while spreading lies about the election outcome in a brazen attempt to retain power against the will of the american people, he incited an armed, angry mob to riot. and not just anywhere, but here in the seat of our government, in the capitol during a joint session of congress when the vice president presided while we carried out the