NBC Special Report: Trump impeachment trial Day 4 part 2
NBC News provides coverage as U.S. Senators participate in a question-and-answer session as part of the impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump. The questions come after Trump's legal team presented its defense.
over and over again. It's been contested. When Mr Trump was elected president, we were told that he was hiding councils 2.5 minutes expired. Mhm. Oh, Senator from Wisconsin E. I couldn't see who was understand. E sent a question to the death for both parties. Go for employees. Sort of Wisconsin sends a question. Um, for both counsel for the former president and the House managers, uh, clerk will read it, and the counsel for the former president will have the 1st 2.5 minutes. The House managers assert that the January 6th attack was predictable and it was foreseeable. If so, why did it appear that law law enforcement at the Capitol were caught off guard and unable to prevent the breach? Why did the House sergeant at arms reportedly turned down a request to activate the National Guard stating that he was not comfortable with the optics council? Former president is recognized to read the question. Corker read the question again. The House managers assert that the January 6th attack was predictable and it was foreseeable. If so, why did it appear that law enforcement at the Capitol were caught off guard and unable to prevent the breach. Why did the House sergeant at arms reportedly turned down a request to activate the National Guard, stating that he was not comfortable with the optics? Holy cow. That is a really good question. And had the House managers done their investigation, maybe somebody would have an answer to that. But they didn't. They did. Zero investigation. They did nothing. They looked into nothing. They read newspaper articles. They talked to their friends who know a TV reporter or something or something or another. But Jiminy Crickets. There is no due process in this proceeding at all, and that question highlights the problem. When you have no due process, you have no clear cut answers. But we do know that there was, I think, a certain level of foreseeability it looks like from the information they were presenting. Some law enforcement knew that something could be happened. I was in my presentation. We knew that the mayor, two days before before had been offered toe have federal troops or or National Guard deployed beef up security here in Capitol police. It was offered, so somebody had a have an inkling into something, and my question is who ignored it and why. If an investigation were done, we would know the answer to that, too. Thank you. The house managers have 2.5 minutes. First, if defense counsel has exculpatory evidence, you're welcome to give it to us. We would love to see it. You've had an opportunity to give us evidence that would exculpate ate the president. Haven't seen it yet. Everyone, the defense counsel wants to blame everyone else except the person who is most responsible for what happened on January 6. And that's President Trump, Donald Trump. And he is the person who foresee this the most because he had the reports he had access to the information. He is well, had. We all know how he is. A avid cable news watcher. He knew what was gonna happen. He cultivated these individuals thes air. The undisputed fax the National Guard was not deploy until over two hours after the attack. I heard reference to Mayor Bowser in defenses presentation. Mayor Bowser does not have authority over the capital or federal buildings. She could not deploy national guards to the capital that is outside of the jurisdiction of the mayor of the District of Columbia. At no point in that entire day did the president of the United States, our commander in chief, tell anyone law enforcement struggling for their lives insurgents who felt empowered by the sheer quantity of them, any of us in this building or the American people that he was sending help. He did not defend the capital. The president of the United States did not defend the capital of this country. It's unde if instable. Yeah, Mr President, these Air Morgan. Mr. President, I sent a question to the desk. Senator Merkley submits a question for the House managers. The clerk will read the question if a president spins a big lie toe, anger Americans and Stokes the fury by repeating the lie at event after event and invites violent groups to D. C. On the day and our necessary to interrupt the Electoral College count and does nothing to stop those groups from advancing on the capital and fails to some in the National Guard to protect the capital and then expresses pleasure and delight that the capital was under attack. Is the president innocents of inciting an insurrection? Because in a speech he says, Be peaceful. The House managers have five minutes. You'll ask a very important question, which is given everything that the president did leading up to the election after the election and leading up to January 6th all of the incitement of his supporters, whom he convinced with a big lie over and over that the election had been stolen from them and from him. And then once the mob had stormed the capital, the vice president was in danger. The speaker was in danger. The members of the House and the Senate and all the staff here, the janitorial staff, the cafeteria workers, everybody and all of the hot rhetoric that he spoke with and then simply a few times said Stay peaceful. Remember, he said, stay peaceful when they had already gotten violent, when they'd already brought weapons, when they'd already hurt people when he never said would stop the attack, Leave the capital, leave immediately and let me be clear. The president's message in that January 6 speech was incendiary. So in the entire speech, which was roughly 1100 words, he used the word peaceful once, and using the word peaceful was the only suggestion of Nonviolence President Trump used the word fight or fighting 20 times. Now again, consider the context. He had been telling him a big lie over and over, getting them amped up, getting angry because an election had been stolen from them. There's thousands of people in front of him. Some of them are carrying weapons and arms. They're angry. He's telling him to fight and President Trump's words in that speech, just like the mobs actions were carefully chosen. His words incited their actions. How do we know this? For months, the president had told his supporters his big lie that the election was rigged and he used the lighter, urged his supporters not to concede and to stop the steal. If you rob a bank and on the way out the door, you yell, respect private property. That's not a defense to robbing the bank. Mr. President, the center from Texas, Mr President, I sent a question to the desk directed at both sides. The center from Texas has a question for both sides, and clerk will read it, and the House managers will go first for 2.5 minutes out of their 16 hours. The house managers devoted all of 15 minutes to articulating a newly created legal standard for incitement. One was violence foreseeable to did he encourage violence? Three. Did he do so willfully? Is this new standard derived from the criminal code or any Supreme Court case? While violent riots were raging, Kamala Harris said on national TV, They're not gonna let up, and they should not. And she also raised money to bail out violent rioters using the managers proposed standard. Is there any coherent way for Donald Trump's words to be incitement? And Kamala Harris is words not to be incitement? Thank you, Mr President. Senators, Um, I'm not familiar with the statement that is being referred Thio with respect to the vice president, but I find it absolutely unimaginable that Vice President Harris would ever incite violence or encourage or promote violence. Um, obviously, it's completely irrelevant to the proceeding at hand, and I will allow her to defend herself. Um, the the president's lawyers are pointing out that we've never had any situation like this before in the history of United States, and it's true there's never been a president who has encouraged ah, violent insurrection against our own government, so we really have nothing to compare it to. So what we do in this trial will establish a standard going forward for all time. Now they're two theories have been put before you, and I think we've gotta get past all of the Picayune uh, little critiques that have been offered today about this or that. Let's focus on what's really at stake here, the president's lawyers say, echoing the president. His conduct was totally appropriate. In other words, he would do it again. Exactly what he did is the new standard for what's allowable for him or any other president who gets into office. Our point is that his incitement so overwhelms any possible legal standard we have that we've got the opportunity now to declare that presidential incitement to violent insurrection against the capital in the Congress is completely forbidden to the president. United States under the impeachment clauses. So we set forth for you the elements of encouragement of violence, and we saw it overwhelmingly. We know that he picked the date of that rally. In fact, there was another group that was going to rally another date and he got it moved to January 1st he synchronized it exactly with the time that we would be enjoying session. And as representative Cheney said, he summoned that mob. He assembled that mob, he incited that mob. He lit the match. Come on, Get really? We know that this is what happened. And the second thing is, the foreseeability of it was a foreseeable remember Lansing, Michigan, and everything we showed you, they didn't mention that. Of course. Remember the mega to march, The mega to rally. They didn't mention that violence all over the rallies. The president cheering it on, delighting in it. Revel in innit? Exulting in it. Come on. How gullible do you think we are? We saw this happen. We just spent 11 or 12 hours looking. All that and intent encourage time. Thank you. Expired counsel for the former president has 2.5 minutes. Senator Cruz. I believe the first part of your question refers to the newly created Raskin Doctrine on First Amendment on, and, um, he just in his answer actually gave you a new one. Appropriateness. Uh, the standard that this body needs to follow for law is Brandenburg v Ohio and the test Really? The three part test really comes out of Bible Believers versus Wayne County. To be specific, Um, the speech has to be explicitly or implicitly encouraged the use of violence. In other words, it has to be, in the words itself, which is clearly it's not in the words itself. That's step one. They don't get past it to. The speaker intends that his speech will result in use of violence or lawless action. There's no evidence of that, and it's ludicrous to believe that that would be true. Third, the eminent use of violence or lawless action is likely to result in speech. Um, also, they fell on all three points of the law as we know it and needs to be applied here. I don't know why. He said he never heard Kamala Harris say about the riots and the people rioting and ruining our businesses and our streets that they're not gonna let up. And they should not because we played it three times today. We gave it to you an audio. I read it to you and you got it in video. That's what she said, but is protected speech. Her speech is protected. Also, Senator, that's the point. You all have protections as elected officials, the highest protections under the First Amendment and that First Amendment applies here in this chamber to this proceeding, and that's what you need to keep focused on. You need to keep focused on what is the law, and how do we apply it to this set of facts? It's your duty you get. You can't get caught up in all of the rhetoric and the facts that air irrelevant. You need to keep focused on what is the issue before you decided based on the law, Brandenburg and Bible believers and apply it to the fax. And that requires you to look at the words. And there were no words of incitement of any kind of time is expired. Thank you, Mr President started from Washington President. I send a question to the desk. Mhm, mhm. He said it from Washington. Senator Murray has a question for the House managers. The clerk will read the question at 601 p. M. Eastern time on January 6th. President Trump tweeted. These are the things that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously and viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly and unfairly treated for so long, adding for writers to go home with love and in peace. What is the relevance of this tweet to President Trump's guilt? The House managers are recognized for up to five minutes. Sure, senators, this WAAS a key quote and a key statement by the president that day that horrific day remember the capital had been stormed, have been attacked. People had yelled Hang Mike Pence. People had gone after Speaker Pelosi. People brought baseball bats and other weapons. Many members of Congress and the Senate in the house were fearful for their own lives. The president didn't call the National Guard. His own administration didn't list him as somebody that they had spoken with toe activate the guard. And he said, Remember this day forever. So if he was not guilty of inciting this insurrection, if this is not what he wanted, if it wasn't what he desired. By that time, the carnage had been on television. For hours. He saw what was going on. Everybody saw what was going on. If it wasn't what he wanted, why would he have said Remember this day forever? Why commemorate a day like that on attack on the U. S. Capitol. For God's sake, why would you do that? Unless you agreed that it was something to praise, not condemned, something to hold up and commemorate? No, no consoling the nation, No reassuring that the government was secure. Not a single word that entire day condemning the attack or the Attackers or the violent insurrection against Congress. This tweet is important because it shows two key points about Donald Trump state of mind. First, this was entirely and completely foreseeable, and he foresaw it and he helped incite it. Over many months, he's saying, I told you this was gonna happen if you certified the election for anyone else besides me and you got what you deserved for trying to take it away from me. And we know this because that statement was entirely consistent with everything he said leading up to the attack. Second, this shows that Donald Trump intended and reveled in this senators. He reveled in this. This is he delighted in it. This is what he wanted. Remember this day forever, he said. Not as a day of disgrace as it is to all of us, but as a day of celebration and commemoration. And if if we let it, if we don't hold him accountable and set a strong precedent, possibly a continuation later on, we will, of course, all of us remember this day. But not in the same way that Donald Trump suggested. Well, remember the bravery of our capital and metro police forces. Well, remember the officer who lost his life, and, sadly, the others who did as well and the devastation that was done to this country because of Donald Trump, the senator from Louisiana. Mr. President, I sent a question to the desk. The senator from Louisiana, Mr Cassidy, has a question for both counsel for the former president and counsel for the House. The clerk will read it and counsel for the former president will go first for 2.5 minutes. Then the House representatives will have 2.5 minutes. Senator Tuberville reports that he spoke to President Trump at 2:15 p.m. He told the President that the vice president had just evacuated. I presume it was understood at this time that rioters had entered the capital and threatened the safety of senators and the vice president. Even after hearing, even after hearing of this at 2 24 PM, President Trump tweeted that Mike Pence lacked courage. He did not call for law enforcement back up until then. The tweet and lack of response suggests President Trump did not care that Vice President Pence was endangered or that law enforcement was overwhelmed. Does this show that President Trump was tolerant of the intimidation of Vice President Pence? Downsize 2.5 minutes directly? No, but I dispute the premise of your fax. I dispute the facts that are laid out in that question. And unfortunately, we're not going to know the answer to the fax in this proceeding because the house did nothing to investigate what went on. We're trying to get here safe from Mr Tuberville. There was hearsay from Mr Lee. I think it was two nights ago when we ended where Mr Lee was accused of making a statement that he never made. But it was a report from a reporter from a friend of somebody who had some here say that they heard the night before it a bar somewhere. I mean, that's really the kind of evidence that the House has brought before us. And so I have a problem with the fax, uh, in the question, because I have no idea. And nobody from the house has given us any opportunity. Toe have any idea? But Mr Trump and Mr Pence have had a very good relationship for a long time. And I'm sure Mr Trump very much is concerned and was concerned for the safety and well being of Mr Pence and everybody else. That was over here. Thank you. Managers and part of the House representatives have 2.5 minutes. Thank you, Mr President. You know, my council said before this has been my worst experience in Washington. And for that I guess we're sorry, But, man, you should have been here on January 6th. So the council for the president keep blaming the house for not having the evidence that's within the sole possession of their client who we invited to come and testify last week. We sent a letter on February 4th. I sent it directly to President Trump, inviting him to come and to explain and fill in the gaps of what we know about what happened there, and they sent back a contemptuous response just a few hours later. I think they'd maybe even responded more quickly to my letter than President Trump did in a as a commander in chief to the invasion and the storming of the capital of United States. But in that letter, I said, You know, if you decline this invitation, we reserve all rights, including the right to establish a trial, that your refusal to testify supports a strong adverse inference. What's that? Well, Justice Scalia was the great champion of it. If you don't testify in a criminal case, it can't be used against you. Everybody knows that That's the Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination. But if it's a civil case and you plead the fifth or you don't show up, then according to Justice Scalia and the rest of the Supreme Court, you can interpret every disputed fact against the defendant that is totally available to us. So, for example, if we say the president was missing in action for several hours and he was derelict in his duty and he deserted his duties as commander in chief, and we say that as insider in chief, he didn't call off dogs and they say, Oh, no, He was really doing whatever he can. If you're puzzled about that, you can resolve that dispute factual dispute against the defendant who refuses to come to a civil proceeding. He will not spend one day in jail if you convict him. This is not a criminal proceeding. This is about preserving the Republic. Dear Senate. That's what this is about setting standards of conduct for the president of the United States. So this never happens to us again. So rather than yelling at us and screaming about how we didn't have time to get all of the facts about what your client did, bring your client up here and have him testify under oath about why he was sending out tweets denouncing the vice president of the United States while the vice president was being hunted down by a mob that wanted a hang him and was chanting in this building. Hang Mike Pence! Hang Mike! Pence! Traitor, Traitor, Traitor! Time of the managers air up. Next question the senator from West Virginia. Mr President, I sent the question to the desk directed to the House managers. Yeah, instead of from West Virginia has a question for the House managers. That clerical report. Would the president be made aware of the FBI and intelligence information of a possible attack? And would the president be responsible for not preparing to protect the capital and all elected officials of government with National Guard and law enforcement, as he did when he appeared when he appeared in front of the ST John's Episcopal Church? It's the responsibility of the president to know president of the United States, our commander in chief. It's daily briefings on what is happening in the country that he has a duty to protect. Additionally, the president would have known just like the rest of us. Don't all of the reports that were out there and publicly available? How many of you receive calls saying to be careful on January 6 to be careful that day? I'm not. I'm seeing reports. It doesn't seem safe. How much more The president of the United States, Donald Trump, is our commander in chief, absolutely had a duty on a sworn oath to preserve, protect and defend us, and to do the same for the officers under his command. And he was not just our commander in chief. He incited the attack. The insurgents were following his commands as we saw when we read aloud his tweet attacking the vice president. And with regard to the vice president, I'm sure they did have a good relationship. But we all know what can happen to one who has a good relationship with the president when you decide to do something that he doesn't like. I'm sure some of you have experienced that when he turns again to you after you don't follow his command. You heard from my colleagues that when planning this attack, the insurgents predicted that Donald Trump would command the National Guard to help them. Well, he didn't do much better. He may not have commanded the guard to help them, but it took way, way too long for him to command the guard to help us. This is all connected. We're talking about free speech. This was a pattern and practice of months of activity. That is thean incitement. That is the incitement, the activity he was engaged in for months before January 6, not just the speech on January 6. All of it, in its totality, is a dereliction of duty of the president of the United States against the people who elected him, all of the people of this country. The search from Alaska. Mr. President, I sent a question to that to the desk for the former President's Council. Senator, Alaska. Senator Sullivan has a question for the House Council, and the clerk will report the question. Mr President, uh, for the former President's Council. Sorry about that. Thank you, Mr President. The House managers said yesterday that due process is discretionary, meaning the House is not required to provide and indeed did not provide in this snap impeachment any constitutional protections to a defendant in the House impeachment proceedings. What are the implications for our constitutional order of this new House president, combined with Sen its power to disqualify from public office? Ah, private citizen in an impeachment trial Council has five minutes. That's a complicated question. Could I have that right again? Please? The House managers said yesterday that due process is discretionary, meaning the House is not required to provide and indeed did not provide in this snap impeachment any constitutional protections to a defendant in House impeachment proceedings. What are the implications for our constitutional order of this new House president, combined with Sen its power to disqualify from public office. Ah, private citizen in an impeachment trial. Well, first of all, um, two processes. Never. Discretionary. Good Lord, the Constitution requires that an accused have the right to due process because the power that a prosecutor has to take somebody's liberty when they're prosecuting them is the ultimate thing that we try to save in this case just now. In the last two hours, we've had prosecutorial misconduct. What they just tried to do was say that it's our burden to bring them evidence to prove their case, and it's not. It's not our burden to bring any evidence forward at all. What's the danger? Well, the danger is pretty obvious if a majority party doesn't like somebody in the minority party and they're afraid they may lose the election or if it's somebody in the majority party and there's a private citizen who wants to run against somebody in the majority party, well, they could simply bring impeachment proceedings. And, of course, without due process, they're not gonna be entitled to a lawyer. They're not gonna be entitled to have notice of the charges against them. It puts us into a position where we are the kind of judicial system and governing body that we're all very, very afraid of from what we left hundreds of years ago and what regimes all around this world that endanger us. That's how they act. That's how they conduct themselves without giving the accused due process, taking their liberty without giving them just a basic fundamental right under the fifth through the 14th applied to the states due process. If you take away due process in this country from the accused, if you take that away, there will be no justice and nobody. Nobody will be safe. But it's patently unfair for the House managers to bring an impeachment proceeding without any again without any investigation at all. And then stand up here and say one, uh, they had a chance to bring us evidence. And to, uh, let's, uh, let's, uh, let's see what we can do about flipping around, uh, somebody's other constitutional rights to having a lawyer or toe having uh to see the evidence at all. It just gets brought in without anybody as it was here, without anybody having an opportunity to review it beforehand. They actually sent it to us on the ninth day after we started this. Um, so it's a really big problem. The due process clause applies, uh, to this impeachment hearing. Uh, and, um, it's been severely and extremely violated. This process is so unconstitutional because it violates due process. I'm not even to get into the jurisdiction part. Um, the due process part should be enough to give anybody who loves our Constitution and loves our country Great pause to do anything. But I quit Donald Trump. Thank you, Mr President. These service from Connecticut. Thank you, Mr President. Mr. President, I send a question to the desk for the House managers. They Senator from Connecticut. Senator Blumenthal has a question for the House managers, and the clerk will report the question. Former President Trump and his attorneys have cited the Brandenburg v Ohio case in support of their argument that the First Amendment protects Trump. Did the Brandenburg case prohibit holding public officials accountable through the impeachment process for the incitement of violence? Yeah, Mhm. Thank you, Mr President. Senators. Um, so let's start with the letter of more than 140 constitutional law professors, which I think they described a za partisan in nature. That's a slur on the law professors, and I hope that they would withdraw that. There are very conservative luminaries on that list, including the co founder of the Federalist Society, Ronald Reagan's former solicitor general, Charles Freed, as well as prominent law professors across UH, the intellectual, ideological and jurisprudential spectrum. And they all called their First Amendment arguments frivolous, which they are now. They've been They've retreated to the position of Brandenburg vs Ohio. They want their client to be treated like a guy at the mob. I think they said a guy in the crowd who yells something else even on that standard, this group of law professors said, There's a very strong argument that he's he's guilty even under the strict Brandenburg Standard. Why? Because he incited imminent lawless action and he intended to do it and it was likely to cause it. How do we know is likely to cause it? It did cause it they overran the capital, right? So even if you wanna hold the president of United States of America to that minimal standard and forget about his constitutional oath of office. But as I said before, that would be a dereliction of legislative duty in our part, if we said All we're gonna dio is treat the president. United States, like one of the people he summoned toe Washington to commit insurrection against us. OK, the president swore to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. That's against all comers, domestic or foreign. That's what our says, right? Did he do that? No. On the contrary, he's like the fire chief. He doesn't just say go ahead and shout fire in a crowded theater. He summons the mob and sends the mob to go burn the theater down. And when people start madly calling him and ringing the alarm bells, he watches it on TV, and he takes his sweet time for several hours. He turns up the heat on the deputy fire chief, who he's mad at because he's not making it possible for him to pursue his political objectives. And then when we say we don't want you to be fire chief ever again, he starts crying about the First Amendment. Brandenburg was a case about a bunch of a Klansman who get assembled in a field and they weren't near anybody such that they could actually do violent damage to people. But they said some pretty repulsive racist things. But Supreme Court said they weren't inciting imminent lawless action because you couldn't have a mob, for example, break out the way that this mob broke out and took over the capital of United States of America. And, by the way, don't compare him to one of those Klansmen in the field asserting their First Amendment rights. Assume that he were the chief of police of the town, who went down to that rally and started calling for, you know, a rally at the City Hall and then nurturing that mob, cultivating that mob, pulling them in over a period of weeks and days, naming the date in the time in the place, riling them up beforehand. And then just saying, Be my guest, Go and stop the steal. Come on back to Tom Paine. Use your common sense. Use your common sense. That's the standard of proof we want. They're already treating their client like he's a criminal defendant. They're talking about beyond a reasonable doubt that they think that we're making a criminal case here. My friends, the president, the former president is not going to spend one hour or one minute in jail. This is about protecting our republic and articulating and defining the standards of presidential conduct. And if you want this to be a standard for totally appropriate presidential conduct going forward, be my guest. But we're headed for a very different kind of country. At that point. Brother, the surgeon from Kansas, I sent a question to the desk. The senator from Kansas, Mr Marshall, has a question for the council for the former president. The clerk will read the question. The House managers single article of impeachment is centered on the accusation that President Trump singularly incited a crowd into a riot. Didn't the House managers contradict their own charge by outlining the premeditated nature and planning of this event and by also showing the crowd was gathered at the Capitol even before the speech started and barriers were pushed over some 20 minutes before the conclusion of President Trump's speech. Yes, the House managers contradicted their own charge by outlining the premeditated nature and planning of this event and by also showing the crowd gathered at the Capitol even before the speech started, and barriers were pushed over some 20 minutes before the conclusion of President Trump's speech. The answer is yes, and I want to take the rest of my time to go back to the last question because it was completely missed by the House managers. Brandenburg v. Ohio is an incitement case. It's not an elected official case. That's wood and bond and the whole problem that the House managers have an understanding. The First Amendment argument here is that elected officials are different than everybody else. He's talking about fire chiefs. Fire chiefs were not elected officials. Police officers aren't elected officials. Elected officials have a different higher standard from the holdings that I gave you the highest protections. I should say it's not a higher standard. It's a higher protection to your speech because of the importance of political dialogue because of what you all say in your public debate about policy, about the things that affect all of our lives. That's wicked, important stuff, and you should be free to talk about that in just about any way that you can. Brandenburg comes into play from a constitutional analysis perspective when you're talking about incitement, is the speech itself insightful to riot or lawlessness? One of the two and the answer here is no in Brandenburg, Through again, Bible believers require you toe Look at the words of the speech. You actually can't go outside the words of the speech you're not allowed to in the analysis. So all the time they're trying to spend on tweets going back to 2000 and 15 or everything they want to focus on that was said in the hours and the days afterwards are not applicable or relevant to the Scholastic inquiry as to how the First Amendment is applied in this chamber in this proceeding, and so again, you need to be focused on what's the law? And then how do we apply it to this set of facts? And so it's important to have that understanding that elected officials and fire chiefs are treated differently under First Amendment law, and that's the benefit of you all, which is the benefit of us all, because we do want you to be able to speak freely without fear that the majority party is going to come in and impeach you or come in and prosecute you to try to take away your seat where you sit. Now that's not what the Constitution says should be done, but yes, they do. They do contradict themselves, of course. Thank you, Mr President, the senator from Maryland. I send a question to the desk for the House managers. The senator from Maryland, Senator Van Hollen, has a question for the managers. The clerk will report the question. Would you please respond to the answer that was just given by the former president's council? I was, Mr President, Thank you. I'm not quite sure which questioned the senator was referring to. But let me quickly just dispense of of the council's invocation again of Bond versus Floyd. This is the case I know well, and I thank him for raising it. Julian Bond, uh, was a friend of mine. He was a colleague of mine at American University. He was a great civil rights hero, and in his case he got elected to the Georgia State Legislature. Andi is a member of Stick of Snick, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, the great committee headed up by the great Bob Moses for a long time he got elected to the Georgia Legislature and they didn't want to allow him to be sworn in. They wouldn't allow him to take his oath of office because Snick 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's the complete opposite of Donald Trump. Not only was he sworn in on January 20th, 2017, he was president for almost four years before he incited this violent insurrection against us. And he violated his oath of office. That's what this impeachment trials about. His violation of his oath of office and his refusal to uphold the law and take care that the laws are faithfully executed. Please don't desecrate the name of Julian Bond, a great American. By linking him with this terrible plot against America that just took place in the storming of the U. S. Capitol, I'm gonna turn over to my colleague Ms Plastic. Jim. Thank you. Let's just be clear. President Trump summoned the mob, assembled the mob lit the flame. Everything that followed was his doing. And although he could have immediately and forcefully intervened to stop the violence. He didn't. In other words, this attack would not have happened without him. This attack is not about one speech. Most of you men would not have your wives with one attempt to talking to her. Uh huh. It took numerous trials. You had to build it up. That's what the president did. A swell. He put together the group that would do what he wanted, and that was to stop the certification of the election so that he could retain power to be president of the United States in contravention of an American election. Mr. President, the senator from Florida. I send a question to the desk, the question from the senator from Florida. And it is to both sides. The clerk will read the question on the House. Managers will go first for the 1st 2.5 minutes. Voting to convict the former president would create a new precedent that a former official can be convicted and disqualified by the Senate. Therefore, is it not true that under this new precedent, a future house facing partisan pressure to lock her up could impeach a former secretary of state and a future Senate be forced to put her on trial and potentially disqualify from any future office. The House managers go first. Mr. President. Senators, Three quick points here. First of all, I don't know how many times I can say it. The jurisdictional issue is over. It's gone. The Senate settled it. Uh, the Senate entertained jurisdiction exactly the way it has done since the very beginning of the Republic. In the blunt case in the Belknap case. And you'll remember, uh, both of them former officials on din. This case we have ah, president who committed his crimes against the Republic while he was in office. He was impeached by the House of Representatives while he was in office. So, um, you know, the hypothetical suggested by the gentleman from Florida has no bearing on this case because I don't think you're talking about an official who was impeached while they were in office for conduct that they committed while they were in office. The council for the former president has 2.5 minutes. Thank you. Could I have the question right again to make sure I have it right and can answer it directly. Voting to convict the former president would create a new precedent that a former official can be convicted and disqualified by the Senate. Therefore, is it not true that under this new president, a future house facing partisan pressure to lock her up could impeach a former secretary of state and a future Senate be forced to put her on trial and potentially disqualify from any future office? If you see it their way, Yes. If you do this the way they want it done, that could happen. Thio the example there of former secretary of state. But it could happen to a lot of people. And that's not the way this is supposed to work. And not only could have happened, a lot of people it become much more regular, too. Um, but I want to address that, Um, and I want you to be clear on this. Mr. Raskin can't tell you on what grounds you acquit. If you believe. Even though there was a vote that there's jurisdiction if you believe jurisdictions unconstitutional, you can still believe that if you believe that the house did not give appropriate due process in this that can be your reason to equip if you don't think they met their burden improving incitement that these words incited the violence you can acquit, Mr Raskin doesn't get to give you under what grounds you can acquit. And so you have toe Look at, um ah, what they've put on in its totality and come to your own understanding as to whether you think they've met their burden to impeach. But the original question is an absolutely slippery slope that I don't really think anybody here wants. Toe send this country down. Thank you, Mr President, In the question to the desk, the senator from, uh, will send the question to the desk. But I would note, just for the, uh as the hour tend to get late, I would note for all, uh, council as Chief Justice Roberts noted on January 21st 2020 saying the trial Charles Swain in 1905 All parties in this chamber must refrain from using language that is not conducive to civil discourse. The senator from Colorado, Senator Bennett, has a question for the House managers, and the clerk will read the question. Since the November election, the Georgia secretary of state, the vice president and other public officials withstood enormous pressure to uphold the lawful election of President Biden and the rule of law. What would have happened if these officials had vowed to the force President Trump exerted or the mob that attacked the capital? The House managers have five minutes. You can. I want to take him in and remind everybody about the incredible pressure that Donald Trump was putting on election officials in different states in this country and the intimidation that he was issuing. I want to remind everyone of the background of Donald Trump's call toe one secretary of state, the secretary of state from Georgia, Mr Ralf Ins Burger Donald Trump tried to overturn the election by any means necessary. He tried again and again to pressure and threaten election officials toe overturn the election results. He pressured Michigan officials, calling them late at night and hosting them in the White House. He did the same thing with officials in Pennsylvania. He called into a local meeting of the Pennsylvania Legislature, and he also hosted hosted them at the White House, where he pressured them, and in Georgia it was even worse. He sent tweet after tweet attacking the secretary of state until Mr Raffles Burger got death threats to him and his family. His wife got a text that said, Quote, Your husband deserves facing a firing squad firing squad for doing his job. Mr Mr Robbins Burger stood up to him. He told the world that elections are the bedrock of the society, and the votes were accurately counted for Donald Trump's opponent. Officials like Mr Sterling warn Trump that if this continued, someone's going to get killed. But Donald Trump didn't stop. He escalated it even further. He made a personal call. You heard that call because it was recorded. The president of the United States told US Secretary of State that if he does not find votes, he will face criminal penalties. Please. Senators consider that for a second, the president putting all of this public and private pressure on election officials, telling them that they could face criminal penalties if they don't do what he wants and not just any number of votes that he was looking for. Donald Trump was asking the secretary of state to somehow find the exact number of votes Donald Trump lost. The state by Remember President Biden want Georgia by 11,779 votes? In his own words, President Trump said quote, All I wanna do is this. I just wanna find 11,780 votes. He wanted the secretary of state to somehow find the precise number plus one of votes that he needed toe win as a Congress and as a nation, we cannot be numb to this conduct if we are, and if we don't set a precedent against it, MAWR presidents will do this in the future. This will be a green light for them to engage in that kind of pressure in that kind of conduct, and this could have gone a very different way. If those election officials had bowed to the intimidation and the pressure of the president of the United States, it would have meant that instead of the American people deciding this election, President Trump alone would have decided this American election. That's exactly what was at stake, and that's exactly what he was trying to do. He intended, wanted to and tried to overturn the election by any means necessary. He tried everything else that he could to do to win. He started inciting the crowd, issuing tweet after tweet, issuing commands to stop the count stopped the steel, worked up the crowd sent to save the date. So it wasn't just one speech or one thing. He was trying everything. He was pressuring elected officials. He was riling up his base, telling him the election had been stolen from them, that it had been stolen from him. It was a combination of things that Onley Donald Trump could have done. And for us to believe otherwise is to think that somehow a rabbit came out of hat and this mob just showed up here on their own all by themselves. This is dangerous. Senators in the future of our democracy truly rest in your hands. Mr. President, the senator from taxes. Mr. President, I have sent a question to the desk. The senator from Texas, Mr Cornyn has a question for both counsel for the former president and the House manager. The clerk will read the question and the who recognized first the council for the former president. The House managers have argued that if the Senate cannot convict former officers, then the Constitution creates a January exception pursuant, to which the president is free to act with impunity because he is not subject to impeachment, conviction and removal and or disqualification. But isn't a president subject to criminal prosecution after he leaves office for acts committed in office? Even if those acts are committed in January, the senator from Texas question raises a very, very important point. There is no such thing as a January exception to impeachment. There is only the text of the Constitution, which makes very clear that a former president is subject to criminal sanction after his presidency. For any illegal acts, he commits, there is no January exception to impeachment. There is simply a way we treat high crimes and misdemeanors allegedly committed by a president when he is in office, impeachment and how we treat criminal behavior by a private citizen when they are not in office. The House managers thank you for this Excellent question. Um, wouldn't a president who decides to commit his crimes in the last few weeks in office like President Trump by inciting insurrection against the counting of Electoral College votes be subject to criminal prosecution by the U. S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, for example, the Department of Justice. Well, of course he would be, um, but that's true of the president, regardless of when he commits his offenses in office. In other words, that's an argument for prosecuting him. If he tried to stage an insurrection against the union in his third year in office or second year in office, you could say, Well, he could be prosecuted afterwards. The reason that the framers gave Congress the House the power to impeach the Senate the power to try, convict, remove and disqualify was to protect the republic. It's not a vindictive power. I know a lot of people were very angry with Donald Trump about these terrible events that took place. We don't come here in anger, contrary to what you've heard today. We come here in this spirit of protecting our republic, and that's what it's all about. But they're January exception would essentially invite presidents and other civil officers to run rampant in the last few weeks in office, on the theory that the House and the Senate wouldn't be able to get it together in time, certainly according to their demands for months and months of investigation, wouldn't be able to get it together in time in order to vindicate the Constitution. That can't be right. That can't be right. We know that the peaceful transfer of power is always the most dangerous moment for democracies around the world. Talk to the diplomats, Talk to the historians. They will tell you that is a moment of danger. That's when you get the coups. That's when you get the insurrections. That's when you get the seditious plots. And you know what? You don't even have to read history for that. You don't have to consult the framers. You don't have toe look around the world. It just happened. Tow us the moment when we were just going to collect the already certified Electoral College votes from the States by the popular majorities within each state, except for Maine in Nebraska, which do it by congressional district as well as statewide. But otherwise it's just the popular majorities in the States, and we were about to certify it, and we got hit by a violent insurrectionary mob. Don't take our word for it. Listen to the tapes unless they're gonna claim those air fabricated to and the people are yelling, This is our house now. And where are the blank votes and show us the votes, etcetera. Thank you. The majority leader, Mr President. It's my understanding. There are no further questions on either side. Republican leader. That's correct. I know no further questions on our side. I ask unanimous consent that the time for questions and answers be considered expired without objection. Sorted. Now, Mr President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for myself and Senator McConnell to speak for up to one minute each. And then it be in order for me to make a unanimous consent to request a Ziff in legislative session. The objection so ordered. The center. Thank you, Mr President and Mr President. In a moment, I will ask the Senate to pass legislation that would award Capitol Police Officer Eugene Goodman the Congressional Gold Medal in the weeks after the attack. On January the sixth, the world learned about the incredible, incredible bravery of Officer Goodman on that fateful day here in this trial, we saw a new video, powerful video showing calmness under pressure, his courage in the line of duty, his foresight in the midst of chaos and his willingness to make himself a target of the mobs rage so that others might reach safety. Officer Goodman is in the chamber tonight. Officer Goodman. Thank you. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Mr. Weight. Republican Leader McConnell. I'm sorry, Okay. I just want to say I think we can all agree that Eugene Goodman deserves the highest honor. Congress can be sto. But I Just before we moved to pass this legislation, I wanna be clear that he was not alone that day. The nation's saw and has now seen numerous examples of the heroic conduct of the Capitol police, the Metropolitan Police, swat teams that were with us on January 6th here in the capital protecting us. Our heartfelt gratitude extends to each and every one of them. Particularly now, as members of the force continue to bear scars seen and unforeseen from the events of that disgraceful day. Let us give them all the honor and recognition they so justly deserved. Yeah, Mr. President, the Republican leader pleased to join the majority leader's request January 6 was a day of fear for those who work here in the capital and of sadness for many more watching from afar. But that awful day also introduced our nation to a group of heroes whom we in Congress were already proud to call our colleagues and to whom we all great death in the face of lawlessness, the officers of the U. S. Capitol lived out the fullest sense of their oaths, if not for the quick thinking and bravery of Officer Eugene Goodman. In particular, people in this chamber may not have escaped that day unharmed. Officer Goodman's actions to reflect a deep personal commitment duty and brought even greater distinction upon all his brave brothers and sisters in uniforms. So I'm proud that Senate is taking this step forward, recognizing his heroism with the highest honor we can be so so, Mr President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs be discharged from further consideration of s 35 then at the Senate Proceed to its immediate consideration the objection and the clerk will report as 35 a bill to award a congressional gold medal to Officer Eugene Goodman. Objection. Is this without objection? The committee is discharged, and they said it now proceeds to the measure, Mr President, I ask unanimous consent that the Van Holland Substitute amendment, which is at the desk be considered and agreed to. The bill is amended, be considered, read a third time and passed. And the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table without objection. So ordered Now, Mr President, I ask unanimous consent. The trial adjourned until 10 a.m. Tomorrow Saturday, February 13th, and that this also constitute the adjournment of the Senate without objection. And we are adjourned till 10 o'clock tomorrow. Thanks.