Impeachment trial – Trump acquitted of inciting Capitol attack despite 7 Republicans voting to convict
All the news from Congress, the White House and Mar-a-Lago on the final day of the second Trump impeachment
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Donald Trump has been acquitted of inciting insurrection leading to the violent storming of the US Capitol on 6 January.
Mr Trump was not convicted despite seven Republicans joining 50 Democrats in voting ‘guilty’. A further 10 votes were needed to convict as a two-thirds majority of 67 is required under the Constitution.
The former president released a celebratory statement thanking his supporters and teasing a continuation of his MAGA movement. Meanwhile, he was eviscerated in speeches on the Senate floor by both Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who noted that Mr Trump could still face criminal or civil charges.
In a dramatic morning at the Capitol, the Senate initially voted to allow witnesses in Mr Trump’s impeachment trial in a “game-changing” move that threw proceedings into chaos. Frantic negotiations brought the trial back on track — without witnesses — and it is again expected to wrap up today.
The Trump defence team was seemingly caught off guard by the move by Democrat House managers who specifically requested Republican congresswoman Jamie Herrera Beutler be called to testify. Republicans threatened to call more than 300 witnesses in retaliation for the move.
The motion to have witnesses testify passed 55-45 on Saturday morning, with a handful of Republican lawmakers, including Lindsey Graham, siding with Democrats.
Ms Beutler’s testimony — an account of a chilling conversation between House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy and Mr Trump during the assault on the US Capitol in which the president reportedly refused to call off rioters loyal to him — was instead read into the record.
Key stories:
Rep Joe Neguse provides moving close to his final argument
Representative Joe Neguse, the youngest House impeachment manager, provided a moving closing argument.
“The trial will end. We’ll resume our lives and our work. But for some, there will be no end, no end to the pain of what happened on January 6th. The officers who struggle to recover from the injuries they sustained to protect us. They struggle to recover today.”
He adds: “I fear... the violence we saw on that terrible day may be just the beginning... The extremist groups who grow more emboldened every day. Senators, this cannot be the beginning. It can’t be the new normal. It has to be the end. And that decision is in your hands.”
‘Senators, this is one of those moments'
Representative Joe Neguse also brought up a historical example of Senate action in which the country was put before party, reminding the assembled jurors: ‘Senators, this is one of those moments’.
Referencing the 1986 bill to override President Reagan’s veto of legislation on South Africa, Mr Neguse pointed out that two senators currently in the room voted in favour.
House managers wrap up closing arguments
“Whatever you came to Washington to do... This is almost certainly how you will be remembered by history,” says Rep Jamie Raskin in closing remarks. “That might not be fair... but none of us can escape the demands of history and destiny right now.”
He concludes: “It is now literally in your hands. Godspeed to the United States Senate.”
Defence delivers closing argument
Michael Van der Veen continues the argument that there was no insurrection and no incitement, despite those involved claiming that they understood Donald Trump’s comments as such.
Mr Van der Veen claimed that the 6 January rally was highjacked by groups on the left and right. There was disquiet among Democrats at this comment and Bernie Sanders was seen to shake his head.
Van der Veen says Dems should be cancelled
Mr Van der Veen says Democrats use far more incendiary language and that they “should be cancelled”.
He argues that the mob storming the Capitol was the culmination of the media and politicians supporting Black Lives Matter protests and not supporting law enforcement.
His tactic continues to be to turn accusations on the accusers.
House managers are planning a press conference at 4pm.
Mitch McConnell says he will make an address on the floor of the Senate after the trial.
Former CIA director slams Trump defence lawyer
John Brennan, former CIA director and Obama White House official, tweeted:
“Trump attorney Mr. van der Veen is making a very effective & convincing case to be remembered as one of the most venal, soulless, & perfidious individuals ever to speak in front of the U.S. Senate, which is quite a feat. He cares not a whit about America. Utterly detestable.”
Ouch.
Mr Van der Veen’s closing statement went on a journey from connecting the Black Lives Matter movement to the Capitol riot to saying that they should move past the impeachment to get on with addressing the real business of the nation including racial inequality...
Raskin delivers rebuttal
In a rebuttal to the defence team’s closing argument, Rep Raskin says: “It never occurred to any other president ... to incite a violent insurrection against the Union. You’re right, we’ve got no precedent for that. They think that’s somehow a mark in their favour.”
He adds: “But if that is the ‘Raskin Doctrine,’ that a president of the United States cannot incite violent insurrection against the Union and the Congress, then I embrace it. I take it as an honour. Most law professors never even get a doctrine.”
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments