What we know about Trump’s calls to Republicans as rioters marauded through the Capitol.

Here’s what you need to know: Video transcript Back bars 0:00/1:37 -0:00 transcript Prosecution Drops Call for Witnesses in Trump Impeachment Trial House managers ended the push for witnesses after striking a deal with the defense in which they agreed instead to admit a statement by Representative Jaime Herrera Beutler of Washington into evidence. “Donald John Trump, by his counsel, is prepared to stipulate that if Representative Herrera Beutler were to testify under oath as part of these proceedings, her testimony would be consistent with the statement she issued on Feb. 12, 2021. And the former president’s counsel is agreeable to the admission of that public statement into evidence at this time.” “The managers are prepared to enter into the agreement. I will now read the statement. This is the statement of Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler, Feb. 12, 2021. ‘In my Jan. 12 statement in support of the article of impeachment, I referenced a conversation House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy relayed to me that he’d had with President Trump while the Jan. 6 attack was ongoing. Here are the details. When McCarthy finally reached the president on Jan. 6 and asked him to publicly and forcefully call off the riot, the president initially repeated the falsehood that it was Antifa that had breached the Capitol. McCarthy refuted that and told the president that these were Trump supporters. That’s when, according to McCarthy, the president said, ‘Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.’ Mister president, I now move that the Senate admit the statement into evidence.” “Without objection, the statement will be admitted into evidence.” House managers ended the push for witnesses after striking a deal with the defense in which they agreed instead to admit a statement by Representative Jaime Herrera Beutler of Washington into evidence.CreditCredit...Senate Television, via Associated PressThe Senate hurtled toward acquitting Donald J. Trump on Saturday on the charge of “incitement of insurrection” after House impeachment managers abruptly dropped their push for witnesses only hours after making it, clearing the way for closing arguments and a verdict by day’s end. The trial pushed forward after Democrats prosecuting the former president struck a deal with Mr. Trump’s defense team to add to the trial record a written statement by a Republican congresswoman who has said she was told that the former president sided with the mob as rioters were attacking the Capitol. Earlier, the Senate had voted to allow witnesses in the trial after Democrats made a surprise bid to subpoena Representative Jaime Herrera Beutler, Republican of Washington. They cited a statement she made on Friday night recounting how Representative Kevin McCarthy, the minority leader, had told her of a phone call he had with Mr. Trump during the Capitol attack, in which Mr. Trump said the rioters were more upset about the election than Mr. McCarthy was. But calling witnesses would have prolonged an impeachment trial members of both parties have been eager to bring to a close, even as it was clear that the Senate was on track to hand Mr. Trump his second impeachment acquittal. Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the lead impeachment manager, had initially said he wanted a short deposition held virtually with the congresswoman, who was one of 10 Republicans who voted to impeach Mr. Trump, and a subpoena for her contemporaneous notes. “We believe we’ve proven our case,” Mr. Raskin said moments after the Senate convened in the impeachment trial session on Saturday morning. But he said Ms. Herrera Beutler’s statement amounted to “an additional critical piece of corroborating evidence, further confirming the charges before you.” Five Republicans — Senators Susan Collins of Maine, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah and Ben Sasse of Nebraska — joined Democrats in a 55-to-45 vote to support the call for more witnesses and evidence. (Mr. Graham, who has warned that Republicans would force calls on a number of Democrats should witnesses be voted on, initially voted against the request.) In her statement Friday night, Ms. Herrera Beutler said that Mr. McCarthy had told her of his frantic call to Mr. Trump on Jan. 6 as the Capitol was being besieged. She said Mr. McCarthy said he had asked Mr. Trump “to publicly and forcefully call off the riot.” Mr. Trump replied by saying that antifa, not his supporters, was responsible. When Mr. McCarthy said that was not true, the former president was curt. “Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are,” he said, according to Ms. Herrera Beutler’s account of what Mr. McCarthy told her. Ms. Herrera Beutler’s statement ended with a plea for those who were at the White House with him that day, or former Vice President Mike Pence, to come forward and share eyewitness accounts a

What we know about Trump’s calls to Republicans as rioters marauded through the Capitol.
Here’s what you need to know: Video transcript Back bars 0:00/1:37 -0:00 transcript Prosecution Drops Call for Witnesses in Trump Impeachment Trial House managers ended the push for witnesses after striking a deal with the defense in which they agreed instead to admit a statement by Representative Jaime Herrera Beutler of Washington into evidence. “Donald John Trump, by his counsel, is prepared to stipulate that if Representative Herrera Beutler were to testify under oath as part of these proceedings, her testimony would be consistent with the statement she issued on Feb. 12, 2021. And the former president’s counsel is agreeable to the admission of that public statement into evidence at this time.” “The managers are prepared to enter into the agreement. I will now read the statement. This is the statement of Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler, Feb. 12, 2021. ‘In my Jan. 12 statement in support of the article of impeachment, I referenced a conversation House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy relayed to me that he’d had with President Trump while the Jan. 6 attack was ongoing. Here are the details. When McCarthy finally reached the president on Jan. 6 and asked him to publicly and forcefully call off the riot, the president initially repeated the falsehood that it was Antifa that had breached the Capitol. McCarthy refuted that and told the president that these were Trump supporters. That’s when, according to McCarthy, the president said, ‘Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.’ Mister president, I now move that the Senate admit the statement into evidence.” “Without objection, the statement will be admitted into evidence.” House managers ended the push for witnesses after striking a deal with the defense in which they agreed instead to admit a statement by Representative Jaime Herrera Beutler of Washington into evidence.CreditCredit...Senate Television, via Associated PressThe Senate hurtled toward acquitting Donald J. Trump on Saturday on the charge of “incitement of insurrection” after House impeachment managers abruptly dropped their push for witnesses only hours after making it, clearing the way for closing arguments and a verdict by day’s end. The trial pushed forward after Democrats prosecuting the former president struck a deal with Mr. Trump’s defense team to add to the trial record a written statement by a Republican congresswoman who has said she was told that the former president sided with the mob as rioters were attacking the Capitol. Earlier, the Senate had voted to allow witnesses in the trial after Democrats made a surprise bid to subpoena Representative Jaime Herrera Beutler, Republican of Washington. They cited a statement she made on Friday night recounting how Representative Kevin McCarthy, the minority leader, had told her of a phone call he had with Mr. Trump during the Capitol attack, in which Mr. Trump said the rioters were more upset about the election than Mr. McCarthy was. But calling witnesses would have prolonged an impeachment trial members of both parties have been eager to bring to a close, even as it was clear that the Senate was on track to hand Mr. Trump his second impeachment acquittal. Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the lead impeachment manager, had initially said he wanted a short deposition held virtually with the congresswoman, who was one of 10 Republicans who voted to impeach Mr. Trump, and a subpoena for her contemporaneous notes. “We believe we’ve proven our case,” Mr. Raskin said moments after the Senate convened in the impeachment trial session on Saturday morning. But he said Ms. Herrera Beutler’s statement amounted to “an additional critical piece of corroborating evidence, further confirming the charges before you.” Five Republicans — Senators Susan Collins of Maine, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah and Ben Sasse of Nebraska — joined Democrats in a 55-to-45 vote to support the call for more witnesses and evidence. (Mr. Graham, who has warned that Republicans would force calls on a number of Democrats should witnesses be voted on, initially voted against the request.) In her statement Friday night, Ms. Herrera Beutler said that Mr. McCarthy had told her of his frantic call to Mr. Trump on Jan. 6 as the Capitol was being besieged. She said Mr. McCarthy said he had asked Mr. Trump “to publicly and forcefully call off the riot.” Mr. Trump replied by saying that antifa, not his supporters, was responsible. When Mr. McCarthy said that was not true, the former president was curt. “Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are,” he said, according to Ms. Herrera Beutler’s account of what Mr. McCarthy told her. Ms. Herrera Beutler’s statement ended with a plea for those who were at the White House with him that day, or former Vice President Mike Pence, to come forward and share eyewitness accounts and details about what they saw. Lawmakers in both parties were blindsided by the witness request on Saturday morning, which came just after the top Senate Republican, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, had privately told his colleagues he was ready to acquit Mr. Trump, confirming that a conviction was exceedingly unlikely. Republicans, furious over the prospect of continuing a trial many of them have dismissed as unconstitutional, warned that they would block any efforts to approve nominations to the Biden administration or pandemic relief legislation should the trial continue. “If they want to drag this out, we’ll drag it out,” said Senator Joni Ernst, Republican of Iowa. “They won’t get their noms, they won’t get anything.” With the agreement struck, House impeachment managers and the Trump defense team had up to two hours each to present their closing arguments. A vote on the charge against Mr. Trump is expected soon after. Senator Mitch McConnell, the minority leader, on Friday, the fourth day of former President Donald J. Trump’s impeachment trial.Credit...Brandon Bell for The New York Times Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, informed colleagues Saturday morning that it was a “close call,” but he would vote to acquit former President Donald J. Trump on the charge of “incitement of insurrection” for his role in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, according to three people familiar with the matter. His decision, revealed in an email to colleagues hours before a vote on the verdict, put to rest weeks of uncertainty and public silence about how Mr. McConnell would judge the former president, and confirmed that it was all but certain that the Senate would acquit Mr. Trump. Mr. McConnell said the Senate had no power under the Constitution to remove an ex-president, a position that many constitutional scholars have rejected, according to the people, who shared the contents of Mr. McConnell’s message on condition of anonymity to disclose a private communication. “While a close call, I am persuaded that impeachments are a tool primarily of removal and we therefore lack jurisdiction,” the leader wrote. “The Constitution makes perfectly clear that presidential criminal misconduct while in office can be prosecuted after the president has left office, which in my view alleviates the otherwise troubling ‘January exception’ argument raised by the House.” The leader had let it be known that he believed Mr. Trump committed impeachable offenses and told advisers and colleagues he was open to conviction as the best way of purging Mr. Trump from the Republican Party. He even said publicly that Mr. Trump had “provoked the attack.” But on Saturday, he cited the same constitutional concerns about trying a former president that other Republicans have to justify their votes. His decision could help tamp down possible defections by others in the party contemplating a “guilty” vote. Seventeen Republican senators would need to join the Democrats to reach the two-thirds majority needed to convict Mr. Trump of the single charge he faces. If they did, they could then vote to disqualify him from holding office in the future. Many Republicans were already on record supporting the view that the impeachment trial was unconstitutional. Before the Senate voted Saturday morning on a last-minute call for witnesses, the Senate had been on track to conclude the fastest presidential impeachment trial ever. Michael van der Veen, one of former President Donald Trump’s defense lawyers, has taken an aggressive tack during the impeachment trial.Credit...Brandon Bell for The New York Times On Saturday morning, the Senate echoed with what had become, by Day 5 of former President Donald J. Trump’s impeachment trial, a familiar sound: the raised voice of Mr. Trump’s most combative and animated defense lawyer, Michael T. van der Veen. Mr. van der Veen erupted after House impeachment managers made a last-minute request to call a Republican congresswoman, Jaime Herrera Beutler of Washington, as a witness — via video call — after she claimed knowledge of statements by Mr. Trump in which he sided with the mob that attacked the Capitol. The exchange became so heated that the trial’s presiding officer, Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, admonished Mr. van der Veen and others to observe the chamber’s rules of decorum. The scolding came shortly after Mr. Leahy had issued a similar warning when Democrats laughed at the defense lawyer. The testy back-and-forth on Saturday came when Mr. van der Veen argued — in a tone that at times neared shouting — that Democrats had broken a pledge to wrap up the trial, followed by a threat to call top figures in the party to testify in person. “There are a lot of depositions that need to happen,” he said. “Nancy Pelosi’s deposition needs to be taken. Vice President Harris’s deposition absolutely needs to be taken. And not by Zoom. None of these depositions should be done by Zoom.” “These depositions should be done in person, in my office, in Philadelphia,” added Mr. van der Veen, a personal injury lawyer, who pronounced the name of his hometown with a distinct Philadelphia accent. At that point, several senators began snickering audibly. “I would remind everybody that we will have order in the chamber during these proceedings,” Mr. Leahy said. “I haven’t laughed at any of you, and there’s nothing laughable here,” Mr. van der Veen interjected angrily. A few moments later, he accused Democrats of cutting a “back-room deal” and went on to question their integrity. “They have completely violated and ignored and stepped on the Constitution of the United States,” he said. “They have trampled on it like people who have no respect for it.” At that point, Mr. Leahy leaned into the microphone at the presiding officer’s desk, with its commanding view of the Senate floor, and said, “All parties in this chamber must refrain from using language that is not conducive to civil discourse.” It was not the first time Mr. Leahy had to intervene to rein in Mr. van der Veen. On Friday, he called for order after a testy exchange between the lawyer and Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont nearly devolved into a shouting match. On Saturday, after the Senate voted to allow witnesses, Mr. van der Veen got worked up again. That time, however, he reached for calm. “Let me take my own advice,” he said, “and cool the temperature in the room a little bit.” President Biden boarded Air Force One on Friday as he departed Washington for a weekend at Camp David.Credit...Anna Moneymaker for The New York Times President Biden may have anticipated a quiet weekend, far from debate over the fate of his predecessor, for his first trip to Camp David — but the Senate vote to summon witnesses complicates his plan to refocus the country on his efforts to fight the pandemic. Mr. Biden has mostly distanced himself from the particulars of the trial, with a notable exception on Thursday, when he declared that a graphic video of the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol that was shown during the trial might have changed “some minds.” The approach was in keeping with how Mr. Biden has often handled himself, previously as a candidate and now as president, working quietly in the lee of former President Donald J. Trump’s political storms. But the White House’s expectation that the impeachment trial would end this weekend, allowing Mr. Biden to quickly pivot the country’s attention back to his legislative priorities, was undermined Saturday morning when the Senate approved calling witnesses, putting off a verdict that had been expected to come later that day. The Biden administration was hoping the next week would be largely Trump-free, and the pivot will take place even if the trial is still going. Aides have scheduled a televised town hall focusing on his efforts to fight the pandemic in Wisconsin on Wednesday, followed by a trip to Michigan on Thursday to tour a vaccine-production facility. White House officials had no immediate reaction to Saturday’s dramatic developments, telling reporters at the presidential retreat that Mr. Biden’s plans for the day included a meeting with his national security team. The White House has taken advantage of the attention being paid to Mr. Trump’s trial, dealing with potential embarrassments that would have otherwise gotten more media attention, including the confirmation of Mr. Biden’s pick to head the Office of Management and Budget, Neera Tanden, who has drawn fire for her history of leveling personal attacks on social media. On Friday evening, Mr. Biden took the briefest of Air Force One flights (25 minutes and 57 seconds, according to the press pool accompanying him) to Hagerstown, Md.; loped down the stairs in a mask and leather bomber jacket; then took a 40-minute motorcade drive through the darkened byways of small-town Maryland to a presidential refuge seldom used by Mr. Trump. He had no public events scheduled for the weekend. Bruce L. Castor Jr. and Michael T. van der Veen, lawyers for former President Donald J. Trump, arriving at the Capitol on Friday.Credit...Jason Andrew for The New York Times Former President Donald J. Trump’s lawyers opened and closed their impeachment defense in a span of three hours on Friday, drawing praise from Republicans. Senators then submitted questions to each side. They are expected to vote on whether to convict or acquit Mr. Trump on Saturday. Here are takeaways from the fourth day of the trial. The Trump defense often echoed Trump himself. Lawmakers praised Mr. Trump’s lawyers’ performance as a huge improvement over the rambling and disorganized argument presented on Tuesday by one of the lawyers, Bruce L. Castor Jr., a performance that was widely panned and infuriated Mr. Trump. The defense lawyers said the House managers manipulated their client’s words from his Jan. 6 speech, leaning heavily on Mr. Trump’s single use of the word “peacefully” as he urged backers to march to the Capitol while minimizing the 20 times he used the word “fight.” Mr. Castor said, “The House managers took from that: ‘Go down to the Capitol and riot.’” But that is not what Mr. Trump was asking his supporters to do, Mr. Castor said: “He wanted them to support primary challenges.” The former president stood for law and order, Michael T. van der Veen, one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers, said, picking up a phrase the president has used repeatedly. “Mr. Trump did the opposite of advocating for lawless action, the opposite,” Mr. van der Veen said. “He expressly advocated for peaceful action at the Save America rally.” Trump’s lawyers went on the offensive with videos of their own. The former president’s lawyers began their defense by attacking the House impeachment managers’ case, taking aim at many of the compelling video presentations the Democrats made throughout the week. A defense presentation made to senators on the fourth day of Mr. Trump’s trial.Credit...Senate Television, via Associated PressThe lawyers produced split screens for senators, juxtaposing footage that House managers showed during the first three days of the trial with what the defense argued really happened. Many were labeled “MANAGERS” and “REALITY.” “Like every other politically motivated witch hunt the left has engaged in over the past four years, this impeachment is completely divorced from the facts, the evidence and the interests of the American people,” Mr. van der Veen said. The intent behind the word ‘fight’ came up a lot. Mr. Trump’s defense team presented a rapid-fire video montage of Democrats saying the word “fight” in their political speeches, challenging a key House argument that Mr. Trump incited the attack on Jan. 6 by telling his supporters to “fight” in a speech just before urging them to march to the Capitol. Earlier in the week, House managers played video of that speech, including Mr. Trump saying: “We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” Mr. Trump’s lawyers maintain that this figurative language is common among politicians, as evidenced by the video montage, which they asserted included all the House managers as well as the Democratic senators using phrases such as: “You don’t get what you don’t fight for.” “Get in this fight.” “We will fight when we must fight.” “We are in this fight for our lives.” “Anything that is relevant to attempts to interfere with the Georgia election will be subject to review,” said Fani T. Willis, the top prosecutor in Fulton County, Ga.Credit...Nicole Craine for The New York Times Fani T. Willis, the top prosecutor in Fulton County, Ga., is targeting former President Donald J. Trump and a range of his allies in her newly announced investigation into election interference. Ms. Willis and her office have indicated that the investigation, which she revealed this week, will include Senator Lindsey Graham’s November phone call to Brad Raffensperger, Georgia’s secretary of state, about mail-in ballots; the abrupt removal last month of Byung J. Pak, the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, who earned Mr. Trump’s enmity for not advancing his debunked assertions about election fraud; and the false claims that Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, made before state legislative committees. “An investigation is like an onion,” Ms. Willis told The New York Times in an interview. “You never know. You pull something back, and then you find something else.” She added, “Anything that is relevant to attempts to interfere with the Georgia election will be subject to review.” Kevin Bishop, a spokesman for Mr. Graham, said that he had not had any contact with Ms. Willis’s office. Mr. Giuliani did not respond to a request for comment. Jason Miller, a spokesman for Mr. Trump, has called the Georgia investigation “the Democrats’ latest attempt to score political points.” The activity of Mr. Trump is central to the Georgia inquiry, particularly his call last month to Mr. Raffensperger, during which Mr. Trump asked him to “find” votes to erase the former president’s loss in the state. Ms. Willis, whose jurisdiction encompasses much of Atlanta, laid out an array of possible criminal charges in recent letters to state officials and agencies asking them to preserve documents, providing a partial map of the potential exposure of Mr. Trump and his allies. Mr. Trump’s calls to state officials urging them to subvert the election, for instance, could run afoul of a Georgia statute dealing with criminal solicitation to commit election fraud, one of the charges outlined in the letters. If that charge is prosecuted as a felony, it is punishable by at least a year in prison. Ms. Willis, 49, is a veteran prosecutor who has carved out a centrist record. She said in the interview that her decision to proceed with the investigation “is really not a choice — to me, it’s an obligation.” “Each D.A. in the country has a certain jurisdiction that they’re responsible for,” she added. “If an alleged crime happens within their jurisdiction, I think they have a duty to investigate it.” Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, is expected to tell former President Donald J. Trump that Republicans can’t win the House and Senate in 2022 without him.Credit...Jason Andrew for The New York Times Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said on Friday that he planned to meet with former President Donald J. Trump in the coming weeks to “talk about the future of the Republican Party” as it remains fractured in the aftermath of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. With Mr. Trump, his allies and loyal voters targeting Republican lawmakers who criticized the former president’s role in the attack, including some who voted to impeach him, Mr. Graham’s plans are the latest indication that top Republicans have not left the former president’s corner and are seeking his support as they try to regain power in Washington. “I do believe the test for the Republican Party is: Can we pick up the House, and/or Senate in 2022?” Mr. Graham said. “For that to happen, Trump’s got to work with everybody.” Late last month, Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the minority leader, met with Mr. Trump at his Florida estate for what aides described as a “good and cordial” meeting, and the majority of Senate Republicans are expected to acquit Mr. Trump as early as Saturday in the impeachment trial. Like Mr. McCarthy, Mr. Graham had initially rebuked the president for his comments on Jan. 6 and his slow reaction to the mob storming the Capitol. But his comments on Friday, outlining his planned message to the president, indicated that he was fully intent on continuing to mend fences between congressional Republicans and the president. He declared that the race for Republicans to try to win back both the House and the Senate “begins the Trump comeback in terms of he was a consequential president with good policies.” “I’m going to try and convince him that we can’t get there without you, but you can’t keep the Trump movement going without the G.O.P. united,” Mr. Graham said as he left the Capitol Friday night. “If we come back in 2022, then it’s an affirmation of your policies. But if we lose again in 2022, then it’s going to be — the narrative is going to continue that not only you lost The White House, but the Republican Party is in a bad spot.” But he added, “If it’s about revenge and going after people you don’t like, we’re going to have a problem.” FACT CHECK Michael van der Veen, defense attorney for former President Donald J. Trump, on Friday.Credit...Erin Schaff/The New York Times Donald J. Trump’s lawyers, mounting their defense of the former president on Friday, made a number of inaccurate or misleading claims about the Jan. 6 siege of the Capitol, Mr. Trump’s remarks and the impeachment process itself. Here are some of them. On the former president’s own words in his speech at the Jan. 6 rally. Michael van der Veen, one of the lawyers, misleadingly said that Mr. Trump did not express “a desire that the joint session be prevented from conducting its business” but rather “the entire premise of his remarks was that the democratic process would and should play out according to the letter of the law.” But Mr. Trump repeatedly urged former Vice President Mike Pence to “send it back to the States to recertify” and noted that he was “challenging the certification of the election.” “Far from promoting insurrection of the United States, the president’s remarks explicitly encouraged those in attendance to exercise their rights peacefully and patriotically,” Mr. van der Veen said. Mr. Trump used the phrase “peacefully and patriotically” once in his speech, compared to 20 uses of the word “fight.” On the role of left-wing antifa activists. Mr. van der Veen also claimed that one of the first people arrested in connection with the riots at the Capitol “was the leader of antifa.” That was a hyperbolic reference to John E. Sullivan, a Utah man who was charged on Jan. 15 for violent entry and disorderly conduct. Mr. Sullivan, an activist, has said he was there to film the siege. He has referred to antifa — a loose collective of antifascist activists that has no leader — on social media, but he has repeatedly denied being a member of the movement, though he shares its beliefs. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has said there is no evidence that supporters of the antifa movement had participated in the Jan. 6 siege. On a previous protest outside the White House. Mr. van der Veen equated the Jan. 6 siege to the protests at Lafayette Square in front of the White House last summer, and presented a false timeline, claiming that “violent rioters” repeatedly attacked Secret Service officers and “at one point, pierced a security wall, culminating in the clearing of Lafayette Square.” There was no breach. Law enforcement officials began clearing Lafayette Square after 6 p.m. on June 1, to allow Mr. Trump to pose, while holding a Bible, in front of a church near the square. Additional security fencing was installed after those events, according to local news reports and the National Park Service. On Russian interference in the 2016 election. Similarly, Mr. van der Veen compared Mr. Trump’s complaints and political language about the 2020 election with concerns about the integrity of the 2016 election, arguing that “the entire Democratic Party and national news media spent the last four years repeating without any evidence that the 2016 election had been hacked.” But American intelligence agencies concluded years ago that Russia tried to interfere in the 2016 election. The Republican-led Senate agreed last year that Russia disrupted that election to help Mr. Trump. On the timing of when the article of impeachment was delivered. David Schoen, another lawyer, misleadingly claimed that the House held on to the article of impeachment until “Democrats had secured control over the Senate” and “Representative Clyburn made clear they had considered holding the articles for over 100 days to provide President Biden with a clear pathway to implement his agenda.” In fact, Democrats had considered delivering the article to the Senate earlier, almost immediately after it was approved, but Senator Mitch McConnell, then the majority leader, precluded the possibility of an immediate trial in a letter informing Republican lawmakers that the Senate was in recess and “may conduct no business until January 19.” Mr. Clyburn made his suggestion of withholding the article even longer, after Mr. McConnell had sent his letter. On a graphic the House managers were preparing for their case. Mr. Schoen also accused Democrats of presenting a “manufactured graphic,” referring to a New York Times photo of Representative Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland and the lead impeachment manager, looking at a computer screen. The screen featured an image of a tweet Mr. Trump shared stamped with an erroneous date. Left unsaid was that the image was recreated because Mr. Trump has been banned from Twitter and House managers could not simply show the retweet itself. Mr. Schoen then acknowledged that House managers fixed the incorrect date before presenting the graphic during the trial. On whether Mr. Trump had due process. Mr. Schoen complained once again that the impeachment did not afford Mr. Trump “due process” — a point Mr. Trump’s lawyers and supporters had previously argued during his first impeachment, and a point law scholars had dismissed. There are no “enforceable rights” to due process in a House inquiry, and while those rights exist in the Senate trial, they are limited, said Frank O. Bowman III, a law professor at the University of Missouri and an expert on impeachment. Former President Andrew Johnson, for example, was impeached by the House before it even drew up the articles. “The reality is, Mr. Trump was not in any way, shape or form instructing these people to fight or to use physical violence,” Michael van der Veen said.Credit...Brandon Bell for The New York Times The newest members of Donald J. Trump’s legal team took center stage in his impeachment trial on Friday and delivered exactly what he always seems to want from his lawyers: not precise, learned legal arguments but public combat, in this case including twisted facts, rewritten history and attacks on opponents. After initially stumbling in its first round of arguments on Tuesday, the latest team — either the seventh or eighth to defend Mr. Trump since he became president, depending on your math — followed the playbook Mr. Trump has long wanted his lawyers to adhere to. They channeled his grievances and aggressively spun, making what-about arguments that tried to cast his own behavior as not so bad when compared with the other side. Democrats found their performance infuriatingly misleading, but it potentially provided a vast majority of Republicans in the Senate opposed to convicting Mr. Trump with talking points they can use to justify their votes. “Hypocrisy,” one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers, Michael T. van der Veen, said after they played a several-minutes-long clip of prominent Democrats and media commentators using language like “fight” in an effort to show that Mr. Trump’s own words before the Jan. 6 riot could have had no role in inciting the violence. “The reality is, Mr. Trump was not in any way, shape or form instructing these people to fight or to use physical violence,” Mr. van der Veen said. “What he was instructing them to do was to challenge their opponents in primary elections to push for sweeping election reforms, to hold big tech responsible.” By the end of the day Friday, Mr. van der Veen, a personal injury lawyer from Philadelphia, had emerged as Mr. Trump’s primary defender, handling questions from senators, making a series of false and outlandish claims, calling the impeachment a version of “constitutional cancel culture” and declaring that Friday’s proceedings had been his “most miserable” experience in Washington. Representative Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland and the lead House impeachment manager, responded, “I guess we’re sorry, but man, you should have been here on Jan. 6.” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy speaking at a news conference earlier this month.Credit...Anna Moneymaker for The New York Times The back-and-forth in the Senate on Saturday about calling witnesses in the impeachment trial of Donald J. Trump put a spotlight on the former president’s calls to Republican allies as the rampage unfolded, leaving his vice president, Mike Pence, scrambling for safety. Republicans and Democrats have sparred over how those conversations went. Here’s what we know so far: Mr. Trump sided with protesters in a call to Representative Kevin McCarthy, the minority leader, according to a Republican congresswoman. Representative Jaime Herrera Beutler, Republican of Washington, confirmed late Friday evening that Mr. McCarthy told her that Mr. Trump said in a phone call during the rampage that the rioters were “more upset” about the election than Mr. McCarthy was. Why it matters: If her account, which the prosecutors and defense team agreed on Saturday to admit as evidence, is accurate, the call would disprove the core of Mr. Trump’s defense — that he pleaded for “peaceful” protest. It would also suggest that Mr. Trump’s failure to stop the violence was a calculated choice, and a result of his belief that the rioters were aiding in his effort to overturn the election. Senator Tommy Tuberville says he told Mr. Trump that Mr. Pence was in danger. Mr. Tuberville, a staunch Trump supporter elected to represent Alabama in 2020, told reporters last week that Mr. Trump called him at the height of the riot, and that he informed the president that the Secret Service had just “taken the vice president out” of the Capitol to save him from the mob. When asked how Mr. Trump reacted to the news, the former Auburn football coach told reporters on Friday, “I don’t remember.” Why it matters: Mr. Trump’s defense team has claimed the president did not know Mr. Pence was in danger, without specifying a timeline of when he found out. On Friday, one of Mr. Trump lawyers, Michael T. van der Veen, called the account of Mr. Tuberville — one of Mr. Trump’s most dogged defenders — “hearsay,” likening it to a rumor overheard “the night before at a bar somewhere.” Senator Mike Lee turned over evidence establishing the exact time of Mr. Trump’s call to Mr. Tuberville at 2:26 p.m. Mr. Trump mistakenly called Mr. Lee, a Trump ally from Utah, when he was trying to track down Mr. Tuberville. On Saturday, Mr. Lee gave lawyers on both sides a copy of a log of his cellphone calls — and forcefully repeated his claim that Mr. Trump was calling Mr. Tuberville and not him. Why it matters: Two minutes before the call, at 2:24 p.m., Mr. Trump attacked Mr. Pence on Twitter for “not having “the courage to do what should have been done.” At 2:39 p.m. — about 10 minutes after Mr. Tuberville told him of the dire plight of Mr. Pence and lawmakers — Mr. Trump finally asked his followers to behave in a “peaceful” way. He did not explicitly ask them to leave the building until he posted a video doing so at 4:17 p.m.