[Senate Document 116-18]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]






116th Congress   }                                 {      S. Doc.
                                 SENATE
 2d Session      }                                 {      116-18
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     




                          PROCEEDINGS OF THE 
                         UNITED STATES SENATE 

                                IN THE 

                         IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF 
                           DONALD JOHN TRUMP 
 

                   VOLUME IV: STATEMENTS OF SENATORS 
















[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                            VOLUME IV OF IV












                January 31, 2020.--Ordered to be printed






 
           PROCEEDINGS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE IN THE 
                 IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF DONALD JOHN TRUMP 
                   VOLUME IV: STATEMENTS OF SENATORS 
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   






116th Congress   }                                 {      S. Doc.
                                 SENATE
 2d Session      }                                 {      116-18
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     



                          PROCEEDINGS OF THE 
                         UNITED STATES SENATE 


                                IN THE 

                         IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF 
                          DONALD JOHN TRUMP 


                   VOLUME IV: STATEMENTS OF SENATORS 












[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 


                            VOLUME IV OF IV 


                January 31, 2020.--Ordered to be printed 
                
                             _________
                              
                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                 
41-128                   WASHINGTON : 2020
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
                
            UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENTS RELATED TO PRINTING

                   In the Senate of the United States

                            January 31, 2020

    Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Secretary be authorized to include statements of 
Senators explaining their votes, either given or submitted 
during the legislative sessions of the Senate on Monday, 
February 3; Tuesday, February 4; and Wednesday, February 5; 
along with the full record of the Senate's proceedings and the 
filings by the parties in a Senate document printed under the 
supervision of the Secretary of the Senate that will complete 
the documentation of the Senate's handling of these impeachment 
proceedings.
    The CHIEF JUSTICE. Without objection, it is so ordered.
          [166 Cong. Rec. S769 (daily ed. Jan. 31, 2020)]

                            February 3, 2020

    Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to 
modify the order of January 31 to allow the Senators to have 
until Wednesday, February 26, 2020--that would be the Wednesday 
after we come back--to have printed statements and opinions in 
the Congressional Record, if they choose, explaining their 
votes and include those in the documentation of the impeachment 
proceedings; finally, I ask that the two-page rule be waived.
    The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
          [166 Cong. Rec. S805 (daily ed. Feb. 3, 2020)]

                           February 25, 2020

    Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to 
modify the order of January 31 to allow Senators to have until 
Thursday, February 27, 2020, to have printed statements and 
opinions in the Congressional Record, if they choose, 
explaining their votes and include those in the documentation 
of the impeachment proceedings; finally, I ask that the two-
page rule be waived.
    The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
          [166 Cong. Rec. S1160 (daily ed. Feb. 25, 2020)]
                                FOREWORD

                              ----------                              

    By unanimous consent, the United States Senate has directed 
the creation of this publication, Senate Document 116-18, which 
contains, in four volumes, the official record of the Senate 
proceedings in the impeachment trial of President Donald John 
Trump in the 116th Congress. The purpose of these volumes is to 
preserve for future reference the formal record of the third 
presidential impeachment trial in the nation's history. 
Together with the 18 volumes contained in Senate Document 116-
13, which includes all publicly available material submitted to 
the Senate by the House of Representatives as their evidentiary 
record, these volumes represent the complete official record of 
the impeachment actions against President Trump in the 116th 
Congress.
    The volumes are:
          Volume I: Preliminary Proceedings
          Volume II: Trial Proceedings
          Volume III: Visual Aids From Trial
          Volume IV: Statements of Senators
    More than 20 years after the last presidential impeachment 
trial in the Senate, technology was a major difference in the 
conduct of these proceedings and how the record was presented. 
Audio and video recordings, as well as visual aids (slides) 
were used by both the House managers and counsel for the 
President throughout the course of their arguments. In Volume I 
and Volume II of this Document, the text of what was heard on 
audio and video proceedings is included in the record. However, 
visual aids are not reproduced in the Congressional Record; 
therefore references have been inserted in this record where 
such aids were used by the speaker. Those references indicate a 
slide number and each such slide can be found in Volume III.

                   Volume I: Preliminary Proceedings

    Volume I contains all preliminary impeachment proceedings 
prior to opening presentations by the House managers and 
counsel for the President and commencement of the evidentiary 
portion of the trial.
    On December 18, 2019, the House of Representatives adopted 
two articles of impeachment against President Trump (House 
Resolution 755, 116th Congress). A subsequent resolution, 
adopted on January 15, 2020, appointed managers on the part of 
the House of Representatives (House Resolution 798, 116th 
Congress).
    On January 15, 2020, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and 
Democratic Leader Charles E. Schumer addressed the Senate on 
the issue of impeachment. Following recognition of Senate 
leaders, the Clerk of the House informed the Senate in open 
session that the House of Representatives had passed House 
Resolution 798, authorizing and appointing managers for the 
impeachment trial of President Trump. Subsequently, the Senate 
unanimously agreed to receive the managers, request the 
attendance of the Chief Justice of the United States, appoint 
an escort committee for the Chief Justice, and provide 
necessary access to the Senate Chamber. The Senate notified the 
House of Representatives that it was ready to receive the 
managers and begin the trial.
    On January 16, 2020, Majority Leader McConnell and 
Democratic Leader Schumer addressed the Senate on the issue of 
impeachment. At 12:00 noon on January 16, the managers on the 
part of the House of Representatives appeared at the bar of the 
Senate to exhibit the articles of impeachment, set forth in 
House Resolution 755. Following exhibition of the articles of 
impeachment, the president pro tempore of the Senate, by 
unanimous consent, was authorized to appoint a committee 
consisting of four senators to escort the Chief Justice of the 
United States to the Senate Chamber. On January 16, the 
president pro tempore of the Senate appointed Senators Roy 
Blunt, Patrick Leahy, Lindsey Graham, and Dianne Feinstein to 
serve as the escort committee.
    At 2:00 p.m. on January 16, the Chief Justice, as presiding 
officer of the presidential impeachment trial, took the 
prescribed oath and then administered the oath to all senators 
present. With the Chief Justice presiding, the Senate 
unanimously agreed that a summons be issued to President Trump, 
that his answer to the articles of impeachment be filed with 
the Secretary of the Senate by 6:00 p.m. on January 18, 2020, 
and that the House of Representatives file its replication to 
the President's answer with the Secretary by 12:00 noon on 
January 20, 2020. The Senate also agreed that trial briefs, if 
desired, should be filed by the House of Representatives with 
the Secretary by 5:00 p.m. on January 18 and by the President 
by 12:00 noon on January 20, and any rebuttal brief may be 
filed by the House by 12:00 noon on January 21, 2020. These 
agreements also authorized the Secretary to print all of these 
preliminary matters as a Senate document to be made available 
to all parties. These documents were published within 24 hours 
of their filing as Senate Document 116-12, and are also 
reprinted in this Document in Volume I, both in their original 
form and as they were published in the Congressional Record on 
January 21, 2020.
    On January 21, Majority Leader McConnell and Democratic 
Leader Schumer again addressed the Senate on the issue of 
impeachment. After one remaining Senator was sworn in to the 
impeachment proceedings and additional preliminary matters were 
addressed, Leader McConnell introduced Senate Resolution 483 
(116th Congress) to set forth procedures for consideration of 
the articles of impeachment against President Trump. Counsel 
for the President and then the House managers were each given 
up to one hour to debate the Resolution, presenting the first 
arguments by each side in these proceedings. After initial 
debate on the Resolution, Democratic Leader Schumer proposed 
Amendment Number 1284 to subpoena certain White House documents 
and records. After up to two more hours divided by the parties, 
the amendment was tabled (roll call vote number 15). Ten 
additional amendments (numbers 1285-1294) were proposed by 
Democratic Leader Schumer (one on behalf of Senator Van Hollen) 
dealing with the subpoenaing of documents and records, the 
calling of witnesses, and the timing of trial proceedings. 
After further debate on each amendment, each was tabled by a 
roll call vote. After all amendments had been disposed of, the 
Senate adopted Resolution 483 by a vote of 53 yeas to 47 nays 
(roll call vote number 26).

                   Volume II: Floor Trial Proceedings

    Volume II reproduces the official record of the Senate 
floor proceedings in the impeachment trial of President Trump, 
beginning with opening arguments by House managers and counsel 
for the President, as ordered under Senate Resolution 483. The 
managers presented their case on behalf of the House of 
Representatives on January 22, 23, and 24, 2020. Counsel for 
the President presented their case on January 25, 27, and 28. 
On January 29 and 30, senators posed questions to House 
managers and to counsel for the President.
    On January 31, 2020, pursuant to Senate Resolution 483, the 
Senate considered whether it would be in order to consider and 
debate under the impeachment rules any motion to subpoena 
witnesses or documents. The House managers' argument was 
presented first, followed by counsel for the President. After 
argument, the Chief Justice put the question to the Senate for 
its decision, and by a vote of 49 yeas to 51 nays (roll call 
vote number 27) the Senate determined it would not permit 
motions to subpoena witnesses or documents. Majority Leader 
McConnell then introduced Senate Resolution 488, proposing 
procedures for the remainder of the impeachment trial. 
Democratic Leader Schumer proposed 4 amendments to the 
Resolution. No argument was heard on the Resolution or the 
amendments. Each amendment was tabled (roll call vote numbers 
28 through 31), and the Resolution was agreed to by the Senate 
by a vote of 53 yeas to 47 nays (roll call vote number 32).
    No depositions were taken during the Senate proceedings, 
and no witnesses appeared at the trial. The House managers and 
counsel for the President presented closing arguments on 
February 3.
    Volume II concludes with the February 5, 2020, vote and 
judgment of the Senate to acquit President Trump on two 
articles of impeachment (roll call vote numbers 33 and 34).

              Volume III: Visual Aids From the Proceedings

    Volume III reproduces the complete set of visual aids used 
by House managers and counsel for the President during the 
preliminary and trial proceedings. A notation indicating the 
use of a visual aid is embedded in the transcript of the 
proceedings (Volumes I and II) with citation information for 
items included in Volume III.

                   Volume IV: Statements of Senators

    On January 31, 2020, the Senate unanimously agreed to 
provide each senator an opportunity to place in the 
Congressional Record a statement explaining his or her vote on 
the articles of impeachment, and to include those statements in 
the official record of the Senate's impeachment proceedings. 
Modified on February 3 and again on February 25, the unanimous 
consent agreement set a deadline of February 27, 2020, for 
submission of statements. Those statements are included in 
Volume IV.
    The publication of these volumes, supplemented with Senate 
Document 116-13, sets forth a complete record of this historic 
impeachment trial and will provide for a fuller understanding 
of the way in which the Senate conducted these proceedings.

                            Acknowledgements

    I want to thank my staff from the Executive Office, 
Legislative Offices, Office of the Parliamentarian, Office of 
Printing and Document Services, Senate Historical Office and 
Senate Library for their work on both the trial and the 
execution of this Document.




                         Julie E. Adams,                   
                        Secretary of the Senate.                   

























                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                                                                   Page

Foreword.........................................................   III

                   VOLUME I: PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS

Constitutional provisions on impeachment.........................     1
Rules of procedure and practice in the Senate when sitting on 
  impeachment trials.............................................     3
Senators duly sworn for the impeachment trial of President Donald 
  John Trump.....................................................    14

                            January 15, 2020

Recognition of the Majority Leader regarding impeachment [166 
  Cong. Rec. S201 (daily ed. Jan. 15, 2020)].....................    15
Recognition of the Minority Leader regarding impeachment [166 
  Cong. Rec. S206 (daily ed. Jan. 15, 2020)].....................    17
Message from the House of Representatives announcing appointment 
  and authorizing managers, H. Res. 798, 116th Cong. Rec. (2020) 
  [166 Cong. Rec. S234, (daily ed. Jan. 15, 2020)]...............    19
Unanimous consent agreement on receiving managers [166 Cong. Rec. 
  S234 (daily ed. Jan. 15, 2020)]................................    19
Unanimous consent agreement on requesting attendance of the Chief 
  Justice [166 Cong. Rec. S234 (daily ed. Jan. 15, 2020)]........    20
Unanimous consent agreement on the authorization for appointment 
  of escort committee and House notification [166 Cong. Rec. S235 
  (daily ed. Jan. 15, 2020)].....................................    20
Unanimous consent agreement on Senate access [166 Cong. Rec. S235 
  (daily ed. Jan. 15, 2020)].....................................    20
Resolution by Senator McConnell to authorize taking a photograph 
  in the Senate Chamber, S. Res. 471 [166 Cong. Rec. S235 (daily 
  ed. Jan. 15, 2020)]............................................    22
Message from the House of Representatives announcing impeachment 
  of the President and appointment of managers, H. Res. 755 [166 
  Cong. Rec. S242 (daily ed. Jan. 15, 2020)].....................    23
Notice to the House of Representatives announcing Senate ready to 
  receive managers...............................................    26
Notice requesting attendance of the Chief Justice................    27
Notice to the House of Representatives announcing start of trial.    28
H. Res. 798, 116th Cong. (2020)..................................    29
S. Res. 471, 116th Cong. (2020)..................................    31
Photograph taken pursuant to S. Res. 471, 116th Cong. (2020).....    33
H. Res. 755, 116th Cong. (2020)..................................    34
Sample of Senate impeachment trial gallery tickets...............    43

                            January 16, 2020

Recognition of the Majority Leader regarding impeachment [166 
  Cong. Rec. S255 (daily ed. Jan. 16, 2020)].....................    45
Recognition of the Minority Leader regarding impeachment [166 
  Cong. Rec. S257 (daily ed. Jan. 16, 2020)].....................    46
Exhibition of articles of impeachment against Donald John Trump, 
  President of the United States [166 Cong. Rec. S266 (daily ed. 
  Jan. 16, 2020)]................................................    49
Appointment of escort committee to receive Chief Justice [166 
  Cong. Rec. S267 (daily ed. Jan. 16, 2020)].....................    53
Administration of oath to Chief Justice [166 Cong. Rec. S268 
  (daily ed. Jan. 16, 2020)].....................................    54
Administration of oath to members of Senate [166 Cong. Rec. S268 
  (daily ed. Jan. 16, 2020)].....................................    55
Unanimous consent agreement providing for issuance of summons to 
  Donald John Trump, President of the United States, and the 
  filing and printing of related documents [166 Cong. Rec. S268 
  (daily ed. Jan. 16, 2020)].....................................    56
Unanimous consent agreement on the filing and printing of trial 
  briefs [166 Cong. Rec. S268 (daily ed. Jan. 16, 2020)].........    56
Unanimous consent agreement to authorize installation of 
  appropriate equipment and furniture in Senate Chamber [166 
  Cong. Rec. S269 (daily ed. Jan. 16, 2020)].....................    56
Unanimous consent agreement to conduct Senate business [166 Cong. 
  Rec. S282 (daily ed. Jan. 16 2020)]............................    57
Precept (January 16, 2020).......................................    58
Writ of Summons (January 16, 2020)...............................    59
Return of Service (January 16, 2020).............................    64

                            January 18, 2020

Answer of President Donald J. Trump (January 18, 2020)\i\........    65
Trial memorandum of the United States House of Representatives in 
  the impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump (January 18, 
  2020)..........................................................    73

                            January 20, 2020

Replication of the United States House of Representatives to the 
  answer of President Donald J. Trump to the articles of 
  impeachment (January 20, 2020).................................   185
Trial memorandum of President Donald J. Trump (January 20, 2020).   195

                            January 21, 2020

Reply memorandum of the United States House of Representatives in 
  the impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump (January 21, 
  2020)..........................................................   367
Recognition of the Majority Leader regarding impeachment [166 
  Cong. Rec. S287 (daily ed. Jan. 21, 2020)].....................   403
Recognition of the Minority Leader regarding impeachment [166 
  Cong. Rec. S288 (daily ed. Jan. 21, 2020)].....................   406
Administration of oath to a senator [166 Cong. Rec. S289 (daily 
  ed. Jan. 21, 2020)]............................................   409
Unanimous consent agreement on authority to print Senate 
  documents [166 Cong. Rec. S290 (daily ed. Jan. 21, 2020)]......   409
Answer of President Donald J. Trump (January 18, 2020) [166 Cong. 
  Rec. S290 (daily ed. Jan. 21, 2020)]...........................   410
Trial memorandum of the United States House of Representatives in 
  the impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump, with 
  Appendix (January 18, 2020) [166 Cong. Rec. S291 (daily ed. 
  Jan. 21, 2020)]................................................   412
Trial memorandum of President Donald J. Trump, with Appendix 
  (January 20, 2020) [166 Cong. Rec. S313 (daily ed. Jan. 21, 
  2020)].........................................................   462
Replication of the United States House of Representatives to the 
  answer of President Donald J. Trump to the articles of 
  impeachment (January 20, 2020) [166 Cong. Rec. S369 (daily ed. 
  Jan. 21, 2020)]................................................   587
Reply memorandum of the United States House of Representatives in 
  the impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump (January 21, 
  2020) [166 Cong. Rec. S371 (daily ed. Jan. 21, 2020)]..........   591
Unanimous consent agreement on floor privileges [166 Cong. Rec. 
  S377 (daily ed. Jan. 21, 2020)]................................   605
Resolution by Senator McConnell and amendments thereto by 
  Senators Schumer and Van Hollen relating to procedures 
  concerning the articles of impeachment against Donald John 
  Trump, President of the United States, S. Res. 483, 116th Cong. 
  (2020) [166 Cong. Rec. S377 (daily ed. Jan. 21, 2020)].........   606
    Rollcall vote No. 15 [166 Cong. Rec. S394 (daily ed. Jan. 21, 
      2020)].....................................................   649
    Rollcall vote No. 16 [166 Cong. Rec. S401 (daily ed. Jan. 21, 
      2020)].....................................................   668
    Rollcall vote No. 17 [166 Cong. Rec. S406 (daily ed. Jan. 21, 
      2020)].....................................................   681
    Rollcall vote No. 18 [166 Cong. Rec. S412 (daily ed. Jan. 21, 
      2020)].....................................................   698
    Rollcall vote No. 19 [166 Cong. Rec. S416 (daily ed. Jan. 21, 
      2020)].....................................................   709
    Rollcall vote No. 20 [166 Cong. Rec. S420 (daily ed. Jan. 21, 
      2020)].....................................................   720
    Rollcall vote No. 21 [166 Cong. Rec. S422 (daily ed. Jan. 21, 
      2020)].....................................................   726
    Rollcall vote No. 22 [166 Cong. Rec. S428 (daily ed. Jan. 21, 
      2020)].....................................................   741
    Rollcall vote No. 23 [166 Cong. Rec. S429 (daily ed. Jan. 21, 
      2020)].....................................................   744
    Rollcall vote No. 24 [166 Cong. Rec. S430 (daily ed. Jan. 21, 
      2020)].....................................................   746
    Rollcall vote No. 25 [166 Cong. Rec. S431 (daily ed. Jan. 21, 
      2020)].....................................................   749
    Rollcall vote No. 26 [166 Cong. Rec. S431 (daily ed. Jan. 21, 
      2020)].....................................................   750
S. Res. 483, 116th Cong. (2020)..................................   752
Sample question card used by senators............................   756

                   VOLUME II: FLOOR TRIAL PROCEEDINGS
                            January 22, 2020

Presentation of case by House managers [166 Cong. Rec. S443-485 
  (daily ed. Jan. 22, 2020)].....................................   758
Receipt of a document from the House of Representatives [166 
  Cong. Rec. S485 (daily ed. Jan. 22, 2020)].....................   867
Recognizing the Pages [166 Cong. Rec. S485 (daily ed. Jan. 22, 
  2020)].........................................................   867
Unanimous consent agreement to conduct Senate business [166 Cong. 
  Rec. S485 (daily ed. Jan. 22, 2020)]...........................   867

                            January 23, 2020

Presentation of case by House managers [166 Cong. Rec. S487-529 
  (daily ed. Jan. 23, 2020)].....................................   869

                            January 24, 2020

Presentation of case by House managers [166 Cong. Rec. S531-566 
  (daily ed. Jan. 24, 2020)].....................................   981

                            January 25, 2020

Presentation of case by counsel for the President [166 Cong. Rec. 
  S567-578 (daily ed. Jan. 25, 2020)]............................  1072

                            January 27, 2020

Presentation of case by counsel for the President [166 Cong. Rec. 
  S579-617 (daily ed. Jan. 27, 2020)]............................  1102

                            January 28, 2020

Presentation of case by counsel for the President [166 Cong. Rec. 
  S619-627 (daily ed. Jan. 28, 2020)]............................  1201
Unanimous consent agreement on question period [166 Cong. Rec. 
  S626 (daily ed. Jan. 28, 2020)]................................  1220

                            January 29, 2020

Questions submitted by senators and answers of House managers and 
  counsel for the President [166 Cong. Rec. S645-691 (daily ed. 
  Jan. 29, 2020)]................................................  1222

                            January 30, 2020

Questions submitted by senators and answers of House managers and 
  counsel for the President [166 Cong. Rec. S693-739 (daily ed. 
  Jan. 30, 2020)]................................................  1343
Notice of intent to suspend the rules of the Senate by Senators 
  Blumenthal, Brown and Durbin [166 Cong. Rec. S739 (daily ed. 
  Jan. 30, 2020)]................................................  1463

                            January 31, 2020

Argument of House managers on the question of motions to subpoena 
  [166 Cong. Rec. S753-761 (daily ed. Jan. 31, 2020)]............  1464
Argument of counsel for the President on the question of motions 
  to subpoena [166 Cong. Rec. S761-66 (daily ed. Jan. 31, 2020)].  1486
Vote on the question of motions to subpoena [166 Cong. Rec. S766 
  (daily ed. Jan. 31, 2020)].....................................  1498
    Rollcall vote No. 27 [166 Cong. Rec. S766 (daily ed. Jan. 31, 
      2020)].....................................................  1499
Resolution by Senator McConnell and amendments thereto by Senator 
  Schumer relating to procedures concerning the articles of 
  impeachment against Donald John Trump, President of the United 
  States, S. Res. 488, 116th Cong. (2020) [166 Cong. Rec. S767-
  769 (daily ed. Jan. 31, 2020)].................................  1500
    Rollcall vote No. 28 [166 Cong. Rec. S767 (daily ed. Jan. 31, 
      2020)].....................................................  1501
    Rollcall vote No. 29 [166 Cong. Rec. S767 (daily ed. Jan. 31, 
      2020)].....................................................  1502
    Rollcall vote No. 30 [166 Cong. Rec. S768 (daily ed. Jan. 31, 
      2020)].....................................................  1504
    Rollcall vote No. 31 [166 Cong. Rec. S769 (daily ed. Jan. 31, 
      2020)].....................................................  1506
    Rollcall vote No. 32 [166 Cong. Rec. S769 (daily ed. Jan. 31, 
      2020)].....................................................  1506
Unanimous consent agreement on printing documentation of the 
  impeachment proceedings [166 Cong. Rec. S769 (daily ed. Jan. 
  31, 2020)].....................................................  1507
Text of amendments submitted and proposed, SA 1295-1298 [166 
  Cong. Rec. S769-772 (daily ed. Jan. 3, 2020)]..................  1508
S. Res. 488, 116th Cong. (2020)..................................  1516

                            February 3, 2020

Final arguments of House managers [166 Cong. Rec. S773-778 (daily 
  ed. Feb. 3, 2020)].............................................  1519
Final arguments of counsel for the President [166 Cong. Rec. 
  S778-785 (daily ed. Feb. 3, 2020)].............................  1531
Rebuttal final arguments of House managers [166 Cong. Rec. S785-
  790 (daily ed. Feb. 3, 2020)]..................................  1549

                            February 5, 2020

Vote on first article of impeachment [166 Cong. Rec. S937 (daily 
  ed. Feb. 5, 2020)].............................................  1563
    Rollcall vote No. 33 [166 Cong. Rec. S937 (daily ed. Feb. 5, 
      2020)].....................................................  1564
Vote on second article of impeachment [166 Cong. Rec. S938 (daily 
  ed. Feb. 5, 2020)].............................................  1565
    Rollcall vote No. 34 [166 Cong. Rec. S938 (daily ed. Feb. 5, 
      2020)].....................................................  1566
Communication to the Secretary of State and House of 
  Representatives [166 Cong. Rec. S938 (daily ed. Feb. 5, 2020)].  1567
Expressions of gratitude by the Majority Leader and Minority 
  Leader [166 Cong. Rec. S938 (daily ed. Feb. 5, 2020)]..........  1567
Statement of the Chief Justice [166 Cong. Rec. S938 (daily ed. 
  Feb. 5, 2020)].................................................  1569
Adjournment sine die [166 Cong. Rec. S939 (daily ed. Feb. 5, 
  2020)].........................................................  1570
Legislative Clerk's tally sheets for Senate votes on articles of 
  impeachment....................................................  1571
Judgment of the United States Senate (Feb. 5, 2020)..............  1573

                         TABLE OF ROLLCALL VOTES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Measure/
 Vote No.        Date          Description           Result         Page
------------------------------------------------------------------------
15........  1/21/20......  To subpoena         Motion to Table       649
                            certain White       Agreed 53-47.....
                            House documents
                            and records......
16........  1/21/20......  To subpoena         Motion to Table       668
                            certain             Agreed 53-47.....
                            Department of
                            State documents
                            and records......
17........  1/21/20......  To subpoena         Motion to Table       681
                            certain Office of   Agreed 53-47.....
                            Management and
                            Budget documents
                            and records......
18........  1/21/20......  To subpoena John    Motion to Table       698
                            Michael "Mick"      Agreed 53-47.....
                            Mulvaney.........
19........  1/21/20......  To subpoena         Motion to Table       709
                            certain             Agreed 53-47.....
                            Department of
                            Defense documents
                            and records......
20........  1/21/20......  To subpoena Robert  Motion to Table       720
                            B. Blair and        Agreed 53-47.....
                            Michael P. Duffey
21........  1/21/20......  To prevent the      Motion to Table       726
                            selective           Agreed 53-47.....
                            admission of
                            evidence and to
                            provide for
                            appropriate
                            handling of
                            classified and
                            confidential
                            materials........
22........  1/22/20......  To subpoena John    Motion to Table       741
                            Robert Bolton....   Agreed 53-47.....
23........  1/22/20......  To provide that     Motion to Table       744
                            motions to          Agreed 53-47.....
                            subpoena
                            witnesses or
                            documents shall
                            be in order after
                            the question
                            period...........
24........  1/22/20......  To allow            Motion to Table       746
                            additional time     Agreed 52-48.....
                            to file responses
                            to Motions.......
25........  1/22/20......  To help ensure      Motion to Table       749
                            impartial justice   Agreed 53-47.....
                            by requiring the
                            Chief Justice of
                            the United States
                            to rule on
                            motions to
                            subpoena
                            witnesses and
                            documents........
26........  1/22/20......  S. Res. 483.......  Resolution Agreed     750
                                                53-47............
27........  1/31/20......  Whether to          Answered No 49-51.   1499
                            consider and
                            debate any motion
                            to subpoena
                            witnesses or
                            documents........
28........  1/31/20......  To subpoena         Motion to Table      1501
                            certain relevant    Agreed 53-47.....
                            witnesses and
                            documents........
29........  1/31/20......  To subpoena John    Motion to Table      1502
                            Robert Bolton....   Agreed 51-49.....
30........  1/31/20......  To subpoena John    Motion to Table      1504
                            Robert Bolton....   Agreed 51-49.....
31........  1/31/20......  To help ensure      Motion to Table      1506
                            impartial justice   Agreed 53-47.....
                            by requiring the
                            Chief Justice of
                            the United States
                            to rule on
                            motions to
                            subpoena
                            witnesses and
                            documents and
                            issues of
                            privilege........
32........  1/31/20......  S. Res. 488.......  Resolution Agreed    1506
                                                53-47............
33........  2/05/20......  Impeachment         Not Guilty 48-52..   1564
                            Article I........
34........  2/05/20......  Impeachment         Not Guilty 47-53..   1566
                            Article II.......
------------------------------------------------------------------------

               VOLUME III: VISUAL AIDS FROM THE TRIAL\ii\
                            January 21, 2020

Slides 1-142 [166 Cong. Rec. S380-426 (daily ed. Jan. 21, 2020)].  1577

                            January 22, 2020

Slides 143-228 [166 Cong. Rec. S443-483 (daily ed. Jan. 22, 
  2020)].........................................................  1649

                            January 23, 2020

Slides 229-378 [166 Cong. Rec. S488-527 (daily ed. Jan. 23, 
  2020)].........................................................  1693

                            January 24, 2020

Slides 379-480 [166 Cong. Rec. S531-559 (daily ed. Jan. 24, 
  2020)].........................................................  1769

                            January 25, 2020

Slides 481-504 [166 Cong. Rec. S568-578 (daily ed. Jan. 25, 
  2020)].........................................................  1821

                            January 27, 2020

Slides 505-555 [166 Cong. Rec. S580-613 (daily ed. Jan. 27, 
  2020)].........................................................  1833

                            January 28, 2020

Slides 556-559 [166 Cong. Rec. S621-622 (daily ed. Jan. 28, 
  2020)].........................................................  1859

                            January 29, 2020

Slides 560-571 [166 Cong. Rec. S647-686 (daily ed. Jan. 29, 
  2020)].........................................................  1861

                            January 30, 2020

Slides 572-580 [166 Cong. Rec. S693-729 (daily ed. Jan. 30, 
  2020)].........................................................  1867

                            January 31, 2020

Slides 581-608 [166 Cong. Rec. S753-760 (daily ed. Jan. 31, 
  2020)].........................................................  1873

                            February 3, 2020

Slides 609-616 [166 Cong. Rec. S773-783 (daily ed. Feb. 3, 2020)]  1887

                   VOLUME IV: STATEMENTS OF SENATORS
                            February 3, 2020

Sen. Heinrich....................................................  1891
Sen. Grassley....................................................  1893
Sen. Murray......................................................  1896
Sen. Stabenow....................................................  1899
Sen. Wyden.......................................................  1901
Sen. Manchin.....................................................  1903
Sen. Blackburn...................................................  1907
Sen. Cantwell....................................................  1908
Sen. Schatz......................................................  1911
Sen. Inhofe......................................................  1912
Sen. Cardin......................................................  1917
Sen. Loeffler....................................................  1925
Sen. Udall.......................................................  1926
Sen. Gillibrand..................................................  1929
Sen. Murkowski...................................................  1930
Sen. Young.......................................................  1932

                            February 4, 2020

Sen. McConnell...................................................  1935
Sen. Schumer.....................................................  1938
Sen. Thune.......................................................  1939
Sen. Cassidy.....................................................  1942
Sen. Ernst.......................................................  1945
Sen. Wicker......................................................  1946
Sen. Blumenthal..................................................  1948
Sen. Van Hollen..................................................  1952
Sen. Peters......................................................  1954
Sen. Whitehouse..................................................  1956
Sen. Smith.......................................................  1960
Sen. Paul........................................................  1962
Sen. Fischer.....................................................  1966
Sen. Capito......................................................  1968
Sen. Roberts.....................................................  1970
Sen. Hoeven......................................................  1972
Sen. Menendez....................................................  1973
Sen. Markey......................................................  1976
Sen. Carper......................................................  1979
Sen. Kaine.......................................................  1982
Sen. Cruz........................................................  1984
Sen. Kennedy.....................................................  1987
Sen. Perdue......................................................  1989
Sen. Daines......................................................  1992
Sen. Rounds......................................................  1994
Sen. Shaheen.....................................................  1998
Sen. Feinstein...................................................  2001
Sen. Warner......................................................  2003
Sen. Tester......................................................  2006
Sen. Collins.....................................................  2008
Sen. Booker......................................................  2011
Sen. Portman.....................................................  2016
Sen. Casey.......................................................  2019
Sen. Boozman.....................................................  2021
Sen. Lankford....................................................  2024
Sen. King........................................................  2028

                            February 5, 2020

Sen. Merkley.....................................................  2031
Sen. Cornyn......................................................  2033
Sen. Hawley......................................................  2042
Sen. Alexander...................................................  2043
Sen. Sasse.......................................................  2053
Sen. Harris......................................................  2055
Sen. Hassan......................................................  2057
Sen. Jones.......................................................  2059
Sen. Reed........................................................  2062
Sen. Duckworth...................................................  2065
Sen. Blunt.......................................................  2068
Sen. Lee.........................................................  2070
Sen. Cramer......................................................  2075
Sen. Hyde-Smith..................................................  2076
Sen. Risch.......................................................  2077
Sen. Brown.......................................................  2079
Sen. Hirono......................................................  2082
Sen. Bennet......................................................  2085
Sen. Baldwin.....................................................  2088
Sen. Murphy......................................................  2091
Sen. Romney......................................................  2093
Sen. Scott (SC)..................................................  2096
Sen. Coons.......................................................  2098
Sen. Gardner.....................................................  2101
Sen. Leahy.......................................................  2104
Sen. Shelby......................................................  2108
Sen. Durbin......................................................  2110
Sen. Graham......................................................  2116
Sen. Schumer.....................................................  2122
Sen. McConnell...................................................  2127
Sen. Grassley....................................................  2129
Sen. Leahy.......................................................  2135
Sen. Enzi........................................................  2137
Sen. Burr........................................................  2140
Sen. Sanders.....................................................  2145
Sen. Toomey......................................................  2147
Sen. Rubio.......................................................  2149
Sen. Johnson.....................................................  2150
Sen. Blumenthal..................................................  2164
Sen. Warren......................................................  2176
Sen. Peters......................................................  2177
Sen. Cotton......................................................  2179
Sen. Sullivan....................................................  2181
Sen. Cortez Masto................................................  2187
Sen. Rosen.......................................................  2190

                           February 10, 2020

Sen. Barrasso....................................................  2192

                           February 12, 2020

Sen. Schumer.....................................................  2197
Sen. Brown.......................................................  2200

                           February 13, 2020

Sen. McConnell...................................................  2203

                           February 25, 2020

Sen. Lankford....................................................  2206
Sen. Tillis......................................................  2222

                           February 27, 2020

Sen. Reed........................................................  2225
Sen. Casey.......................................................  2272
Sen. Cramer......................................................  2283

    \i\For ease of reference, the documents contained in S. Doc. 116-
12, i.e., the pertinent constitutional provisions, the Senate 
Impeachment Rules, the Articles of Impeachment, the Answer of President 
Trump, and the Replication of the House of Representatives, are 
reprinted in this publication.
    \ii\Slide images are only printed in Volume III. Congressional 
Record pages have been listed for ease of reference.
           [From the Congressional Record, February 3, 2020]

                  Statement of Senator Martin Heinrich

    Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, and all of my colleagues in 
the Senate, throughout this impeachment trial, I thought a lot 
about what this country stands for. For me, as the son of an 
immigrant whose family came to the United States from Germany 
in the 1930s, America stands as a beacon of liberty, equal 
justice, and democracy.
    We are a nation forged by a revolution against a monarchy 
and its absolute power. We are a nation founded by the 
ratification of the most radically democratic document in 
history, the Constitution of the United States of America.
    Under the Constitution, we are governed not by monarchs--
who act with impunity and without accountability--but by 
elected officers who answer to, and work for, ``We the 
People.''
    Generations of Americans have struggled and sacrificed 
their lives to defend that audacious vision. The Senate has a 
duty and a moral responsibility to uphold that vision.
    Over the last 2 weeks, I fear that the Senate has failed in 
that duty. I am deeply disappointed that nearly all of my 
Republican colleagues refused to allow for the kind of witness 
testimony and documentary evidence that any legitimate trial 
would include. You cannot conduct a fair trial without 
witnesses.
    In my view, you also can't have a legitimate acquittal 
without a fair trial; that the Senate refused to shed more 
light on the facts is truly astonishing. Despite this, the 
facts as we know them are clear and plain. President Trump 
pressured the Government of Ukraine, an American ally, not for 
our national security interests but for his own selfish and 
corrupt political interests. When he was caught, he sought to 
cover it up by suppressing documents and preventing witnesses 
from testifying before Congress and the American people.
    The President's defense team had every opportunity to 
present us with evidence that would explain his actions or give 
us reason to doubt this clear pattern of fact. Instead, they 
shifted their defense away from the damning facts and embraced 
an extreme legal philosophy that would allow any President to 
abuse their power and ignore the law.
    This dangerous argument is not new. It was used by 
President Richard Nixon when he said: ``Well, when the 
president does it, that means it is not illegal.''
    President Nixon also strayed far from his duties to our 
Nation for his own personal and political gain. It was only 
after courageous Members of the U.S. Senate, in his own 
political party, put their country first and stood up to him 
that President Nixon finally resigned.
    We are now in yet another time when our Chief Executive has 
failed us, and our Nation requires more leadership and 
conscience from the U.S. Senate. Unfortunately, my Republican 
colleagues are unwilling to deliver that kind of moral 
leadership.
    President Donald Trump has proven to be unfit for the 
office he occupies. He abused his powers and continues to 
engage in a coverup. He presents a clear and present danger to 
our national security and, more fundamentally, to our democracy 
itself.
    That is why my conscience and my duty to defend our 
Constitution compel me to vote to convict Donald Trump. I hope 
the rest of you will join in this vote, but I am not naive. I 
understand how President Trump operates. I know how ugly it can 
become if you dare to challenge him. But your fear of this 
bully cannot outweigh your duty to the American people. Your 
fear cannot blind you to how you will be viewed by history. 
What you should really fear is what will happen when there are 
no limits on any President, even when he is risking our 
national security and our foreign alliances to illegitimately 
maintain his grip on power.
    What we should all fear is what President Trump will do 
next if the Senate does not hold him accountable for the clear 
abuses of power he has already committed. This is the same 
President who praises dictators and despots and jeopardizes our 
international alliances. This is the same President who stole 
billions of dollars from military construction funds to pay for 
his monument to division and racism. This is the same President 
who is more focused on lobbing insults and spreading Russian 
conspiracy theories on Twitter than he is on his own 
intelligence briefings.
    Let me just say that I pay close attention to the 
intelligence that I am allowed to see, and from my seat on both 
the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees, I am acutely 
aware of the threats that our Nation faces. They include an 
emboldened North Korea, the Iranian regime, and terrorist 
organizations across several continents.
    Russia and China are acting aggressively to assert their 
authoritarian influence and provoke American interests and our 
allies, including the Ukraine. Finally, with the 2020 
Presidential election mere months away, Russia is once again 
targeting our election systems and manipulating our democratic 
discourse.
    Right now, patriotic Americans working in the State 
Department, for our intelligence agencies, and serving in the 
military are defending us from those very threats. These 
Americans pledge to obey the orders of their Commander in 
Chief. They trust that their Commander in Chief's loyalty and 
sole focus is squarely on the best interests of the United 
States of America. I don't say this lightly: President Trump 
has betrayed that trust. He promised us that he would put 
America first. Instead, he put himself first.
    Throughout our history, the defense of our Nation has 
depended on the leadership of men whose names we now remember 
when we visit their memorials, names like Lincoln and 
Washington and Roosevelt. These men all swore the same oath 
that President Trump did when they assumed our Nation's most 
powerful office. Our Presidents swear to ``faithfully execute 
the Office of President of the United States'' and to 
``preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United 
States.'' President Trump has violated that oath.
    So I will ask us once again, what does America stand for? 
In considering that question, I think of Dr. Martin Luther 
King, Jr.--the only man who did not serve as President whom we 
recognize with a memorial on our National Mall. More than 50 
years after his assassination, Dr. King's life's work to make 
our Nation more fully live up to our founding principles still 
resonates. These are the same principles that compelled my 
father's family to come to this country: liberty, equal 
justice, democracy.
    While fighting for those principles, Dr. King wrote in his 
letter from a Birmingham jail: ``The ultimate measure of a man 
is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, 
but where he stands in times of challenge and controversy.'' My 
colleagues, this is one of those times.
    Two years after writing the Birmingham Jail letter, Dr. 
King led thousands on a 5-day, 54-mile march from Selma to 
Montgomery for our fundamental American right: the right to 
vote in free and fair elections. Remember, that right is what 
President Trump has threatened by inviting foreign interference 
in our elections. Upon reaching the steps of the Alabama State 
Capitol, Dr. King proclaimed: ``We must come to see that the 
end we seek is a society at peace with itself, a society that 
can live with its conscience.'' I sincerely hope that those of 
us in this body can keep seeking that society, that America.
    Before I finish, I also want to address Americans who have 
watched this trial unfold and are rightly disappointed by the 
coverup that it has become. I would urge you to remember what 
Dr. King said about accepting finite disappointment but never 
losing infinite hope. Despite what the Senate is about to do 
and the danger I fear it will bring about, I will never lose 
hope in what America stands for because we the people--not any 
King or dictator--still hold immense power in this Nation, and 
it is up to all of us now to wield that power.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 3, 2020]

                  Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley

    Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as Senators, we cast many 
votes during our time here. I have cast over 13,200. Each one 
of those votes is important, but a vote to convict or acquit 
the President on charges of impeachment is perhaps the most 
important vote a Senator could ever cast. Until now, it has 
happened only twice in our Nation's history, and it is 
something that should never be taken lightly.
    President Trump has been charged of committing, according 
to the Constitution and in these articles, ``high Crimes and 
Misdemeanors'' for requesting that a foreign leader investigate 
his potential political opponent and, No. 2, obstructing 
Congress's inquiry into those actions. For this, we are asked 
to permanently remove him from office.
    As a judge and juror, as we all are, I first ask whether 
the charges rise to an offense that unquestionably demands 
removal from office. If so, I then ask whether the House proved 
beyond a reasonable doubt that it actually occurred.
    The House's case fails on the first of those questions. The 
President's request is not impeachable conduct under our 
Constitution. A President isn't prohibited by law from engaging 
the assistance of a foreign ally in an anti-corruption 
investigation.
    The House tries to make up for this hurdle by suggesting 
that subjective motive--in other words, political advantage--
can turn an otherwise unimpeachable act into an act that 
demands removal from office. I won't support such an 
irreversible break from the Constitution standard for 
impeaching a President.
    The Senate is an institution of precedent. We are informed 
and guided by history and the actions of our predecessors, but 
our choices also actually make history. These days, that can be 
difficult to keep in mind. A rush to convict or acquit can lead 
to cut corners and overheated rhetoric.
    We are each bound by our oath to ``do impartial justice.'' 
As President pro tempore of this institution, I recognize that 
we must also do justice to the Senate and to the Republic that 
this Senate serves.
    This trial began with a full and fair debate on the rules 
to guide our process. We considered and voted on 11 amendments 
over nearly 13 hours. Consistent with precedent, the Senate 
adopted rules allowing the same length of time for arguments 
and questions as was agreed to unanimously in the 1999 Clinton 
impeachment. Consistent with precedent, we engaged in a robust 
debate on calling witnesses and pursuing additional evidence. 
We sat as a Court of Impeachment for over 70 hours. The final 
vote will be the product of a fair and judicial process 
consistent with precedent of the Senate.
    I cannot say the same of the Articles of Impeachment that 
we are considering today from the House of Representatives, 
which has the sole power of impeachment. After 9 days of 
presentation and questions and after fully considering the 
record, I am convinced that what the House is asking the Senate 
to do is constitutionally flawed and dangerously unprecedented.
    The House's abuse of power article rests on objectively 
legal conduct. Until Congress legislates otherwise, a President 
is within his authority to request that a foreign leader assist 
with anti-corruption efforts. To make up for this, the House of 
Representatives' abuse of power theory rests entirely on the 
President's subjective motive. This very vague standard cannot 
be sustained.
    The House offers no limiting principle of what motives are 
allowed. Under such a flexible standard, future House of 
Representatives could impeach Presidents for taking lawful 
action for what a majority thinks are the wrong reasons.
    The House also gives no guidance whatsoever on whether 
conviction rests on proving a single, corrupt motive or whether 
mixed motives suffice under their theory. In its trial brief, 
the House of Representatives argues that there is ``no credible 
alternative explanation''--those are their words--for the 
President's alleged conduct, but once the Senate heard from the 
President's counsel in defense, then all of a sudden, the House 
changed its tune. Now, even a credible alternative explanation 
shouldn't stop the Senate from removing the President.
    Reshaping their own standard midtrial only serves to 
undercut their initial arguments. And simply asserting--at 
least 63 times that I counted--that their evidence was 
``overwhelming'' doesn't make the House of Representatives' 
allegations accurate or prove an impeachable offense. Even 
after arguments had concluded, the House managers started 
repeating the terms ``bribery'' and ``extortion'' on the floor 
of the Senate, while neither term appears anywhere in their 
Articles of Impeachment.
    So you get down to this point. It is not the Senate's job 
to read into House articles what the House failed or didn't see 
fit to incorporate itself. Articles of Impeachment shouldn't be 
moving targets like moving a goalpost. The ambiguity 
surrounding the House's abuse of power theory gives this 
Senator reason enough to vote not guilty. If we are to lower 
the bar of impeachment--and that is what the House of 
Representatives is trying to do--we better be clear on where 
the bar is being set.
    The House's second article impeaching the President for 
what they call obstruction of Congress is equally unprecedented 
and equally patently frivolous. This Senator takes great pride 
in knowing a thing or two about obstruction by the executive 
branch from both Republican Presidents and Democratic 
Presidents in the 40 years that I have been doing oversight. 
Congressional oversight--like rooting out waste, fraud, and 
abuse--is central to my role as a Senator representing Iowa 
taxpayers. In the face of obstruction, I use the tools the 
Constitution provides to this institution. Now, that is the 
very core of the checks and balances of our governmental 
system.
    For example, I fought the Obama administration to obtain 
documents related to Operation Fast and Furious. Under the 
House's obstruction standard, should President Obama have been 
impeached for his failure to waive privileges during the course 
of that investigation? We fought President Obama on this for 3 
years in the courts, and we still didn't end up with all that 
we asked for. We never heard a peep from the Democrats when 
Obama pulled that trick.
    The hypocrisy here by the House Democrats has been on full 
display for the last 2 weeks. In the case before us, the House 
issued a series of requests and subpoenas to the executive 
branch, but the House failed to enforce those requests. When 
challenged to stand up for its subpoenas in court, the 
investigating committee simply retreated.
    The House may cower at defending its own authority, but the 
Senate shouldn't have to clean up the mess of the House's own 
making. For the many ways in which the House failed in the 
fundamentals of oversight and for the terrible new precedent 
this obstruction article would set, I will vote not guilty.
    Another point: There has been debate about the 
whistleblower, whose complaint motivated the House's 
impeachment inquiry. I have worked for and with whistleblowers 
for more than 30 years. I have sponsored numerous laws to 
strengthen whistleblower protections. Attempts by anyone to 
``out'' a whistleblower just to sell an article or to score a 
political point are not helpful at all. It is not the treatment 
any whistleblower deserves. However, it is important for 
investigators to talk to whistleblowers and to evaluate their 
claims and credibility because those claims form the basis of 
an inquiry under checks and balances of government.
    My office does this all the time. When whistleblowers bring 
significant cases of bipartisan interest, we frequently work 
closely with the Democrats to look into those claims. I know 
the House committees have followed that course in the past. 
Both parties understand how to talk to whistleblowers and 
respect confidentiality.
    Why no efforts were taken in this case to take these very 
basic, bipartisan steps is very baffling to me. I fear that, to 
achieve its desired goal, the House majority weaponized and 
politicized whistleblowers for purely partisan purposes. I hope 
that the damage done will be short-lived. Otherwise, the 
separation of powers under our Constitution will be weakened.
    Finally, I have always made it a priority to hold judicial 
nominees to a standard of restraint and fidelity to the law, 
and as judges in this case, which every Senator is, we should 
consider those factors which counsel restraint.
    These articles came to the Senate as a product of a flawed, 
unprecedented, and partisan process. When the articles were 
voted on by the full House, the only bipartisanship was of 
those in opposition. Moreover, tonight, the Iowa caucuses will 
be finished. The 2020 Presidential election is underway. Yet we 
are all asked to remove the incumbent from the ballot based on 
an impeachment that is supported by only one party of the 
Congress.
    The Senate should take no part in endorsing the very 
dangerous new precedent that this would set for future 
impeachments. We need no new normal when it comes to impeaching 
a President. We have precedents of the past that should be 
followed, and they have not been followed. We have had more 
than 28,000 pages of evidence. We have had 17 witnesses and 
over 70 hours of open, transparent consideration by the Senate. 
The American people are more than adequately prepared to decide 
for themselves the fate of the President in November. This 
decision belongs to the voters. It is time to get the Senate 
back to work for the American people on issues of substance.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 3, 2020]

                   Statement of Senator Patty Murray

    Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I have been in the Senate now 
for two Presidential impeachment trials, and I can tell you 
that this is never a situation I want to find our country in--
not back then and certainly not today--when the odds of 
bipartisan cooperation, even on responsibilities as solemn as 
these, are brutally low.
    In spite of this, I called for impeachment proceedings to 
begin in the House in July of this past year, and I did so 
because of the gravity of the threats to our democracy that has 
been outlined in Mueller's report. At the time, I felt, if we 
did not fully explore those threats, we would fall short of our 
constitutional duty and set a precedent of congressional 
indifference to potentially flagrant violations of our 
Constitution--ones that could jeopardize our core democratic 
institutions.
    After hearing both sides' presentations and after reviewing 
every available source of information and testimony, I believe 
it is painfully clear that the President of the United States 
has abused his power and obstructed Congress and that he should 
be removed from office.
    I want to talk about how I reached this conclusion, which I 
did not do lightly, and take a few minutes to reflect on the 
consequence of the decision each of us is individually about to 
make.
    Throughout the trial, the contrast between the 
presentations by the House managers and the President's defense 
team could not have been starker or more damning for the 
President.
    The House managers built an ironclad case that shows the 
President abused his power and obstructed Congress in ways that 
present grave, urgent threats to our national security and to 
the rule of law. Over the course of their arguments, it became 
undeniably clear: The corruption we have learned so much about 
in recent months starts at the very top--with the President of 
the United States.
    President Trump demanded a foreign government to intervene 
in our elections for his own political gain, and he did so by 
withholding American taxpayer dollars and by ignoring 
congressional authority. The President's associates acted with 
his full knowledge and consent, and he himself pressured 
Ukraine's leader, knowing how much Ukraine depended on United 
States support. These actions have already made us less secure 
as a nation. By delaying vital military aid to Ukraine--a key 
partner--President Trump has emboldened Russia, one of our 
chief adversaries, and he has undermined our credibility with 
other allies worldwide.
    Critically, the President has also given every indication 
he will continue to put his own interests ahead of American 
interests, including in our upcoming elections, and he has, 
time and again, refused to recognize Congress's constitutional 
authority to oversee the executive branch. In addition, 
information continues to come out that further implicates the 
President and demonstrates not only his intent to abuse the 
power of our highest office but his direct personal engagement 
and efforts to do so.
    To summarize, the House's arguments made it impossible to 
ignore a reality our Founders deeply feared--a President who 
betrays our national security for his own personal benefit and 
disregards the system of checks and balances on which our 
democratic institutions depend, who believes he is above the 
law--contrary to the most fundamental American principles.
    The President's defense did not directly refute those 
charges against the President or the thorough case that the 
House presented. In fact, the President's defense only served 
to illustrate how indefensible the President's actions were. We 
heard complaints from the President's defense about the House's 
process, which the President refused to engage in.
    We heard a debunked conspiracy theory about Ukrainian 
election interference even though the President's own advisers 
repeatedly explained to him that Russia, not Ukraine, 
interfered in our 2016 election.
    We heard the denial of a quid pro quo that, as the House 
managers laid out in excruciating detail, was borne out not 
only on the President's July 25 call with President Zelensky 
but in hundreds of documents from before and after that call.
    We did not, however, hear any substantive defense of the 
President's actions. Tellingly, the President's defense 
vehemently opposed commonsense requests for the President's own 
key aides to testify and for the consideration of his aides' 
documents as part of this trial.
    If the President were as innocent as he claims, surely, his 
aides and his administration's materials would bear those 
claims out, and he would want them considered. He and his team 
do not.
    In 1999, I said that, if we were to remove a sitting 
President, none of us should have any doubts. Based on the 
facts we have heard today and the distraction and obfuscation 
that has been offered in response, none of us should have any 
doubts that the President committed the impeachable offenses of 
which he is accused.
    What we now know is the President of the United States 
demanded that a foreign government interfere in our elections 
to help him win his upcoming campaign. That truth is 
indisputable. The question is, What does each of us as an 
individual do with that information?
    In sitting here, I have been reminded that this trial is so 
much larger than any one of us--larger than any political party 
and much larger than President Trump. It is fundamentally about 
whether we will stand up for the institutions that secure our 
autonomy as a people--institutions we hope to leave stronger 
for our children and grandchildren.
    To go a step further, really, this trial is about freedom 
in our country because, if the President feels he owes his 
office to a foreign government, not to Americans, then whom 
does the President truly serve? How can he be trusted? If 
foreign governments can skew our elections in their favor, if 
they interfere with Americans at the ballot box this November, 
then are Americans truly represented in the White House? Is 
there any American who is really free if a President can owe 
his election to an entity outside and aside from the American 
people and if foreign governments can help to decide who is in 
our highest office?
    These questions and their chilling answers have led me to 
my final decision, and I hope others consider them carefully as 
they make their own.
    I also want to speak for a minute about fear. There are 
really two different kinds at work in this moment. One is the 
fear of political consequences. I remember how many Members of 
Congress felt compelled to vote for the war in Iraq. The 
political pressure was palpable. That kind of political fear is 
palpable again today, but fear of political consequences must 
never supersede concern for our country, and we should be 
fearful for our country today.
    We should be fearful for our future, for our safety, and 
the rule of law if the evidence we have heard cannot persuade 
this body to act on the painful truth before us. Our President 
has betrayed the public trust, flagrantly violated our laws, 
and proved himself a threat to our national security. So I ask 
my colleagues how they want to feel not in this moment here 
today but in the years ahead and as part of our Nation's 
history as more information continues to come out about this 
administration--and it will--as we get closer to an election we 
still have a unique opportunity to help protect, and as we 
explain this difficult but pivotal time to our grandchildren. 
Looking back, whom or what will you want to have stood for--
this President or our country?
    I believe, as Representative Schiff said so simply and 
powerfully, that in America, ``right matters.''
    But I also note right matters only because so many people 
have, throughout our history, stood up for what is right, even 
when--especially when--it may be difficult.
    Today each U.S. Senator is called to do the same.
    Thank you, Mr. President.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 3, 2020]

                  Statement of Senator Debbie Stabenow

    Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to speak during a 
sad and perilous moment in our Nation's history.
    Our Nation was founded on important, basic principles that 
``all men'' and women ``are created equal'' and ``that they are 
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that 
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.''
    With rights, of course, always come responsibilities. 
America is a nation of laws, and no person, not even the 
President of the United States, is above these laws. No person, 
not even the President of the United States, is above these 
laws. That has been true since our Nation was founded, and it 
is still true today.
    Unfortunately, President Donald Trump has abused his power 
and acted as if he is above the law. He did this by holding up 
critical military aid to pressure a new foreign leader to 
investigate a political rival for his own political benefit. 
Then he did everything he could to try and cover it up after he 
got caught.
    As U.S. Senators, it is our constitutional duty to fairly 
and thoughtfully consider Articles of Impeachment, listen to 
the evidence, and make a decision that honors our Nation's 
values and our fundamental belief that no one is above the law.
    That is exactly what I did, and it is why I will vote to 
convict President Trump and remove him from office.
    The facts show the President did everything he could to 
cover up the truth, put our elections under even greater risk 
of foreign interference, and damaged the constitutional checks 
and balances essential to our democracy.
    Let's be clear. We are here because of one person. We are 
here because of one person--President Donald J. Trump. The 
President was provided multiple opportunities to prove his 
innocence, as he should be. The House made countless requests 
for documents during the impeachment inquiry. The White House 
ignored them.
    The House issued 42 subpoenas. The White House refused to 
comply and even went so far as to threaten and intimidate those 
people who chose to appear.
    Yet, even with this unprecedented level of obstruction, the 
House made a strong case for impeachment.
    Once impeachment moved to the Senate, the President again 
had numerous opportunities to defend himself. The American 
people and the people of Michigan strongly supported having 
additional documents and relevant witnesses--firsthand 
witnesses who could speak to the Articles of Impeachment. That 
is what a trial is supposed to be about.
    Yet the Senate did not hear from people who clearly have 
key, relevant information, including the former National 
Security Advisor, John Bolton, who is willing to testify, and, 
in fact, it is just a matter of time when we will hear 
publicly, all of us, what he would have said to the Senate; 
Acting White House Chief of Staff and Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget Mick Mulvaney; OMB Associate Director of 
National Security Programs Michael Duffy; and White House 
National Security Aid Robert Blair.
    Common sense--common sense--says that if President Trump's 
top staff have evidence of his innocence, he would have 
insisted that we hear from them, as we should. They would have 
rushed into this Chamber.
    Unfortunately, the exact opposite happened, lending strong 
support for the evidence presented by the House of 
Representatives.
    Instead, the President's defense team argued that abuse of 
power is not a crime and, therefore, not an impeachable 
offense, and it became clear that they believe, as the 
President himself has said on many occasions, that he has power 
to do anything he wants under article II of the Constitution.
    They also argued that if the President thinks his 
reelection is in the public interest, and if he does anything 
to benefit his reelection, including getting help from a 
foreign country, then that too is in the public interest and 
not an abuse of power.
    Common sense would tell us otherwise.
    Keep in mind that these are far from mainstream legal 
arguments, even in conservative legal circles.
    These arguments have been made up to protect President 
Trump and cover up his wrongdoing. These arguments are nothing 
short of appalling, and I am alarmed at what they suggest 
President Trump could do next week, next month, in November, or 
what any President in the future could do.
    Is it now OK for the President of the United States to ask 
a foreign leader to investigate a Member of Congress or any 
citizen if it helps him get reelected and, thus, in his mind, 
benefits the country? Is it now OK for the President of the 
United States to tell a Governor that they are not getting any 
critical disaster relief until they endorse him in the next 
election? Is it now OK for the President of the United States 
to ask foreign leaders to give campaign contributions or other 
political help in exchange for official visits?
    I don't think any of this is OK. The people of Michigan 
don't think any of this is OK, and I intend to do everything I 
can to ensure that it doesn't become our new normal.
    The Founders were smart. They had lived under a King, and 
they had no intention of doing so ever again. I have to wonder 
why so many of my Republican colleagues seem so, so eager to 
give it a try. This is the United States of America. In our 
country, no President is above the law, and it is illegal for a 
candidate or any elected official to receive political help 
from a foreign government. Americans must decide American 
elections. This is fundamental to our democracy and worth 
continuing to fight for, which I intend to do.
    Having said that, I am also deeply concerned about the 
divisions in our country, in our families, in our communities. 
It is critical that we find ways to listen to each other, 
respect differences, and find common ground so that we can 
address the important issues affecting our families and our 
country. These are indeed serious and perilous times. It is up 
to all of us to stand up for what we believe is right and to 
work to strengthen our democracy by coming together as 
Americans, by finding ways to work together to solve problems. 
Our children and our grandchildren are counting on us.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 3, 2020]

                     Statement of Senator Ron Wyden

    Mr. WYDEN. For the past 2 weeks, the President's defense 
team has spun bizarre legal arguments, conspiracy theories, and 
flatout lies that are unbecoming of the Office of the President 
of the United States.
    The country knows the facts. The President pursued his 
personal and political interests in a way that harmed the 
national security of America. He smeared our own Ambassador to 
Ukraine. He promoted Kremlin propaganda on 2016 election 
interference. He sent his personal lawyer and willing members 
of his administration to trade official acts in exchange for 
fabricated dirt on a political rival. He stopped $391 million 
dollars in aid from going to Ukraine, and when the Ukrainians 
made clear they were desperate for that aid to come through, he 
made his demands--come up with dirt on the Bidens, find or 
invent the server.
    Donald Trump's defense team has claimed the President 
wanted to fight corruption in Ukraine, but they have produced 
zero hard evidence to support that claim.
    Never in the history of our government has the President 
pursued a policy end without generating what usually is 
mountains of paper, and yet here there are no memos, no meeting 
records, no communiques on anticorruption--nothing. This 
defense is fiction.
    It is fiction because the President was not fighting 
corruption in Ukraine. He was causing it.
    We also know the President was telling the people around 
him to do what he wanted with respect to Ukraine. He was 
telling them to talk to his personal lawyer--talk to Rudy. 
Because the President had forgotten what is good for the 
American people, he ignored the needs of our allies and 
forgiven the attacks on American democracy.
    What the American Government under this President was 
after--the only thing it was after--was a corrupt favor for the 
personal benefit of Donald Trump. This favor was to get a 
foreign government to target an American citizen when our own 
intelligence services were legally prohibited from doing so--an 
action that even Trump's own Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, 
once admitted is illegal. Mike Pompeo said: ``It is not lawful 
to outsource that which we cannot do.'' Yet that is what the 
President was seeking.
    And that was not the only illegal action. The GAO has said 
that holding up Ukraine aid was a violation of the Impoundment 
Control Act. And when the aid eventually went through in 
September of last year, it wasn't because they suddenly had a 
whole lot of new respect for the constitutional powers of the 
Congress; it was because they got caught.
    When this abuse came to light, Donald Trump's response was: 
I pretty much can do what I want. I am above the law.
    On the south lawn of the White House, he confirmed that he 
wanted Ukraine to smear the Bidens, smear them by announcing 
investigations. He said he wanted the same thing from China.
    In a White House press briefing, Mick Mulvaney, the Chief 
of Staff, confirmed that the scheme had been politically 
motivated. A reporter who was clearly stunned at the Mulvaney 
admission asked for some clarification, and Mulvaney said: ``I 
have news for everybody: Get over it.''
    And that, I would submit, is what this trial is all about, 
whether the Senate and the country have to simply get over it. 
I know some Senators are apparently prepared to do exactly 
that, but let's consider the precedent that just ``getting over 
it'' sends.
    If this ends in an acquittal, it will signal that 
politicians can get away with selling out American interests to 
foreign coconspirators to rig an election. What is to stop the 
Russians from approaching a future President with their own 
proposition: Dial back your support for the Baltic States, and 
we will take down your opponent. What would prevent the Chinese 
Government from approaching a Senator and offering fabricated 
dirt on Senators of the other party in order to smooth the way 
for a sweetheart trade deal? What if the President hands the 
Saudis an enemies list of political opponents to hack in 
exchange for military tech and a few regiments of American 
soldiers in Yemen?
    Ending in acquittal without hearing from any witnesses or 
getting any new evidence will say that the President can rig 
impeachment trials as well. Every impeachment trial--every 
one--included witness testimony. That is just good government 
101. It is what Americans expect. It is what I heard in open-
to-all townhall meetings in Oregon from counties Donald Trump 
won and from counties Hillary Clinton won. The Republican 
Senate majority is apparently ready to acquit the Republican 
President without even going through the motions, ignoring what 
the American people expect.
    How will we sustain a functioning democracy when our 
leaders are allowed to rig an election and there are no 
consequences? The Congress is going to struggle to unwind that 
precedent. It could outlive all of us.
    After these long days of arguments and questioning, in my 
view, this comes down to two simple questions.
    First, the President swears an oath, just like we do, to 
protect and defend our revered Constitution. Does the 
President's oath of office mean anything? When a President puts 
his own interests first, when he extorts fabricated dirt from a 
foreign government for his political gain, he is obviously in 
violation of his oath. He is not protecting the constitutional 
right of Americans to choose their own leaders in free and fair 
elections. What he is doing is protecting himself and his own 
power.
    What does the President's oath of office mean if violating 
it carries no consequences? If his oath means nothing and he 
cannot be charged with a crime, then he is bound by nothing. 
And if we will not hold him to his oath, are we not 
surrendering our own oath--our own oath to protect and defend 
the Constitution?
    The second question is, Do we believe that this is a 
government of the people, by the people, and for the people? 
Because the President's lawyers stood on the floor right over 
there and said, in short, it is not.
    Alan Dershowitz argued that nothing the President does to 
get reelected can be impeachable as long as he believes his 
reelection is in the public interest. The President's counsel 
continued to build on that argument even after they claimed it 
was misunderstood--this from the same administration that holds 
that the President cannot be charged with a crime, that he 
exists on a plane--literally a plane above the law, as it 
applies to everyone else.
    If the President may commit crimes in office and cheat in 
an election to stay in power, then it is no longer a government 
of, by, and for the people. This is a government of, by, and 
for Donald Trump. The proposition of free and fair elections in 
America is gone, replaced by elections that happen on terms set 
by Donald Trump or on terms set by a future President with the 
same sort of boost from a foreign power.
    Putting aside whatever political fallout there may be in 
the days and weeks ahead, we have to ask, how can the Senate 
accept this degradation of the sanctity and security of free 
elections? Isn't this institution supposed to protect our 
elections and defend our Constitution?
    The President's attempt to cheat in the election and the 
extreme lengths he has gone to cover it up are obviously 
dangerously wrong. What he did is a violation of his oath. It 
is a betrayal of the system of democratic government left for 
us by the Founders. And we have no choice. He is guilty. He 
must be convicted.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 3, 2020]

                 Statement of Senator Joe Manchin, III

    Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I rise today to speak on the 
impeachment trial of President Donald John Trump. I know this 
was not a difficult decision for many of my friends and 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but it is one that has 
weighed heavily on me. Voting whether or not to remove a 
sitting President is no easy decision, and it shouldn't be, as 
the consequences for our Nation are severe.
    As a moderate, centrist Democrat from West Virginia with 
one of the most bipartisan voting records in the Senate, I have 
approached every vote I have cast in this body with an open 
mind and pride myself in working across the aisle to bring my 
Republican and Democratic friends together to do what is best 
for our country.
    Where I come from, party politics is more often overruled 
by just plain old common sense, and I have never, in over 35 
years of public service, approached an issue with premeditated 
thoughts that my Republican friends are always wrong and my 
Democratic friends are always right. Since the people of West 
Virginia sent me here in 2010, I have never forgotten the oath 
I took to defend the Constitution and faithfully discharge the 
duties of the office of which I am honored to hold.
    It is by the Constitution that we sit here today as a court 
for the trial of impeachments. It is the Constitution that 
gives us what Hamilton called the ``awful discretion'' to 
remove the President from office.
    At the start of this trial, my colleagues and I took an 
oath swearing--swearing--to do impartial justice.
    I have taken this oath very seriously throughout this 
process, and I would like to think my colleagues have done the 
same, because, as the House managers and our former colleague 
Republican Senator John Warner from Virginia said: It is not 
just the President who is on trial here but the Senate itself.
    The Framers of the Constitution chose the Senate for this 
grave task because, according to Hamilton, they expected 
Senators to be able to ``preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the 
necessary impartiality'' to discharge this awesome 
responsibility fairly, without flinching.
    The Framers knew this would not be easy, but that is why 
they gave the job to us, the Senators. They believed the Senate 
was more likely to be impartial and independent, less 
influenced by political passion, less likely to betray our 
oaths, and more certain to vote on facts and evidence.
    This process should be based simply on our love and 
commitment to our country, not the relationship any of us might 
have with this President. I have always wanted this President 
and every President to succeed, no matter what their party 
affiliation, but I deeply love our country and must do what is 
best for the Nation.
    The Constitution refers to impeachment ``trials'' and says 
the Senate must ``try'' impeachments. The Framers chose their 
words carefully. They knew what a trial was and what it meant 
to try a case. By using the term ``standards of judicial fact 
finding,'' it calls on us to do what courts do every day and 
receive relevant evidence and examine witnesses.
    Sadly, the Senate has failed to meet its constitutional 
obligation, set forth by the Framers, to hold a fair trial and 
do impartial justice, and we have done so in the worse way, by 
letting tribal politics rule the day.
    I supported President Trump's calls for a fair trial in the 
Senate, which he suggested himself would include witnesses. But 
instead this body was shortchanged, with a majority of my 
Republican colleagues, led by the majority leader, voting to 
move forward without relevant witnesses and evidence necessary 
for a fair trial, as our Framers intended.
    History will judge the Senate harshly for failing in its 
constitutional duty to ``try'' this case and do impartial 
justice, to defend the Constitution, and to protect our 
democracy. Sadly, this is the legacy we leave to our children 
and grandchildren.
    Removing a President from the office to which the people 
have elected him is a grave step to take, but the Framers gave 
the Senate this solemn responsibility to protect the 
Constitution and the people of this Nation.
    Over the duration of this trial, I have listened carefully 
as both the House managers and the White House Counsel made 
their case for and against the Articles of Impeachment. I 
commend both sides for their great and grueling work in 
defending their respective positions.
    The House managers have presented a strong case, with an 
overwhelming display of evidence that shows what the President 
did was wrong. The President asked a foreign government to 
intervene in our upcoming election and to harm a domestic 
political rival. He delayed much needed security aid to Ukraine 
to pressure newly elected President Zelensky to do him a favor, 
and he defied lawful subpoenas from the House of 
Representatives.
    However, the President's counsel, too, defended their 
actions by laying out their case of the President's actions. 
They pointed to the unclassified transcript of President 
Trump's July 25 call with newly elected Ukrainian President 
Zelensky to make the argument that Trump discussed burden-
sharing with other European countries and a mutual interest in 
rooting out corruption. They presented their views that the 
President was not given due process in the House of 
Representatives and highlighted the expedited nature of the 
House's proceedings. Finally, they argued: If a President does 
something which he believes will help him get elected and 
reelected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of 
quid pro quo that results in impeachment.
    Over the long days and nights of this trial, I have 
listened to both sides present their case and answer our 
questions. I remain undecided on how I will vote, but these 
points I believe to be true. First, it was not a ``perfect'' 
call. A newly elected President Zelensky, with no experience in 
international politics, gets a call from the leader of the free 
world asking for a favor related to U.S. domestic political 
affairs.
    No one--no one--regardless of political party, should think 
what he did was right. It was just simply wrong. Pressuring a 
NATO ally who is actively fighting off Russian aggression in 
his country is wrong. President Zelensky, or anyone else, 
should never feel beholden to the superpower of the world for a 
``favor'' before they can receive military aid. It is not who 
we are as a country. We stand shoulder to shoulder with our 
allies and never, ever condition our support of democracy for a 
political favor.
    Of all of the arguments we have heard from the House 
managers and White House Counsel during the long days and 
nights we have sat here, the most dangerous and the most 
troubling to me is the false claim that the President can do no 
wrong, that he is above the law, and if it is good for the 
reelection of the President, then, it is good for our country. 
That is simply preposterous. That is not who we are as 
Americans.
    That is not how I was raised in the small coal mining town 
of Farmington, WV. Where I was raised, no one believed they 
were better than anyone else and could act with total disregard 
for the well-being of their neighbor if it was for their best 
interest. That is not why, over 230 years ago, the founding 
generation rebelled against a King and refused to crown a new 
one in this Republic. So let me be clear. No one, not even the 
President, is above the law.
    Finally, the purpose of impeachment is not to punish the 
President but to protect the public. The ultimate question is 
not whether the President's conduct warrants his removal from 
office but whether our Nation is better served by his removal 
by the Senate now with impeachment or by the decision the 
voters will make in November.
    As Hamilton warned us, impeachments ``seldom fail to 
agitate the passions of the whole community.'' They divide us 
on party lines and inflame our animosities. Never before in the 
history of our Republic has there been a purely partisan 
impeachment vote of a President. Removing this President at 
this time would not only further divide our deeply divided 
Nation but also further poison our already toxic political 
atmosphere.
    In weighing these thoughts, and of all of the arguments 
brought forward in the case, I must be realistic. I see no path 
to the 67 votes required to impeach President Trump and haven't 
since this trial started. However, I do believe a bipartisan 
majority of this body would vote to censure President Trump for 
his actions in this manner. Censure would allow this body to 
unite across party lines and as an equal branch of government 
to formally denounce the President's actions and hold him 
accountable. His behavior cannot go unchecked by the Senate, 
and censure would allow a bipartisan statement condemning his 
unacceptable behavior in the strongest terms.
    History will judge the Senate for how we have handled this 
solemn constitutional duty, and without bipartisan action, the 
fears of the great Senator Byrd will come true. As he said 
during the Clinton impeachment, the Senate will ``sink further 
into the mire'' because of this partisanship. ``There will be 
no winners on this vote,'' Byrd said. ``Each Senator has not 
only taken a solemn oath to support and defend the 
Constitution, but also do `impartial justice,''' to help the 
Nation, ``so help me God . . . . . That oath does not say 
anything about political party; politics should have nothing to 
do with it.''
    I am truly struggling with this decision and will come to a 
conclusion reluctantly, as voting whether or not to remove a 
sitting President is the most consequential decision that I or 
any U.S. Senator will ever face.
    But regardless of my decision, and in the absence of 67 
votes, I am reminded again of the words of Senator Byrd: The 
House and Senate--Republicans and Democrats--and the President 
``must come together to heal the open wounds, bind up the 
damaged trust, and, by our example, again unite our people.''
    ``For the common good, we must now put aside the bitterness 
that has infected our Nation . . . . We [must] begin by putting 
behind us the distrust and bitterness caused by this sorry 
episode, and search for common ground instead of shoring up the 
divisions that have eroded decency and good will and dimmed our 
collected vision.''
    It is not the legacy of the individual Senators we should 
be concerned about, but it is the legacy of this great 
institution, the U.S. Senate, that we leave for generations to 
come.
    I thank you, and I ask the good Lord to continue to bless 
this great country of ours during this trying time.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 3, 2020]

                 Statement of Senator Marsha Blackburn

    Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, before I begin, I really 
want to take a moment to thank our friend and Majority Leader 
McConnell for the manner in which he has worked to make this 
trial run so smoothly. I also thank our colleagues for their 
perseverance and, of course, the staff that has worked so 
diligently and has been so patient as we have worked through 
this process.
    The impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump was a 
moment in history that should have been shrouded in the gravity 
of its potential consequences. Instead, day by day, we endured 
hyperbole in its most unserious form.
    It is easy to forget that America's appetite for scandal 
fades quickly once you exit the beltway around Washington, DC, 
but I encourage my colleagues to recognize that the enthusiasm 
with which the House managers have sought President Trump's 
removal is completely and inarguably divorced from reality in 
the heartland.
    As it appeared to my fellow Tennesseans, the intentional 
mishandling of the House of Representatives' constitutional 
duty was nothing more than an attempt to prelitigate the 2020 
election. That is correct--to prelitigate the 2020 election and 
to remove President Trump from office and thereby remove him 
from the ballot.
    Our partisan friends had decided on the outcome that was 
necessary for them. They just needed to find a path that was 
going to get them there. So they had their outcome. They needed 
a path.
    We saw House Democrats freeze out the President's counsel, 
refusing them an opportunity to fairly participate in the House 
Intelligence Committee's investigation.
    House Manager Schiff created the supposed conversations he 
falsely attributed to the President and waited to see if his 
assertions would be questioned or if they were going to be 
accepted as fact.
    Let me tell you something. I am a mom and I am a 
grandmother. I will tell you this. I don't think there is any 
mother on Earth who would stand for it if her child did such a 
thing to a coach or a teacher or a Scout leader or a minister. 
They would not stand for it, and yet the Senate was expected to 
indulge this unseemly behavior. This is something that is 
appropriate that we question.
    The House managers relied heavily on the assertions of a 
whistleblower but refused to reveal anything about the 
circumstances that led to the whistleblower's report. So here 
we are at the end of the trial. Do we know if the whistleblower 
is a person or if it is a group of people? Does the report 
represent a consensus of ideas or just biased opinion? Was it 
prepared by an individual or prepared by a committee?
    No one can answer that question except House Manager Schiff 
and his staff from the House Intel Committee, but that is not 
something they wanted to come down and talk about.
    When it became clear that the White House would push back 
on witness subpoenas seeking testimony protected by executive 
privilege, House Democrats chose to move on rather than fight 
as hard as they could for their case. They looked at those 
subpoenas, thought about the evidence that might come from 
them, and decided: not worth the trouble. Instead, they tried 
to rely on the pandemonium created by a historic moment to 
convince their colleagues and the American people that justice 
demanded a do-over--a do-over for the House impeachment.
    When that strategy failed, they blamed the Members of the 
U.S. Senate for our unwillingness to go in and clean up their 
mess. This wasn't a pressure tactic; it was a manipulation 
tactic aimed right at the hearts of the American people.
    Unfortunately for the House managers, the people see with 
dazzling clarity what has transpired within the four walls of 
this Chamber. The House managers have asked us to go on the 
record and rubberstamp history's first--history's first--
impeachment inquiry to be filed solely on the basis of partisan 
politics--first one. They have asked us to ignore how quickly 
they moved to impeach President Trump and to not compare their 
timeline to the timelines from the Nixon or the Clinton 
impeachment.
    Colleagues, I did my constitutional due diligence. I have 
read the House managers' brief and those reports prepared by 
the House Republicans and the President's counsel. I saw it all 
in black and white, and it was my due diligence that has led me 
to support acquittal.
    Now, when I was serving in the House, there were times when 
I became frustrated with President Bush or, then, with 
President Obama. And when we, as Members of the House, at that 
point in time were faced with President Obama's apology tour, 
his senseless pursuit of government-run healthcare, and his 
involvement in the Fast and Furious scandal or the DACA 
executive memo, my colleagues and I discussed the possibilities 
of impeachment: What are we going to do about this? We looked 
at all the facts, and ultimately we chose a different path, a 
different path that respected the American people. We litigated 
our policy differences in the courts, where those battles 
belong.
    So, Madam President, I ask my colleagues that, when the 
time comes, they exercise the same restraint. I implore every 
Member of this body to recognize the supremacy of the 
Constitution over partisan spin. Vote to acquit. Vote to reject 
the two Articles of Impeachment.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 3, 2020]

                  Statement of Senator Maria Cantwell

    Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I come to the floor to join 
my colleagues speaking about what has transpired over the last 
several weeks and also to say something that I think is maybe 
not as obvious as what people realize, and that is that 
election interference is the issue of our day. It is not 
because we just spent 11 days talking about it, and what might 
have happened in the Oval Office about interference in the 
upcoming 2020 election. It is the issue of our day because we 
live in an information age, and weaponizing misinformation has 
become a lethal campaign tool. That is to say that, if you 
tarnish your opponent enough with misinformation, accuse them 
of corruption, then you can either score by wounding them 
fatally--that is, by getting people not to vote for them or by 
disincentivizing people to vote at all.
    Claiming corruption seems to be a pretty good tool these 
days to wound anybody, to wound institutions, the free press, 
legitimate government oversight, but most seriously, it wounds 
our democracy by sowing doubt into free and fair elections. 
Once voters believe the election results are corrupt, it is 
hard for them to have faith in the results, and it is hard to 
make tough decisions that we need to make as a society to move 
forward. Voting, in and of itself, does give us confidence as a 
nation, unless we know there are free and fair elections, we 
know the public has spoken and the results are legitimate.
    I am personally grateful to my predecessor, Senator Slade 
Gorton, for how he handled the 2000 election. After a 3-week 
recount and a margin of less than one half of 1 percent, with 
control of the Senate, a 50-50 split to be decided, he 
conceded. Since then--and even at that time--some States tried 
to suppress provisional ballots. But Senator Gorton not only 
believed that provisional ballots were legitimate, but he 
believed that the election was correctly decided. That must 
have been a tough moment for him as he saw a shift in public 
sentiment in the State of Washington, as we have moved more 
toward a different direction.
    But today we live in a world of disinformation, where 
distrust can be served up like your own personal cocktail. 
After consuming and analyzing endless amounts of personal data 
about you, someone knows exactly what disinformation tactic 
will work best with you. It is almost like disinformation on 
steroids.
    Our adversaries, the Russians, are especially sowing these 
seeds of distrust into our democracy trying to dissuade people 
from even voting and more seriously trying to divide us as a 
Nation and tarnish our democracy. I don't know if this is some 
payback from President Putin, who believes that the United 
States helped in the demise of the Soviet Union, or if Russia 
is just trying to undermine American and European trust and 
free and open democratic systems; or if Russia is trying to 
divide Europe so it can dominate European energy supplies and 
exert its influence over European policies. I just know this: 
We are not the first act of this play.
    This has been going on for many years and in many places. 
They have interfered in European elections. A 2018 report 
shows, ``the Europeans launched several multilateral and 
regional initiatives to improve Europe's reliance to improve 
Europe's resilience to building collective defenses against 
disinformation and cyber-attacks, improving cross-border 
cooperation . . . and applying sanctions against malicious 
actors.''
    The Russians interfered in our 2016 election, our own 
intelligence agencies agreed.
    The Special Counsel's investigation ``established Russia 
interfered in the 2016 election principally through two 
operations. First, a Russian entity carried out a social media 
campaign that favored Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump 
and disparaged Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, and 
second, a Russian intelligence service conducted computer 
intrusions and operations against entities, employees, and 
volunteers working for the Hillary Clinton campaign and 
released stolen documents.''
    We must fight back against Russia or anyone who interferes 
in our elections. Protecting our elections should be a 
bipartisan effort. We should listen to what the intelligence 
community says, because they are warning us now that Russia 
will interfere again in the 2020 elections.
    That is why I take so seriously the House charges that 
President Trump was involved in a scheme, over a long period of 
time, involving many people, to ask the Ukrainians to interfere 
in our election.
    As Federal Election Commissioner Ellen Weintraub said, 
``let me make something 100% clear to the American people and 
anyone running for office. It is illegal for any person to 
solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign 
national in connection with a U.S. election. This is not a 
novel concept.''
    So why has President Trump continued to sow distrust in our 
elections? He thought it was okay to ask the Russians to 
interfere in 2016, and he seems to be inviting Ukrainian 
interference in 2020.
    As one of my former campaign staffers asked last weekend, 
``are campaigns now going to be communications directors, 
fundraising directors, and foreign operations directors? You 
know, those people who go around and seek influence, perhaps 
dark money or endorsements from foreign governments? Will this 
become some sort of norm because we're not acting?''
    We already know what the dark, murky world of Paul Manafort 
looks like. That is why it is so important for us to be clear 
here. Seeking, requesting, and accepting interference in a U.S. 
election campaign is wrong. It is not just inappropriate, it is 
not just improper, it is illegal. By calling it improper or 
turning a blind eye in this case, is enabling more election 
interference.
    What is not clear is who are all the President's men in 
this administration who are helping him abuse his power. He is 
using his office for political gain. How are they accomplishing 
this task for him?
    It is so disappointing to see that this might be happening 
in our Nation. Where will the abuse stop? I know this. As a 
young girl, I remember the Saturday Night Massacre, the time 
when Bill Ruckelshaus and Elliot Richardson stood up to illegal 
behavior. My father, at the time was definitely a Democrat, but 
he wanted me to understand this lesson. People of the other 
party might not share the same philosophy, but they did share 
the same Constitution, and the scales of justice are balanced.
    Yes, there is probably no harder task than to stand up to 
the President of your own party, but that is what Bill 
Ruckelshaus and Elliot Richardson did.
    I remember that lesson and called Bill Ruckelshaus after 
Jeff Sessions recused himself and was fired. Bill's advice was 
prophetic. He said, ``You should use this opportunity now to 
make sure the next Attorney General will be an independent and 
help rein in this president's abuse of power.'' Well, we 
obviously did not get that done, and we all know what that 
outcome has been.
    It occurred to me last weekend that maybe the Saturday 
Night Massacre in this case has happened. Maybe John Bolton and 
Fiona Hill will turn out to be those people who stood up to the 
abuse of power. I know this: It is important to have listened 
to them.
    Twice in this gallery over the last several weeks I heard a 
young baby cry. I thought how unusual that somebody would bring 
a child to an event like this. Probably their parents wanted to 
be part of history. And then I thought about what that child 
would say, probably over the rest of their life: that they had 
been at this impeachment trial.
    But what I want to know is about the reflections 30 or 40 
years from now. Will we be remembered for rooting out illegal 
activity, stopping interference in our elections or not, or 
will this moment have been forgotten?
    I know my constituents have been clear about this--and I 
don't mean my constituents that support the President or my 
constituents that don't support the President. I mean my 
constituents who want to know that we are going to enforce the 
law. They don't care about what the outcome is in the next 
election or how it might benefit either party. And it is clear 
that either party could overstep in this situation. They want 
to know if we are going to uphold the oath of office and hold 
people accountable for wrongdoings that they pursue.
    I hope that we have taken this election interference issue 
seriously. I plan to work with my colleagues, on a bipartisan 
basis, to get more laws passed on election security and to stop 
interference. I have been a loud and consistent spokesperson 
for better cybersecurity in our Nation. I am not going to let 
our democracy be eroded by foreign interests that want to harm 
what is so precious in our Nation. I will be voting for both 
articles, and for impeachment.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 3, 2020]

                   Statement of Senator Brian Schatz

    Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, the American experiment was a 
radical one. It imagined equal justice under the law. It 
imagined equal protection under the law. It imagined a 
cumbersome system in which tyranny could be avoided by the 
constant struggle between elected and appointed leaders, and it 
intentionally sacrificed speed, efficiency, and convenience to 
avoid the abuse of power. And so it is with unending regret 
that I see what is happening.
    I grieve for the Senate, an institution both hallowed and 
flawed, an elite place in the worst sense of the word, and yet 
still the main place where American problems are to be solved. 
To paraphrase Winston Churchill, the Senate is the worst 
legislative body, except for all of the others.
    There are millions of Americans who have formed a basic 
expectation about how a trial is to function based on hundreds 
of years of law and based on their common sense. Make no 
mistake--what the Senate did was an affront to the basic idea 
of a trial. And for all of the crocodile tears of my 
colleagues, all of the fake outrage at the accusation, we must 
call this what it was--it is a coverup.
    I don't know what Mulvaney or Bolton or Pompeo would say. I 
don't know what the documents would illuminate. And I believe 
it is normally very dangerous to ascribe motives to fellow 
Senators when criticizing their vote. But it is impossible for 
me to escape the conclusion that they don't want to know; that 
they wanted to get this over with before the Super Bowl, of all 
things. They are afraid of this house of cards falling all the 
way down.
    As I look at the Republican side of the Chamber, I know 
this moment in history has made their particular jobs 
extraordinarily difficult, requiring uncommon courage. They 
have to risk the scorn of their voters, their social circle, 
their colleagues, and their President in order to do the right 
thing.
    On one level, I knew the likely outcome, but the bitter 
taste of injustice lingers in my mouth.
    On behalf of everyone who couldn't get away with an unpaid 
traffic fine, is in jail for stealing groceries so they could 
eat that night, who can't get a job because of medical debt, I 
say shame on anyone who places this President or any President 
above the law. The President is not above the law. No one is 
above the law. The President is guilty on both counts.
    The Constitution gives extraordinary powers to the 
President under article II, and that makes sense because 
without a powerful magistrate, the government can't function. 
But in granting these powers, the Framers thought carefully 
about how to constrain them, and they decided that a President 
could be controlled to greater or lesser degrees by the 
legislature, by the judiciary, and by the voters. But the 
Framers couldn't contemplate this level of polarization where, 
even in the face of the overwhelming evidence of high crimes, 
one party would not just exonerate him for it but, in fact, 
ratify these crimes. They didn't imagine that one party would 
be so uniformly loyal to its President that it could maintain a 
hammerlock on the Senate, preventing the prospect of 67 votes 
from ever being available for removal.
    I don't think we are in danger of the impeachment process 
becoming routine; I think we are in much greater danger of 
making the impeachment process moot. And if so, God help us 
all.
    But all is not lost. We remain a government of, by, and for 
the people. If people across the country find this as odious to 
our basic values as we do, in 8 months the American public can 
render their own verdict on the Senate.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 3, 2020]

                  Statement of Senator James M. Inhofe

    Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, nearly 20 years ago, I was here 
in this exact spot--I remember it so well--deliberating the 
guilt or innocence of a President. It happens that at that 
time, it was President Clinton from your State of Arkansas. At 
that time, I said that I thought it would probably be the most 
important vote I would cast as a Senator. I was wrong. I think 
my vote on Wednesday--the day after tomorrow--to acquit 
President Trump will be the most important vote of my career. I 
really believe that.
    Over the past few weeks, as we have considered impeachment, 
there has been a lot made of the fact that I was willing to 
vote to convict President Clinton 20 years ago and yet to vote 
the other way in the current process we are under right now. 
Putting the morality question from President Clinton aside, 
this supposed debate highlights the central point of the 
differences in the impeachment process and why President Trump 
should not be impeached.
    Before Clinton was even impeached, he admitted to the crime 
of perjury. This is a big difference because we have a 
President right now who has not admitted that. In fact, there 
have not really been accusations of a crime. Our debate then 
was about whether perjury was a high crime or misdemeanor. I 
believe it was. As I said then, the President should be held to 
the highest standard.
    But that was substantially different than the question 
before us today. The question put to us by the House managers 
is an evidentiary one. It is one that asks the question if, 
according to the evidence presented, there is a determination 
that President Trump is guilty of a crime, and the answer is 
no. Presidents should be held to the highest standard, but that 
standard can't be a false, moving standard that isn't based on 
evidence or is established by a court of public opinion.
    Here is why I will vote to acquit the President. The whole 
impeachment inquiry was initiated on the basis that President 
Trump orchestrated the quid pro quo with Ukrainian's President 
during a phone call on July 25 of 2019. It is kind of 
confusing.
    A lot of people don't really understand what it is all 
about, but Ukraine has had serious problems. You know what is 
happening. The Russians have been there mass murdering the 
Ukrainians for a long period of time. We have watched that 
happen. So they kind of put this thing together saying: Well, 
there was an arrangement made by President Trump that they 
would withhold military aid to Ukraine unless there was a deal 
they could make and have something investigated by the 
President of Ukraine. Now, the House managers spent 75 percent 
of their time on this point and driving home the importance of 
our partnership with Ukraine and talking about the Russian 
aggression. The facts weren't there, but, worse, it is 
hypocritical. There was nothing wrong with President Trump's 
phone call with President Zelensky.
    You might wonder how I can be so sure. It is simple. The 
House Democrats' allegations were secondhand, and that means 
they were hearsay. There was not one direct witness. In fact, 
they had 17 witnesses in the House of Representatives and not 
one of them were firsthand. The transcript speaks for itself. 
There was no evidence of a quid pro quo or of any wrongdoing, 
whatsoever, just of a President who understands both the 
importance of Ukraine as an ally and the importance of rooting 
out corruption. President Zelensky said publicly that he felt 
no pressure. He testified about this and Trump asking to 
investigate anything in exchange for foreign aid.
    You have to keep in mind we have a very conservative 
President. He doesn't just dish out foreign aid to everybody 
who needs it. In this case, there was a necessity to have 
military aid. We couldn't get any lethal military aid from 
President Obama. All he wanted to send was blankets and K-
rations. They don't have K-rations anymore; they call it 
something else. MREs. But, nonetheless, there was not going to 
be any military aid sent to them.
    The Trump administration placed a brief, temporary hold on 
the aid to Ukraine to ensure that the American taxpayers were 
not going to be abused. This is very significant. He did this 
to Ukraine to make sure that the amount of money that was sent 
in there was going to be used properly and the amount of 
military aid that was going to be used.
    But at the same time, you have to keep in mind he was doing 
that with everybody else too. He is just not a fast-spending 
President. He is going to make sure things have to be made in 
accordance with their needs. In fact, at other times, he 
withheld the same type financial aid to Afghanistan, South 
Korea, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Lebanon, and Pakistan. 
So the fact that he did it with Ukraine was consistent with his 
other policies. This is what he does and what he has always 
done.
    I am confident about this because I talked to President 
Trump directly about it. I am the chair of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee, the committee is responsible for 
authorizing lethal aid to Ukraine. I have been working on 
securing that lethal aid for a long period of time, dating back 
to 2014. In 2014, we had a different President. It was 
President Obama. And then the Ukraine President Poroshenko--I 
can remember being in Ukraine with Poroshenko, and I talked to 
him about this. This was the same time Russia was in Ukraine 
and was mass killing the Ukrainians. We went to President Obama 
to get help, and he wouldn't do it. He didn't want to send any 
lethal military aid. And he said over and over again--we talked 
about blankets and K-rations. When President Trump came into 
office, he changed it. He is the first President to provide 
lethal aid to Ukraine. He has been a committed partner in the 
region helping them withstand Russian aggression.
    I bring this up because during the first 3 days of the 
House managers' presentation, about 75 percent of that time was 
spent on this issue talking about his lack of support for 
Ukraine, when in reality, this President has been supporting 
Ukraine. The House managers who were serving in the House at 
that time--this is significant. Of the House managers--however 
many were sitting over here for the last week--they are all 
talking about things they want to do for Ukraine. Yet the first 
vote that was taken originated in the Armed Services Committee 
for FY 2016, and it happened to be that the Democrats--the very 
three Democrats who were serving at that time--voted against 
it. They didn't vote for it. This is the type of thing you get 
when this hate-motivated stuff was going on for such a long 
period of time.
    The House didn't prove that Trump committed a crime. I am 
the first to admit I am not a lawyer. Sometimes I think that 
plays to my advantage. I look at things in a different way. I 
try to just inject a little bit of common sense. I listened to 
the lawyers and, frankly, I didn't even understand what some of 
them were saying, but I do know pretty much what is going on 
around here.
    In this case, the reasons behind why the President should 
not be impeached are common sense. He didn't commit a crime. 
That didn't come just from me. You would expect me to say that. 
That came from others who were the well-respected attorneys who 
were involved in each side of this case. Each of the past 
impeachment cases in the House of Representatives accused 
Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton of committing a crime. 
This President didn't commit a crime. But Clinton did, and he 
admitted that he did. It was perjury at that time. That is a 
crime. It was the same thing with Nixon and the same thing with 
Johnson. So all those things that have happened in recent 
history have been crimes but not with this President.
    The Democrats wanted to impeach President Trump since he 
took office. I think there was a witness we had today--I 
believe it was today--they had a visual up here that showed all 
the people who have been trying to impeach President Trump ever 
since he took office. I am talking about the first week he was 
in office. It was all documented up there. They are still at 
it. I have no doubt they will continue to do that, but it is 
not going to work. It didn't work in this case.
    Democrats have wanted to impeach him since he took office. 
The Washington Post reported the concerted effort by the 
leftwing advocacy groups to move toward impeachment of the 
President only minutes after his inauguration. So they have 
been looking for a reason to impeach President Trump.
    I think one of the stars of the testimony that went on was 
Alan Dershowitz. He is someone who is held in the highest 
regard. He is a law professor at Harvard University, and he is 
a strong Democrat. He is not a Republican. First thing he did 
was admit he voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, so that 
qualifies him in a different way than most of the people who 
were here as witnesses. He was direct in his presentation and 
shredded the Democrats' case. He made it clear that abuse of 
power should be a political weapon suited for a campaign, not 
impeachment, as abuse of power is not a crime or impeachable 
conduct.
    Dershowitz also explained that virtually every President 
since President Washington could have been accused of 
impeachment if they used the criteria that the House managers--
the ones who were sitting over here--were using. That was a 
level that could not be used or it would have affected every 
other President if it had been used at that time.
    He also had an important comment on whether or not we 
needed to hear sworn testimony from John Bolton. This is what 
he said. This is a quote by Dershowitz. He said: ``Nothing in 
the Bolton revelations, even if true, would rise to the level 
of an abuse of power or an impeachable offense.'' That is Alan 
Dershowitz.
    It is clear that President Trump must be acquitted of the 
charge of abuse of power on its merits. A vote to convict in 
this case would be a dangerous precedent.
    I would say, time and time again, that during the trial, 
the House managers have preached at us that the truth matters, 
that facts matter; that we must convict the President and 
remove him from office. In fact, the House managers' closing 
arguments--I tried to keep count of every time they made the 
accusations using the words ``cheat,'' ``obstruction,'' 
``crimes,'' and it was so many times, I lost track--but truth 
matters. Just because you say the President has committed a 
crime doesn't make it true.
    Here is what is true. This has been a partisan process from 
start to finish. Compare that to the past. The impeachment 
inquiry against President Nixon was authorized by a vote of 410 
to 4 in the Congress, an overwhelming bipartisan vote. The same 
thing was true with Clinton. They had 31 Democrats who voted to 
impeach the President. Yet in the vote of this impeachment 
inquiry, the final vote to impeach President Trump was strictly 
partisan. Not a single House Republican voted to impeach the 
President. On the contrary, nearly every House Democrat did. 
The only bipartisan vote was against impeachment.
    I listened to the facts and I have listened to the evidence 
and I am convinced President Trump has not committed a crime. 
All the legal minds who gave testimony pretty much agreed with 
that, including Dershowitz.
    I think, though, it has to be said there is a hatred for 
Trump. We have to admit there is something about him that a lot 
of people don't like, whether it is his demeanor or it is his 
style. I understand that. But when you listen to the substance, 
look at what he has done right now rebuilding the military, 
including killing the top terrorists. I am particularly 
sensitive to this because this is my committee. We have watched 
what he has done to the military.
    Back during the Obama administration, using constant 
dollars during the last 5 years of his 8-year tenure, he 
actually reduced the spending in military by 25 percent. I 
don't think that has ever been done in the history of this 
country, except maybe immediately following World War II. Yet 
there he is, rebuilding the military, and we are now back to 
where we are competitive. I have to admit, though, during those 
last 5 years of Obama, we really hurt ourselves in terms of our 
relationships in terms of China and Russia taking the 
leadership positions they have taken. He has been rebuilding 
the military. He has been confirming constitutional judges. 
Confirming 187 judges in the last 3 years is a record that 
hasn't been done before. Oddly enough, these are judges who 
have actually read the Constitution. That is a novel idea.
    I would say that this is the best economy we have had in 
decades. Last week we went to 3.5 percent unemployment. We used 
to consider 4 percent unemployment as being fully employed, and 
yet I don't even have a memory to when it has been down to 3.5 
percent.
    The trade deal we did is new. It shows we are getting 
things done. We have more Americans working today than ever 
before, and the median household income is the highest it has 
ever been.
    We are going to have a very significant vote on Wednesday. 
I think you know how I am going to vote. I am going to vote to 
acquit the President on both Articles of Impeachment. That will 
be a very significant vote.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 3, 2020]

                Statement of Senator Benjamin L. Cardin

    Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, constitutional experts will be 
debating President Trump's misconduct for generations to come, 
but I think they will reach consensus as to the misconduct of 
the Senate in the Trump impeachment. This is the first time in 
the history of impeachment that no witnesses and documents were 
allowed to be called by the U.S. Senate. It violates the 
Constitution in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump by its 
failure to hold a constitutionally fair trial.
    At one time, I had the opportunity to present as a House 
manager an impeachment case here in the U.S. Senate on a 
district court judge by the name of Nixon. I remember, when I 
appeared before the Senate, I was cautioned immediately, even 
though Judge Nixon had been convicted of a bribery type of an 
offense in a criminal court, that it was incumbent for us to 
present the witnesses and documents in the U.S. Senate and that 
the Senate would conduct its own record in regard to the 
proceedings. Yet, here, we are not having witnesses in the 
President's impeachment trial.
    We had some help from the Supreme Court on this. In Nixon 
v. United States, 1993, pertaining to Judge Nixon's trial, 
Justice Byron White had a concurring opinion. Justice White 
said that the term ``try,'' as used in article I, section 3, 
clause 6, meant that the Senate should conduct a proceeding in 
a manner that a reasonable judge would deem a trial.
    We failed to conduct a constitutionally fair trial here in 
the U.S. Senate, and we can look to the President's own counsel 
here for help in evaluating our own conduct of this trial. The 
President's counsel, Philbin, said that you need to cross-
examine witnesses in order to get to the truth. We had no 
witnesses under oath and no witnesses cross-examined. The 
tragedy here is, if the President is acquitted, there will 
always be a question as to whether this was a legitimate trial 
here in the U.S. Senate.
    Let me just spend a moment comparing the impeachment 
proceedings of President Clinton's versus those of President 
Trump's.
    With President Clinton, there was a trial in the Senate. It 
was acknowledged to be fair. Witnesses were called. President 
Clinton and his administration officials had testified under 
oath and had been subject to cross-examination. President 
Clinton showed remorse for his conduct and apologized for his 
misconduct, and President Clinton's misconduct was personal in 
nature.
    Compare that to President Trump. He blocked all witnesses 
and documents and then, through counsel, prevented the Senate 
trial from calling any witnesses or producing any documents. He 
has never shown any remorse. Even though most Senators here 
know that what he did was wrong, he has shown no remorse 
whatsoever, and his misconduct was that of abusing his office 
for personal gain--getting a foreign power to help in his 
election campaign.
    Let me briefly go through article I.
    Article I states that he solicited a foreign government, 
Ukraine, to interfere in the 2020 elections by its publicly 
announcing investigations that would benefit his reelection, 
conditioned on official U.S. Government acts of significant 
value to Ukraine. The House managers have submitted a 
voluminous amount of information that supports that, and I 
refer to that in my attached statement, so I will not spend the 
time here to go through that.
    Yet, even though there is enough in the full record to 
establish the charges, there are other issues that add to the 
President's committing these acts.
    First, as I mentioned before, the President issued a 
blanket obstruction for any witness with firsthand knowledge of 
the President's conduct to provide testimony on these articles 
here in the U.S. Senate. Yes, we can infer that, if the 
President had exculpatory witnesses, he would have produced 
those exculpatory witnesses.
    Secondly, the President's impeachment attorney, Mr. 
Sekulow, said that you cannot view this case in a vacuum. I 
agree. The President has consistently misrepresented the facts 
and defamed anyone who challenges him.
    Let me just give you one concrete example: the Mueller 
investigation, which has been cited in this impeachment trial. 
The President denies Russia's initial involvement in our 
elections. He resisted efforts to hold Russia accountable. He 
defamed the reputation of the special counsel. He willfully 
impeded the investigation. He attacked the integrity of our 
intelligence and law enforcement agencies. He also wrongfully 
claimed that the investigation exonerated him. He has done that 
over and over again. The findings in the report speak to a 
contrary conclusion. It says Russia interfered in our 2016 
elections in a sweeping and systematic fashion. It reads: ``If 
we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a 
crime, we would have said so.''
    There are numerous instances in which the President may 
have obstructed justice, but we left the further pursuit of 
that to Congress or to a prosecutor after he leaves office.
    Since he has taken office, the President's pattern has been 
to mislead and misstate facts and to act as a bully against 
those who have had anything to say against him that he has not 
liked. It makes it easier for us to understand how the illegal 
scheme in article I unfolded.
    I have one additional fact of why this points to 
establishing the facts.
    The President has consistently shown no remorse. He 
continuously tells us that the summary of the July 25 call 
shows a perfect call. We know how controversial that call was. 
It was far from perfect.
    The next hurdle was, is this an impeachable offense? I 
concluded that it was. It is an abuse of power, which is an 
abuse of trust, which is clearly what our Founders intended as 
being a high crime and misdemeanor while in office.
    The President's own analysis of this leads to the only 
conclusion, that being that abuse of power must be an 
impeachable offense. I say that because we had the President's 
counsel--once again, Professor Dershowitz--who told us that it 
was not an abuse of power and that it was not an impeachable 
offense. Professor Dershowitz said that if your election is in 
the public interest--if a President does something which he 
believes will help him get elected in the public interest--that 
it cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in 
impeachment.
    Well, that is an absurd situation if you adopt the logic of 
the President's counsel that abuse of power is not an 
impeachable offense. It is clearly an impeachable offense. The 
President's conduct has jeopardized America's global leadership 
in promoting our values. Our values are our strength.
    I thought it was very telling, the conversation of 
Ambassador Volker with Mr. Yermak, who is the principal counsel 
to President Zelensky of Ukraine.
    Ambassador Volker said: Don't start an investigation in 
Ukraine on your opponent in your election because that will sow 
division in your community.
    Mr. Yermak responded: Do you mean like asking us to 
investigate Clinton and Biden?
    President Trump's conduct has endangered our national 
security, our global leadership, and American values.
    Article II is a lot easier--obstruction of Congress--
because the facts clearly establish that the President's 
blanket obstruction, which he orchestrated, denied any access 
to individuals or to documents in order to facilitate a coverup 
of what was uncovered under article I of the Articles of 
Impeachment.
    It is essential for Congress to carry out our 
responsibilities and to be able to get that type of information 
from the President. It is exactly what the Framers of our 
Constitution intended when they developed the checks and 
balances in our system--that there would be no branch that 
would have absolute power. We do not have a Monarch.
    President Trump has crossed the line with his personal 
interests over the country's interests. He used the power of 
his office for his own personal benefit. No one is above the 
law. We must act to protect the Constitution and our democratic 
system of government. It is with a heavy heart that I will 
support both Articles of Impeachment.
    Senators have a grave responsibility when it comes to the 
power of impeachment, particularly when it involves the 
President of the United States. This is a very profound 
responsibility in which Senators have to do what is right for 
our country. Our decision here will affect not only this 
President but the future of the Presidency itself.
    The Constitution leaves to the Senate ``the sole power to 
try all impeachments.'' The Constitution clearly requires the 
Senate to conduct a trial. The Supreme Court, the ultimate 
interpreter of the Constitution, has given the Senate some 
guidance in carrying out its responsibility to conduct 
impeachment trials. Supreme Court Justice Byron White, in a 
concurring opinion in Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 
(1993), found that the Framers of the U.S. Constitution clearly 
intended ``that the term `try' as used in article I, section 3, 
clause 6 meant that the Senate should conduct its proceeding in 
a manner that a `reasonable judge' would deem a trial.'' 
Justice White acknowledged that the Senate ``has very wide 
discretion in specifying impeachment trial procedures,'' but 
stated that the Senate ``would abuse its discretion'' if it 
were to ``insist on a procedure that could not be deemed a 
trial by reasonable judges.'' Justice Blackmun concurred in 
Justice White's opinion.
    The Senate has the sole power to ``try'' impeachments. Yet 
how can the Senate hold an actual ``trial'' without hearing 
direct evidence from witnesses? The Senate chose not to hear 
additional relevant evidence and key witnesses with firsthand 
knowledge of the President's conduct. However, the Senate is 
not bound solely to the House record when conducting an 
impeachment trial. The Senate should have heard new and 
relevant evidence that bore directly on the Articles of 
Impeachment, including testimony from former White House 
National Security Advisor John Bolton, Acting White House Chief 
of Staff and Acting OMB Director Mick Mulvaney, as well as 
various other OMB and DOD officials. The Senate should have 
demanded additional documents from the White House, State 
Department, OMB, and DOD that bore directly on the Articles of 
Impeachment. The Senate should have been able to receive 
further evidence before concluding its trial in this case, 
whether or not the additional evidence was incriminating or 
exculpatory. As one of President Trump's counsel Mr. Philbin 
said during the trial, the best way to find out the truth is 
for witnesses under oath to be subject to cross-examination. 
The Senate therefore failed in its responsibility when it did 
not conduct a constitutionally fair trial. I suspect that 
Justice White in the Nixon case would have concluded that no 
``reasonable judge'' would conclude these proceedings 
constitute such a trial.
    The evident deficiencies of the Senate trial has made it 
more difficult for me to carry out my responsibility, and if 
the Senate fails to convict, that acquittal will always be 
questioned because of the absence of a fair trial. This process 
is not fair to the House, Senate, American people, or the 
President.
    Now, in regards to the specific Articles of Impeachment, 
article I alleges ``abuse of power'' by the President, stating: 
``Using the powers of his high office, President Trump 
solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in 
the 2020 United States Presidential election. He did so through 
a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the 
Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that 
would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a 
political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States 
Presidential election to his advantage. President Trump also 
sought to pressure the Government of Ukraine to take these 
steps by conditioning official United States Government acts of 
significant value to Ukraine on its public announcement of the 
investigations. President Trump engaged in this scheme or 
course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal 
political benefit. In so doing, President Trump used the powers 
of the Presidency in a manner that compromised the national 
security of the United States and undermined the integrity of 
the United States democratic process. He thus ignored and 
injured the interests of the Nation.''
    I reluctantly conclude that the President has indeed 
engaged in the conduct alleged. I come to this conclusion based 
first on the record during this impeachment trial.
    In weighing the facts and evidence in this case, I have 
listened carefully to all of the trial proceedings and taken 
extensive notes, including during the managers' presentations 
and Senators' questioning period. Let me highlight a few key 
facts and pieces of evidence that were determinative for my 
thinking, with the understanding that this is not an exhaustive 
list.
    First, President Trump indicated his strong interest in 
having Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky open a political 
investigation into the Bidens, in a July 26, 2019, phone call 
between the President and U.S. Ambassador to the European Union 
Gordon Sondland.
    Second, Acting Chief of Staff and Office of Management and 
Budget Director Mick Mulvaney admitted that a quid pro quo 
existed in terms of tying the release of U.S. funding to 
Ukraine to the opening of a political investigation to help 
President Trump.
    Third, there are numerous examples in the record of direct 
pressure on the Ukrainian Government to open political 
investigations for the personal benefit of President Trump, 
including a September 1, 2019, Warsaw meeting between 
Ambassador Sondland and Andriy Yermak, a top adviser to the 
Ukrainian President, which directly tied U.S. military 
assistance to Ukraine to the opening of political 
investigations to hurt President Trump's political rivals. 
These accounts were later confirmed in testimony by other U.S. 
diplomats, and on September 7, Ambassador Sondland reiterated 
these themes following discussions with President Trump.
    Fourth, before the July 25 phone call between Presidents 
Trump and Zelensky, former U.S. Special Envoy to Ukraine Kurt 
Volker communicates with Yermak and conditions a White House 
visit to the launching of a political investigation against the 
President's rivals in Ukraine.
    Fifth, on July 10, 2019, the White House held a series of 
meetings with high-level Ukrainian defense officials, which 
conditioned a White House visit from the Ukrainian President 
with the opening of political investigations in Ukraine sought 
by President Trump. Notably, former National Security Advisor 
John Bolton refused to be part of any ``drug deal'' and asked 
his staff to report these meetings to National Security Council 
lawyers. It was explained by National Security Council Member 
Fiona Hill that, by ``drug deal,'' Ambassador Bolton was 
referring to conditioning a White House meeting for the 
President of Ukraine with the Ukrainians starting the political 
investigations desired by the President.
    Mr. Bolton should have testified before the Senate, and we 
should not have to wait for his book release, after this Senate 
trial concludes, to get a full accounting of firsthand 
conversations here that bear directly on the impeachment 
charges against the President. Press reports indicate that, in 
his upcoming book, Bolton will state that the President 
explicitly told him that he did not want to release $391 
million in aid to Ukraine until it announced investigations 
into his Democratic rivals, including former Vice President Joe 
Biden. Also, the President specifically asked Bolton to arrange 
a meeting for President Trump's personal attorney, Rudy 
Giuliani, with President Zelensky to further the illegal 
scheme. Notably, the former White House Chief of Staff at the 
time, John Kelly, believes Bolton's account.
    Sixth, the language used in the July 25, 2019, phone call 
between Presidents Trump and Zelensky was a direct solicitation 
of foreign interference (a ``favor'') by using a political 
investigation to help President Trump's campaign and hurt his 
Democratic rivals.
    Seventh, why did the administration keep secret its hold on 
assistance to Ukraine in order to allegedly combat corruption? 
The U.S. has generally notified countries, Congress, and the 
public when it is withholding foreign aid in order to change 
the country's behavior and let them know what steps they need 
to take to resolve the hold.
    As the ranking member of the Helsinki Commission and as a 
senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I know 
the importance of promoting American values in foreign policy. 
The President's conduct has weakened America's global 
leadership in fighting corruption, promoting democracy, and 
strengthening the rule of law.
    President Trump's corrupt use of his foreign policy power 
compromised America's ability to help shape the global 
community that protects American values.
    The record shows that Ambassador Volker tried to discourage 
Mr. Yermak and the Ukrainian Government from trying to 
prosecute the country's previous President. Ambassador Volker 
says he warned it would sow deep societal divisions. Ambassador 
Volker says that Mr. Yermak quipped in response, ``You mean 
like asking us to investigate Clinton and Biden?''
    In addition to the record, I am supported in my conclusions 
by three other considerations. First, why hasn't the President 
presented to the impeachment trial the testimony of the 
witnesses that have direct knowledge concerning the factual 
allegations in the Articles of Impeachment? I draw from the 
absence of such testimony that it would only corroborate the 
record presented by the House Managers. Secondly, counsel to 
President Mr. Sekulow acknowledged ``you cannot view this case 
in a vacuum.'' I agree. President Trump, during his Presidency, 
has consistently misrepresented the facts and defamed anyone 
who has challenged him.
    One clear and relevant example of this is how he tried to 
obstruct the Mueller investigation and how, to this date, he 
mischaracterizes its conclusion. The President was not 
exonerated by the Mueller report, which found that Russia 
interfered in our 2016 Presidential election in a ``sweeping 
and systematic fashion.'' President Trump consistently took 
steps to deny Russia's involvement in tampering in our 
elections, resisted efforts to hold Russia accountable, 
besmirched the reputation of the special counsel while trying 
to dismiss him or willfully impeded his investigation, and 
repeatedly attacked the integrity of our intelligence and law 
enforcement agencies.
    Indeed, the Mueller report stated: ``If we had confidence 
after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President 
clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so 
state. Based on the facts and applicable legal standards, 
however, we are unable to reach that judgment.'' At a press 
conference, Special Counsel Mueller reiterated: ``If we had had 
confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, 
we would have said so.'' The report detailed numerous instances 
in which the President may have obstructed justice, but left 
further pursuit of the matter to Congress or future prosecutors 
once the President leaves office.
    With such a track record, it is easier to understand how 
the facts presented by the House managers tie together 
supporting an illegal scheme, orchestrated by the President, to 
get Ukraine involved in our 2020 elections to help Mr. Trump's 
reelection.
    Third, the President has consistently failed to show any 
remorse for his conduct, leading to the conclusion that he will 
continue to violate the sacred trust of the office.
    Having been satisfied that the President did commit the 
offenses in the first Article of Impeachment, the next hurdle 
is whether these constitute impeachable offenses. I conclude 
they do. President Trump is not a King or Monarch. The Founding 
Fathers wisely created a system of separation of powers and 
checks and balances so as not to concentrate power in only one 
office or department of government. The Senate must reject 
President Trump's statement on July 23, 2019, that his right 
under article II of the Constitution is ``to do whatever I want 
as president.''
    As noted in the House Judiciary Committee report on 
constitutional grounds for Presidential impeachment (December, 
2019), President Trump's claim here ``is wrong, and profoundly 
so, because our Constitution rejects pretensions to monarchy 
and binds Presidents with law. That is true even of powers 
vested exclusively in the chief executive. If those powers are 
invoked for corrupt reasons, or wielded in an abusive manner 
harming the constitutional system, the President is subject to 
impeachment for `high crimes and misdemeanors.' This is a core 
premise of the impeachment power.'' I agree.
    The President's counsel notes that abuse of power could 
become too subjective a standard for Presidential impeachments. 
But as Representative William Cohen remarked in President 
Nixon's case, ``It has also been said to me that even if Mr. 
Nixon did commit these offenses, every other President . . . 
has engaged in some of the same conduct, at least to some 
degree, but the answer I think is that democracy, that solid 
rock of our system, may be eroded away by degree and its 
survival will be determined by the degree to which we will 
tolerate those silent and subtle subversions that absorb it 
slowly into the rule of a few.''
    The premise that abuse of power being a too subjective 
standard belies common sense and could lead to the absurd 
conclusion given by Professor Dershowitz--one of President 
Trump's impeachment counsel--during the trial. He stated: 
``Your election is in the public interest. And if a president 
does something which he believes will help him get elected in 
the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo 
that results in impeachment.'' Abuse of power, as used by 
President Trump, to further a scheme to get Ukraine to help in 
President Trump's campaign must be an impeachable offense if we 
believe our Constitution guarantees that no one, including the 
President of the United States, is above the law.
    The President's counsel also observes that, when initiating 
Articles of Impeachment, the House should only proceed if there 
is bipartisan support, but that decision is left solely to the 
House. Once the House has acted, the Senate shall proceed to 
trial and must render a decision based upon the case presented.
    There are clear distinctions between the Clinton and Trump 
impeachments. In Clinton, the trial was acknowledged to be 
fair; witnesses testified before the Senate; President Clinton 
and members of his administration testified under oath; and 
documents were produced for review by the President. President 
Clinton showed remorse for his conduct and apologized. His 
misconduct was personal in nature.
    In contrast, President Trump blocked all witnesses and 
documents, and the Senate called no witnesses to testify under 
oath. President Trump has shown no remorse, continuing to say 
that the controversial call with President Zelensky was 
``perfect.'' Unlike President Clinton's misconduct, President 
Trump has abused the power of his office for personal gain.
    Turning to the second Article of Impeachment, obstruction 
of Congress, the House alleges, that, in response to their 
impeachment inquiry, President Trump ``directed the 
unprecedented, categorical, and indiscriminate defiance of 
subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives . . . without 
lawful cause or excuse, President Trump directed Executive 
branch agencies, offices, and officials not to comply with 
those subpoenas. President Trump thus interposed the powers of 
the Presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House of 
Representatives, and assumed to himself functions and judgments 
necessary to exercise of the `sole power of impeachment' vested 
by the Constitution in the House of Representatives.''
    In particular, the second article alleges that the 
President: No. 1, directed the White House to defy a lawful 
subpoena by withholding the production of documents; No. 2, 
directed other executive branch agencies and offices to defy 
lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents, 
including OMB and the Departments of State, Defense, and 
Energy; and No. 3, directed current and former executive branch 
officials not to cooperate with the investigating committees, 
including Mick Mulvaney and numerous other officials.
    After reviewing the evidence, I believe that the Senate 
record supports conviction under article II as an impeachable 
offense.
    President Trump carried out an extraordinary and 
unprecedented campaign of obstruction of Congress. Note that 
President Clinton provided evidence that was requested by the 
House and Senate during impeachment proceedings, and allowed 
multiple White House aides to testify in the underlying 
investigation. President Nixon cooperated to an extent in his 
investigation, allowing numerous White House officials to 
testify and providing substantial evidence to Congress in its 
inquiry. By contrast, President Trump issued an edict directing 
his administration to refuse to ``participate'' in all aspects 
of the House's impeachment inquiry. In particular, the October 
8, 2019, letter from the White House Counsel did not even 
attempt to assert any specific privileges.
    This trial has been very difficult for the Senate and our 
Nation, but each Senator must in his or her own judgment carry 
out the oaths we have taken as Senators to support the 
Constitution as well as our special oath to do ``impartial 
justice'' as participants in this Senate impeachment trial, 
with Chief Justice Roberts presiding over the Senate.
    Weighing the credibility of President Trump, I find a clear 
pattern of misconduct in office. President Trump's obstruction 
of Congress shows a deep and abiding disrespect for Congress 
and lack of appreciation for the separation of powers and 
system of checks and balances in our government.
    As the President and Commander in Chief, President Trump 
used his power to compromise and corrupt America's values. Our 
values are our strength. In particular, President Trump has 
undermined the rule of law, weakened our efforts to fight 
corruption both at home and abroad, damaged our national 
security, and helped our adversary, Russia.
    President Trump's conduct clearly crossed the line when he 
put his own personal interests over the country's interests, 
using the power of his office for his own personal benefit.
    No one is above the law. We must act to protect the 
Constitution and our democratic system of government. It is 
with a heavy heart that I support both Articles of Impeachment, 
requiring the removal of the President from office as well as 
the disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, 
trust, or profit under the United States.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 3, 2020]

                  Statement of Senator Kelly Loeffler

    Mrs. LOEFFLER. Mr. President, I am honored and humbled to 
stand before you today as Georgia's and our country's newest 
U.S. Senator.
    As the 100th Senator, I have spent the least time in 
Washington, but as the least senior Senator, I am also the most 
recently attached to the private sector, where the vast 
majority of Americans live and work. I am intensely aware of 
the needs and the expectations that Americans hold for us.
    Just 2 months ago, I left nearly a three-decade business 
career to serve the great people of Georgia and our Nation, but 
being here in this respected, historic Chamber is a very long 
way from where I started.
    I was born and raised as the fourth generation of corn and 
soybean farmers, and I grew up working in our fields and with 
our cattle on the feedlot. I waitressed and sold watches and 
shoes to put myself through school. Then I moved around the 
country to pursue my dream of a business career. I have been a 
job seeker and a job creator. I haven't spent my life trying to 
get to Washington, but I worked hard to stand where I am today.
    I have lived the American dream, and each day, I remember 
where I came from, and I am proud of my beginnings. While I am 
an outsider to politics, I am not new to getting results. I 
came here to get things done for the people of Georgia.
    So why does all of this matter today, in this historic 
moment right now, just 2 days from my vote to acquit President 
Trump? Because for months and, sadly, years for many, Members 
of Congress who have meant to serve the American people have 
been tied up in a political game.
    There is much to regret here--the House's false urgency to 
push through deficient articles, only to ask for more time, 
more evidence, more testimony; the deception of the House 
managers, who are more focused on political power than they are 
on pursuing the facts; the media who ran with the narrative the 
Democrats planted, with selective, unlawful leaks.
    For the last 132 days, Congress has been neglecting the 
American people. I came here to get things done for Georgians, 
but for the last 2 weeks, we have been stuck in the Senate 
Chamber, working on something that most Americans have little 
interest in.
    As my notebooks filled up, I thought to myself, how did 
this case even make it to the Senate?
    When I am around the State, it is very clear that this is 
not what people at home care about. Georgians aren't losing 
sleep over a call the President made or questioning his 
constitutional right to conduct foreign policy. They are 
concerned with taking care of their families, their jobs, and 
their freedom to achieve the American dream and live the lives 
they imagined. I think of young kids, whether in the inner city 
or on a farm or in the suburbs. What example are we setting in 
Washington? Why should employers feel that Washington cares 
about job creation when there is a neglect of the engine that 
makes America strong?
    Why are we here? We are public servants, charged with 
protecting the Constitution and our country and I hope, in the 
process, bettering the lives of all Americans.
    Despite this monumental distraction, this administration 
has worked tirelessly to move our country forward.
    Last week, the President signed into law the United States-
Mexico-Canada Agreement. Sadly, this sat on Speaker Pelosi's 
desk for 1 year, denying American farmers and workers untold 
economic opportunity.
    Last month, the administration completed a phase one deal 
with China, now holding China accountable for unfair trade 
practices and adding to our thriving economy.
    For 3 years, as the Democrats have focused on taking down a 
duly elected President, President Trump's pro-growth policies 
have given us a booming economy. These policies have resulted 
in record employment, 7 million new jobs, and a blue-collar 
boom that is lifting up hard-working Americans.
    This administration charges on, but it needs Congress's 
support if America is to move on with the American dream for 
all.
    With that in mind, I say: Enough. Let's put our trust in 
the American people. They are the ones who should make a 
judgment about the President, and they will do that in 9 
months. Let's not be so arrogant as to take that decision away 
from the American people. Instead, let's focus all of our 
energies on improving their lives. Impeachment does not do 
that. It is time to move on.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 3, 2020]

                     Statement of Senator Tom Udall

    Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I come before this body ith a 
deep sadness that this institution has failed the Constitution 
and failed the American people.
    We have reached a low point in our history. We have failed 
to hold a fair and honest impeachment trial, and we are nearing 
a vote wherein we will fail to hold the President accountable 
for his abuse of power and a coverup. Thanks to the Senate's 
Republican majority, this body is complicit in that coverup in 
its refusing to call witnesses and obtain documents to get the 
full truth. How can we turn a blind eye to the truth as we cast 
one of the most important votes we will ever take?
    Yes, we are approaching a sad day for this body and for 
this country, but to those across the country who feel 
profoundly angry and saddened by this miscarriage of justice, 
my message is this: Do not give up. Do not stop fighting to 
save our democracy because America is worth the fight. America 
is worth the fight.
    Make no mistake--try as they might to cover it up, the full 
truth will come out. And the facts that have already been 
revealed are damning.
    The President's handpicked Ambassador, Gordon Sondland, 
testified, ``Everyone was in the loop.'' The more we find out, 
the more revealing his testimony becomes.
    Not only is the President implicated, so is the Vice 
President and the Secretary of State and the Attorney General 
and the President's acting Chief of Staff and his former Energy 
Secretary and even the White House Counsel, the lead lawyer in 
this very proceeding.
    This is a pandora's box the Republican Party is fighting to 
keep shut, but it will not stay shut. The President's misdeeds 
and his wide circle of accomplices will go down as one of the 
ugliest episodes in American history.
    Even now, the evidence gathered by the House--that the 
President abused his office and taxpayer funds for personal 
gain--is staggering. Ambassador Sondland didn't sugarcoat the 
truth. ``Was there a quid pro quo? The answer is yes.'' That 
was his quote. Using official power for personal gain--that is 
the very essence of abuse of power, and that is precisely what 
this President did. That is hardly even in dispute. The 
evidence is overwhelming.
    The President first withheld a coveted meeting until the 
Ukrainian President would announce investigations into the 
Bidens and the debunked conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not 
Russia, interfered in our 2016 election. The President next 
withheld congressionally appropriated military aid illegally to 
try to force the Ukrainian President into making the 
announcement of the investigations.
    The independent Government Accountability Office confirmed 
that the President acted illegally.
    The President threatened our national security, the 
security of an ally, and the integrity of our next Presidential 
election. How much more could be at stake?
    Ukrainian officials began asking about the aid only hours 
after the President's now-infamous July 25 call with President 
Zelensky. That is according to Laura Cooper, the Deputy 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, and 
Eurasia. A former Deputy Foreign Minister in Ukraine reports 
Ukraine knew of the freeze in July, and the whole world knew 
once the story broke the news on August 28.
    Fortunately, the President got caught and was forced to 
release the aid. He got caught red-handed and immediately 
commenced a scorched-earth blockade in Congress and the courts 
to cover up his grave misdeeds.
    Again, the facts are not in dispute.
    So knowing that these are some of the most serious and 
solemn words I will ever say or utter on this floor, I will 
vote to convict the President on both Articles of Impeachment. 
He is guilty by any standard. If he is allowed to act with 
impunity, he will be a continuing threat to the sanctity of our 
democracy. He is patently unfit to hold the highest office in 
our land.
    While the Senate may vote to acquit him, he will not be 
exonerated--not by this sham trial. While the Senate may vote 
to acquit the President, history will not.
    Now, Senators on the other side of the aisle are publicly 
and not so publicly admitting that they believe the President 
is guilty, that the House managers proved their case. But these 
same Senators did not vote to hear witnesses and get documents. 
They will fail to hold the President accountable for the 
wrongdoing they now say he is guilty of.
    This is one of the worst abuses of Presidential power in 
our Nation's history. This is as bad as or worse than President 
Nixon's. Nixon tried to corrupt the 1972 election and cover it 
up, but he didn't try to extort an ally or invite foreign 
interference into our election.
    At that time, members of his party with courage refused to 
turn a blind eye. The Republican Party of today bears no 
resemblance to the party of Howard Baker, who insisted on 
getting to the truth. Howard asked: What did the President know 
and when did he know it? It bears no resemblance to the party 
of Barry Goldwater, John Rhodes, and Hugh Scott, who went to 
Nixon to tell him the Republican Party could no longer protect 
him from impeachment and removal.
    I am grateful to the honorable officials who had the 
courage to act this time around, who defied the President's 
order not to come forward--Ambassador Yovanovitch, Lieutenant 
Colonel Vindman, Ambassador Taylor, Mr. Kent, and the others. 
They risked their careers and even their personal safety. We 
should at least--at least--show the same courage because the 
consequences of failing to hold this President to account could 
not be graver.
    The guardrails have been taken off. The President invited 
Russian interference in the 2016 election and invited Chinese 
interference in the upcoming 2020 election. He said on national 
television he would probably take foreign interference again. 
He is unapologetic and unrepentant. What is he going to do next 
once the Senate Republicans let him get away with this abuse, 
once we show that we are no longer a coequal branch?
    We have never ceded so much power to the Executive. You can 
rest assured that this President of all Presidents will use 
that power and abuse it. Take his word for it. He said, 
``Article II allows me to do whatever I want.'' Pulitzer Prize-
winning Presidential historian Jon Meacham said the President 
is now, and this is his quote, ``functionally a monarch.'' That 
is stunning.
    Again, these are sad days for our Nation, but as I said at 
the outset, we cannot and will not concede our democracy. We 
cannot and will not concede the values and principles that make 
this Nation strong. We must restore the balance of power in our 
government. We must restore accountability. Most importantly, 
we must start doing the work the American people sent us here 
to do. Our institutions are not representing what the American 
people want. Senate Republicans' refusal to hold a fair 
impeachment trial, which is what 75 percent of the American 
people wanted, is just the latest example.
    While the Senate and the Constitution took a terrible 
battering the last 2 weeks, I am even more committed to 
breathing life into our shared principles of representative 
government. I am going to continue the fight to take obscene 
amounts of secret money out of our elections, to make it easier 
to vote, and to bring power back to the American people and not 
hand it over to an imperial Presidency.
    The Senate will have future opportunities to restore our 
constitutional system. The only question is whether Senators 
will rise to the occasion.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 3, 2020]

               Statement of Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand

    Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Colleagues, over the past few weeks, we 
have conducted the third impeachment trial in our entire 
Nation's history for a President.
    Let's be perfectly clear about something: Democrats did not 
want to impeach President Trump. From the start, efforts to 
begin an impeachment inquiry in the House were met with 
resistance until the President's reckless behavior and 
unprecedented actions forced the Speaker's hand. The Speaker 
could not sit idly by after the President withheld 
congressionally approved military aid from a U.S. ally in order 
to orchestrate foreign interference in our upcoming election.
    We have worked hard to find common ground with this 
President, and at times, Democrats have worked together to get 
good, bipartisan legislation accomplished. But President 
Trump's brazen misconduct forced this issue. His misdeeds posed 
a moral challenge to every single Member of Congress. How much 
corruption should we stomach? How much of our integrity should 
we sacrifice? How much malfeasance should we tolerate? Will we 
look the other way as the President flaunts our laws and 
ignores the Constitution?
    Sometimes it can seem far easier to just stay silent. All 
of us know that it can be easier to avoid angry phone calls. 
But think about how much harder it would be to explain this 
moment in history to our children and our grandchildren. Think 
about how painful it will be to explain if you knew what 
President Trump did was wrong and you did nothing; if you knew 
what President Trump did was wrong under the Constitution that 
you swore to uphold; that you knew it was wrong, but you voted 
to acquit anyway because of your ambition, because of your 
political party.
    Lest you think you can convince them otherwise, let me 
dispel this fiction. History's record of this time will be very 
clear. The American people can see through these lies. They 
recognize the inconsistencies and the double-speak. The 
American people are not naive. They are not stupid. They are 
not ignorant. They are not immoral.
    My Republican colleagues are not naive or ignorant or 
immoral either. They are good men and women. They love their 
children, their neighbors, and our country. I consider many of 
them my friends. When we have dinner together, when we go to 
visit the troops overseas, we don't do it as Democrats and 
Republicans. We do it as colleagues, friends, and as peers in 
this body. We do so as elected Members of Congress, as Senators 
representing our States and our country.
    It should be the very same when we judge President Trump. 
In I John 2:21, John writes to a group of believers who are in 
turmoil. He wrote: ``I do not write to you because you do not 
know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie 
comes from the truth.''
    This trial had the goal of accomplishing one thing--to 
discover the truth, to know what happened, to hold the 
President accountable. We pledged to listen to receive that 
evidence fairly and to judge honestly. We swore to defend the 
Constitution, not to defend a man or a political party, and we 
should all remember this when we cast our votes, because 
President Trump is not like you. He is not honest, kind, or 
compassionate. He doesn't have integrity or moral conviction. 
He is neither fair nor decent.
    We, as Senators who swore to uphold the Constitution, 
should, based on the facts laid before us, vote to convict. 
Hold President Trump accountable for what he has done. We have 
to show the American people, ourselves, that President Trump 
does not represent our values, that we still believe that we 
must fight for what is right, for truth, for justice, for 
honesty, for integrity, and that laws mean something, and we 
don't put ourselves before the law.
    For those who lack courage in this moment, those who are 
unwilling to do what they know in their heart of hearts, in 
their conscience and in their deepest thoughts to be right, if 
they do not do what they know they should, they will be 
remembered as complicit. They will be remembered as not telling 
the truth. They will not be remembered well.
    I urge you to vote your conscience.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 3, 2020]

                  Statement of Senator Lisa Murkowski

    Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise this evening to 
address the trial of Donald John Trump. The Founders gave this 
body the sole power to try all impeachments, and exercising 
that power--we all know--is a weighty, weighty responsibility. 
This was only the third time in the history of our country that 
the Senate convened to handle a Presidential impeachment and 
only the second in the past 150 years.
    I was part of a small group that worked to secure a fair, 
an honest, and a transparent structure for the trial, and we 
based it on how this Chamber handled the trial of President 
Clinton some 20 years ago. So there were 24 hours of arguments 
for each side, 16 hours of questions from Members, with the 
full House record admitted as evidence.
    That should have been more than enough to answer the 
questions: Do we need to hear more? Should there be additional 
process? Mr. President, the structure we built should have been 
sufficient, but the foundation upon which it rested was rotten. 
The House rushed through what should have been one of the most 
serious, consequential undertakings of the legislative branch, 
simply to meet an artificial, self-imposed deadline.
    Prior Presidential impeachments resulted from years of 
investigation, where subpoenas were issued and they were 
litigated, where there were massive amounts of documents that 
were produced and witnesses deposed, where resistance from the 
Executive was overcome through court proceedings and through 
accommodations.
    The House failed in its responsibilities. The House failed 
in its responsibilities. The Senate should be ashamed by the 
rank partisanship that has been on display here. We cannot be 
the greatest deliberative body when we kick things off by 
issuing letters to the media instead of coming together to set 
the parameters of the trial and negotiate in good faith on how 
we should proceed.
    For all the talk of impartiality, it is clear to me that 
few in this Chamber approached this with a genuinely open mind. 
Some have been calling for the President to be impeached for 
years. Indeed, we saw just today clips that indicate headlines 
19 minutes after the President was sworn into office calling 
for his impeachment. Others in this Chamber saw little need to 
even consider the arguments from the House before stating their 
intentions to acquit.
    Over the course of the past few weeks, we have all seen the 
videos from 20 years ago where Members who were present during 
the Clinton trial took the exact opposite stance than they take 
today. That level of hypocrisy is astounding, even for a place 
like Washington, DC.
    The President's behavior was shameful and wrong. His 
personal interests do not take precedence over those of this 
great Nation. The President has the responsibility to uphold 
the integrity and the honor of the office, not just for himself 
but for all future Presidents. Degrading the office by actions 
or even name-calling weakens it for future Presidents, and it 
weakens our country.
    All of this rotted foundation of the process--all of this--
led to the conclusion that I reached several days ago that 
there would be no fair trial. While this trial was held here in 
this Senate, it was really litigated in the court of public 
opinion. For half the country, they had already decided there 
had been far too much process; they considered the entire 
impeachment inquiry to be baseless, and they thought that the 
Senate should have just dismissed the case as soon as it 
reached us.
    Then, for the other half, no matter how many witnesses were 
summoned or deposed, no matter how many documents were 
produced, the only way--the only way--the trial could have been 
considered fair was if it resulted in the President's removal 
from office.
    During the month that the House declined to transmit the 
articles to the Senate, the demon of faction extended his 
scepter, the outcome became clear, and a careless media 
cheerfully tried to put out the fires with gasoline. We debated 
witnesses instead of the case before the Senate. Rather than 
the President's conduct, the focus turned to how a lack of 
additional witnesses could be used to undermine any final 
conclusion. What started with political initiatives that 
degraded the Office of the President and left the Congress 
wallowing in partisan mud threatened to drag the last remaining 
branch of government down along with us.
    Mr. President, I have taken tough votes before to uphold 
the integrity of our courts, and when it became clear that a 
tie vote here in the Senate would simply be used to burn down 
our third branch of government for partisan political purposes, 
I said ``enough''--just ``enough.''
    The response to the President's behavior is not to 
disenfranchise nearly 63 million Americans and remove him from 
the ballot. The House could have pursued censure and not 
immediately jumped to the remedy of last resort. I cannot vote 
to convict. The Constitution provides for impeachment but does 
not demand it in all instances. An incremental first step: to 
remind the President that, as Montesquieu said, ``Political 
virtue is a renunciation of oneself,'' and this requires ``a 
continuous preference of the public interest over one's own.''
    Removal from office and being barred from ever holding 
another office of honor, trust, or profit under the United 
States is the political death penalty. The President's name is 
on ballots that have already been cast. The voters will 
pronounce a verdict in 9 months, and we must trust their 
judgment.
    This process has been the apotheosis of the problem of 
congressional abdication. Through the refusal to exercise war 
powers or relinquishing the power of the purse, selective 
oversight, and an unwillingness to check emergency declarations 
designed to skirt Congress, we have failed. We have failed time 
and again. We, as a legislative branch, cannot continue to cede 
authority to the Executive.
    The question that we must answer, given the intense 
polarization in our country, is, Where do we go from here? 
Where do we go from here? I wish that I had that magic wand. 
Sadly, I have no definitive answers, but I do have hope because 
we must have hope.
    As I tried to build consensus over the past few weeks, I 
had many private conversations with colleagues, and so many--so 
many--in this Chamber share my sadness for the present state of 
our institutions. It is my hope that we have finally found 
bottom here, that both sides can look inward and reflect on the 
apparent willingness that each has to destroy not just each 
other but all of the institutions of our government. And for 
what? Because it may help win an election? At some point, Mr. 
President--at some point--for our country, winning has to be 
about more than just winning, or we will all lose.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 3, 2020]

                    Statement of Senator Todd Young

    Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, as a U.S. Senator, I swore an 
oath to uphold the Constitution, and, while sitting in this 
High Court of Impeachment, I have fulfilled my duty to serve as 
an impartial juror.
    After hearing all counsel arguments and reviewing all 
evidence in the voluminous record, including 17 witnesses, 192 
witness video clips, and 28,578 pages of evidence, procedural 
rules, and constitutional concerns, I will vote to acquit the 
President, preventing his immediate removal from office and 
disqualification from the ballot.
    A fair and accurate reading of this chapter in our Nation's 
history will conclude that, on the issues of fact and law 
presented to this High Court of Impeachment, reasonable and 
public-spirited Senators can disagree. This lends further 
support to the notion that the American people should be 
afforded the opportunity to register their opinions by 
participating in the coming national election.
    While the Senate worked to remain impartial and open-minded 
throughout this trial, it must be acknowledged that a political 
fever permeated this process from the beginning, dating back 
not just to the start of the House of Representatives' 
impeachment efforts, but all the way back to November 2016. As 
a result, the House improperly impeached. Now, the Senate 
should exercise restraint. Here is why.
    First and foremost, a fair legal process is fundamental to 
our democracy. The House managers have repeatedly emphasized 
that no Americans are above the law. I could not agree more: No 
private citizen, President, or assembled majority of Congress 
can violate the rights guaranteed to other Americans under the 
Constitution. Accordingly, the President is entitled to basic 
due process rights, and the House failed to afford him these 
rights. Due process includes the right to legal counsel, the 
right to review evidence, and the ability to confront your 
accusers--rights denied by the House majority. House managers 
breathlessly insist that ``overwhelming'' evidence already in 
the record proves ``beyond any doubt'' the President's 
continued service constitutes an imminent threat to the 
American people. The House's flawed and rushed process led to 
unfair proceedings and resulted in superficial, unspecific 
charges supported by a one-sided, improperly curated factual 
foundation.
    Second, Separation of Powers is a cornerstone of our 
constitutional republic, and its preservation is essential to 
prevent abuse of power by one branch over another. A majority 
of the House should exercise extreme caution when it bases 
impeachment upon the President's exercise of his foreign 
relations prerogatives, which are expressly granted to him by 
the Constitution. Additionally, in developing its Articles of 
Impeachment, the House majority chose to circumvent the 
judicial branch of government in order to clarify an issue of 
unsettled law pertaining to Executive Privilege. Instead, the 
House simply arrogated to itself a novel and dangerous new 
legal authority: absolute power to define Executive Privilege, 
even when the President is exercising his foreign relations 
powers granted by the Constitution.
    As with prior impeachment inquiries, following a formal 
request by the House, the Federal courts could have compelled 
the executive branch to provide sensitive documents and 
witnesses. The House chose to ignore this longstanding 
precedent because it conflicted with its political timeline. 
Astonishingly, Speaker Pelosi rushed the mismanaged process 
forward only to delay it, again for political purposes, before 
finally sending the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. Now 
the House, having failed to fully develop its evidentiary 
record, invites the Senate to act as an accomplice to its 
ramrod impeachment and create a dangerous new 51-vote Senate 
threshold to override executive branch claims of Executive 
Privilege.
    To accept this invitation would be a violation of a long-
established separation of powers.
    Senators might be tempted by a burning curiosity or crass 
political calculation to further develop the House's vague and 
tainted articles, but the constitutional separation of powers 
dictates that our legal charge must be more narrowly confined. 
To act otherwise would violate our oaths and dangerously 
incentivize calculating and intemperate House majorities to 
promiscuously impeach rival Presidents. We must set aside our 
personal preference because, under the Constitution, we are 
duty-bound by the ``sole power to try'' the infirm articles 
before us.
    Lastly, Americans should stand against any Senate action 
which abets the creation of a constitutional crisis through the 
politicization of impeachment. The House majority's misguided 
process created a precedent to weaponize impeachment, a new 
precedent that will lead to serial impeachments in a polarized 
America. If the House majority had its way and the Senate 
accepted its invitation to fix their broken articles, either 
political party would be tempted to impeach and potentially 
remove their political opponents from office by initiating 
slapdash impeachment investigations. This new precedent would 
reduce impeachment to a mere vote of no confidence, similar to 
that in the U.K. Parliament. During President Nixon's 
impeachment, then Democratic Chairman Peter Rodino of the House 
Judiciary Committee urged that, for the American people to 
accept an impeachment, it must be powerfully bipartisan. This 
has been dubbed the Rodino rule, and I embrace the standard.
    A decent respect for the law and the opinions of fellow 
citizens and a concern for future precedent requires that I 
pointedly emphasize what I am not arguing, that a President can 
lawfully do ``whatever he wants,'' that inviting foreign 
election interference is appropriate, that absolute immunity 
attaches to Executive Privilege, or that a statutory offense 
must be committed to impeach.
    In summation, I have ineluctably arrived at a conclusion 
after impartially applying the law to all facts presented: 
House managers delivered tainted articles and failed to present 
requisite evidence to support their exceedingly high burden of 
proof. Therefore, I am duty bound to join my colleagues who 
would have the Senate resume the ordinary business of the 
American people.
    The Founding Fathers, who warned of the political nature of 
impeachment, also provided us a means to address 
dissatisfaction with our Presidents: frequent elections. This 
week, Americans began the Presidential election process. For 
the sake of our Constitution and our Nation, the Court of the 
American People should render its verdict through an election 
to address its support of or opposition to the current 
administration.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 4, 2020]

                  Statement of Senator Mitch McConnell

    Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, these past weeks, the Senate 
has grappled with as grave a subject as we ever consider: a 
request from a majority of the House to remove the President. 
The Framers took impeachment extremely seriously, but they 
harbored no illusions that these trials would always begin for 
the right reasons.
    Alexander Hamilton warned that ``the demon of faction'' 
would ``extend his sceptre'' over the House of Representatives 
``at certain seasons.'' He warned that ``an intemperate or 
designing majority of the House'' might misuse impeachment as a 
weapon of ordinary politics rather than emergency tool of last 
resort. The Framers knew impeachments might begin with 
overheated passions and short-term factualism. But they knew 
those things could not get the final say, so they placed the 
ultimate judgment not in the fractious lower Chamber but in the 
sober and stable Senate.
    They wanted impeachment trials to be fair to both sides. 
They wanted them to be timely, avoiding the ``procrastinated 
determination of the charges.'' They wanted us to take a deep 
breath and decide which outcome would reflect the facts, 
protect our institutions, and advance the common good. They 
called the Senate ``the most fit depositary of this important 
trust.'' Tomorrow, we will know whether that trust was well-
placed.
    The drive to impeach President Trump did not begin with the 
allegations before us. Here was reporting in April of 2016, 
before the President was the nominee: ``Donald Trump isn't even 
the Republican nominee yet . . . [but] `Impeachment' is already 
on the lips of pundits, newspaper editorials, constitutional 
scholars, and even a few members of Congress.''
    Here was the Washington Post headline minutes after 
President Trump's inauguration: ``The campaign to impeach 
President Trump has begun,'' the Washington Post says.
    The Articles of Impeachment before us were not even the 
first ones House Democrats introduced. This was go-around 
number, roughly, seven. Those previously alleged high crimes 
and misdemeanors included things like being impolite to the 
press and to professional athletes. It insults the intelligence 
of the American people to pretend this was a solemn process 
reluctantly begun because of withheld foreign aid. No, 
Washington Democrats' position on this President has been clear 
literally for years. Their position was obvious when they 
openly rooted for the Mueller investigation to tear our country 
apart and were disappointed when the facts proved otherwise. It 
was obvious when they sought to impeach the President over and 
over.
    Here is their real position: Washington Democrats think 
President Donald Trump committed a high crime or misdemeanor 
the moment he defeated Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. 
That is the original sin of this Presidency: that he won and 
they lost.
    Ever since, the Nation has suffered through a grinding 
campaign against our norms and institutions from the same 
people who keep shouting that our norms and institutions need 
defending--a campaign to degrade our democracy and delegitimize 
our elections from the same people who shout that confidence in 
our democracy must be paramount.
    We have watched a major American political party adopt the 
following absurd proposition: We think this President is a bull 
in a China shop, so we are going to drive a bulldozer through 
the China shop to get rid of him. This fever led to the most 
rushed, least fair, and least thorough Presidential impeachment 
inquiry in American history.
    The House inquiry under President Nixon spanned many 
months. The special prosecutors' investigation added many more 
months. With President Clinton, the independent counsel worked 
literally for years. It takes time to find facts. It takes time 
to litigate executive privilege, which happened in both those 
investigations. Litigating privilege questions is a normal step 
that investigators of both parties understood was their 
responsibility. But this time, there was no lengthy 
investigation, no serious inquiry. The House abandoned its own 
subpoenas. They had an arbitrary political deadline to meet. 
They had to impeach by Christmas. They had to impeach by 
Christmas. So in December, House Democrats realized the 
Framers' nightmare. A purely partisan majority approved two 
Articles of Impeachment over bipartisan opposition.
    After the Speaker of the House delayed for a month in a 
futile effort to dictate Senate process to Senators, the 
articles finally arrived over here in the Senate.
    Over the course of the trial, Senators have heard sworn 
video testimony from 13 witnesses, over 193 video clips. We 
have entered more than 28,000 pages of documents into evidence, 
including 17 depositions. And our Members asked 180 questions. 
In contrast to the House proceedings, our trial gave both sides 
a fair platform. Our process tracked with the structure that 
Senators adopted for the Clinton trial 20 years ago.
    Just as Democrats such as the current Democratic leader and 
then-Senator Joe Biden argued at length in 1999, we recognized 
that Senate traditions imposed no obligation to hear new live 
witness testimony if it is not necessary to decide the case--if 
it is not necessary to decide the case; let me emphasize that.
    The House managers themselves said over and over that 
additional testimony was not necessary to prove their case. 
They claimed dozens of times that their existing case was 
``overwhelming'' and ``incontrovertible.''
    That was the House managers saying their evidence was 
overwhelming and incontrovertible at the same time they were 
arguing for more witnesses.
    But in reality, both of the House's accusations are 
constitutionally incoherent.
    The ``obstruction of Congress'' charge is absurd and 
dangerous. House Democrats argued that anytime the Speaker 
invokes the House's ``sole power of impeachment,'' the 
President must do whatever the House demands, no questions 
asked. Invoking executive branch privileges and immunities in 
response to House subpoenas becomes an impeachable offense 
itself.
    Here is how Chairman Schiff put it back in October. ``Any 
action''--any action--``that forces us to litigate, or have to 
consider litigation, will be considered further evidence of 
obstruction of justice.''
    That is nonsense. That is nonsense. ``Impeachment'' is not 
some magical constitutional trump card that melts away the 
separations between the branches of government. The Framers did 
not leave the House a secret constitutional steamroller that 
everyone somehow overlooked for 230 years.
    When Congress subpoenas executive branch officials with 
questions of privilege, the two sides either reach an 
accommodation or they go to court. That is the way it works.
    So can you imagine if the shoe were on the other foot? How 
would Democrats and the press have responded if House 
Republicans had told President Obama: We don't want to litigate 
our subpoenas over Fast and Furious. So if you make us step 
foot in court, we will just impeach you. We will just impeach 
you.
    Of course, that is not what happened. The Republican House 
litigated its subpoenas for years until they prevailed.
    So much for ``obstruction of Congress.''
    And the ``abuse of power'' charge is just as unpersuasive 
and dangerous. By passing that article, House Democrats gave in 
to a temptation that every previous House has resisted. They 
impeached a President without even alleging a crime known to 
our laws.
    Now, I do not subscribe to the legal theory that 
impeachment requires a violation of a criminal statute, but 
there are powerful reasons why, for 230 years, every 
Presidential impeachment did in fact allege a criminal 
violation.
    The Framers explicitly rejected impeachment for 
``maladministration,'' a general charge under English law that 
basically encompassed bad management--a sort of general vote of 
no confidence. Except in the most extreme circumstances, except 
for acts that overwhelmingly shocked the national conscience, 
the Framers decided Presidents must serve at the pleasure of 
the electorate--the electorate--and not at the pleasure of 
House majorities. As Hamilton wrote, ``It is one thing to be 
subordinate to the laws, and another to be dependent''--
dependent--``on the legislative body.
    So House Democrats sailed into new and dangerous waters--
the first impeachment unbound by the criminal law. Any House 
that felt it needed to take this radical step owed the country 
the most fair and painstaking process, the most rigorous 
investigation, the most bipartisan effort. Instead, we got the 
opposite--the exact opposite.
    The House managers argued that the President could not have 
been acting in the national interest because he acted 
inconsistently with their own conception of the national 
interest. Let me say that again. The House managers were 
basically arguing that the President could not have been acting 
in the national interest because he acted inconsistently with 
their conception of the national interest, a conception shared 
by some of President's subordinates as well.
    This does not even approach a case for the first 
Presidential removal in American history. It doesn't even 
approach it. Such an act cannot rest alone on the exercise of a 
constitutional power, combined with concerns about whether the 
President's motivations were public or personal, and a 
disagreement over whether the exercise of the power was in the 
national interests.
    The Framers gave our Nation an ultimate tool for evaluating 
a President's character and policy decisions. They are called 
elections. They are called elections.
    If Washington Democrats have a case to make against the 
President's reelection, they should go out and make it. Let 
them try to do what they failed to do 3 years ago and sell the 
American people on their vision for the country.
    I can certainly see why, given President Trump's remarkable 
achievements over the past 3 years, Democrats might feel a bit 
uneasy about defeating him at the ballot box. But they don't 
get to rip the choice away from the voters just because they 
are afraid they might lose again. They don't get to strike 
President Trump's name from the ballot just because, as one 
House Democrat put it, ``I am concerned that if we don't 
impeach [him], he will get re-elected.''
    The impeachment power exists for a reason. It is no 
nullity. But invoking it on a partisan whim to settle 3-year-
old political scores does not honor the Framers' design. It 
insults the Framers' design.
    Frankly, it is hard to believe that House Democrats ever 
really thought this reckless and precedent-breaking process 
would yield 67 votes to cross the Rubicon.
    Was their vision so clouded by partisanship that they 
really believed--they really believed--this would be anywhere 
near enough for the first Presidential removal in American 
history?
    Or was success beside the point? Was this all an effort to 
hijack our institutions for a monthlong political rally?
    Either way, ``the demon of faction'' has been on full 
display, but now it is time for him, the demon, to exit the 
stage. We have indeed witnessed an abuse of power--a grave 
abuse of power--by just the kind of House majority that the 
Framers warned us about.
    So tomorrow--tomorrow--the Senate must do what we were 
created to do. We have done our duty. We considered all the 
arguments. We have studied the ``mountain of evidence,'' and, 
tomorrow, we will vote.
    We must vote to reject the House's abuse of power, vote to 
protect our institutions, vote to reject new precedents that 
would reduce the Framers' design to rubble, and vote to keep 
factional fever from boiling over and scorching our Republic.
    I urge every one of our colleagues to cast the vote that 
the facts in evidence, the Constitution, and the common good 
clearly require. Vote to acquit the President of these charges.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 4, 2020]

                Statement of Senator Charles E. Schumer

    Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, the majority leader can come up 
on the floor and repeat his talking points, but there are some 
salient points that are irrefutable.
    The first, this is the first impeachment trial of a 
President or impeachment trial of anybody else that was 
completed that has no witnesses and no documents. The American 
people are just amazed that our Republican friends would not 
even ask for witnesses and documents.
    I thought the House did a very good job. I thought they 
made a compelling case. But even if you didn't, the idea that 
that means you shouldn't have witnesses and documents, when we 
are doing something as august, as important as an impeachment 
trial, fails the laugh test. It makes people believe--
correctly, in my judgment--that the administration, its top 
people, and Senate Republicans are all hiding the truth. They 
are afraid of the truth.
    Second, the charges are extremely serious. To interfere in 
an election, to blackmail a foreign country to interfere in our 
elections gets at the very core of what our democracy is about. 
If Americans believe that they don't determine who is 
President, who is Governor, who is Senator, but some foreign 
potentate out of reach of any law enforcement can jaundice our 
elections, that is the beginning of the end of democracy.
    So it is a serious charge. Republicans refused to get the 
evidence because they were afraid of what it would show, and 
that is all that needs to be said.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 4, 2020]

                    Statement of Senator John Thune

    Mr. THUNE. Madam President, tomorrow we will be voting on 
the two impeachment articles sent over to us by the House of 
Representatives, a process, as the leader pointed out, that 
really started from the very day this President took office.
    I will be voting to acquit the President for several 
reasons. First and foremost, I do not believe the facts in this 
case rise to the high bar that the Founders set for removal 
from office. The Founders imposed a threshold for impeachment 
of ``Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and 
Misdemeanors''--in other words, very serious violations of the 
public trust.
    The Founders were deliberate in their choice of words. They 
wanted to be clear that impeachment was a severe remedy to be 
deployed only for very serious violations. When George Mason 
proposed adding the term ``maladministration'' to the 
impeachment clause during the Constitutional Convention, the 
Framers rejected the proposal because, as Madison pointed out, 
the term was too vague and would be ``equivalent to a tenure 
during pleasure of the Senate.''
    The Founders recognized that without safeguards, 
impeachment could quickly degenerate into a political weapon to 
be used to turn over elections when one faction or another 
decided they didn't like the President. That is why the 
Founders split the impeachment power, giving the House the sole 
authority to impeach and the Senate the sole authority to try 
impeachments. As a final check, the Founders required a two-
thirds supermajority vote in the Senate to remove a President 
from office. All of these things show just how seriously the 
Founders regarded removing a duly elected President. They 
intended it as an extreme remedy to be used only in very grave 
circumstances.
    I do not believe that the charges the House has leveled 
against the President meet that high bar. The House managers' 
presentation, which stretched over 22 hours, included testimony 
from more than a dozen witnesses. We also heard from the House 
managers during more than 16 hours of questions from Senators--
in all, about 180 questions--and we received more than 28,000 
pages of testimony, evidence, and arguments from the House of 
Representatives.
    I considered all the evidence carefully, but ultimately I 
concluded that the two charges presented by the House 
managers--abuse of power and obstruction of Congress--did not 
provide a compelling case for removing this President.
    According to public reporting, House Democrats toyed with 
charging the President with bribery, believing that it polled 
well, but they didn't have the evidence to prove that charge 
or, indeed, to prove any actual crime.
    While allegations of specific criminal conduct may not be 
constitutionally required, they anchor impeachment in the law, 
and their absence is telling. Lacking evidence of a specific 
crime, the House decided to use the shotgun approach and throw 
everything under the catchall ``abuse of power'' umbrella.
    Abuse of power is vaguely defined and subject to 
interpretation. In fact, I don't believe there has been a 
President in my lifetime who hasn't been accused of some form 
of abuse of power. For that reason, abuse of power seemed to me 
a fairly weak predicate on which to remove a democratically 
elected President from office. During the Clinton impeachment, 
I voted against the abuse of power article precisely because I 
believed it did not offer strong grounds for removing the duly 
elected President.
    With respect to the second article, obstruction of 
Congress, the House took issue with the President's assertion 
of legal privileges, including those rooted in the 
constitutional separation of powers. Of course, every President 
in recent memory has invoked such privileges--for example, when 
the Obama administration cited executive privilege to deny 
documents to Congress during the Fast and Furious gunrunning 
investigation.
    The House could have challenged the President's privilege 
claims by going through the traditional channels to resolve 
disputes between the executive and legislative branches, that 
being, of course, the courts. That is what was done in previous 
impeachment inquiries, like the Clinton impeachment. But the 
House skipped that step in the hopes that the Senate would bail 
them out and compel testimony and documents that the House, in 
its rush to impeachment, was unwilling to procure. Again, it 
seemed like a very thin basis on which to remove a duly elected 
President from office.
    The facts in the case are that aid to Ukraine was released 
prior to the end of the fiscal year. No investigation of the 
scandal-plagued firm Burisma or the Bidens was ever initiated. 
While we can debate the President's judgment when it comes to 
his dealings with Ukraine or even conclude that his actions 
were inappropriate, the House's vague and overreaching 
impeachment charges do not meet the high bar set by the 
Founders for removal from office.
    My second consideration in voting to acquit the President 
is the deeply partisan nature of the House's impeachment 
proceedings. The Founders' overriding concern about impeachment 
was that partisan majorities could use impeachment as a 
political weapon.
    In Federalist 65, Alexander Hamilton speaks of the danger 
of impeachment being used by ``an intemperate or designing 
majority in the House of Representatives.'' By limiting the 
House's power to impeaching the President and not to removing 
him from office, the Founders hoped that the Senate would act 
as a check on any attempt by the House to use the power of 
impeachment for partisan purposes.
    Unfortunately, the Founders' concerns about partisanship 
were realized in this impeachment process. For the first time 
in modern history, impeachment was initiated and conducted on a 
purely partisan basis.
    While the Nixon impeachment proceedings in the House are 
held up as an example of bipartisanship, even the impeachment 
of President Clinton was initiated with the support of more 
than 30 Democrats. By contrast, in this case, House Democrats 
drove ahead in a completely--completely--partisan exercise. 
Then they rushed through the impeachment process at breakneck 
speed, rejecting a thorough investigation because they wanted 
to impeach the President as fast as possible. Then they 
expected the Senate to take on the House's investigative 
responsibility.
    House Democrats paid lip service to the idea that they 
regretted having to impeach the President, but their actions 
told a different story. The Speaker of the House--the Speaker--
distributed celebratory pens when she signed the Articles of 
Impeachment and then went on TV and celebrated the impeachment 
with a fist bump.
    It doesn't require much work to imagine the damage that 
could be done to our Republic if impeachment becomes a weapon 
to be used whenever a political party doesn't like a President. 
Pretty soon, Presidents would not be serving at the pleasure of 
the American people but at the pleasure of the House and the 
Senate.
    We need to call a halt before we have gone too far to turn 
back. Endorsing the House's rushed, partisan, and slipshod work 
would encourage future Houses to use impeachment for partisan 
purposes. Both parties need to learn that partisan impeachments 
are perilous.
    Finally, I believe that except in the most extreme 
circumstances, it should be the American people, and not 
Washington politicians, who decide whether a President should 
be removed from office. Presidential primary voting, as we 
learned yesterday in Iowa, is already underway. We have a 
Presidential election in November, when the people of this 
country can weigh in and make their voices heard. I think we 
should leave the decision up to them.
    Indeed, given the deep divisions plaguing our country, as 
reflected in the starkly different views about this 
impeachment, removing the President from office and from the 
ballots for the upcoming election would almost certainly plunge 
the country into even greater political turmoil.
    I am deeply troubled by the events of the past few months. 
I have always believed that we can differ here in Congress 
while still respecting and working with those who disagree with 
us, but Democrats have increasingly sought to demonize anyone 
who doesn't share their obsession with impeaching this 
President. One of the House managers in this trial went so far 
as to suggest that any Senator who voted against them was 
treacherous.
    At one point, a Senator asked whether the Chief Justice's 
constitutionally required participation in the trial was 
contributing to ``the loss of legitimacy of the Chief Justice, 
the Supreme Court, and the Constitution,'' with the clear 
suggestion that the only way for the Supreme Court to maintain 
its legitimacy would be for it to agree with the Democratic 
Party. We have sunk pretty low when we have come to the point 
of suggesting that disagreement is unconstitutional.
    But for all this, I remain hopeful. Congress has been 
through contentious times before, and we have gotten through 
them. There is no question that this partisan impeachment has 
been divisive, but I do believe we can move on from this. I am 
ready to work with all of my colleagues, both Democrat and 
Republican, in the coming weeks and months as we get back to 
the business of the American people. And for the Nation that we 
all love, I pray that proves possible.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 4, 2020]

                   Statement of Senator Bill Cassidy

    Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, the Senate must determine 
whether to remove a President duly elected by the people. A 
decision of such magnitude deserves, first, full consideration 
of the procedures; second, the merits of the charges; and 
third, the ramifications removal would have on our Republic.
    The Framers of the Constitution granted the House of 
Representatives impeachment powers yet cautioned against using 
that power unless absolutely necessary. Impeachment negates an 
election in which Americans choose their leader. If substantial 
numbers of Americans disagree with removing the President, 
removal damages civic society. It follows that the House should 
conduct thorough and complete investigations, even if time-
consuming, before impeaching.
    A thorough investigation educates Americans that a 
President should be impeached and removed. Failing to convince 
the people invites anger towards, disdain for, and abandonment 
of the democratic process.
    The Framers also required a two-thirds Senate majority for 
removal to prevent partisanship, so that removal only occurs 
after the House convinces its own Members, the Senate, and the 
American people. The Watergate investigation, for example, 
convinced Americans that President Nixon committed crimes, 
forcing his resignation with overwhelming support for removal 
in the House and the Senate.
    In the case against President Trump, the House declined to 
call witnesses it felt relevant, arguing that the courts would 
take too long and the President was an imminent threat to our 
Republic. House managers blamed legal resistance from the 
administration and witnesses. For example, Dr. Charles 
Kupperman threatened to sue. A congressional committee afraid 
of being sued while claiming to be fearlessly pursuing truth 
for the good of the country rings hollow. It also rang hollow 
when Adam Schiff said that we could not wait for the next 
election for voters to decide President Trump's fate after 
Speaker Nancy Pelosi held the articles for 37 days. That 
decision smacks of partisan political motivations.
    The partisanship the Founders warned against was reflected 
in the House vote with the only bipartisan votes being against 
impeachment. House Managers Schiff, Nadler, and Lofgren once 
said that party-line impeachment would divide the Nation. They 
never explained why their opinions changed.
    The role of the Senate, though, is to judge the House's 
evidence. House managers stated their case was ``overwhelming'' 
and ``compelling.'' Having not pursued further witness 
testimony in building their case, the House managers demanded 
the Senate call witnesses the House did not call.
    Additional witnesses, however, would not have changed 
material facts, but allowing the House to poorly develop a 
case, sacrificing thoroughness for political timing, would have 
forever changed the dynamic of the Chambers respective to the 
role of each in the impeachment process. Should the Senate 
acquiesce in this manipulation of the process, it would welcome 
the House to use impeachment as a political weapon, whatever 
the merits of its case.
    I have been speaking of procedure. I want to emphasize that 
procedure matters. Justice Frankfurter once wrote: ``The 
history of liberty has largely been the history of the 
observance of procedural safeguards.'' If the appropriate use 
of impeachment is to be preserved, procedural safeguards must 
be observed.
    Moving now to charges, in article II, House managers argued 
the President obstructed Congress by acting on the advice of 
legal counsel to resist subpoenas. The judiciary resolves 
disputes between the executive and legislative branches. The 
House should have exhausted judicial remedies before bringing 
this charge. I shall vote against article II.
    On article I, abuse of power, three issues must be 
addressed: one, the legal standard of guilt by which to judge 
the President; two, whether the President committed a crime; 
and if so, three, whether that crime warrants removal from 
office.
    First, the standard of guilt was never established. Legal 
standards for conviction vary from the lower--more probable 
than not--threshold to the higher, which is beyond a reasonable 
doubt, which is used in criminal cases.
    Since House managers charged ``something akin'' to a crime, 
``beyond a reasonable doubt'' seems most appropriate, the 
higher threshold. As Senator Jay Rockefeller stated during 
President Clinton's impeachment, beyond a reasonable doubt 
``means that it is proven to a moral certainty, that the case 
is clear, that the case is concise.''
    Second, House managers allege that the President held 
military aid to Ukraine to leverage an investigation into 
former Vice President Biden as a quid pro quo, although they 
did not charge President Trump with the crime of requiring a 
quid pro quo or bribery. The President's defense team cast 
reasonable doubt on this allegation.
    For example, regarding the July 25 phone call, which was 
reported by the whistleblower and which triggered the House 
impeachment proceedings, the President raised the issue of 
corruption in Ukraine. President Trump has always been 
skeptical of foreign aid and especially when he thinks it is 
wasted. Hunter Biden was mentioned, but no connection was made 
with the release of aid to Ukraine.
    Other defense arguments included that Ambassador Kurt 
Volker denied a connection between aid and corruption 
investigations; President Zelensky and Ukrainian officials 
denied feeling pressure; and President Trump denied a quid pro 
quo to Ambassador Sondland and told Senator Ron Johnson, when 
asked if there was some sort of arrangement, ``No way. I would 
never do that.''
    Both aid to Ukraine was released before the statutory 
deadline and a meeting between Presidents Trump and Zelensky 
occurred without an announced investigation.
    It is also important to note that the release of aid on 
September 11 followed new Ukrainian anti-corruption measures, 
which included swearing in a reformed Parliament and installing 
a new prosecutor general--August 29--and the newly established 
High Anti-Corruption Court meeting for the first time--
September 5.
    The third issue regarding article I, abuse of power, is 
that the term is a nebulous one which does not define a 
specific crime. Contrast this with the impeachment of President 
Nixon when the House drafted an Article of Impeachment alleging 
abuse of power which enumerated five specific criminal and 
noncriminal offenses against President Nixon.
    The Constitution speaks of treason, bribery, or other high 
crimes and misdemeanors. Because high crimes and misdemeanors 
are not specifically defined, it is reasonable to assume that 
the Framers meant for impeachment to occur only if a crime 
approached levels as severe as treason and bribery.
    Since the House managers allege President Trump committed 
something ``akin to a crime,'' in deciding whether abuse of 
power is a high crime or misdemeanor, the prudent decision is 
to apply the principle of lenity. This principle, relied upon 
by Supreme Court Justice Marshall and Justice Frankfurter, says 
that if a law is ambiguous, it is better to narrowly interpret 
the words of a law in favor of the defendant.
    Although the preceding discussion finds that the House 
managers failed to prove their case beyond a shadow of a doubt, 
failed to define the crime, thereby invoking the principle of 
lenity, it is still a question that if a crime was committed, 
was it an impeachable crime?
    In 1998, then-Democratic Congressman Ed Markey argued that 
even though President Clinton, as chief law enforcement officer 
of the land, lied under oath, the crime was not impeachable. 
The Senate agreed, establishing the precedent that to remove a 
President, the crime must reach a high threshold of severity. 
The allegation against President Trump was not proven beyond a 
reasonable doubt, and it does not meet that high threshold.
    I shall vote against article I.
    I end by speaking of the ramifications for our Republic. In 
1998, then-Congressman Chuck Schumer said of the Clinton 
impeachment:

    I suspect history will show that we have lowered the bar on 
impeachment so much, we have broken the seal on this extreme penalty so 
cavalierly that it will be used as a routine tool to fight political 
battles. My fear is that when a Republican wins the White House, 
Democrats will demand payback.

    Mr. Schumer was a prophet.
    This must stop.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 4, 2020]

                    Statement of Senator Joni Ernst

    Ms. ERNST. Madam President, I want to first thank the House 
managers and the counsel for the President for their time and 
their hard work and patience these past few weeks.
    Yes, folks, we have had a robust and at times a rancorous 
trial. Some days I left here feeling angry, and some days I 
left more hopeful. Frankly, it is likely that many Americans--
and in my case, Iowans--from every political stripe will feel 
hurt by this process at some level. But we are all 
representatives of the ideals and beliefs of the people we are 
here to represent.
    Like all of you, I have sworn an oath to uphold the 
Constitution, and I take that oath very seriously. There have 
been a lot of arguments presented about what the Constitution 
says regarding the threshold for impeaching a President. It is 
clear to me that the Constitution goes out of its way to make 
it a high bar for removing the President. This is because the 
Founders were rightfully concerned that impeachment might be 
used to upend the electoral will of the American people. Absent 
restraint, the impeachment process would be all too tempting 
for those who oppose a sitting President to simply use it as a 
tool to achieve political advantage.
    Each of us had one job--one job--during this process: to 
decide, based on the evidence, whether the President committed 
an impeachable offense. Upon reviewing the record containing 
the testimony of 17 witnesses and over 28,000 pages, as well as 
hearing from both sides on their arguments presented throughout 
this process, I will vote against both Articles of Impeachment.
    The arguments of the House managers simply did not 
demonstrate that the President's actions rise to an impeachable 
offense. Given the constitutional requirements, voting any 
other way on these articles would remove the ability of the 
American people to make their own decision at the ballot box in 
November.
    This process was fraught from the start with political aims 
and partisan innuendos that simply cannot be overlooked.
    The House managers' arguments have argued that the American 
people cannot be trusted to render their own judgment on this 
President. I reject this premise and the complete distrust of 
the American people with everything in my heart. To do this 
would set a new and dangerous precedent in American history.
    As we sit here today, we believe we are experiencing a 
unique and historical event; however, if the case presented by 
the House of Representatives is allowed to be the basis for the 
removal of this President, I am afraid that impeachment will 
become just another tool used by those who play partisan 
politics. This is not what the Founders intended, and this is a 
very dark path to go down.
    Under the Constitution, impeachment wasn't designed to be a 
litmus test on every action of the President's; elections were 
designed to be that check. Further, the issue of foreign 
affairs has historically been fraught with peril for 
Presidents. Foreign affairs is an art, not a science, and 
trying to insert a formula into every Presidential interaction 
with a foreign leader is a path toward ineffectiveness.
    The Senate is about to close this chapter in American 
history. I pray that we do not allow this to become the norm. I 
also pray earnestly that we will shift into a spirit of 
cohesiveness, coming together to get our work done for the 
American people. Our people, our Founders, our country, and my 
great State of Iowa deserve better than this.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 4, 2020]

                  Statement of Senator Roger F. Wicker

    Mr. WICKER. Madam President, tomorrow I will cast my vote 
against the removal of our duly elected President. I will do so 
based upon my understanding of the duty conferred upon me by 
the Constitution of the United States.
    I do not believe the House managers have proved the 
allegations contained in the Articles of Impeachment, nor do I 
believe the articles allege conduct that may be used as grounds 
for removal. I find the President's counsel to be persuasive in 
this regard. Significantly, much of the American public, 
without the benefit of learned constitutional instruction, has 
come to the same conclusion.
    During the 2\1/2\ weeks of this trial, we have received 
more than 28,000 pages of documents, we have seen 192 video 
clips of 13 different witnesses, we had the opportunity to 
question each side for a total of 16 hours, and we have 
listened to literally hours and hours of argument. Clearly, I 
am unable to discuss every aspect of the trial in the time 
allotted me. Some facts in this case are in dispute, but many 
are not. Here is what we all know beyond a doubt:
    First, we know that voices on the left have been calling 
for the impeachment of Donald Trump since day one--literally 
day one. The Washington Post on January 20, 2017, published an 
article titled ``The Campaign to Impeach President Trump Has 
Begun'' on Inauguration Day.
    Secondly, we know that the yearslong $32 million Mueller 
investigation failed to reveal sufficient ammunition for those 
who desired impeachment.
    Third, the impeachment of this President in the House was 
the result of a narrowly partisan vote, with no Republican 
Representatives--zero--voting in favor of the articles.
    And fourth, a guilty verdict this week would not only 
immediately remove the President from office, but it would also 
remove his name from the ballot in an election, which is 
already going on, and the first caucuses of which were 
conducted only yesterday. The words are right there in articles 
I and II, on pages 3 and 4 of the resolution: 
``disqualification to hold . . . any office.''
    The Founders of this country entrusted Congress with the 
power of impeachment as a check and balance on the executive 
branch. This power was never intended to settle policy 
differences or political disagreements--even intense 
disagreements. It was not designed so that Congress could get 
rid of a President they found odious or obnoxious or with whom 
they vehemently disagree.
    The Constitution gives Congress this extraordinary 
authority as a remedy only for what it calls ``high Crimes and 
Misdemeanors.'' And making it clear what an extreme action of 
impeachment is, the Framers required the support of two-thirds 
in this Chamber in order to convict.
    These standards intentionally set a very high bar to 
prevent abuse of the impeachment process. Meeting these 
standards requires this process be used to try only the most 
serious allegations and requires broad consensus in the Senate. 
Members of both parties have, in the past, warned about the 
dangers of a narrowly partisan impeachment.
    As late as last year, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi cautioned:

    Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's 
something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think 
we should go down that path because it divides the country.

    Congressman Nadler, one of the impeachment managers, said 
in 1998:

    There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment 
substantially supported by one of our major political parties and 
largely opposed by the other. Such an impeachment would lack 
legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics 
for years to come.

    This wide approach has been supported in the past by House 
Manager Zoe Lofgren, by Senator and future Vice President Joe 
Biden, and by our own colleagues, Senator Menendez and Schumer, 
who feared that impeachment would become a routine tool.
    These leaders had good company in taking this position. In 
Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton warned of the danger that 
the decision to impeach ``will be regulated more by the 
comparative strength of the parties than by the real 
demonstrations of innocence or guilt.''
    Many of our Democratic friends who once sided with Hamilton 
have apparently changed their minds. They have also reversed 
themselves on the urgency of doing so--a rather sudden and 
abrupt change of heart on that question.
    House advocates of impeachment have argued that President 
Trump is willing to cheat in the ongoing election and amounting 
to such an imminent threat to our democracy that he must be 
removed at once. Unless he is out of office and out quickly, 
they assert, we cannot have any confidence that the 2020 
election results will be trustworthy.
    I ask: Does any Senator really believe that; that America 
cannot have a fair election if Donald Trump is in the White 
House? But that alleged danger was the reason for the 
abbreviated House procedure. The lead House manager, 
Congressman Schiff, said in an interview last year that the 
timing of impeachment was driven by the urgency of removing the 
President. Congressman Nadler agreed, saying that ``nothing 
could be more urgent.'' Speaker Pelosi repeated the same 
argument many times to explain the rushed process in the House 
and why there was not time to give the President a fair 
hearing. Senators heard the words repeated and repeated on 
video clips shown during this trial--``urgent,'' ``urgency.''
    What happened to that urgency once the House voted? Did the 
Speaker then rush the papers to the Senate so we could address 
this imminent threat? Hardly. Speaker Pelosi held the articles 
for more than a month. If this trial was so urgent, why not 
send the articles without delay? Some might conclude that by 
withholding the articles, the Speaker exposed that she did not, 
in fact, believe that this case was so urgent. Perhaps it was 
an effort to influence our procedural decisions. I do not 
impugn motives here. Our rules prohibit me from doing so. I 
merely note an obvious change for whatever reason.
    As I consider the high bar of impeachment tomorrow, I will 
vote not to convict. I will do so because there is not 
overwhelming evidence, because no high crimes are shown, 
because there is not a broad consensus among my countrymen, 
only articles passed on a narrowly partisan basis, and because 
removing President Trump on these charges at this time would 
set a dangerous precedent.
    I conclude by reminding my colleagues that we are the 
trustees of the Constitution of 1787. We have the privilege and 
responsibility of standing on the shoulders of our remarkably 
perceptive Founders, but we also act as trustees for our 
Republic on behalf of future generations. With that in mind, we 
have an enhanced obligation to be careful, to resist the 
passions of the moment, and to remember that what we do today 
establishes precedence for decades and centuries to come.
    Manager Schiff closed his remarks yesterday with an ominous 
reference to nefarious midnight decisions somehow threatening 
the freedom or welfare of Americans. His hopeful conclusion was 
that it is midnight in America, but the Sun will rise tomorrow, 
a sentiment I happen to share, though my concept of what 
amounts to a beautiful sunrise may differ from his.
    Over a century ago, during the depths of World War I, 
Vachel Lindsay composed ``Abraham Lincoln Walks at Midnight,'' 
imagining an agonized, sleepless Lincoln walking the streets of 
Springfield, dismayed over the carnage in Europe.
    Let us ask ourselves today, do Hamilton and Madison and 
Franklin walk these venerable halls at midnight? Do these 
Founding Fathers traverse the stone corridors of these great 
building, this symbol of stability and rule of law? If they do, 
they caution us, as they always have, to be careful, to avoid 
rash decisions, to resist the urges of partisanship, and to let 
the Constitution work. I hope my colleagues will heed their 
counsel.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 4, 2020]

                Statement of Senator Richard Blumenthal

    Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, as we think back over 
these last weeks, when we have sat together on the floor 
considering evidence and sitting in judgment as jurors and 
judges, spending countless hours deliberating, I often think 
about what I will remember from these days on a very personal 
level.
    It has been a historic event, but in some ways, the human 
element strikes me as the most memorable. I will remember 
vividly the bravery of dedicated public servants who had 
everything to lose and nothing to gain by telling the American 
people the truth about Donald Trump and his scheme to corruptly 
use power for his personal benefit. Their courage, their grace 
under pressure, their dignity, and unshakeable honesty should 
be a model for all of us.
    I will remember, for example, LTC Alexander Vindman, whose 
video appeared before us, a man who was brought to the United 
States at the age of 3 and grew to love this country so much 
that he put his life at risk in combat and then his career at 
risk by coming before the Congress.
    I will remember Fiona Hill, the daughter of a coal miner 
and nurse, who proceeded to get a Ph.D., swear an oath to this 
country, serving in both Republican and Democratic 
administrations, warning us not to peddle the ``fictional 
narrative . . . perpetrated and propagated,'' as she said, ``by 
the Russian security services themselves'' about this supposed 
Ukrainian effort to meddle in our election. I will remember 
very vividly Ambassador William Taylor, West Point graduate and 
decorated Vietnam war veteran, who testified that he thought it 
was ``crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a 
political campaign.''
    I will remember the whistleblower who came forward to 
express shock and alarm that the President of the United States 
would attempt to extort a vulnerable, fledgling democracy to 
help him cheat in the next election in exchange for the foreign 
military aid they so desperately needed to fight their 
adversary, Russia, and our adversary, Russia, attacking and 
killing their young men and women.
    I have met some of those young men and women who came to 
Connecticut to the Burn Center at Bridgeport Hospital, so badly 
injured they could barely talk, and the stories of their 
suffering and hardship came back to me, as I sat on the floor 
here, and their courage and their bravery and strength also 
will stay with me.
    I will remember the moment that we raised our hands and 
took an oath to be impartial, all 100 of us--99--at the same 
time, in a historic moment when the weight of that 
responsibility shook me like a rock. I will also remember the 
shame and sadness that I felt when this body--supposedly, the 
greatest deliberative body in the history of the world--voted 
to close its eyes, to put on blinders to evidence, witnesses, 
and documents; firsthand knowledge, eyes and ears on the 
President, black and white--documents don't lie--that were 
necessary to understand the complete story and give the 
American people the complete truth. That moment--unfortunately, 
a moment of dismay and disappointment--will stay with me as 
well, after aspiring for so long to be part of this body, which 
I respected and revered, so utterly failing the American people 
at this moment of crisis.
    And I will remember audible gasps, some laughs, and raised 
eyebrows in this Chamber when Professor Alan Dershowitz made 
the incredible, shocking argument that a President who believes 
that his own reelection serves the public interest can do 
anything he wants, and his actions are not impeachable. The 
implications of that argument for the future of our democracy 
are simply indescribable.
    I have been a trial lawyer. I have spent most of my career 
in and out of the courtroom. So I can argue the legalities. But 
I am not here to rehash the legal arguments, because 
culpability here seems pretty clear to me. The President 
solicited a bribe when he sought a personal benefit and 
investigation of his political opponent, a smear of his rival, 
in exchange for an official act--in fact, two official acts: 
the release of military funding for an ally and a White House 
meeting--in return for that personal benefit. Those actions are 
a violation of section 201, 18 United States Code, today. They 
were a violation of criminal law at the time of the Framers, 
and that is why they put it in the Constitution.
    Bribery and treason are specifically mentioned. Bribery is 
included as an abuse of power, as it was when Judge Porteous 
was convicted and impeached. Many of the Members of this 
Chamber voted to impeach him, although bribery was never 
mentioned in the articles charging him with abuse of power.
    The idea that bribery or any crime has to be mentioned for 
there to be an abuse of power is clearly preposterous. In my 
view, the elements of bribery have been proved beyond a 
reasonable doubt, and there is no excuse for that criminal 
conduct. I am going to submit a detailed statement for the 
Record that makes the legal case, but, clearly, bribery has 
been committed by this President.
    Looking beyond the legalities, what strikes me, perhaps, as 
most telling here is the constant theme of secrecy--the fact 
that the President kept his reasons for withholding aid a 
secret. Unlike other suspensions of aid to other countries--
like the Northern Triangle in Central America or Egypt, where 
it was announced publicly and Congress was notified--here, he 
kept it secret. He operated through his personal attorney, Rudy 
Giuliani, in secret, not through the State Department, not 
through the Department of Justice. Despite all of his claims of 
corruption and wrongdoing by Hunter or Joe Biden, he either 
never went to the Department of Justice or they declined to 
investigate because there was no ``there'' there. Instead, he 
sought, secretly, the investigation of a political rival 
through a foreign government, targeting a U.S. citizen 
secretly.
    His refusal to provide a single document to Congress, to 
allow a single witness to testify, keeping their testimony and 
that evidence secret, concealing it; his defiance of every 
subpoena in court, effectively neutering Congress's oversight 
authority--our oversight authority--to check any of these 
abuses, all of it is for the purpose of secrecy.
    His claim of absolute immunity is totally discredited and 
rejected by the court because, as the court said in the McGahn 
case, he is not a King.
    His claim of executive privilege as the reason for keeping 
that evidence secret--well, he never really invoked executive 
privilege, but executive privilege cannot be invoked to conceal 
criminal conduct that fits within the crime of a fraud 
exception.
    And while the President's lawyers argued before this body 
that the House should have gone to court to enforce those 
subpoenas instead of resorting to the remedy of impeachment, 
they then had the audacity to, simultaneously, at exactly the 
same time, argue in court that Congress cannot seek a judicial 
remedy to enforce subpoenas because it has the remedy of 
impeachment. They argued no jurisdiction because of 
impeachment, and at the same time no access to evidence 
necessary for impeachment because, supposedly, you can go to 
court. This duplicity is absolutely stunning.
    Again, I will say, just on a personal note as a prosecutor, 
it is a dead giveaway. He is guilty. Regardless of what we do 
tomorrow, we know for sure, in this great democracy, the truth 
will come out. It always does. It is just a question of when. 
It comes out about all of us at some point. And, for this 
President, the truth is coming out in realtime, as we speak on 
this floor and as we vote tomorrow.
    The revelations in the New York Times about what John 
Bolton has written in his book indicate the truth is going to 
come out in mid-March with John Bolton's book, assuming the 
President doesn't try to censor it and tie him up in court or 
exercise some prior restraint. It will come out in 
congressional investigations when John Bolton and others 
testify. It will come out because there are courageous men and 
women, like Ambassador Taylor, Fiona Hill, Colonel Vindman, and 
others, who are willing to put country ahead of their personal 
careers.
    When my children grow up--and they are pretty well grown--I 
hope they will be more like them than like the President. I 
never, ever thought I would say that in the Senate of the 
United States, let alone anywhere, because this President has 
shown that he will take advantage of every opportunity for 
self-enrichment and self-aggrandizement. Whether it is 
violating the emoluments clause--and I, along with 199 of my 
colleagues, have sued him on that issue, making money from the 
Presidency, profiting and putting profit ahead of his official 
duties, or seeking to smear a political rival and soliciting a 
bribe. Even if the aid went through and even if the 
investigation was never announced, it is still a crime--putting 
that kind of self-benefit ahead of his duty to the country and 
our national security, the welfare and fight of an ally at the 
tip of the spear against a common adversary who is seeking to 
destroy Western democracies. He is someone who has said: Show 
me the boundaries of the law, and I will push them, and if I 
can successfully cross them, I will do it again.
    And he will do it again. Everyone in this Chamber knows it.
    So, as we make this momentous decision, I implore each of 
my colleagues to think about the gravity of what we will do if 
we fail to convict this President, the message that we send to 
countries struggling to overcome corruption, because America is 
more than just a country. America is an idea and an ideal. When 
we implore them to fight corruption, our credibility is 
shredded when we condone it at home.
    The Framers, in their wisdom, knew that elections every 4 
years were an inadequate check against any President who 
corruptly abuses power for personal gain. And this situation 
and this President are exactly what they feared when our young 
infant country was struggling to avoid foreign interference in 
our elections. It was their worst nightmare, foreign 
interference, the threat of foreign meddling--exactly what this 
President has invited.
    It was delegate William Davie of North Carolina who said: 
``If he be not impeachable whilst in office, he will spare no 
effort or means whatever to get himself re-elected.'' It was 
precisely cheating in a future election, foreign interference 
in our domestic affairs, that the Framers established 
impeachment to prevent. That is why the remedy exists, and that 
is why we must use it now.
    History will judge us harshly if we fail in this historic 
challenge. History will haunt the colleagues who fail to meet 
this challenge, who lack the courage that was demonstrated by 
those heroes: Taylor, Vindman, Hill, Cooper, and others. And 
they will continue to serve our country. The truth will come 
out.
    The heroes of this darker era will be our independent 
judiciary and our free press. They will continue uncovering the 
truth. They will continue providing freedom of information 
material under the law. They will continue to protect civil 
rights and civil liberties. They will continue their vigilance, 
even if we fail in ours.
    But we have this task now. History will sit in judgment of 
us, and the future of our Republic will be in jeopardy if we 
fail tomorrow to do the right thing.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 4, 2020]

                 Statement of Senator Chris Van Hollen

    Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, it is the constitutional 
duty of each Senator to weigh the evidence before us and render 
a final verdict on the two Articles of Impeachment.
    On the charge of abuse of power, the House managers have 
presented overwhelming evidence, a ``mountain of it,'' as 
Senator Alexander has conceded. For anyone with eyes to see or 
ears to hear, President Trump undoubtedly used the power of the 
Presidency to withhold vital, taxpayer-funded military aid from 
Ukraine to extort its government into helping him in his 
reelection campaign. He did so even though fighting Russian 
aggression is in our national interest. And make no mistake, 
the fact that he got caught before his scheme succeeded is no 
defense.
    The House has also proved its case on the charge of 
obstruction of Congress. President Trump has engaged in 
unprecedented stonewalling, a blanket coverup that makes 
President Nixon look like an amateur--not a single document 
produced nor a single witness. Those who did testify did so 
despite the President's order not to show up. They raised their 
right hands and swore to tell the truth. They included Trump 
political appointees and a major donor to his campaign, 
individuals who served our country in war, dedicated public 
servants who took an oath to defend the Constitution. 
Dismissing them as ``anti-Trumpers'' and ``Democratic 
witnesses'' is wrong, as were the President's attempts to bully 
and intimidate them.
    With the facts proven, the Senate must now ask: Do these 
charges meet the standard for impeachment? The President claims 
impeachment requires charging him with a statutory crime, but 
that is a fringe view with patently absurd results. Their lead 
lawyer making this argument, Alan Dershowitz, did not hold this 
view during the Clinton impeachment; nor does Trump's Attorney 
General, William Barr; nor does Jonathan Turley, Trump's 
constitutional law expert at the House Judiciary Committee 
hearing--nor does the authority cited by the President's own 
lawyers here in the Senate and referenced nine times in their 
legal briefs. That authority, entitled ``Impeachment: A 
Handbook'' states that ``the limitation of impeachable offenses 
to those offenses made generally criminal by statute is 
unwarranted--even absurd.''
    This suggested standard has been roundly dismissed because 
it leads to ridiculous conclusions--for example, that a 
President could withhold taxpayer-funded disaster assistance to 
the people of a State until their Governor endorsed the 
President for reelection.
    Even Alan Dershowitz recognized the folly of his own 
argument, so he switched to saying impeachment requires 
``criminal-like'' conduct. Well, the President's actions here 
have all the markings of criminal-like conduct, including what 
the Founders would consider bribery and extortion. Moreover, as 
made clear by the nonpartisan legal opinion I requested from 
the GAO, the President and his team broke the impoundment 
control law as part of his overall extortion scheme.
    In fact, the toxic mix of misconduct we find here--a 
President corruptly using his office in a manner that 
compromises our national security to get a foreign government 
to help him stay in power--is exactly the kind of abuse of 
power our Founders most feared.
    Yet the President shows no sign of remorse or regret. His 
refusal to acknowledge any wrongdoing is an ongoing threat to 
our country and our Constitution. Even as this impeachment 
process has proceeded, he has continued to solicit other 
countries, including China, to help his reelection efforts, as 
he says the Constitution gives him ``the right to do whatever I 
want as President.''
    Let's be honest. President Trump sees the Constitution not 
as a check on his powers but as a blank check to abuse power, 
and he will not change. His ongoing betrayal of the oath of 
office represents a clear and present danger to our 
Constitution, our democracy, and the rule of law.
    Those who argue we must not remove the President before the 
next election ignore the fact that the Founders included an 
impeachment clause in the same Constitution that establishes 4-
year terms for the President. They wrote the impeachment clause 
for exactly this moment, to prevent a corrupt President from 
enlisting a foreign power to help him cheat in an election.
    President Trump has committed high crimes and misdemeanors 
against the Constitution, and we must use the Founders' remedy. 
We must find him guilty and remove him from office. Failure to 
convict will send a terrible signal that this President and any 
future President can commit crimes against the Constitution and 
the American people and get away with it.
    But it is not only the President who has violated his duty 
under the Constitution. So, too, has this Senate, not because 
of the ultimate conclusion expected tomorrow but because of the 
flawed way the Senate will reach that decision. While I 
strongly disagree with acquittal, that verdict might be 
accepted by most Americans if reached through a real and a fair 
trial. But this Senate did not hold a real trial. It held the 
first impeachment proceeding in our history not to call a 
single witness or seek a single document.
    President Trump's former National Security Advisor, John 
Bolton, offered us important information about the charges 
against the President. The Senate voted not to hear from him. 
President Trump said he wanted his Acting Chief of Staff, Mick 
Mulvaney, to testify at the Senate trial, but then he changed 
his mind and Senate Republicans voted not to hear from him. I 
offered to have the Chief Justice make decisions about relevant 
witnesses and documents, just as impartial judges do in trials 
every day across America. In fact, unlike in every other 
courtroom, it preserved the right of the Senate to overturn the 
Chief Justice's decision by a majority vote. That is obviously 
a fair process for the President, but every Republican Senator 
voted against it. And why? Because they are afraid of getting 
to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. They 
know that, as more incriminating facts come out, it becomes 
harder to acquit. By joining the President's coverup, they have 
become his accomplices.
    While the decision on the President will come tomorrow, the 
verdict on this Senate is already in--guilty, guilty of 
dereliction of its constitutional duty to conduct an impartial 
trial. And because the trial was a farce, the final result will 
be seen by most of the country as illegitimate, the product of 
a tainted trial.
    President Trump must understand this: There is no 
exoneration, no vindication, no real acquittal from a fake 
trial. In failing to adhere to the principles of our 
Constitution and the values of our country, I fear we have done 
grievous injury to the nature of our democracy. I only hope 
America will find the resilience to repair the damage in the 
years to come.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 4, 2020]

                  Statement of Senator Gary C. Peters

    Mr. PETERS. Madam President, I swore an oath to defend the 
Constitution, both as an officer in the U.S. Navy Reserve and 
as a U.S. Senator. At the beginning of this impeachment trial, 
I swore an oath to keep an open mind, listen carefully to the 
facts, and, in the end, deliver impartial justice.
    After carefully listening to the arguments presented by 
both House managers and the President's lawyers, I believe the 
facts are clear. President Trump stands accused by the House of 
Representatives of abusing his power in an attempt to extort a 
foreign government to announce a trumped-up investigation into 
a political rival and thereby put his personal interest ahead 
of national security and the public trust.
    The President illegally withheld congressionally approved 
military aid to an ally at war with Russia and conditioned its 
release on Ukraine making an announcement the President could 
use to falsely discredit a likely political opponent.
    When the President's corrupt plan was brought to light, the 
White House engaged in a systematic and unprecedented effort to 
cover up the scheme. The President's complete refusal to 
cooperate with a constitutionally authorized investigation is 
unparalleled in American history.
    Despite the extraordinary efforts by the President to cover 
up the facts, the House managers made a convincing case. It is 
clear the President's actions were not an effort to further 
official American foreign policy. The President was not working 
in the public interest. What the President did was wrong, 
unacceptable, and impeachable.
    I expected the President's lawyers to offer new eyewitness 
testimony from people with firsthand knowledge and offer new 
documents to defend the President, but that did not happen. It 
became very clear to me that the President's closest advisers 
could not speak to the President's innocence, and his lawyers 
did everything in their power to prevent them from testifying 
under oath.
    No one in this country is above the law--no one, not even 
the President. If someone is accused of a crime and they have 
witnesses that could clear them of any wrongdoing, they would 
want those witnesses to testify. In fact, not only would they 
welcome it; they would insist on it. All we need to do is use 
some common sense. The fact that the President refuses to have 
his closest advisers testify tells me that he is afraid of what 
they will say.
    The President's conduct is unacceptable for any official, 
let alone the leader of our country. Our Nation's Founders 
feared unchecked and unlimited power by the President. They 
rebelled against an abusive Monarch with unlimited power and, 
instead, created a republic that distributed power across 
different branches of government. They were careful students of 
history. They knew unchecked power would destroy a democratic 
republic. They were especially fearful of an unchecked 
Executive and specifically granted Congress the power of 
impeachment to check a President who thought of themselves as 
above the law.
    Two years ago, I had the privilege of participating in the 
annual bipartisan Senate tradition, reading President George 
Washington's Farewell Address to the Senate. In that address, 
President Washington warned that unchecked power, the rise of 
partisan factions and foreign influence, if left unchecked, 
would undermine our young Nation and allow for the rise of a 
demagogue. He warned that we could become so divided and so 
entrenched in the beliefs of our particular partisan group that 
``cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to 
subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the 
reins of government.''
    I am struck by the contrast of where we are today and where 
our Founders were more than 200 years ago. George Washington 
was the ultimate rockstar of his time. He was beloved, and when 
he announced he would leave the Presidency and return to Mount 
Vernon, people begged him to stay.
    There was a call to make him a King, and he said no. He 
reminded folks that he had just fought against a Monarch so 
that the American people could enjoy the liberties of a free 
people. George Washington, a man of integrity and an American 
hero, refused to be anointed King when it was offered to him by 
his adoring countrymen. He chose a republic over a monarchy.
    But tomorrow, by refusing to hold President Trump 
accountable for his abuses, Republicans in the Senate are 
offering him unbridled power without accountability, and he 
will gleefully seize that power. And when he does, our Republic 
will face an existential threat. A vote against the Articles of 
Impeachment will set a dangerous precedent. It will be used by 
future Presidents to act with impunity. Given what we know--
that the President abused his power in office by attempting to 
extort a foreign government to interfere with an American 
election; that he willfully obstructed justice at every turn; 
and that his actions run counter to our Nation's most cherished 
and fundamental values--it is clear the President betrayed the 
trust the American public placed in him to fully execute his 
constitutional responsibilities. This betrayal is, by 
definition, a high crime and misdemeanor. If it does not rise 
to the level of impeachment and removal, I am not sure what 
would.
    The Senate has a constitutional responsibility to hold him 
accountable. If we do not stand up and defend our democracy 
during this fragile period, we will be allowing the President 
and future Presidents to have unchecked power. This is not what 
our Founders intended.
    The oath I swore to protect and defend the Constitution 
demands that I vote to preserve the future of our Republic. I 
will faithfully execute my oath and vote to hold this President 
accountable for his actions.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 4, 2020]

                Statement of Senator Sheldon Whitehouse

    Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, may I say that it is a 
pleasure to speak to the Senate with the new Senator from 
Georgia presiding for the first time, at least, that I have had 
this occasion.
    Well, here we are. The impeachment outcome is settled, as 
it was from day one. In my view, the facts are clear, the 
conduct impeachable, and the obstruction unprecedented.
    In my view, this impeachment process ran into a partisan 
wall, and the Senate's part was to deny the American people the 
most basic elements of a fair trial: witnesses and evidence.
    Alexander Hamilton, years ago, warned us of what he called 
the ``greatest danger'' in impeachments, ``that the decision 
will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, 
than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.''
    In my view, that danger has met us.
    As a boy I often sang a hymn with the stanza that ``to 
every man and nation comes the moment to decide, in the strife 
of truth with falsehood, for the good or evil side.''
    In my view, the Senate chose the wrong side.
    We are obviously going to disagree about a lot here, so let 
me focus on two thoughts that perhaps we can agree on.
    One is that what we have done here should carry little 
weight as precedent. Politics cast very long shadows over this 
proceeding. This was not our finest hour, by any stretch, and 
much of what was said and done here should not be repeated, let 
alone treated as precedent.
    I hope history treats this episode as an aberration, not a 
precedent.
    Too many things that are right and proper had to be bent or 
broken to get to the preordained result, and too much of what 
was said by White House counsel was not only wrong but 
disgraceful.
    The presentation in this Chamber by White House counsel was 
characterized by smarminess, smear, elision, outright 
misstatement, and various dishonest rhetorical tricks that I 
doubt they would dare pull before judges.
    Knowing that we were a captive and silent audience, knowing 
the outcome was predetermined in their favor, and grandstanding 
for a TV audience, particularly an audience of one, they 
delivered a performance that leaves a stain on the pages of the 
Senate Record.
    Perhaps there will be consequences for some of their 
conduct in our Chamber.
    The conduct of White House counsel in the Trump impeachment 
trial raise grave concerns.
    A staunch Republican friend, who is an able and eminent 
lawyer, emailed me about a White House counsel argument, 
calling it ``the most shocking thing I have seen a `serious' 
lawyer say in my entire legal career.'' He referred to 
Professor Dershowitz, but the conduct of White House counsel in 
this matter has indeed been shocking far beyond the excesses of 
Professor Dershowitz.
    In some cases, we do not know who pays them. Mr. Sekulow is 
evidently anonymously paid, with dark money, through a mail 
drop box. Who is he working for here? Does his secret 
benefactor create a conflict for him? We should know.
    Among them are lawyers who appear to have grave 
professional conflicts. They represent the President although 
they are fact witnesses to conduct charged in the impeachment. 
This concern was brought to their attention by House letter on 
January 21, 2020, putting them on notice. They ignored the 
letter.
    The House argued that members of the White House counsel 
team actually administered a massive cover-up, using extreme 
and unprecedented arguments to protect a blanket defiance 
against congressional inquiry into alleged Presidential 
misdeeds, with the intent to hide evidence of those misdeeds.
    There is new evidence that counsel were not just fact 
witnesses, but present at meetings in which the scheme at issue 
was advanced, and the misconduct alleged was confessed to, by 
the President. Being present during the commission of the 
offense and witness to an overt act in furtherance of the 
alleged scheme is more grave than being a mere fact witness. 
This needs further inquiry, but it raises the question of 
actual participation in the crime or fraud or misconduct at 
issue, which would waive their attorney-client privilege.
    They have not been candid about the law. They have argued 
over and over that they will delay the Senate proceedings by 
litigation in United States District Courts if we allow 
witnesses or subpoenas, mentioning only once, in their pretrial 
brief, the case of Walter Nixon v. United States, where the 
Supreme Court save the Federal Judiciary ``no role'' in Senate 
impeachment proceedings, warning ``that opening the door of 
judicial review to the procedures used by the Senate in trying 
impeachments would `expose the political life of the country to 
months, or perhaps years, of chaos,''' the very delay White 
House lawyers have threatened.
    Further investigation may reveal whether various counsel 
made, or permitted cocounsel to make, arguments at odds with 
facts to which they were witness, thereby deliberately 
misleading the Senate. For a lawyer to participate in or be 
immediate witness to criminal or impeachable wrongful activity; 
and then practice as a counsel in matters related to that 
criminal or impeachable or wrongful activity; and then conceal 
from that tribunal what they knew about that criminal or 
impeachable or wrongful activity, and even affirmatively 
mislead that tribunal about the misconduct as they witnessed 
it, would be attorney misconduct of the gravest nature.
    In light of these problems, one recurring argument by White 
House counsel takes on new meaning. In an often conflated 
argument, White House counsel insisted that no crime was 
alleged in the House of Representatives' Articles of 
Impeachment and that there was no crime committed. If, as 
recent evidence suggests, at least one White House counsel was 
present at and participated in a meeting in furtherance of the 
scheme at issue, the argument that the scheme was not criminal 
is deeply self-serving. That self-serving nature is precisely 
why counsel under that sort of conflict of interest should not 
appear in proceedings addressing conduct which they witnessed, 
which they aided or abetted, or in which they participated.
    White House counsel used their time before us to smear non-
parties; to present virtual political commercials; to misstate, 
exaggerate, or mislead about legal propositions; to misstate, 
exaggerate, or mislead about factual propositions; to misstate, 
exaggerate, or mislead about House managers' arguments; and to 
float conspiracy theories and unsupported political charges to 
the public audience. In some cases, arguments are deeply 
unfair: for instance, calling secondary witnesses' testimony 
hearsay and secondhand at the same time they are blocking the 
direct witnesses' testimony. It was in sum, a sordid spectacle, 
one that few if any courts would have tolerated. They came into 
our house and dirtied it.
    So enough of my professional disgust with their 
performance, but let us agree that this ought not be precedent.
    Let us also agree on something else. There is one 
particular argument the White House made that we should 
trample, discard, and put out into the trash: the notion that a 
U.S. district court can supervise our Senate impeachment 
proceeding. I truly hope we can agree on this.
    As a Court of Impeachment, we are constituted at the 
Founders' command. The Chief Justice presided in that seat at 
the Founders' command. We convened as a body at the Founders' 
command. And at the Founders' command, the Senate--the Senate--
has the sole power to try all impeachments.
    Every signal from the Constitution directs that we try 
impeachments, and no part of the Senate's power to do so is 
conferred anywhere else in the government. It is on us.
    The President's counsel proposed that they may interrupt 
the Senate's trial of impeachment, delay the Senate's trial of 
impeachment, in order to go down the street to the U.S. 
district court to litigate our trial determinations about 
evidence and privilege--determinations in our proceeding.
    There are three arguments against that proposition. The 
most obvious one is the Constitution. The Constitution puts the 
trial in the hands of the Senate sitting as a Court of 
Impeachment and makes no mention of any role for any court to 
supervise or pass on the Senate's conduct of this trial. It is 
simply not in the Constitution.
    The second argument is the improbability--the 
improbability--that the Founders would convene the U.S. Senate 
as a Court of Impeachment, bring the managers of the U.S. House 
of Representatives over here to present their charges, put the 
Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court into that chair to 
preside over the trial, give the Senate the sole power to try 
the impeachment, and then allow a defendant to run down the 
street to a district judge and interrupt the proceedings. That 
idea is contrary to common sense as well as constitutional 
order.
    The impeachment provisions of the Constitution were adopted 
by the Founders in September of 1787, after that long, hot 
summer in Philadelphia, and ratified with the Constitution in 
1788. The Judiciary Act establishing lower courts did not pass 
until 1789. It is hard to imagine that the Founders meant the 
proceedings and determinations of our Senate Court of 
Impeachment to be subject to the oversight of a judge down the 
road from us whose office did not even exist at the time.
    The Founders in the Constitution put this squarely on us. 
No one else is mentioned. It is our ``sole Power.'' It is the 
duty of the Chief Justice under the Constitution to preside 
over the trial. It is his duty to make appropriate rulings. And 
it is on us to live with that, unless--as we may--we choose to 
overrule the Chief Justice as a body, by recorded vote, and 
live with that. We run this trial--the Senators, the Senate--no 
one else. We are responsible to the people of the United States 
to run this trial. We were trusted by the Founders to live up 
to those responsibilities.
    When we sit as a Court of Impeachment, it is all on us. The 
Founders put it squarely on us. We took that job when we took 
our oaths. That means we control the trial rulings, the timing, 
the evidence determinations, and the privileges we will accept. 
We can accept the rulings of the Chief Justice or we can 
reverse them, but it is our job.
    Previous impeachments record the Senate making just such 
rulings. Never has the Senate referred such a ruling to a 
court. Indeed, in Walter Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224, 
a 1993 decision, the Supreme Court held that Federal courts 
have no power to review procedures used by the Senate in trying 
impeachments, that it was a nonjusticiable political question, 
and that ``the Judiciary, and the Supreme Court in particular, 
were not chosen to have any role in impeachments.''
    The Supreme Court in that decision even foresaw the delays 
that White House Counsel threatened us with and saw them as an 
argument against any judicial role. The Court said that 
``opening the door of judicial review to the procedures used by 
the Senate in trying impeachments would expose the political 
life of the country to months, or perhaps years, of chaos,'' 
and the Court immediately went on to particularly highlight 
that concern with respect to the impeachment of a President.
    It would have been nice if White House Counsel, when they 
were in this Chamber arguing for their threatened delays, would 
have addressed this Supreme Court decision.
    The Constitution, common sense, and our impeachment 
precedents all put the responsibility for a Senate trial of 
impeachment squarely on us. We should not--we should never--
shirk that responsibility.
    This has been a sad and sordid moment for the Senate. It 
has done harm enough. Let it not provide any credit to this 
false White House argument, and let this not be precedent for 
future Presidential misconduct.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 4, 2020]

                    Statement of Senator Tina Smith

    Ms. SMITH. Madam President, this morning, I let Minnesotans 
know that I will vote to remove President Donald Trump from 
office. I rise today because, on this historic vote, I want 
Minnesotans to understand why and where I think we go from 
here.
    I was reluctant to go down the path of impeachment. While I 
strongly disagree with the President on many issues, I see 
impeachment as a last resort, and I feared that leaping to 
impeachment would only serve to drive us even further into our 
political corners. This changed when I read the whistleblower 
report, which alleged nothing less than the President's corrupt 
abuse of power, an abuse that had the potential to undermine 
our election in 2020. For me, this left no choice but for the 
House to fully investigate these allegations.
    When the House sent the two Articles of Impeachment to the 
Senate, it became my job to ``do impartial justice according to 
the Constitution and the laws,'' and I take that oath as 
seriously as anything I have ever done.
    This impeachment trial has been about whether the 
President's corrupt abuse of power--power that he used for his 
own personal, political benefit while betraying the public 
trust--is a high crime and misdemeanor as defined by the 
Founders of our Constitution.
    I believe that it is, and I also believe that to condone 
corrupt behavior such as this undermines the core values we 
stand for as a nation that no one is above the law, including 
and most especially the President.
    Over the past several weeks, I have listened carefully to 
hundreds of hours of presentations, questions and answers, and 
read thousands of pages of documents. Through it all, the facts 
underlying the case against the President were never really 
refuted.
    The President, working through his personal lawyer, Rudy 
Giuliani, withheld Ukrainian security assistance and a 
prestigious meeting in the White House in an effort to persuade 
President Zelensky to announce he was investigating Joe Biden 
and the theory that Ukraine interfered in our 2016 elections. 
In order to improve his prospects for reelection, Trump 
directed that vital assistance be withheld until Ukraine 
announced investigations into a baseless conspiracy theory that 
originated as Russian propaganda, and he only released the aid 
when he was found out.
    Then, when the House sought to investigate these actions, 
the Trump White House categorically blocked any and all 
subpoenas for documents and witnesses. No U.S. President has 
ever categorically rejected the power of Congress to 
investigate and do oversight of the executive branch--not 
Nixon, not Clinton. This obstruction fractures the balance of 
power between the legislative and executive branches.
    How can our constitutional system work if we allow the 
President to decide if and how Congress can investigate the 
President's misconduct? It can't. If we say that the President 
can decide when he cooperates with a congressional 
investigation, we are saying that he is above the law.
    While evidence of the President's wrongdoing is 
substantial, I advocated every way I could for a trial that 
would be fair for both sides, which means hearing from 
witnesses with direct knowledge of the President's actions. I 
am greatly disappointed that almost all of my Republican 
colleagues in the Senate abandoned the historical, bipartisan 
precedent of hearing from witnesses in every Senate impeachment 
trial.
    Ultimately, when so many people know the truth of what 
happened, the complete truth will come out. Yet the Senate 
abandoned its responsibilities when it blocked efforts to get 
the complete truth here in this Chamber. As a result, there 
will be a permanent cloud over these proceedings. The President 
may be acquitted, but without a fair trial he cannot claim to 
be exonerated.
    The core question of this impeachment trial is this: Do we 
say that it is OK for the President to use his office to 
advance his personal political interests while ignoring or 
damaging the public good? My answer is no.
    Corruptly soliciting a foreign government to interfere in 
our elections and to announce an investigation to damage a 
political rival and an American citizen at the expense of free 
and fair elections and our national security--that is the 
definition of an abuse of power. This is what Alexander 
Hamilton was talking about when he wrote that impeachment 
proceedings should concern ``the abuse or violation of some 
public trust.''
    Some have argued that what the President did was wrong, but 
his conduct does not rise to the level of impeachment. They 
agree that the President used his power to secure an unfair 
advantage in our elections but think that this abuse of power 
isn't that bad. It isn't bad enough to remove him from office.
    It is that bad. Trump's abuses of power are grave offenses 
that threaten the constitutional balance of power and the core 
value that no one, especially the President, is above the law. 
The President's abuse of power undermines the integrity of our 
next election and calls into question whether our elections 
will be free and fair. His abuses of power damage national 
security by undermining the moral stature of the United States 
as a trusted ally and as a fighter against corruption.
    For me, one of the saddest moments of this trial was the 
testimony from American diplomats who urged Ukrainian leaders 
not to engage in political investigations. According to the 
testimony, the Ukrainians responded by saying, in effect: Do 
you mean like the investigations you are asking us to do with 
the Bidens and the Clintons?
    Some have said that we should wait and let the American 
people decide in the next election, only months away. But when 
the President has solicited foreign nations to influence our 
elections with disinformation and has prevented the American 
people from hearing a full and fair accounting of that effort, 
our duty to defend the Constitution requires that we act now. A 
vote to remove the President from office protects our next 
election.
    When Leader McConnell refuses to allow the Senate to 
consider election security legislation and when the President 
shows no remorse and says publicly that he is ready to do it 
again, we have no choice but to act. When the President says 
that the Constitution allows him to do whatever he wants, 
Congress must act.
    The President's conduct is a threat to our elections and 
our national security. What is more, if we fail to check this 
President, future Presidents may be emboldened to pursue even 
more shameless schemes.
    Lots of countries have high-minded constitutions full of 
powerful words and strong enunciations of rights that don't 
really mean anything. As House manager Adam Schiff pointed out, 
Russia has a Constitution like this. Our Constitution is 
different. It is not some dry, historic document that we keep 
behind glass in a museum. It is the big idea of our system of 
government that no one is above the law, and people, not 
Monarchs, are the source of power. Everything--everything--
flows from this great idea realized in the lives of Minnesotans 
who, every day, seek the freedom and the opportunities they 
need to build the lives they want.
    There is nothing inevitable about democracy. It is not a 
natural state. It is a state that we have to fight for. The 
fight for democracy and our Constitution has chosen us in this 
moment, and it is our job to rise to this moment.
    After the Senate vote, the work of reinforcing the American 
values of fairness and justice will continue. We have a lot of 
work to do. Democracy is hard work, and I know that Minnesotans 
are up to it. The truth is that I see more signs of common 
ground, hope, and determination in Minnesota than I do the 
fractures of division, distrust, and partisanship, and that is 
a foundation for us all to build on going forward.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 4, 2020]

                     Statement of Senator Rand Paul

    Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, the great irony of the last 
several weeks in the impeachment trial is that the Democrats 
accused the President of using his governmental office to go 
after his political opponent. The irony is, they then used the 
impeachment process to go after their political opponent. In 
fact, as you look at the way it unfolded, they admitted as 
much.
    As the impeachment proceedings unfolded, they said: We 
didn't have time for witnesses. We had to get it done before 
Christmas because we wanted it done and ready to go for the 
election. We had to get it done--the entire process needed to 
be completed--before the election.
    They didn't have time for the process. They didn't have 
time for due process. They didn't have time for the President 
to call his own witnesses or cross-examine their witnesses.
    The great irony is, they did exactly what they accused the 
President of. They used the government and the government's 
process to go after their political opponent.
    What is the evidence that it is partisan? They didn't 
convince one Republican. Not one elected Republican decided 
that any of their arguments were valid or that the President 
should be impeached.
    They made it into a sham. They made it into a political 
process because they didn't like the results of the election.
    When did this start? Did the impeachment start with a phone 
call to the Ukrainian President? No, the impeachment and the 
attacks on the President started 6 months before he was 
elected.
    We had something truly devastating to our Republic happen. 
We had, for the first time in our history, a secret court 
decide to investigate a campaign. At the time, when those of us 
who criticized this secret court for spying on the Trump 
campaign, they said: Oh, it is just a conspiracy theory. None 
of this is happening. There is no ``there'' there.
    But now that we have investigated it--guess what--the FISA 
court admits they were lied to. The FBI has now been proven to 
have lied 17 times. We have a half a dozen people at the top 
level of our intelligence community who have admitted to having 
extreme bias. You have Peter Strzok and Lisa Page talking about 
taking down the President and having an insurance policy 
against him succeeding and becoming the President. You have 
McCabe, you have Comey, and you have Clapper.
    You remember James Clapper, the one who came to the Senate, 
and, when asked by Senator Wyden, ``Are you storing, are you 
gathering information from Americans by the millions and 
storing it on government computers?'' James Clapper said no. He 
lied to Congress. Nobody chose to impeach him, but he lied to 
Congress and committed a felony. Is he in jail? No, he is 
making millions of dollars as a contributor on television now, 
using and peddling his national security influence for dollars, 
after having committed a felony in lying to us.
    These are the people who plotted to bring the President 
down. These are the people who continue to plot to bring the 
President down. Before all of this started, though, I was a 
critic of the secret courts. I was a critic of FISA. I was a 
critic of them abusing American civil liberties. I was a critic 
of them invading our privacy, recording the length of our phone 
calls, who we talk to, and sometimes recording conversations--
all of this done supposedly to go after terrorists, but 
Americans, by the millions, are caught up in this web.
    But now, for the first time, it is not just American civil 
liberties that are being abused by our intelligence agencies. 
It is an entire Presidential campaign, and it could go either 
way. This is why you want to limit power. Men are not angels, 
and that is why we put restrictions on government. We need more 
restrictions now. We can't allow secret courts to investigate 
campaigns.
    This started before the election. It went on for the last 3 
years, through the Mueller investigation. They thought they had 
the President dead to rights, and they would bring him down 
through this investigation. So, initially, the spying didn't 
work, and the Mueller investigation didn't work. They went 
seamlessly into the impeachment.
    The question for the American public is now: Will they go 
on? Are they going to immediately start up hearings again in 
the House that will be partisan hearings again? I suspect they 
will. They have had their day in the Sun, and they loved it, 
and I think they are going to keep doing it time and time and 
time again.
    Now, during the proceedings, I asked a question that was 
disallowed, but I am going to ask that question again this 
morning, because the Constitution does protect debate and does 
protect the asking of questions. I think they made a big 
mistake not allowing my question.
    My question did not talk about anybody who is a 
whistleblower. My question did not accuse anybody of being a 
whistleblower. It did not make a statement believing there was 
someone who was a whistleblower. I simply named two people's 
names because I think it is very important to know what 
happened.
    We are now finding out that the FISA investigation was 
predicated upon 17 lies by the FBI, by people at high levels 
who were biased against the President, and it turns out it was 
an illegitimate investigation. Everything they did about 
investigating the President was untrue and abused government to 
do something they never should have done in the first place.
    So I asked this question. And this is my question--my exact 
question. We will put it up here:

    Are you aware that the House Intelligence Committee staffer Sean 
Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella while at the 
National Security Council together? Are you aware and how do you 
respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together 
to plot impeaching the President before there were formal House 
impeachment proceedings?

    Now, why did I ask this question? Because there are news 
reports saying that these two people--one of them who works for 
Adam Schiff and one of them who worked with this person at the 
National Security Council--that they knew each other and had 
been overheard talking about impeaching the President in the 
first month of his office. In January of 2017, they were 
already plotting the impeachment.
    And you say: Well, we should protect the whistleblower. The 
whistleblower deserves anonymity.
    The law does not preserve anonymity. His boss is not 
supposed to say anything about him. He is not supposed to be 
fired. I am for that.
    But when you get into the details of talking about 
whistleblowers, there is a variety of opinions around here. The 
greatest whistleblower in American history, in all likelihood, 
is Edward Snowden. What did people want to do with him? Half 
the people here want to put him to death and the other half 
want to put him in jail forever. So it depends on what you blow 
the whistle on, whether or not they are actually for the 
whistleblower statute.
    I am not for retributions on the whistleblower. I don't 
want him to go to jail, and I don't want him to lose his job. 
But if six people, who all work together at the National 
Security Council, knew each other and gamed the system, knowing 
that they would get these protections--they gamed the system in 
order to try to bring down the President--we should know about 
that. If they had extreme bias going into the impeachment, we 
should know about that.
    I think the question is an important one, and I think we 
should still get to the bottom of it. Were people plotting to 
bring down the President? They were plotting in advance of the 
election. Were they plotting within the halls of government to 
bring down the President? Look, these people also knew the 
Vindman brothers, who are still in government. So you have two 
Vindman brothers over there who know Eric Ciaramella, who also 
know Sean Misko, who also knew two people working on Adam 
Schiff's staff, and Adam Schiff throws his hands up and says: I 
don't know who the whistleblower is. I have never met him. I 
have no idea who he is.
    So if he doesn't know who he is and the President's counsel 
doesn't know who he is, how does the Chief Justice of the 
United States know who the whistleblower is? I have no 
independent confirmation from anyone in government as to who 
the whistleblower is. So how am I prevented from asking a 
question when nobody seems to admit that they even know who 
this person is?
    My point is, is by having such protections--such 
overzealous protection--we don't get to the root of the matter 
of how this started, because this could happen again. When the 
institution of the bureaucracy, when the intelligence community 
with all the power to listen to every phone conversation you 
have has political bias and can game the system to go after 
you, that is a real worry. It is a real worry that they spied 
on the President.
    But what if you are an average ordinary American? What if 
you are just a supporter of President Trump or you are a 
Republican or you are a conservative? Are we not concerned that 
secret courts could allow for warrants to listen to your phone 
calls, to tap into your emails, to read your text messages? I 
am very concerned about that.
    So we are going to have this discussion go on. It isn't 
really about the whistleblower so much. It is about reforming 
government. It is about limiting the power of what they can do 
as secret courts. I think the FISA Court should be restricted 
from ever investigating campaigns. If you think a campaign has 
done something wrong, call the FBI, go to a regular court, 
where judges get to appear on both sides, and if you want to 
subpoena somebody or tap the phone, all right, we can do it, 
but it has got to be an extraordinary thing.
    Think about it. Think about the danger. The other side says 
it is a danger to democracy. Think about the danger to 
democracy of letting your government tap the phones of people 
you disagree with politically.
    I don't care whether it is Republican or Democrat. We 
cannot allow the intelligence community and secret courts like 
the FISA court to go after political campaigns. And I mean that 
sincerely--Republican or Democrat. We need to change the rules. 
We cannot have secret courts trying to reverse the elections.
    I feel very strongly about this. I was for this reform 
before Donald Trump ever came on the scene and before any of 
this happened. I have been for having more significant 
restrictions on these secret courts and more significant 
restrictions on the intelligence community to make sure they 
don't abuse the rights of Americans. This is a big deal, and if 
we are going to get something good out of this, if there is 
going to be some positive aspect to having to go through this 
nightmare we have been through over the last several months or 
years now, the blessing in disguise here would be that we 
actually reform the system so this never happens to anyone else 
ever again.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 4, 2020]

                    Statement of Senator Deb Fischer

    Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise to voice my opposition 
to these Articles of Impeachment. I want the people of Nebraska 
to know how I will vote and why, as the Senate prepares for the 
trial's final vote.
    I took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and I have a 
responsibility to be an impartial juror during the trial.
    I have given fair and careful consideration to the evidence 
presented during this trial, and I have engaged in the 
questioning process. This is a process that should be about 
facts and fairness, and that is what the Senate has done its 
very best to do, but the reality is that the House of 
Representatives didn't do its job.
    Under the Constitution and by precedent, the impeachment 
investigation is the responsibility of the House, not the 
Senate. Hearings in the House inquiry during the Nixon 
impeachment investigation lasted for 14 months. The Clinton 
impeachment House inquiry relied on years of prior 
investigation and overwhelming amounts of testimony from 
firsthand witnesses. President Trump's inquiry in the House was 
deeply partisan, and it lasted only 12 weeks.
    Disturbingly, there was a lack of due process during this 
House investigation. The President was not allowed to have his 
lawyers cross-examine witnesses at the House Intelligence 
Committee hearings and depositions. This is the committee that 
was the lead on the investigative hearings. Shockingly, the 
President of the United States was prevented from participating 
in the House's impeachment for 71 of the 78 days of 
investigation. Our founding document protects the right of the 
accused. The Constitution explicitly states that no one should 
``be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process 
of law.'' Our blueprint for freedom protects all individuals' 
rights, whether that person is a truckdriver, a farmer, a 
businesswoman, or the President of the United States.
    The third branch of government--our court system--is of 
foundational importance, and we have it for a reason. That 
reason is to provide every American with the opportunity to 
have justice in a fair way in accordance with the Constitution 
and the rule of law. But because House Democrats were in a rush 
to impeach the President before their holiday break, they 
decided to abandon the courts completely.
    It was the House's constitutional right to subpoena 
witnesses. It was the President's constitutional right to 
assert privilege. And it was the court's constitutional right 
to enforce subpoenas. The House did not petition the court to 
enforce subpoenas. Short-circuiting the process led to an 
incomplete investigation by the House.
    Article 1, section 3 of the Constitution provides that 
``the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all 
Impeachments.'' If the Senate were to become the factfinder in 
an impeachment investigation, it would completely change the 
role of the Senate from this point forward, this hallowed 
Chamber, the world's greatest deliberative body. It would 
become an investigative arm of the House. Setting this 
precedent would have a devastating effect on our political 
institution, transforming the very nature of the Senate during 
impeachment hearings for generations to come.
    The Senate is supposed to conduct a fair trial, protect the 
Constitution, and guarantee due process of law.
    My Republican colleagues and I understand the gravity of 
these proceedings. The record shows that President Clinton's 
impeachment trial was met with a motion filed by Senator Byrd 
to dismiss the Articles of Impeachment early on. This time, not 
a single Senator filed such a motion. We approached this 
process with the seriousness it deserves.
    Senate Republicans supported a resolution that gave the 
House managers more than ample time to lay out their case. 
Since then, we have heard an extraordinary amount of 
information over the last 2 weeks. The House managers presented 
192 video clips with testimony from 13 witnesses and submitted 
more than 28,000 pages of documents. Senators then submitted 
180 questions. After 2 weeks of trial arguments, the House 
managers failed to make a compelling case that the President 
should be removed from office; therefore, I will vote for the 
President's acquittal.
    I firmly believe it is time for the Senate to move forward 
and return to the people's business. It is time to refocus our 
attention on our bipartisan work: providing for our 
servicemembers, caring for our veterans, funding research to 
cure diseases that cut short too many lives, fighting the 
opioid addiction, and improving our criminal justice system.
    So I speak to Nebraskans and to all Americans in urging 
every Senator in this Chamber to have the courage, the heart, 
and the vision to move past this process and work together 
toward a brighter future for generations to come. That should 
be our mindset at this pivotal moment. That should be our 
mindset in everything we do.
    I urge my colleagues to take the long view and fulfill our 
constitutional role. Let's reunite around our common goals and 
our values. Let's bring this process to an end and advance 
policies that will make life better for Nebraskans and better 
for all Americans.
    Thank you.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 4, 2020]

               Statement of Senator Shelley Moore Capito

    Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss why I 
will be voting to acquit President Trump on both Articles of 
Impeachment tomorrow afternoon.
    Our Constitution makes clear that only a particularly grave 
act--``treason, bribery, or other high crimes and 
misdemeanors''--would justify a Senate voting to reverse the 
will of the people, the voters, and remove from office the 
person they chose to lead this Nation.
    Besides making clear just how serious an offense needs to 
be in order to warrant impeachment, our founding document 
allows the President to remain in office unless two-thirds of 
our body--the Senate--votes for impeachment. To me, that 
underscores the need for a national consensus that runs across 
partisan lines before undoing an election.
    The Senate has never in our history removed a President 
from office following an impeachment trial.
    Our Founding Fathers recognized that impeachment should not 
be used as a blunt partisan instrument.
    President Trump was duly elected by the people of this 
country to be President of the United States in 2016. Nothing 
that I have heard in this process has come close to providing a 
reason that would justify my voting to overturn the choice made 
by nearly half a million West Virginians and tens of millions 
of other Americans and even further--even further--to remove 
him from the ballot in 2020.
    There is no doubt that the House impeachment process was 
partisan, politically driven, and denied President Trump some 
of his most basic rights of due process. At the same time, the 
product that was brought to our Chamber was obviously flimsy, 
rushed, and contained incomplete evidence.
    Time and again, House managers demanded that we do things 
here in the Senate that they neglected to do themselves during 
their House proceedings, such as calling witnesses they refused 
to call--witnesses they are now asking us to bring forward.
    Regardless of the failings of the House managers, it is the 
Senate's job and, indeed, our oath to do impartial justice. In 
keeping with that oath, I supported a trial process that was 
modeled after the Senate's precedent in 1999, when it received 
the approval of 100 Senators. I am glad we conducted this trial 
under that process because I felt it was fair to both sides.
    Both the managers and the President's attorneys were given 
3 full days in the Senate to present their respective cases, 
and Senators spent 2 full days--16 hours--asking questions and 
receiving answers from the parties. Actually, I found that very 
instructive. The Senate heard testimony from witnesses in 192 
video segments--some of them repetitive--and received more than 
28,000 pages of documents. The House record, which we received 
here in the Senate, included the testimony of 17 witnesses. So 
there were witnesses. The House brought witness testimony into 
the Senate.
    I keenly listened to these presentations with an open mind, 
and I have concluded that the arguments and evidence do not 
provide me with a sufficient rationale for reversing the 2016 
election and removing President Trump from the ballot in 2020. 
That is especially true considering the partisan nature of this 
impeachment process.
    In the cases of President Nixon and President Clinton, 
there was significant support from House Members of the 
President's party for opening impeachment inquiries. The 
impeachment inquiry into President Nixon was supported by more 
than 400 Members of the House, many of those--an overwhelming 
number of those--from his own party. And 31 House Democrats 
voted to open an impeachment inquiry into their President, the 
Democratic President, President Clinton.
    By contrast, in this case, not a single Member of the 
President's party voted in the House of Representatives to 
start an impeachment inquiry or to adopt either Article of 
Impeachment against the President.
    Many of the President's political opponents want--and have 
wanted for years--to have him removed from office, while 
virtually no one in his own party supports this impeachment.
    We have a mechanism in this country for dealing with issues 
that divide along party lines. That mechanism is not 
impeachment or removal. That mechanism, quite simply, is an 
election, and we have one in 9 months. So, beginning yesterday, 
we think, and in 9 months, we will have the certainty everyone 
desires.
    In the meantime, I am casting a ``no'' vote in this Chamber 
tomorrow. I am voting no on both of these articles. But do you 
know what? I am also going to do something else. I am going to 
take this opportunity to rededicate myself to the principles 
that this U.S. Senate stands for. I am going to take this 
opportunity to look at those principles and appreciate that 
these are the principles that are tied to making America better 
each and every day. Together we can do this, as Republicans and 
Democrats.
    During the impeachment process, Republicans approached me 
all the time--West Virginians approached me all the time, 
regardless of party, to ask why we were spending all of this 
time on a wasted process. They asked me questions like, Why 
don't you just get on with the business of giving America the 
confidence that you are working on the things that we care 
about--this was the butcher in the grocery store who asked me 
this very question--our families, making our families stronger, 
our lives better, and our jobs more permanent?
    When we rid ourselves of the shackles of politics, we can 
truly work together on issues like transportation, broadband, 
energy, ending the drug crisis, or strengthening our military. 
These are the issues that affect all of us. These are the 
issues that transcend the day-to-day lives of all the people we 
represent. They also transcend the day-to-day sound bites we 
hear from the constant barrage of both positive and negative 
media to which we are so attuned.
    No one has been served by this intense--and, at times, 
sensationalized--and very divisive proceeding. When we rid 
ourselves of the poisonous venom of partisan politics, we see 
more clearly. We know that we don't always agree. That is 
pretty clear. But we can certainly find common ground, and we 
do, as was envisioned by our Founders.
    So let's all just take a deep breath and move on from here. 
Let's listen to our better voices. Those are the Americans we 
represent, who remind us every day how important our freedom 
and our futures are to the country and to the constitutional 
institutions that gird our values.
    We sure have work to do. The American public expects us to 
do better. We should expect that of ourselves. After these 
wayward few weeks, there is no question we will need to rebuild 
that confidence. Do you know what? I am in this for the long 
haul, as I know the Presiding Officer is--the one where West 
Virginians and Texans and Americans see better days ahead for 
themselves and their children; the ones where West Virginians, 
Texans, and Americans drive to work each day and hear that 
Congress is actually doing its job. We were sent to Congress to 
work for the American people, to deliver results, to renew 
their faith in our institutions, to rise above our own parties, 
and to make life better.
    I have always been humbled by the confidence that has been 
placed in me by my fellow West Virginians. It is truly an honor 
to serve, and it is one that comes with great responsibility. 
We need to roll up our sleeves, stop the bickering, and 
deliver.
    I am looking at a lot of young people here in the Hall of 
the Senate, and I am thinking: How can I do better for you all? 
That is where our future lies.
    I am an eternal optimist. I always have been. I am 
optimistic that we can find the solutions that move our country 
forward. Sure, there will be differences of opinion. There will 
probably be some harsh and sharp words along the way and 
differences in our philosophies, but Americans and these young 
people expect that we will bridge those gaps. It is going to 
take a lot of hard work, but I am certainly ready for the 
challenge, and I hope you will join me.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 4, 2020]

                    Statement of Senator Pat Roberts

    Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, tomorrow, on this floor, the 
Senate will reconvene again as a court to vote on two Articles 
of Impeachment against President Trump. Now, after performing 
my due diligence, along with many others, and considering all 
assertions by the House and Senate managers, I believe the 
President should be acquitted from both charges. I do not 
believe that removal from office is warranted, more especially 
during an election year.
    I, like everyone in this body, listened to 12 days of 
debate and testimony covering nearly 90 hours. I spent time 
meeting with my fellow Senators in order to reach a conclusion 
that was, one, fair; and two, met our constitutional mandates; 
and three, what will best serve our Nation.
    I did not seek that responsibility. However, I have tried 
to carry it out to the best of my ability. As a Senate juror, I 
was asked to weigh whether or not the House Articles of 
Impeachment charging the President with obstruction of Congress 
or abuse of power had merit and, if true, whether the offenses 
rose to a level that requires the President to be removed from 
office--again, during an election year.
    And like many of us, I am troubled by multiple factors. 
Quite frankly, I am troubled with the House managers' demand 
that we in the Senate fill in the gaps of their investigation 
and call more witnesses, something they failed to execute 
themselves. The job of the Senate is to be an honest jury, if 
you will, and not take up the role of prosecutor or 
prosecution. Nonetheless, after hearing House managers' 
statements, it is clear this is exactly the role they insisted 
we do.
    I am troubled that countless times the House managers made 
Senators feel as if we were the ones on trial. I believe the 
House managers were both incorrect and demanding, constantly 
stating that Senators have no choice but to agree with their 
line of reasoning, and if we did not, then we would deal with 
the consequences--a veiled threat yet to be defined.
    I served in the House 16 years. For 12 years before that, I 
was chief of staff for a House Member. I know the House. I 
truly enjoyed my service there. But you don't come to the 
Senate and point fingers at Senate Members and make the 
insinuation that we are on trial if we do not do the right 
thing, as they have concluded. Enough of that.
    Additionally, my top concern was what precedent would be 
set for future Presidents and their expectations of privacy in 
conversation with their advisers, not to mention the future, 
with regard to this situation, once again, with our Nation 
finding itself in a whirlpool of partisan impeachment. I have 
been most troubled that the House managers have not put cause 
before personal animus. I would think, back in the day, 
perhaps, that they had a barrel--like a rain barrel to capture 
the excess water off of the roof. I know we had that in Dodge 
City. I think it probably sat right over there. It is flowing 
over with personal animus. It is a rain barrel to catch that 
and get rid of it and let us get back to our business. I deeply 
regret that.
    As has been stated frequently, Alexander Hamilton described 
it best, that charges against the President ``will seldom fail 
to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide 
it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the 
accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-
existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, 
partialities, influence, and interest on one side or the other; 
and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger [to 
our Nation] that the decision will be regulated more by the 
comparative strength of parties, than by the real 
demonstrations of innocence or guilt.''
    I don't know how many Senators and, for that matter, the 
distinguished professor from Harvard, Professor Dershowitz, 
said that over and over again. Unfortunately, the warning of 
Alexander Hamilton and our Founders have come into fruition 
today. It is infectious and harming our ability to function as 
the United States Senate, where the threads of comity are 
already getting pretty frayed, threadbare.
    In this regard, I appreciated yesterday when the White 
House counsel showed clips of major bills important to the 
American people that we have done in a bipartisan fashion, 
despite our differences, despite the animus in the Senate, 
especially highlighting something called the farm bill, where 
we achieved 87 votes, with the support, by the way, of the 
distinguished Presiding Officer. We don't always agree on every 
issue on the Ag Committee, but we can work together to 
accomplish great things for America. We have done that with the 
farm bill. Along with Senator Stabenow and the entire 
Agriculture Committee, we are the least partisan committee in 
this distinguished body. That is what we do in the Senate; that 
is what we do on behalf of our farmers, ranchers, our growers--
everybody throughout rural and smalltown America--and we are 
charged with certainty and predictability, and we had to get it 
done. That is what the White House has done on a number of 
occasions. We use the threads of comity to get things done. It 
needs a lot of restitching.
    So I ask, have President Trump's actions risen to the level 
and vision by our Founding Fathers and the Constitution as high 
crimes and misdemeanors warranting removal from office? Our 
Constitution requires that the threshold for that judgment must 
be set by each Senator sitting as a juror.
    All of us in this Senate have concerns about the direction 
this country is heading, but let me just stress that we have 
come through, time and time again, dark times. These are not 
the worst of times. When I first arrived here in the Senate as 
a chief of staff for Senator Frank Carlson, it was within weeks 
we had the horrible tragedy of the assassination of Martin 
Luther King. Washington was burning. Marines were on the 
Capitol steps with sandbags and live ammunition. That was 
tough. Vietnam tore the country apart, so did Watergate, so did 
the impeachment of Bill Clinton, so did Iran-Contra, just to 
name a few.
    Today a charge of impeachment against the President has 
placed this Nation in jeopardy again. The House managers' 
assertions are exactly the kind of situation the Framers were 
trying to avoid--the remarks by Alexander Hamilton that I just 
read--as they devised the impeachment mechanism to remove a 
sitting President whose actions endangered the Republic.
    However, as we did back then, we will once again come 
together. As I said, these are not the worst of times, and we 
have always pulled it together. We are a strong nation because 
we have strong people. We are a strong nation because it is in 
our nature to work together, even as we disagree among 
ourselves.
    So I made my choice very clear, and my plea is, let us 
restore the threads of comity in this distinguished body. Work 
together, we must. We will emerge strong because we will.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 4, 2020]

                    Statement of Senator John Hoeven

    Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak regarding 
the impeachment of President Trump.
    For more than 2 weeks now, the Senate has listened as both 
the House managers and the President's counsel presented their 
cases. Nearly 28,000 pages of documents, including testimony 
from 17 witnesses gathered as part of the House investigation, 
will be part of the Senate record. Over the course of 2 days, 
Senators asked 180 questions of the House managers and the 
White House counsel. The Senate took its constitutional duty 
very seriously.
    After carefully listening to the House managers, 
President's counsel, reviewing the documents and testimony, and 
asking questions, it is clear to me that the House should not 
have impeached President Trump, and the Senate should vote to 
acquit the President.
    The House process did not provide the President with 
important due process rights. On the other hand, the Senate 
trial was conducted using past precedent of the Clinton trial 
as the framework. At the start of the Senate trial, the Senate 
agreed that the House evidence could be admitted into the 
record. We provided ample opportunity for both the House 
managers and White House counsel to make their arguments and 
ensure that Senators had substantial time to ask their 
questions. As I said, in fact, Senators asked 180 questions 
over 2 full days and received lengthy answers from both--and 
detailed answers from both President's counsel and the House 
managers.
    The American public has seen the transcript of the call 
between President Trump and President Zelensky. President 
Zelensky has said on several occasions that he did not feel 
pressured to do anything in return for the security assistance. 
Further, the military aid was provided to Ukraine without any 
investigations being conducted. Given these facts, the House's 
allegations do not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.
    Our Founding Fathers believed that impeachment should not 
be used as a partisan weapon and that the President serves at 
the will of the people. With an election to be held in coming 
months, it should be up to the American people to decide who 
will lead the country.
    We need to put this impeachment behind us. We need to get 
back to work advancing measures to help improve the lives of 
Americans. These legislative priorities, delayed while the 
House and Senate focused its attention on partisan impeachment, 
include important items like addressing our Nation's 
infrastructure, lowering prescription drug costs, providing 
middle-class tax relief, promoting American energy development, 
supporting our military and veterans, upholding our trust and 
treaty obligations to our Tribal communities, securing our 
borders, and continuing to fight for our farmers and our 
ranchers. These should all be areas where we can work together 
on a bipartisan basis for the American people.
    With these important priorities in mind, I look forward to 
getting back to work for the American people.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 4, 2020]

                  Statement of Senator Robert Menendez

    Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today as an unwavering 
believer in the system of checks and balances laid out by our 
Framers in the Constitution, with three coequal branches of 
government at times working with each other and at times 
working as a check against each other. It is this system of 
checks and balances that safeguards our Republic against 
tyranny and ensures that our government by the people, for the 
people, as Abraham Lincoln said, does not perish from the 
Earth.
    My colleagues, what the facts of this trial have shown and 
what every Member of this body knows is that President Trump 
did exactly what the House has accused him of in these two 
Articles of Impeachment: abusing his power and obstructing 
Congress.
    These articles strike at the very heart of a republic ruled 
not by men but by laws and the very notion of a government 
elected by and for the people.
    I took my constitutional oath to do impartial justice 
seriously. I came to the trial with an open mind. I listened to 
both sides. I waited for the facts to persuade me. But in all 
the many hours I sat through this trial, not once did I hear 
the President's team make a compelling defense. Instead, I 
heard a damning case from the House managers detailing how 
President Trump subverted our national security and solicited 
foreign interference in our election for his own personal 
political benefit.
    The facts show that the President used U.S. security 
assistance and an official White House meeting--two of 
Ukraine's highest priorities--not to advance our national 
security but, rather, his own 2020 reelection effort. In so 
doing, he violated the law known as the Impoundment Control Act 
and undermined Congress's constitutional authority.
    As the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee, I want to make something clear. When a foreign 
adversary like Russia interferes in our elections, it is not 
for the benefit of the United States; it is for the benefit of 
Russia.
    The United States provides foreign assistance to countries 
all over the world because it benefits America's interests. We 
help Ukraine in their fight against Russian aggression because 
it is the right thing to do for our national security. But when 
U.S. officials tell Ukraine that in order to get the Oval 
Office meeting their President wants and the security 
assistance it urgently needs, their government must first 
announce investigation into President Trump's political 
opponents, that is not advancing our national security. That is 
corrupting it. That is forcing a foreign country to choose 
between their own security and getting perversely involved in 
another country's elections.
    When we use U.S. foreign assistance as a political pawn, we 
weaken our standing and credibility in the world.
    Ukraine needed our help. Yet, when it sought our military 
assistance, instead of sending it right away, the President of 
the United States said: Well, I would like you to do us a 
favor, though. The damage of that message cannot be undone. And 
if we don't hold this President accountable, then we are saying 
it is OK to do it again.
    I fear the consequences of the President's actions, and I 
fear the consequences of our own inaction--not just for today 
or this year but for years to come when we have to explain to 
our allies ``Trust us; we will be there'' or when we tell the 
American people ``Trust us; we are doing this in the name of 
U.S. national security'' or when we press other countries about 
strengthening the rule of law and holding free and fair 
elections.
    If we do not rein in this conduct, if we do not call it the 
abuse of power that it is, then we have failed to live up to 
the ideals of our Republic.
    I fear we have already let the American people and our 
Constitution down by failing to hold a fair trial. There is no 
American across this country who would call a trial without 
witnesses and documents a fair trial. They would call it a 
sham. And by refusing witnesses and documents, the Senate is 
complicit in the President's obstruction of Congress--the 
essence of the House's second Article of Impeachment.
    The House had a constitutional prerogative to conduct an 
impeachment and oversight investigation. Yet President Trump 
engaged in unprecedented obstruction in order to cover up his 
misconduct by blocking witnesses with firsthand knowledge, by 
denying access to any documents, by publicly disparaging and 
threatening--threatening--those with the courage to defy his 
orders and testify publicly, by casting aside a coequal branch 
of government, as if he can really do, as he himself has said, 
whatever he wants.
    When a President tries to extort a foreign government for 
his own political aims and in doing so ignores the law and the 
Constitution, the only remedy can be that which our Framers 
gave us: impeachment and removal.
    The Framers knew this day would come. They knew the threat 
of an Executive who welcomed or solicited foreign interference 
in our elections is real. What the Framers of our Constitution 
never could have imagined is that there would come a day when 
the U.S. Senate would shrink in the face of a President who 
would behave like a King, not out of principle but out of 
willful ignorance and blind party loyalty.
    Our failure to conduct a fair trial casts doubt on the very 
verdict rendered by this body. This is not an exoneration of a 
President; it is a coronation of a King.
    I believe that the day we fail to remove this President 
will go down in history as a day of constitutional infamy. It 
will be remembered as a dark day for our democracy, for our 
national security, and for our constitutional order.
    I ask my colleagues, what future damage will we enable if 
this body says that it is OK for a President to subvert our 
national security interests and solicit foreign interference in 
our elections? What will be left of our system of checks and 
balances if there are no consequences for obstructing 
investigations, blocking witnesses, and withholding evidence 
from Congress? If we do not remove this President, can we pull 
ourselves back to a place where the rule of law matters? How 
much more shredding of the Constitution as a nation can we 
possibly endure?
    We already know President Trump thinks he can go to war 
without congressional authorization. He believes he can misuse 
congressionally appropriated funds for whatever he wants, like 
taking billions from the Department of Defense to spend on a 
border wall that every day proves to be a colossal waste. And 
through it all, the compliant and complicit Republican majority 
has further emboldened this President by eliminating the 60-
vote threshold for Supreme Court nominations, by refusing to 
call witnesses in this trial, by further stripping the Senate 
of its David versus Goliath role in which we serve as a check 
on vast executive power.
    If the Senate is prepared to say that this President and 
all future Presidents of either party can misuse 
congressionally appropriated funding to extract political 
favors from a foreign power, can deny all witnesses, can 
withhold all relevant documents, can openly threaten 
Ambassadors, career public servants, and Members of Congress--
if a President can commit all of these gross abuses of power as 
if he were above the law, then the very essence of our 
democracy is broken, and what we must ask ourselves is, What is 
left? What is left of our Constitution if we are not prepared 
to defend it? What is left other than lawlessness?
    We need Republicans of conscience and courage to say more 
than just ``Yes, the President did it, and it was wrong.'' We 
need our Republican colleagues to be intellectually honest. We 
need them to speak the truth and say it is impeachable so we 
can mount a bipartisan defense of the Constitution and all that 
America stands for.
    I, for one, am prepared to defend our Constitution. I will 
vote guilty on the Articles of Impeachment, not because of 
loyalty to any party, not because of how it will or won't play 
in any upcoming election. I will vote for impeachment and 
removal not because I hate this President, because I don't, but 
because I love our country more.
    I took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and with this 
vote, I intend to do so.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 4, 2020]

                 Statement of Senator Edward J. Markey

    Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I thank you.
    Over the course of this trial, we have heard nothing less 
than a blistering, scalding indictment of President Trump's 
conduct. The House managers put forward a compelling--indeed, 
overwhelming--case that Donald Trump engaged in impeachable 
conduct. He withheld both congressionally approved aid to our 
ally Ukraine and an Oval Office meeting desperately sought by 
Ukraine's new President--two official acts--in exchange for 
personal favors that would benefit him politically.
    Trump sought an announcement by Ukraine of baseless 
investigations into bogus corruption allegations against Joe 
Biden, whom Donald Trump most feared as an opponent in the 2020 
Presidential election. He also wanted Ukraine to announce an 
investigation into the discredited and debunked conspiracy 
theory that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 
Presidential election.
    At every turn, Donald Trump refused to cooperate with and 
actively obstructed Congress's investigation into his 
wrongdoing. His obstruction was, in the words of the Articles 
of Impeachment, ``unprecedented, categorical, and 
indiscriminate.''
    I listened carefully to the President's lawyers as they 
presented their defense case. Like my colleagues, I took pages 
of notes. My colleagues were very patiently trying to hear each 
argument that was being made by the defense counsel. I took 
notes. They took notes.
    As I sat at this desk, with the seriousness and sanctity of 
the proceedings thick in the air, I waited for the President's 
lawyers to rebut the avalanche of evidence against their 
client, and I waited and I waited. At the end of the case, I 
was still waiting. And that is because the President's lawyers 
did nothing to rebut any of the facts in this case--nothing. 
They knew what we all knew after we heard the House managers' 
case. Donald Trump did it. He did it. He did exactly what he 
was alleged to have done. He abused his power. He committed 
impeachable crimes. He is guilty. There is no question about 
it--no question at all.
    There is no doubt that President Trump used his personal 
attorney, Rudy Giuliani, to solicit Ukraine's interference in 
the 2020 election. There is no doubt that President Trump froze 
the $391 million of taxpayer dollars in Ukraine military aid 
and security assistance that Congress authorized and 
appropriated. There is no doubt that President Trump 
conditioned the release of that aid on the Ukrainian 
Government's announcement of politically motivated 
investigations.
    There is no doubt that in a July 25, 2019, telephone call, 
President Trump directly solicited investigations from 
President Zelensky, as the partial transcript memorialized and 
as Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney admitted. 
There is no doubt that President Trump released the aid to 
Ukraine only after a patriot within the intelligence community 
blew the whistle on him and after several House committees 
announced a joint investigation into the President's coercive 
scheme. There is no doubt that the President directed and 
orchestrated a coverup and the wholesale obstruction of 
Congress's investigation into his wrongdoing.
    Donald Trump has shown no remorse, no contrition, no 
recognition whatsoever that his conduct was wrong. Instead, he 
has doubled down on his abuses, gaslighting us repeatedly with 
the assertion that his call with President Zelensky was 
``perfect'' and by publicly urging Ukraine and China to 
investigate his political rivals.
    The question now before the U.S. Senate is not, What are 
the facts? We know the facts. No reasonable person can dispute 
them. No, the question for the Senate is, What in the pursuit 
of impartial justice, as our oaths require, must we do with 
these facts?
    To me, the answer is clear. We must vote to convict Donald 
Trump and remove him from office. All the evidence shows that 
he has committed impeachable offenses and is a clear and 
present danger to our democracy and our national security.
    But if we fail to remove Donald Trump from office, we are 
left with an equally consequential question: What would prevent 
an acquitted Donald Trump from abusing his power again? We all 
know that the answer is nothing--nothing will. That is the 
answer I received from the House managers when I asked this 
question during the trial. In fact, we know that an acquittal 
will only embolden him.
    We know that Donald Trump's phone call with Ukrainian 
President Zelensky took place the day after Special Counsel 
Mueller testified in the House of Representatives. The special 
counsel found and explained in his House testimony that there 
was evidence of a criminal conspiracy between members of the 
Trump campaign and Russia, but the evidence was not sufficient 
to bring charges. Robert Mueller never said there was no 
evidence of such a conspiracy. There was evidence. It was 
merely insufficient for a prosecution.
    We know that Donald Trump took this as a green light to 
invite further foreign interference in our elections, which he 
did the very next day.
    Donald Trump has no shame. He cannot help himself. If we 
acquit President Trump, he will believe himself to be 
accountable to no one, and when--not if, but when--he is again 
faced with a choice between the public interest and his 
personal interest, he will choose his personal interest, and it 
will, in part, be a reckoning of our own making. A majority in 
this Chamber will have made President Trump a dictator.
    Then, what will we tell the American people? How will we 
convince them that we still have a democracy that they should 
have faith in, a system of checks and balances that ensures 
accountability, that no one is above the law?
    This weekend I asked some of my constituents what they 
would say on the floor of the Senate if they could make remarks 
in this trial.
    Jennifer Baker Jones of Woburn said it perfectly:

    Wednesday's vote won't be a vindication of Trump, but an end to the 
right of Congress to push back on the President. They are giving up 
their balance of power.

    It will be difficult because we have already ceded much of 
our authority and, indeed, betrayed the public's faith in us by 
the conduct of this trial.
    Hope Anderson in Lowell, MA, told me:

    We need to not only hold our leaders and ourselves accountable, but 
seek to maintain and repair the public's trust.

    We are not here simply to protect one election in 2020. We 
are here to protect all elections.
    At the beginning of this trial, we each took an oath to do 
impartial justice, but then we held the trial without witnesses 
and without documents. We moved to vote on the Articles of 
Impeachment without hearing from John Bolton, a witness whose 
firsthand knowledge directly cuts the heart out of the 
President's case; without hearing from Mick Mulvaney, whose 
fingerprints are all over this scheme; without the emails, 
texts, and other documents we know exist, writings that 
memorialize communications about the actions at issue here.
    A trial is a search for the truth, the full truth, the 
whole truth. That search for the truth requires hearing from 
relevant witnesses and seeing relevant documents so that the 
fact finders understand the entire story. By not pursuing this 
evidence, the Senate--the fact finders--have told the American 
people that the truth does not matter.
    They deserve better from us. Our Constitution demands it, 
our democracy demands it, and I believe the vast majority of my 
Republican colleagues do understand what Donald Trump did here 
and know that it is very, very wrong. They know the House 
managers proved their case. Some are even saying that out loud.
    I believe the vast majority of my Republican colleagues 
recognizes that abuse of power is an impeachable offense and 
that the President is not above the law. But, unfortunately, I 
also believe that they are simply too afraid of Donald Trump to 
do what they know is right.
    Every Senator needs to consider this question. If what 
Donald Trump did here is not impeachable--extorting foreign 
interference in our free and fair elections and then covering 
it up--then what is impeachable?
    We have to have accountability. That is our duty. We cannot 
give future Presidents carte blanche to tear down our 
Constitution and interfere with free and fair elections, 
period. That has to be our standard.
    I will end my remarks with the answer I got from my 
constituent Matthew Murray in Gloucester to what he would say 
if he were here. He said:

    I urge you, my fellow Senators, to deliberate in accordance to your 
conscience and the oath you took when you were elected, and vote to 
remove this dangerous President from office.

    This is the choice we must make: duty to this President or 
duty to democracy. For this reason, I will be voting to remove 
President Trump from office. This is an historic moment. I do 
not think that this body has a choice.
    Thank you, Madam President.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 4, 2020]

                 Statement of Senator Thomas R. Carper

    Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
    The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
    Mr. CARPER. Madam President, 233 years ago, our Founding 
Fathers gathered in Philadelphia, just a few miles north of us 
in Delaware. Eleven years earlier, we had declared our 
independence from the British Crown, the most powerful empire 
in the world. Despite long odds, David overcame Goliath, and we 
won our independence, but would the government of this new 
Nation endure?
    When the Founders gathered in Philadelphia that summer of 
1787, they began debating a new form of government. At times, 
the differences between our Founders--Northern States, Southern 
States, small States, and large States--seemed irreconcilable. 
However, a great compromise was eventually reached, and an 
intricate system of checks and balances was written into a 
governing document, the Constitution of the United States.
    Nebraska Senator William Jennings Bryan once remarked: 
``Destiny is not a matter of chance. It is a matter of 
choice.'' Our Constitution has endured longer than any other on 
Earth, in large part because we did not leave our destiny to 
chance. Today, our Constitution remains the longest lasting 
Constitution in the world.
    Our Founders, despite their many disagreements, made the 
crucial choice that this new Constitution would not lead to the 
creation of an all-powerful King. They came from places where 
they had done that, been there, and they didn't want to go 
through that again. Instead, the Constitution created three 
separate, coequal branches of government--an executive branch, 
a legislative branch, and a judicial branch. This ingenious 
system would ensure that a future President with the impulses 
of a King would be restrained by the other two branches.
    The Constitution also provided another backstop against 
abuses from a future President who committed treason, bribery, 
or other high crimes and misdemeanors. That constitutional 
backstop is called impeachment.
    As we consider the impeachment of Donald J. Trump, I ask my 
colleagues to remember that while we are here today because of 
the conduct of one man, the Constitution that guides us through 
these choppy waters some 233 years later is the triumph and 
wisdom of many men. We are here because of patriots like 
Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Hamilton, and 
many others who lived under the harsh rule of a King and fought 
for the freedom to govern themselves.
    Our Constitution gives the House of Representatives the 
sole power of impeachment, while the Senate has the sole power 
to conduct a trial in the event the House impeaches a sitting 
President.
    We are now at the end of the impeachment trial of Donald J. 
Trump. It is not the trial that many of us had hoped for. We 
had hoped for a fair trial. The American people deserve a fair 
trial. A fair trial has witnesses. A fair trial has evidence.
    I don't believe that history will be kind to those who have 
and continue to prevent the truth from coming to light during 
this trial. The American people deserve to know the truth, as 
does this jury, the Members of the United States Senate.
    President Lincoln once said:

    I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be 
depended upon to meet any national crisis.

    Thomas Jefferson said something very similar to that. He 
said that if the people know the truth, they won't make a 
mistake.
    The same is true of the Senate. If given the truth, we, 
too, can be depended upon to meet this crisis and do the right 
thing. I believe the truth will not only set us free but keep 
us free.
    We now have an obligation to consider the evidence 
presented by House managers and the President's defense team 
related to two Articles of Impeachment--one, abuse of power; 
two, obstruction of Congress.
    The House managers have presented a case that is a result 
of a 3-month-long investigation during which the House 
Intelligence Committee issued scores of subpoenas for documents 
and testimony. Donald Trump obstructed this process from the 
start. No President--not even President Richard Nixon during 
Watergate--has ever issued an order to direct a witness to 
refuse to cooperate in an impeachment inquiry. As a result of 
this unprecedented obstruction, the Trump administration did 
not provide a single document to the House of Representatives--
not one.
    Fortunately, those 17 brave public servants, many of whom 
risked their careers, came forward to testify under oath, and 
here is what we learned from them.
    Donald Trump used the powers of his office to pressure the 
Government of Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election on his 
behalf and to smear his most feared political opponent, our 
former colleague, former Vice President Joe Biden. Donald Trump 
did this by illegally withholding funds appropriated by 
Congress to help an ally, Ukraine, in the midst of a hot war 
against Russia. Donald Trump did this by withholding a coveted 
White House meeting from the newly elected President of 
Ukraine, President Zelensky.
    This President illegally withheld the funds and a meeting 
until President Zelensky merely announced sham investigations 
involving Vice President Joe Biden and a debunked conspiracy 
theory that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 
election. And when he got caught in the midst of this corrupt 
scheme, President Trump even called for other foreign nations 
to interfere on his behalf in the upcoming 2020 election.
    While I believe the evidence against Donald Trump is 
overwhelming, like any criminal defendant, he is entitled to a 
robust defense.
    Many of us listened carefully to the President's defense 
team over the course of his 2-week trial. Not once did the 
President's defense team rebut the facts of the case. Not once 
did they defend their client's character or call an eyewitness 
who could contradict the assertions made by witnesses who 
testified under oath. Not once did we hear the President's 
defense team say: Of course, the President wouldn't use the 
weight of the Federal Government to smear his political rival.
    What did we hear? Instead, we heard distractions, 
conspiracy theories, unfounded smears about Vice President 
Biden--our former colleague--and his family. Instead, we heard 
a farfetched legal theory that Presidents cannot be impeached 
for soliciting foreign interference in our elections if they 
believe their own reelection is in the national interest.
    I believe the House managers proved their case, and there 
now appears to be some bipartisan agreement that the President 
abused his power. Still, does this merit conviction and removal 
from office? Think about that.
    Our Constitution, agreed to in 1787, sought to establish 
``a more perfect Union''--not a perfect union, ``a more perfect 
Union.'' The hard work toward a more perfect union did not end 
when Delaware became the first State to ratify the Constitution 
on December 7, 1787. In truth, it had only just begun. We went 
on as a nation to enact the Bill of Rights, abolish slavery, 
give women the right to vote, and much, much more.
    Throughout our history, each generation of Americans has 
sought to improve our government and our country because, after 
all, we are not perfect.
    In the words of Senator Bryan, we do not leave our destiny 
to chance. We make it a matter of choice. And we choose to make 
this a more perfect union, a reflection that the hard work 
begun in Philadelphia in 1787 is never--never--truly complete.
    Our Constitution has weathered a Civil War, World War I, 
World War II, Vietnam, Watergate, a Great Depression, a great 
recession, death of Presidents, assassination of Presidents, 
and, yes, impeachment of Presidents. Our Constitution will 
weather this storm too.
    A vote to acquit this President does not exonerate this 
President. A vote to acquit effectively legalizes the 
corruption of our elections--the very foundation under our 
democratic process. A vote to acquit says to the President, and 
to all who follow, that you may use the powers of the office to 
solicit foreign interference in our elections--the very thing 
that the Founding Fathers feared. A vote to acquit is the 
realization of our Founders' worst fears: leaving a President 
with the impulses of a King, unchecked by the other coequal 
branches of government and undeterred by the prospect of 
impeachment.
    Donald Trump violated his oath. He broke the law. He 
attempted to cheat in the 2020 election, and when he got 
caught, he left little doubt that he will cheat again. That is 
not the conduct we expect of an American President. That is the 
conduct of someone who believes that he or she is above the 
law. Donald Trump is our President. He is not our King.
    So colleagues, if our destiny is to remain the most 
enduring democracy in the history of the world, we must not 
leave this to be a matter of chance. We must choose to preserve 
and protect our Constitution, and, to do so, we must convict 
Donald Trump on both Articles of Impeachment and remove him 
from office.
    As he left the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Benjamin 
Franklin was asked this question we heard asked several times 
in the last 2 weeks on this floor. He was asked: ``What do we 
have, [what do we have here] a monarchy or a republic?'' 
Franklin answered famously: ``A republic, if you can keep it.''
    Today I want to pose the same question to all of us, to our 
colleagues, in this Chamber: What do we have here, a monarchy 
or a Republic? I guess we can all answer for ourselves, but I 
want to leave you with my answer today. Here it is. We have a 
Republic, and I intend to keep it.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 4, 2020]

                     Statement of Senator Tim Kaine

    Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise also to discuss the 
pending matter, the serious matter of impeachment.
    President Trump schemed to get Ukraine to help him win the 
2020 election by strong-arming its new President to announce a 
bogus investigation against a political opponent. To carry out 
his scheme, he smeared, fired, and threatened a dedicated 
career ambassador, thwarted Congress by secretly withholding 
appropriated military aid over the advice of his national 
security team, violated two laws in order to hide his actions, 
outsourced critical foreign policy to a rogue private attorney, 
hurt an American ally, gratified an adversary, and overturned 
longstanding precedent regarding the relationship between the 
executive and legislative branches. The scheme was so repellant 
that numerous members of his own administration fought against 
it, and then, when they could not stop it themselves, 
courageously brought it to light.
    The House managers have proven both Articles of 
Impeachment. But I have struggled during the Senate process--
which cannot be called a trial due to the shocking refusal to 
allow key witnesses and documents--with a basic question: Is it 
an abuse of trust for a President to behave exactly as 
expected?
    President Trump's behavior has been appalling, but it has 
not been a surprise. The American people knew that Donald Trump 
would seek foreign help to win an election. He publicly did so 
in 2016 by appealing to Russia for help at the same time as our 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Russia was America's 
chief adversary. That he is doing so again is no surprise.
    The American public knew that Donald Trump would target 
political opponents with false attacks. He publicly did so in 
2016 by leading crowds in chants of ``Lock her up.'' That he 
will again target perceived opponents, Democrats or 
Republicans, Ambassadors or whistleblowers, Representatives or 
Senators, war heros or teenage environmental activists, is no 
surprise.
    The American public knew that Donald Trump would obstruct 
the release of information. He publicly did so in 2016, when he 
violated longstanding practice by refusing to release his tax 
returns. That he will continue to obstruct Congress, the media, 
and the American public is no surprise.
    His bigotry is no surprise. His lying is no surprise. His 
lack of ethics is no surprise. His xenophobia is no surprise. 
His misogyny is no surprise. His obsessive selfishness is no 
surprise. His hateful, divisive, and ignorant rhetoric is no 
surprise.
    But Presidential impeachment was not designed to remove an 
amoral leader that the Nation had knowingly and willingly 
elected. It was designed to rescue the Nation from a leader who 
abuses the public trust. Can one abuse the public trust by 
behaving exactly as expected?
    The Senate impeachment process answered my question. In 
1974, Senators of both parties were willing to condemn extreme 
Presidential misconduct. In 1999, Senators of both parties were 
able to distinguish between unacceptable personal behavior and 
``high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' But in 2020, the Senate 
majority engineered an effort to conceal the truth rather than 
find the truth. Some described their motives as ``let the 
people decide,'' even as they voted to hide critical evidence 
from the American people.
    While the President's actions have not been surprising, the 
Senate's capitulation has surprised me. And last Friday, as the 
majority repeatedly blocked the effort to consider witnesses 
and documents, I had a sad epiphany. Unchallenged evil spreads 
like a virus. We have allowed a toxic President to infect the 
Senate and warp its behavior, and now the Senate's refusal to 
allow a fair trial threatens to spread a broader anxiety about 
whether ``impartial justice'' is a hollow fiction. An acquittal 
will lead to worse conduct.
    I will not be part of this continual degradation of public 
trust; thus, I will vote to convict.
    An acquittal will, however, underscore a higher principle. 
The removal of a man will not remove the moral void he 
exemplifies. Instead, every day, people of good will must 
engage as never before and show to ourselves and to the world 
that Americans still have the capacity to choose right over 
wrong, service over self, fact over fiction, and decency over 
malice.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 4, 2020]

                     Statement of Senator Ted Cruz

    Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, tomorrow afternoon, the Senate 
will vote to acquit President Trump in these impeachment 
proceedings. That is the right thing to do. That is the 
decision that comports with both the facts and the law.
    These impeachment proceedings began in the House of 
Representatives in a thoroughly partisan affair, driven by 
House Democrats, without allowing the President to participate 
in cross-examining witnesses and calling defense witnesses.
    When the matter came to the Senate, the Senate was 
obligated to do much better. We had an obligation under the 
Constitution to conduct a fair trial, and that is what the 
Senate has done. Over the course of the last 2 weeks, we have 
heard hour upon hour upon hour of argument. The House 
proceeding heard testimony from 18 different witnesses. The 
Senate saw 193 video clips of witness testimony presented here 
on the Senate floor. The Senate posed 180 separate questions 
from Senators to the House managers or the White House defense 
team. Within the record were over 28,000 pages of documents, 
including the single most important evidence in this case, 
which is the actual transcript of the conversation at issue 
between President Trump and the President of Ukraine. The Trump 
administration, to the astonishment of everyone, declassified 
that transcript and released it to the world so that we can 
read precisely what was said in that conversation.
    The reason acquittal is the right decision is that the 
House managers failed to prove their case. They failed to 
demonstrate that they satisfied the constitutional standard of 
high crimes and misdemeanors. The text of the Constitution 
provides that a President may be impeached for ``Treason, 
Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' The House 
managers fell woefully short of that standard. Indeed, in the 
Articles of Impeachment they sent over here, they don't allege 
any crime whatsoever. They don't even allege a single Federal 
law that the President violated.
    An awful lot of Americans looking at these proceedings have 
heard a lot of noise, have heard a lot of screaming, but are 
left wondering, What was this all about?
    If you examine the substance, there are two things that the 
House managers allege the President did wrong. One, they allege 
that the President wrongfully delayed aid to Ukraine, and, two, 
they allege that the President wrongfully asked for an 
investigation into a political rival. Both of those are 
legitimate ends.
    Let me address them one at a time because there is a deep 
irony in the argument of the House managers. Both of those 
objectives are consistent with law, are permissible and legal, 
and both of those objectives have been done, by any measure, 
substantially worse by the preceding administration, by the 
Obama administration.
    Let's take delaying aid to Ukraine. I am a big believer in 
America standing with Ukraine. Indeed, I traveled to Ukraine. I 
went to the Maidan Square and stood with protesters who had 
been shot down by their government as the protesters stood for 
freedom.
    I believe military aid to Ukraine is a good thing, and it 
is true that the Trump administration temporarily delayed aid 
to Ukraine. That is their right to do so. Presidents have 
delayed foreign aid before. The Trump administration has done 
so with regard to a number of countries. The Obama 
administration did so before that. Previous administrations 
have done so.
    But we heard hour upon hour of the House managers trying to 
establish the proposition that aid to Ukraine was delayed when 
President Trump admits aid to Ukraine was delayed. There is no 
dispute about it.
    We heard testimony about how Ukrainians died because aid 
was delayed. Here is the irony: If you support aid to Ukraine, 
as I do, military aid to Ukraine as they stand up to Russia, 
there is no dispute whatsoever that, for the entirety of his 
Presidency, President Obama refused to give lethal military 
aid, defensive aid, to Ukraine, despite the fact that I and 
other Members of this body called on President Obama to give 
aid to Ukraine. I remember when we all went to the floor of the 
House of Representatives to hear a speech to a joint session of 
Congress from President Poroshenko, then the President of 
Ukraine, where the President of Ukraine called out the Obama 
administration because they were sending blankets and MREs--
meals. And President Poroshenko rightly said that you can't 
fight a Russian tank with a blanket.
    So if the House managers are right that there is something 
improper about delaying military aid, the Obama administration 
did so for the entirety of the administration. What did 
President Trump do? He did something Obama never did: He 
provided lethal defensive military aid--Javelin missiles that 
can take out Russian tanks.
    The first ground they allege, of delaying aid, is legal and 
permissible, and by any measure, the Trump administration's 
record on it is much, much better than the Obama 
administration's.
    How about the second ground: directing an investigation 
into your political rival. The most important legal question in 
this proceeding, the question that resolves this proceeding, is 
this: Does the President have the constitutional authority to 
investigate credible allegations of corruption?
    The House managers built their case on the proposition that 
seeking an investigation into Burisma, the corrupt Ukrainian 
natural gas company, and Joe Biden and Hunter Biden--seeking 
any investigation into whether there was corruption was, in the 
words of the House managers, ``baseless,'' ``a sham,'' and 
utterly ``without merit.'' In their opening arguments, the 
House managers spent over 2 hours trying to make that case, and 
Madam President, I will say, on the face of it, that 
proposition is objectively absurd.
    The White House legal defense team laid out, in 
considerable detail, that there was very substantial evidence 
of corruption. Burisma is a company that was built on 
corruption. The oligarch who started Burisma, Mr. Zlochevsky, 
was the sitting energy minister in Ukraine, and he amassed his 
billions by, as the sitting energy minister, giving gas 
licenses to his own company that he was head of. That is where 
Burisma made their money. It was a company built on corruption 
from day one.
    Now, I think it is worth pausing and examining the timeline 
of what occurred because, remember, the House managers' case is 
that it is baseless and a sham to even investigate corruption.
    In early 2014, Vice President Joe Biden was named the point 
person for the Obama administration on Ukraine. In April--on 
April 13 of 2014--Devon Archer, business partner of Hunter 
Biden, the son of Joe Biden, joined the board of Burisma and 
began being paid a million dollars a year. On April 28, 
Britain's securities fraud bureau freezes $23 million in 
accounts controlled by Zlochevsky, the oligarch who owned 
Burisma. Then, just 2 weeks later, on May 12, Hunter Biden, the 
son of Joe Biden, is named to the board and paid a million 
dollars a year, despite having no background in oil and gas and 
no discernible background in Ukraine. Hunter Biden gets paid a 
million dollars a year, and Joe Biden actively, aggressively, 
vigorously leads the Obama administration's policies on 
Ukraine.
    Now, the House managers were asked in questioning: What 
exactly did Hunter Biden do for his million dollars a year? 
They refused to answer that. That is a perfectly reasonable 
question to ask if you are investigating corruption. Joe Biden 
is seen on video not just admitting but bragging that he told 
the President of Ukraine he would personally block a billion 
dollars in foreign aid loan guarantees unless Ukraine fired the 
prosecutor who was investigating Burisma, the company paying 
his son a million dollars a year. As Joe Biden bragged on that 
video, ``Well, son of a bitch,'' they fired him.
    Now, that, on its face, raises significant issues of 
potential corruption. We don't know for sure if there was, in 
fact, corruption, but when President Trump asked that it be 
investigated to get to the bottom of what happened, the 
President has the authority to investigate corruption, and 
there was more than sufficient basis to do so.
    Of course, the House managers are right that it is somehow 
illegitimate, it is somehow inappropriate--it is, in fact, 
impeachable--to seek the investigation of your political rival.
    We know for a fact that the Obama administration not only 
sought the investigation but aggressively led an investigation 
marred by abuse of power, going after then-Candidate Trump, 
including wiretaps, including fraudulently obtained court 
documents and court warrants from the FISA Court.
    Impeachment is an extraordinary remedy. It is not designed 
for when you disagree. It is not designed for when you have 
political differences or policy differences. It is designed for 
when a President crosses the constitutional threshold.
    On February 6, 1974, the Democratic Judiciary Committee 
Chairman Peter Rodino, Democrat from New Jersey who led the 
impeachment inquiry into Richard Nixon, told his colleagues:

    Whatever the result, whatever we learn or conclude, let us now 
proceed, with such care and decency and thoroughness and honor that the 
vast majority of the American people, and their children after them, 
will say: This was the right course. There was no other way.

    That was the standard that led to an overwhelming 
bipartisan vote to open the impeachment proceeding against 
Richard Nixon. That standard was not remotely followed by the 
House managers. This was a partisan impeachment, and we are 
right now in an election year. The voters are voting, and it is 
up to the voters to decide which policies they want to 
continue. The House managers have abused the constitutional 
process by trying to use impeachment to settle a partisan 
score. That is divisive to the country, and I am proud that 
this body will vote--and I hope in a bipartisan way--to reject 
these Articles of Impeachment, to acquit the President, and to 
find President Trump not guilty of the articles the House has 
sent over.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 4, 2020]

                   Statement of Senator John Kennedy

    Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I will vote against each of 
the House Democrats' Articles of Impeachment, and I would like 
to explain why.
    The House Democrats' impeachment proceedings and their 
Articles of Impeachment were and are fatally flawed. My 
friends, the House Democrats, say that the President is out of 
control. What they really mean is that the President is out of 
their control. And that is not grounds for impeachment.
    First, the process. The House Democrats' impeachment 
proceedings were rigged. Speaker Pelosi and the House 
Democratic leadership decided before they even began to give 
President Trump a fair and impartial firing squad. Speaker 
Pelosi and the House Democrats' judicial philosophy from the 
very beginning was guilty. That is why much of the proceedings 
were held in secret.
    Democracy, they say, dies in darkness, and I believe it. 
That is why the House Democrats hid the identity of the 
original accuser, the so-called whistleblower, thus prohibiting 
the American people from being able to judge the accuser's 
motives. That is also why the House Democrats prevented the 
President and his counsel from cross-examining the House 
Democrats' witnesses, from offering his own witnesses, from 
offering rebuttal evidence, and even from being able to 
challenge the House Democrats' evidence. The House Democrats 
wouldn't even allow the President or his counsel to attend 
critical parts of the impeachment proceedings.
    The U.S. Senate cannot and should not consider an 
impeachment based on such a deficient record. It is true that 
in America no one is above the law, but no one is beneath it 
either. Fairness matters in our country.
    The House Democrats' impeachment is also flawed because it 
is a partisan impeachment. Its genesis is partisan rage. Not a 
single, solitary House Republican voted for the Articles of 
Impeachment--not one.
    The House Democrats made a conscious decision to turn 
impeachment into a routine Washington, DC, political weapon, to 
normalize it. Our country's Founders were concerned about 
impeachments based on partisan rage and our country's Founders 
were adamantly opposed. That is why in the Constitution they 
required a two-thirds vote of the Senate to impeach.
    Now, a word about the substance of the House Democrats' 
Articles of Impeachment. The House Democrats accused the 
President of obstruction of justice. Why? Because he chose to 
assert executive privilege and testimonial immunity when the 
House Democrats sought testimony and documents from some of the 
President's closest aides. Anyone who knows a lawbook from a J. 
Crew catalog does not take this charge seriously. Executive 
privilege and testimonial immunity are well-established, 
constitutionally based Presidential and executive branch 
privileges that every President at one time or another has 
asserted. The proper course by the House Democrats in the face 
of the assertion of these privileges was to seek judicial 
review--go see a judge to seek judicial review from our third 
branch of government, which then would have balanced the 
policies underlining the privileges against the public interest 
of overriding the privileges. But House Democrats chose not to 
do that. They cannot now complain.
    The House Democrats also accused President Trump of abuse 
of power. If you listen carefully to their allegations, you 
will see that they don't really argue that the President of the 
United States did not and does not have the inherent authority 
to pause U.S. foreign aid to Ukraine until Ukraine agreed to 
investigate corruption. That is clearly within the authority of 
the President of the United States.
    Instead, the House Democrats, claiming to be able to read 
the President's mind, say that the President did it with a 
corrupt motive because the investigation of corruption was 
against former Vice President Joe Biden, a political rival. But 
the President didn't get Joe Biden's name out of a phonebook. 
Why did the President ask for an investigation involving former 
Vice President Biden? Four words: Hunter Biden and Burisma.
    Now, these are the facts. President Obama put Vice 
President Biden in charge of the foreign affairs of our country 
for two other countries, Ukraine and China. And in both 
instances, the former Vice President's son, Hunter Biden, 
promptly walked away with millions of dollars in contracts from 
politically connected companies in those two countries, 
including Burisma Holdings. The message that this behavior sent 
to the world was that America's foreign policy can be bought 
like a sack of potatoes. No fairminded person can argue that an 
investigation of this possible corruption was not in the 
national interest.
    The House Democrats' impeachment proceedings and their 
Articles of Impeachment are an example of swamped-up 
Washington, DC, both procedurally and substantively. On the 
basis of partisan rage--partisan rage coursing through their 
veins--the House Democrats seek to annul the 134 million 
Americans who voted in the 2016 Presidential election, which 
resulted in the Trump Presidency, and to do so when a new 
Presidential election is just 10 months away. No one in the 
Milky Way who is fairminded can believe this is good for 
America. A nation as great as ours deserves better.
    So to my Democratic friends, here is what I say. The 2016 
Presidential election is over. Let it go. Put aside your 
partisan rage. Stop regretting yesterday, and instead, let's 
try working together and creating tomorrow, because, after all, 
the future is just a bunch of things we do right now strung 
together.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 4, 2020]

                   Statement of Senator David Perdue

    Mr. PERDUE. Madam President, in Federalist Papers No. 65, 
which we have heard referred to quite a bit in the last 2 
weeks, Alexander Hamilton warned that the impeachment process 
should never be used as a partisan political weapon. He said 
that impeachment can ``connect itself with the pre-existing 
factions and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, 
influence, and interest on one side or on the other . . . in 
such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the 
decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of 
the parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or 
guilt.''
    Today, unfortunately, over two centuries later, Hamilton's 
fears have become reality. This current impeachment process has 
never been about the truth, justice, or the rule of law. For my 
colleagues across the aisle, this is only about overturning the 
2016 election, impacting the 2020 election, and gaining the 
Senate majority.
    From the start, this House process has been totally 
illegitimate. The Articles of Impeachment that the House of 
Representatives presented to us last month were nothing more 
than the fruit of a poisonous tree.
    In America, we believe in the rule of law. In America, we 
believe in due process. In America, we believe anyone has the 
right to a fair trial. In America, we believe anyone is 
innocent until proven guilty. However, House Democrats violated 
each of these foundational precepts in using the impeachment 
process as a partisan political weapon.
    Throughout the course of the House impeachment 
investigation, Democrats repeatedly denied President Trump due 
process and the fundamental rights of the accused in America. 
Simply put, what they did was not fair. They denied him the 
right to have counsel, the right to have witnesses, the right 
to cross-examine their witnesses, the right to see the 
evidence, and, lastly, the right to face his accuser.
    Contrast that with the last two Presidents to face 
impeachment. The grand jury investigation of Clinton and the 
Watergate investigation of Nixon were conducted in a fair 
manner, with rights for the accused. No action was taken by the 
House of Representatives until the facts were clear and 
indisputable in both of those trials. When these investigations 
were complete and those two Presidents were found to have 
committed a crime, impeachment had bipartisan support, unlike 
this time.
    This investigation is entirely different. It was rushed and 
was totally partisan, with not one single House Republican 
voting for these two pitiful Articles of Impeachment.
    The impeachment trial in the Senate has been going on for 
the past 11 days. Unlike in the House, the Senate upheld its 
constitutional duty to conduct a fair trial. The Democratic 
House managers had the opportunity to present their case. Then, 
for the first time in this sad affair, the President and his 
team--his lawyers--had an opportunity to present their case, 
their defense.
    Neither article I, ``abuse of power,'' nor article II, 
``obstruction of Congress,'' qualify as constitutional reasons 
for impeachment.
    It is pretty simple. I am not a lawyer, but if you look at 
the facts, it is very direct. The Constitution clearly lays out 
four explicit reasons for impeaching a President. Even 
corruption does not qualify under these definitions. It is very 
clear. They itemized treason, bribery, high crimes, and 
misdemeanors. And they explained to us in the hearings: Another 
translation in modern terms, using the Old English for 
misdemeanors, is crimes. It is another word for crime.
    The charges against President Trump don't come close to any 
of these specified requirements. It is as simple as that. The 
House really was beginning to make up new constitutional law. 
Each of the other three Presidents who has faced impeachment 
was charged with committing a crime.
    President Trump is the first President ever to face 
impeachment who was never accused of any crime in these 
proceedings, whatsoever. These two Articles of Impeachment 
simply do not qualify as reasons to impeach any President. 
Further, Democratic House managers did not prove their case for 
either of the two Articles of Impeachment.
    The entire case for abuse of power is centered around the 
June 25, 2019, phone call between President Trump and President 
Zelensky of Ukraine. The Democrats allege President Trump only 
asked for help in investigating the Burisma situation for 
political gain. It is clear now, after hearing all the 
testimony, that the primary motivation to ask Zelensky to look 
into the Biden-Burisma corruption issue was to root out 
corruption in Ukraine. Ukraine has had a long history of 
corruption, and this President was well within his rights to 
ask for help in rooting out this fairly obvious example of 
corruption. Democrats completely failed to prove the 
President's request was for political gain only.
    Regarding the obstruction of Congress article, every 
President has the right to exert executive privilege to protect 
our national interests and the separation of power. Honestly, 
this article should have never been received in the Senate in 
the first place. We should have dismissed this article out of 
hand. It simply is absurd.
    Arguing that President Trump obstructed Congress by 
claiming his rights is unacceptable and would fundamentally 
weaken this right for future Presidents. When President Trump 
exerted executive privilege--his right under the Constitution--
Democrats could simply have pursued the subpoenas. That is the 
way the Founders laid it out. They could have pursued the 
subpoenas in court. For some reason, the House Democrats chose 
not to do that.
    House Democrats were in such a rush that they sent the 
Senate an incomplete case. That is why I believe the Senate 
should not have accepted them in the first place, because the 
process was illegitimate, inappropriate, and incomplete.
    Bottom line: House Democrats simply did not do their job. 
In the Clinton investigation, the House investigated for over 
400 days before they brought Articles of Impeachment. There was 
a conviction. In this case, it was barely 100.
    The Democratic House managers brought the Articles of 
Impeachment and claimed they had overwhelming proof. 
Immediately in their opening statement, they had overwhelming 
proof. However, right away, even with that, they immediately 
demanded the Senate call witnesses that the House had already 
chosen not to call, like John Bolton. They could have easily 
called him but chose not to, claiming it would take too long. 
Instead, they demanded that the Senate call additional 
witnesses who were not included in the House investigation.
    The Constitution requires that the House conduct the 
investigation, including calling witnesses, taking depositions, 
collecting evidence, and the Senate is charged to rule based on 
the evidence the House provides.
    This was designed this way for a very specific reason, a 
very practical reason. In the House, committees can investigate 
these charges while the rest of the House continues to do their 
legislative work. Unfortunately, in the Senate, when Articles 
of Impeachment are brought and sent to the Senate, the Senate, 
by constitutional law, must stop what it is doing, must open an 
impeachment hearing, and while in a formal impeachment hearing, 
the Senate cannot do anything else by law. It goes into 
legislative shutdown by law.
    In this case, if we were to call additional witnesses, then 
we would be setting a dangerous precedent for every future 
case. The House could theoretically make up any flimsy charge 
they wanted, with no investigation, no witnesses, no testimony, 
no evidence whatsoever, and then send the articles to the 
Senate and expect the Senate to do their job. That is not what 
the Founders wrote. That is not what they had in mind. It would 
open up a pandora's box, shut the Senate down indefinitely, and 
you can see why the Founders did not want to go down that road. 
That is not how they built this process. For the sake of our 
very system of government, we cannot yield to this 
unconstitutional effort.
    The House actually did call 17 witnesses. They sent over 
193 videos and 28,000 pages of documents. Ultimately, a 
majority in this body concluded it was unnecessary to hear from 
any of those witnesses again. On top of that, the impeachment 
rules do not require the Senate to call witnesses. That is the 
House's job. It is just that simple.
    Let's be very clear. This entire impeachment process has 
been a purely partisan political stunt perpetrated by House 
Democrats. It truly is an embarrassment and exactly what 
Alexander Hamilton warned us all against.
    It is no secret--Democrats have been trying to obstruct 
this President from day one. On the day President Trump was 
inaugurated, the headline of the Washington Post--right here in 
town--claimed ``The Campaign to Impeach this President has 
Begun.''
    House Democratic manager Adam Schiff, in his opening 
remarks, said you can't trust elections. That is why we have 
impeachments. Really? Really? That is absurd.
    The President has done nothing to warrant this impeachment 
process. He must be acquitted. If we let House Democrats get 
away with this today, we are setting a dangerous precedent for 
the future.
    Already, we are in an era of impeachment. In the first 180 
years, we only had one impeachment case that came to the Senate 
and was investigated in the House. In the last 45 years, we 
have had three investigated by the House, and two have actually 
made it to the Senate. If we let Democrats improperly use the 
impeachment process as a partisan political weapon, then it 
will only get worse in the future.
    I call on my colleagues today--I plead with my colleagues 
today--to reject this unconstitutional effort and vote to 
acquit Donald J. Trump of these illegitimate and 
unconstitutional Articles of Impeachment.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 4, 2020]

                   Statement of Senator Steve Daines

    Mr. DAINES. Madam President, I rise today in the very 
Chamber where just three Presidential impeachment trials have 
been held over the course of our Nation's history--President 
Johnson in 1868, President Clinton in 1999, and now President 
Trump.
    In fact, I sat at this desk the past 2 weeks listening to 
over 65 hours of trial proceedings, and during that time, we 
heard from 13 witnesses, and we viewed 193 video clips and 
28,000-plus pages of documentation. Senators, over a 16-hour 
period, asked over 180 questions. In the Senate, we took our 
solemn duty seriously.
    If there is one thing to be remembered from this trial for 
generations to come, it is this: Sadly, over the course of our 
country's 244-year history, never has our Nation faced such a 
partisan abuse of power. Never has the Senate been faced with 
Articles of Impeachment that allege no crimes in an attempt to 
remove a duly elected President of the United States from 
office. Never before have we seen such a partisan Presidential 
impeachment process.
    In 1974, when President Nixon faced impeachment--Nixon, a 
Republican--177 House Republicans joined Democrats in support 
of the impeachment inquiry. During President Clinton's 
impeachment--a Democrat--31 Democrats joined House Republicans. 
But with President Trump, there were zero. Not one Republican 
supported it. In fact, there were some Democrats who opposed 
it. So, to be clear, there was actually bipartisan opposition.
    This impeachment is an unprecedented, purely partisan 
threat to the Constitution. Our Founding Fathers, the Framers 
of our great Constitution, understood what the power of 
impeachment meant when they gave it to Congress after great 
deliberation.
    Alexander Hamilton and James Madison feared--they feared--
congressional abuse of power and legislative tyranny as they 
debated whether to include the power of impeachment in the 
Constitution because the Founders knew the removal of a 
President from office amounted to a political death sentence.
    In Federalist 65, Hamilton warns that the House could be 
``intemperate,'' was the word he used, and abuse their 
majority. He proclaimed that the Senate would be--and I use his 
words--``unawed and uninfluenced,'' the ``independent'' 
institution to determine whether a House impeachment was 
warranted.
    The Founders had the wisdom to establish a two-thirds 
Senate vote threshold to help ensure that removal could not be 
achieved by mere partisan politics. The Founders established 
that the thermonuclear option of impeachment must be bipartisan 
to safeguard not just the President from unwarranted removal 
but, importantly, to protect the will of the American people 
who elected the President in the first place.
    Unfortunately, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, and House 
Democrats have done exactly what the Founding Fathers feared. 
They have ignored what House manager and the chairman of the 
House Judiciary Committee, Jerry Nadler, himself correctly 
observed during the 1998 Clinton impeachment when he stated:

    There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment 
substantially supported by one of our major political parties and 
largely opposed by the other. Such an impeachment would lack 
legitimacy.

    That was Jerry Nadler in 1998.
    Unfortunately, Nancy Pelosi's House of Representatives 
discarded Nadler's very wise words, and they stubbornly defied 
historical precedent by rushing these Articles of Impeachment, 
driven by a Christmas deadline, on a purely partisan vote and 
sending it to the Senate.
    The Democrats' decision was a mistake, and it has only 
further divided our Nation at a time when we need to be working 
together. It was wrong, and it has damaged our country. We now 
need to fear for future Presidents, Democrats or Republicans, 
who will hold the oath of office in this newly hyperpartisan 
era.
    Importantly, for the first time in our Nation's history, 
the Articles of Presidential Impeachment passed by Nancy 
Pelosi's House accuse President Trump of no crimes, let alone 
demonstrate the President's actions warranted removal from 
office.
    This partisan and weak case from the House managers proves 
what this impeachment has always been about--it is about purely 
partisan politics. This impeachment has been nothing more than 
an attempt to overturn the 2016 Presidential election and to 
severely impact the 2020 election.
    By the way, if we were to convict the President of either 
one of these articles, one or both, he literally would be 
removed not only from office but from the 2020 ballot.
    Speaking of the 2020 ballot, the 2020 election is already 
underway. Just yesterday, Americans cast their votes in Iowa 
for President of the United States. In fact, last Friday, 
Montanans submitted signatures and filed the paperwork to place 
President Trump on the Montana ballot for the 2020 election.
    Sadly, it is no surprise that we are in this situation 
today. You see, the Democrats have been obsessed with 
impeaching President Trump since before he was even sworn into 
office. They could not accept the fact that Donald Trump won 
the 2016 election.
    On December 15, 2016, just 5 weeks following the 2016 
Presidential election, there was a headline from Vanity Fair, 
and I quote it: ``Democrats are Paving the Way to Impeach 
Donald Trump.''
    On January 20--now, when I think of January 20, 2017, I 
think about the day the President was inaugurated, which it 
was--the Washington Post headline read ``The campaign to 
impeach President Trump has begun.'' This article was posted 19 
minutes--just 19 minutes--after President Trump was sworn into 
office.
    It gets worse. Ten days later, on January 30, 2017, the 
attorney for the whistleblower who was talked about during the 
trial--the whistleblower's attorney, 10 days after President 
Trump was inaugurated back in 2017, said this in a tweet: 
``Coup has started. First of many steps. Rebellion. Impeachment 
will follow immediately.'' That was the attorney for the 
whistleblower who really started this entire impeachment 
process.
    We have even seen some House Democrats publicly state that 
the only way to beat President Trump in the next election is to 
impeach him.
    Our Founding Fathers would be grieved by the careless use 
of this most powerful tool against the Presidency. Impeachment 
is not a tool to overturn the results of a past election. It is 
not a tool to change the outcome of an upcoming election.
    You see, in America, the power of our government doesn't 
come from 100 Senators in this body or a handful of lawmakers; 
our power is derived from the people whom we serve. This grand 
American experiment of our democratic Republic is built upon 
the idea of a government of, by, and for the people.
    Montanans elected me to represent them in the U.S. Senate, 
to be their voice on this floor and in Washington, DC. 
Montanans overwhelmingly oppose this impeachment. Montanans 
stand with President Trump. In fact, President Trump won 
Montana by over 20 points in the 2016 election. Supporting this 
impeachment means ignoring the voices of Montanans who voted 
for President Trump in the last election, and it means 
silencing Montanans who plan to vote for President Trump in the 
2020 election.
    Keep in mind--never before has the U.S. Senate ever removed 
a President from office, and it is not going to happen now.
    I am voting to acquit President Donald J. Trump.
    For the good of our country, let it be seared in our minds 
forevermore: Impeachment must never ever again be used as a 
partisan weapon.
    I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
fully understand the magnitude of what this would mean for our 
country. This is the first purely partisan impeachment in our 
Nation's history, and it must be our last. It should be up to 
the American people to decide who their next President is, not 
the U.S. Senate.
    The answer is an election, not impeachment.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 4, 2020]

                    Statement of Senator Mike Rounds

    Mr. ROUNDS. Madam President, today, I rise to discuss the 
decision on whether to remove the President from office based 
on the Articles of Impeachment sent to us by the House of 
Representatives.
    Our Founding Fathers included impeachment--effectively 
overturning the will of the American electorate--to be used 
only as a last resort. They trusted the Senate, requiring more 
solemn judgment than their counterparts in the House, to decide 
whether an allegation by the House has the substantiality to 
require removal from office.
    According to ``Commentaries on the Constitution'' by Joseph 
Story, the Framers saw the Senate as a tribunal ``removed from 
popular power and passions . . . and from the more dangerous 
influence of mere party spirit,'' guided by ``a deep 
responsibility to future times.''
    This impeachment process, driven by partisan desire, was 
rushed and lacked any proper form and substance. This is an 
attempt by the House to undo the results of the 2016 election 
and impact the 2020 election.
    Article II, section 4 of the Constitution states: ``The 
President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United 
States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and 
Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and 
Misdemeanors.''
    During the debates at the Federal Convention of 1787, James 
Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and others relied heavily on Sir 
William Blackstone's work, ``Commentaries on the Law of 
England,'' which Madison described as ``a book which is in 
every man's hand.''
    Within his work, Blackstone discussed ``high 
misdemeanors,'' which included many crimes against the King and 
government, including maladministration. According to 
Blackstone, maladministration applied to high officers in 
public trust and employment and was punished by the method of 
parliamentary impeachment. It is from this understanding that 
the Framers selected ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' for the 
impeachment clause in our Constitution.
    The term ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' had a limited and 
technical meaning that was well known to the Framers. It was a 
term of art. As early as 14th century England, high crimes and 
misdemeanors were a category of political crimes against the 
State and were tried in parliamentary impeachments. It should 
be understood that the word ``high'' in high crimes and 
misdemeanors is a modifying adjective and also applies to the 
word ``misdemeanors.''
    ``High misdemeanors'' was applied in impeachment 
proceedings conducted by Parliament long before there was such 
a crime as a misdemeanor as we know it today. Misdemeanors 
alone referred to criminal sanctions for private wrongs. High 
crimes and misdemeanors were charged against officers of the 
``highest rank and favor with the crown'' or who were in 
``judicial or executive offices'' and, because of their 
stations, were unindictable by ordinary rules of justice.
    For those individuals who were not indictable by the 
ordinary rules of justice, the Founding Fathers, in their 
subtle brilliance, sought to have something akin to crimes and 
misdemeanors that allowed them to impeach for great and 
dangerous crimes committed against the State.
    As we know, the Founding Fathers specifically adopted the 
phrase ``high crimes and misdemeanors.'' The emphasis on high 
misdemeanors is important in this context because the House of 
Representatives has not alleged treason, and they have not 
alleged bribery. Their case rests on whether the articles 
charged are the types of high crimes and high misdemeanors 
intended by our Framers.
    In defining high misdemeanors, Blackstone stated that ``the 
first and principal is the mal-administration of such high 
officers.'' However, the Founding Fathers specifically chose 
not to include maladministration as a basis for impeachment.
    When George Mason and James Madison debated the specific 
language of the impeachment clause, Mason stated:

    Why is the provision restrained to treason and bribery only? 
Treason as defined in the Constitution will not reach many great and 
dangerous offences. Hastings is not guilty of Treason. Attempts to 
subvert the Constitution may not be Treason as above defined.

    Mason then moved to add after bribery, ``or 
maladministration,'' to which Madison replied and I quote: ``So 
vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of 
the Senate.''
    The Framers knew what they were adopting when they chose 
``high crimes and misdemeanors.'' They explicitly rejected 
maladministration and other vague terms in favor of more 
specific allegations, which had a limited and technical 
meaning.
    In the first Article of Impeachment before the Senate, the 
question is whether abuse of power as a charge on its own is an 
impeachable offense.
    The answer is no. Abuse of power does not have a limited 
meaning and is as vague as maladministration. The Framers 
actually discussed abuse of power and rejected it.
    At the Virginia ratifying convention, James Iredell, one of 
the first Supreme Court Justices, stated:

    No power of any kind or degree can be given but what may be abused; 
we have, therefore, only to consider whether any particular power is 
absolutely necessary. If it be, the power must be given, and we must 
run the risk of abuse.

    In the first Article of Impeachment, the House has claimed 
that the abuse of power is within the scope of high crimes and 
misdemeanors. I believe the Founding Fathers saw abuse of power 
as an inherent risk within the delegation of that authority. 
The Framers did not intend impeachment proceedings to be 
brought every time an abuse of power is alleged.
    In the second Article of Impeachment, the House alleges the 
President obstructed Congress when he refused to comply with 
congressional subpoenas. The President rejected the legitimacy 
of those subpoenas. The House then failed to pursue redress 
through the courts, rejecting the court's rightful role in 
settling disputes between the two branches of government.
    The separation of powers doctrine recognized executive 
privilege as a lawful exercise for the President to protect 
both Presidential and deliberative process communications. The 
House showed a deliberate disregard for the proper role of the 
judicial branch and now expects the Senate to gather evidence 
after they have already impeached.
    Alleging an obstruction of Congress charge before the House 
exhausted its remedy for judicial relief would change the 
balance of power between our co-equal branches of government 
and ignore the rightful place the courts hold in arbitrating 
differences between the executive and legislative branches.
    No branch of government is above the Constitution. We are 
obligated under oath of office to support and defend it.
    Article I, sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution state ``the 
House shall have the sole Power of Impeachment,'' and ``[t]he 
Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.'' The 
Framers intentionally separated these authorities.
    The Senate does not have the authority to impeach; however, 
the Senate does have the authority to judge the sufficiency of 
articles presented to it. The Senate, as a trier of facts, 
should not overstep its role. It is the House's responsibility 
to bring the evidence to make their case, not simply make an 
allegation.
    This does not mean that the Senate cannot call witnesses, 
but it most certainly should not be the Senate's obligation to 
do so because the House failed to do so in the first place.
    Upon the founding of the Senate, James Madison explained 
that the Senate would be a ``necessary fence'' against the 
``fickleness and passion'' that tended to influence the 
attitudes of the general public and Members of the House of 
Representatives.
    George Washington is said to have told Thomas Jefferson 
that the Framers had created the Senate to ``cool'' House 
legislation, just as a saucer was used to cool hot tea. For 
impeachment, there can be no difference.
    When the House is ignited by partisan passions, eager to 
reach a desired result, the Senate must be cool and firm in its 
heightened review. In recognizing the haste and half-hearted 
attempt by our colleagues in the House, the Senate must also 
recognize these Articles of Impeachment to be wholly 
insufficient and not warranting a removal from office.
    Let this decision lie in its rightful place, with the 
electorate. The Senate has conducted a fair, impartial trial. 
We did our due diligence and fulfilled our constitutional duty. 
Now it is time to bring this process to a close and get on with 
the business of the American people who sent us here.
    I will vote against the Articles of Impeachment, in keeping 
with the constitutional intent our Framers expected.
    Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that citations to 
my remarks be printed in the Record.
    There being no objection, the material was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                               Citations

    1. According to Commentaries on the Constitution by Joseph Story, 
the Framers saw the Senate as a tribunal ``removed from popular power 
and passions . . . and from the more dangerous influence of mere party 
spirit,'' guided by ``a deep responsibility to future times.'' 2 Joseph 
Story, Commentaries on the Constitution Sec. 743 (1833).
    2. During the debates of the Federal Convention of 1787, James 
Madison, Alexander Hamilton and others relied heavily on Sir William 
Blackstone's work, Commentaries on the Laws of England, which Madison 
described as ``a book which is in every man's hand.'' 3 The Debates in 
the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal 
Constitution, at 501 (Jonathan Elliot 2nd ed. 1987).
    3. According to Blackstone, maladministration applied to high 
officers in public trust and employment and was punished by the method 
of parliamentary impeachment. 4 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the 
Laws of England, *122.
    4. The term ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' had a limited and 
technical meaning that was well-known to the framers. Raoul Berger, 
Impeachment: The Constitutional Problems 74 (1973).
    5. ``High misdemeanors'' was applied in impeachment proceedings 
conducted by parliament long before there was such a crime as a 
`misdemeanor' as we know it today. 4 Blackstone at *121.
    6. ``High misdemeanors'' was applied in impeachment proceedings 
conducted by parliament long before there was such a crime as a 
`misdemeanor' as we know it today. Misdemeanors alone referred to 
criminal sanctions for private wrongs. Berger at 61.
    7. High crimes and misdemeanors were charged against officers of 
the ``highest rank and favor with the crown'' or who were in ``judicial 
or executive offices'' and because of their stations, were un-
indictable by ordinary rules of justice. Berger at 60; See also id. 
``The House of Lords was reminded of this history by Serjeant Pengelly 
during the impeachment of Lord Chancellor Macclesfield in 1725: your 
lordships are now exercising a power of judicature reserved in the 
original frame of the English constitution for the punishment of 
offenses of a public nature, which may affect the nation; as well in 
instances where the inferior courts have no power to punish the crimes 
committed by ordinary rules of justice; as in cases within the 
jurisdiction of the courts of Westminster Hall, where the person 
offending is by his degree, raised above the apprehension of danger, 
from a prosecution carried on in the usual course of justice; and whose 
exalted station requires the united accusation of all the Commons.''
    8. In defining high misdemeanors, Blackstone stated ``. . . the 
first and principal is the mal-administration of such high officers . . 
.'' 4 Blackstone at *122.
    9. When George Mason and James Madison debated the specific 
language of the impeachment clause, Mason stated: ``Why is the 
provision restrained to treason and bribery only? Treason as defined in 
the Constitution will not reach many great and dangerous offences. 
Hastings is not guilty of Treason. Attempts to subvert the Constitution 
may not be Treason as above defined.'' 2 The Records of the Federal 
Convention at 499. See also id: The impeachment of Warren Hastings was 
a failed attempt between 1788 and 1795 to impeach the first Governor-
General of Bengal in the Parliament of Great Britain. Hastings was 
accused of misconduct during his time in Calcutta particularly relating 
to mismanagement and corruption.
    10. Mason then moved to add after bribery, ``or 
maladministration,'' to which Madison replied, ``So vague a term will 
be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate.'' 2 The 
Records of the Federal Convention at 499.
    11. At the Virginia ratifying convention, James Iredall, one of the 
first Justices of the Supreme Court, stated: ``No power of any kind or 
degree can be given but what may be abused; we have, therefore, only to 
consider whether any particular power is absolutely necessary. If it 
be, the power must be given, and we must run the risk of abuse.'' 4 The 
Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal 
Constitution, at 95 (Jonathan Elliot 2nd ed. 1987).
    12. Upon the founding of the Senate, James Madison explained that 
the Senate would be a ``necessary fence'' against the ``fickleness and 
passion'' that tended to influence the attitudes of the general public 
and members of the House of Representatives. George Washington is said 
to have told Thomas Jefferson that the framers had created the Senate 
to `cool' House legislation, just as a saucer was used to cool hot tea. 
U.S. Senate, ``Senate Created,'' at http://www.senate.gov/
artandhistory/history/minute/Senate_Created.htm (January 3, 2020).

                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 4, 2020]

                  Statement of Senator Jeanne Shaheen

    Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I come to the floor this 
afternoon to express my profound disappointment. This is a sad 
moment in our Nation's history. I, like all of us in the 
Senate, came to this body to try and make a difference for our 
constituents, to address the kitchen table issues that affect 
their everyday lives--lowering prescription drug costs, 
rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, making college more 
affordable, protecting our environment, helping our veterans, 
supporting our small businesses--so many of the things that I 
and others here have worked on.
    Critics have argued that the impeachment process is nothing 
more than a political attack orchestrated by those who have 
wanted to remove this President since his election. I flatly 
reject that argument.
    I have repeatedly expressed my reluctance to the use of 
impeachment. Unfortunately, it is this President's disturbing 
actions that have put us in this position.
    President Trump went to great lengths to try and force the 
Ukrainian President to help smear Joe Biden, his political 
rival. This scheme included withholding military aid and 
withholding a meeting at the White House with the Ukrainian 
President.
    Each of us here took an oath to support and defend the 
Constitution. The Constitution requires us to do this job. It 
tells us that the Senate shall have ``the sole Power to try all 
Impeachments.'' After the power to declare war, the power to 
impeach is among the most serious and consequential powers 
granted to Congress by our founding document.
    When we all stood here at the beginning of this trial, we 
took an oath to do ``impartial justice.'' That should mean a 
commitment to seek all of the facts. A fair trial means 
documents and witnesses, facts that will help us better 
understand the truth.
    Previous Senates understood this. In fact, every Senate 
impeachment trial in history included witnesses. Most recently, 
in the Judge Porteous impeachment trial in 2010, when I was one 
of the Senators who served on that impeachment committee, we 
heard from 26 witnesses, 17 of whom had not testified before in 
the House. We believed then that Senate witnesses were 
important for impeachment of a Federal district court judge. So 
why wouldn't we want witnesses in something as important as an 
impeachment of a sitting President?
    We know that documents exist that could help shed more 
light on this case. We also know of other witnesses with 
additional firsthand information whom we have yet to hear from. 
We have one witness, in particular--former National Security 
Advisor John Bolton, who has told the world he has relevant 
information and he is willing to testify.
    Yet, despite all of that, the Senate, on a partisan vote, 
refused to listen to Ambassador Bolton or any other witnesses. 
Members of this institution have willfully turned their back on 
important, relevant, firsthand information.
    On the Articles of Impeachment before us, I have listened 
to the extensive arguments from both the House managers and the 
defense counsel for the President. I believe the evidence 
clearly shows that the President abused his power--which has 
been acknowledged by several Republican Senators--and he 
obstructed Congress, which is why I will be supporting both 
Articles of Impeachment.
    On the first Article of Impeachment, it is my strong view 
that the House managers have proved that President Trump 
withheld military aid and a White House meeting from the 
Government of Ukraine to further his own political interests in 
the upcoming Presidential election and to damage the candidacy 
of his opponent. The evidence presented to the Senate was 
overwhelming.
    Further supporting the House managers' case, the 
independent Government Accountability Office, the GAO, 
concluded that the withholding of military aid to Ukraine was 
improper and illegal under the law. The nature of the 
President's offenses outlined in the articles strike at the 
very heart of our democratic system.
    Our Founding Fathers were very concerned about both foreign 
interference in our democracy and the executive abusing the 
powers of the office for electoral gain. James Madison warned 
of a President who ``might betray his trust to foreign 
powers.''
    George Washington, in his Farewell Address, warned us all 
``to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove 
that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of 
republican government.''
    As a Senator who sits on the Armed Services and Foreign 
Relations Committees, I am keenly aware of the serious national 
security interests that are at stake here. This body, the 
Senate, has been deeply supportive of an independent Ukraine 
and a strong U.S.-Ukraine relationship. I join with Senators 
from both sides of the aisle in support of providing lethal 
assistance to help Ukraine better defend itself from Russian 
aggression. We continue to do so because it is in our direct 
national security interest to support our partner in the midst 
of an active war with Russia, our adversary.
    We know that Russia has serious designs on Eastern Europe. 
They are looking at ways to influence European countries--
former Soviet republics where they think they can make 
inroads--and Ukraine is standing at the wall between Eastern 
Europe and Russia.
    I also joined the bipartisan leadership of the Ukraine 
Caucus in writing a letter expressing deep concerns over 
reports that aid to Ukraine was being held up. This September 
2019 letter clearly stated that the administration's hold on 
assistance would do lasting damage to the Ukrainian military 
and would undo the progress made by Ukraine to defend itself. 
That was a bipartisan letter.
    Putting our national security at risk in order to secure 
personal political favors is an unacceptable abuse of power, 
and that is why we are here today. In response to the 
overwhelming evidence presented by the House managers, the 
President's counsels failed to refute these serious 
allegations. Their arguments that President Trump was focused 
only on the national interest are not supported by the facts. 
The President has never demonstrated an interest in rooting out 
corruption in Ukraine and has a troubling pattern of personally 
seeking political dirt from foreign governments. I worry that 
this behavior will continue.
    The 2020 election is 9 months away, and the President 
continues to suggest that he would consider receiving political 
help from foreign governments. Just recently, the President 
suggested that China should also investigate the Bidens.
    Now, with respect to the second article dealing with 
obstruction of justice, the House managers have also presented 
overwhelming evidence that President Trump obstructed the 
investigation into his conduct toward Ukraine. The President 
has repeatedly denied the House of Representatives' 
constitutional authority to conduct an impeachment inquiry. The 
President ordered Federal agencies and officials to ignore all 
requests for documents and all subpoenas. Those agencies obeyed 
the President's order, and not a single document was turned 
over to the House. In total, nine witnesses called by the House 
followed President Trump's order and refused to testify under 
subpoena in the impeachment proceedings. This is an 
unprecedented attempt to thwart Congress's constitutional 
authority to exercise the impeachment power. Even President 
Nixon instructed his White House staff to voluntarily appear 
before Congress and to testify under oath.
    Despite the administration's stonewalling, many courageous 
officials did come forward to testify at great personal and 
professional expense. I want to thank those who testified. 
Their bravery and commitment to the truth should be commended. 
But if the President is allowed to completely stonewall 
congressional impeachment investigations into executive branch 
abuses, then the congressional power of impeachment is 
meaningless.
    As a Senator, I never imagined I would have to participate 
in an impeachment trial of a sitting President. These 
proceedings cause strain and division not just here in Congress 
but across the country. I would much prefer that Congress be 
engaged in the critical bipartisan work that is needed on 
important issues, things that can improve lives across this 
country and move our Nation forward. I hope that this body will 
move on from this disappointing day and will get back to the 
business of the country.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 4, 2020]

                 Statement of Senator Dianne Feinstein

    Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, the decision to remove a 
President at any point in their term--particularly 9 months 
before an election--is not something we should take lightly. 
Impeachment should not be a tool that Congress uses to settle 
policy or personal disagreement. Instead, it should only be 
used if a President engages in misconduct so egregious that 
their conviction and removal is necessary and in the Nation's 
best interest.
    Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 65 that the Founders 
chose the Senate as ``the most fit depositary of this important 
trust'' to make such a weighty decision. They actually had 
faith that this body could rise above pure partisanship to 
conduct a fair trial and reach a just verdict.
    In this case, however, we could not reach bipartisan 
agreement--not even on how to conduct the trial. It is a fact 
that, for the first time in this Nation's history, the Senate 
will render a verdict in an impeachment hearing without hearing 
from a single witness and without reviewing key documents that 
have been withheld by the executive branch.
    As recently as last Friday, OMB admitted it continues to 
withhold key documents. Let me provide an example. In a court 
filing, an OMB lawyer wrote that 24 White House emails were 
being withheld because they ``reflect communications'' by the 
President, Vice President, or top advisers on the ``scope, 
duration, and purpose of the hold on military assistance to 
Ukraine.''
    Proceeding without such vital evidence is a real mistake. I 
came to this trial with an open mind, to listen to the case 
presented by both sides and then to make a determination based 
on the facts. After hearing the House managers' case, it is 
clear that President Trump withheld U.S. aid in an effort to 
obtain Ukraine's assistance to win reelection by asking that 
Ukraine launch and make public an investigation into Joe Biden, 
Mr. Trump's political opponent.
    The President's legal team tried to argue that this didn't 
happen, but without seeing key documents and hearing from key 
fact witnesses such as John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney, top 
advisers with firsthand knowledge of the President's conduct 
and motives, their arguments were not persuasive.
    So, after weighing the evidence available to us and 
considering the President's pattern of similar misconduct, I 
will vote yes on the Articles of Impeachment.
    The House presented a compelling factual case. Congress 
appropriated nearly $400 million in foreign aid to Ukraine, an 
ally engaged in a war with a major power, Russia. It was signed 
into law by President Trump, who knew what he was signing and 
what it entailed. President Trump also knew that Ukraine 
desperately needed the aid and America's partnership in its 
efforts against the huge power, Russia.
    He used that vulnerability to his advantage. He privately 
demanded that, in exchange for U.S. aid and a White House 
meeting for Ukraine's newly elected President, Ukraine's 
leaders had to publicly announce an investigation that would 
damage his political rival, Vice President Joe Biden. The 
President relayed those same demands to senior Ukrainian 
officials through both private and official government 
channels. This was a clear quid pro quo, and it is at the heart 
of the argument in the first Article of Impeachment: abuse of 
power.
    President Trump took this action to benefit himself 
personally and not for the good of the Nation. He violated the 
law by withholding appropriated funds in order to benefit 
himself and not our country. President Trump did not withhold 
these funds because of concern about corruption generally. 
Instead, he demanded just two specific investigations--Burisma 
and Biden--both intended to help him win reelection in 2020.
    After hearing the House managers' presentation, I think we 
have got to really ask ourselves, How can this President deal 
with any foreign nation after compromising himself in such a 
fashion? How can he be trusted to ensure that American 
elections are free from foreign interference? Other countries 
are watching. After the President compromised himself this way 
with Ukraine, what is to keep them, or any other country, from 
seeking benefits from the President in exchange for political 
or personal assistance? So, if the Senate refuses to correct 
this precedent now, the door to foreign political influence in 
our elections will be opened.
    The House managers also presented a strong case on the 
second Article of Impeachment: obstruction of Congress. Here, 
the facts themselves are not in dispute. President Trump 
ordered his administration to withhold all documents and 
ordered executive branch witnesses not to testify before the 
House began its inquiry. The President's legal team countered 
that he has a right to defy congressional subpoenas as a matter 
of executive privilege, but there is no precedent for their 
sweeping claim of absolute immunity from congressional 
oversight, particularly in the context of impeachment 
proceedings.
    President Trump has taken the position that there are no 
checks on his Presidential authority, effectively placing 
himself above the law, and I don't believe the Senate can let 
this stand. Unfortunately, the President's actions are not 
isolated incidents. Both Articles of Impeachment point to this. 
The articles note: ``These actions were consistent with 
President Trump's previous invitations of foreign interference 
in U.S. elections'' and with ``previous efforts to undermine 
United States Government investigations into foreign 
interference in United States elections.''
    During the 2016 campaign, President Trump welcomed Russia's 
assistance to defeat his opponent, Hillary Clinton. The Mueller 
report detailed exactly how the Trump campaign sought to work 
with Russia to improve his electoral chances, including 
providing internal campaign polling data to a Russian 
operative, inviting Russia to hack Hillary Clinton after Russia 
had already successfully hacked the Democratic National 
Committee, and obtaining information about upcoming releases of 
emails stolen by Russian agents and weaponizing these stolen 
documents to harm Hillary Clinton.
    When this conduct came under question, President Trump 
obstructed the investigation. Special Counsel Mueller 
catalogued not 1 or 2 but 10 clear instances where President 
Trump sought to interfere in this investigation. This isn't my 
view. This isn't anyone else's view; it is a catalogue of a 
group of legal professionals indicating 10 clear instances 
where Trump sought to interfere in the investigation.
    This egregious pattern of soliciting foreign interference 
and blocking any effort to investigate continues to this day. 
As recently as October, while the House impeachment inquiry was 
going on, President Trump stood on the White House lawn and 
asked China to investigate the Biden family.
    This trial must do impartial justice as is required by the 
oath we all took. After listening to the arguments of both 
sides, it is clear the House managers have proven their case. 
The President's conduct with respect to Ukraine has mirrored 
other parts of his Presidency, and it is all about what is best 
for President Trump. If we vote to acquit and allow President 
Trump's behavior, we will set a dangerous precedent, one that 
has the strong possibility of inflicting lasting damage on our 
country.
    We will be saying that any President, Republican or 
Democratic, can leverage their office for personal political 
gain. We will be inviting more foreign interference into our 
elections and saying it is acceptable to use the Presidency to 
solicit that assistance. His defense counsel admitted as much.
    And we will be accepting the President's extreme view that 
article II of the Constitution gives him the right to do 
whatever he wants.
    I am convinced this is a rare instance where this Senate 
has no choice but to vote to convict and remove this President. 
I reach this conclusion reluctantly and with deep concern but 
with the belief that this action is necessary and cannot and 
should not be ignored.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 4, 2020]

                  Statement of Senator Mark R. Warner

    Mr. WARNER. Madam President, before I get started on my 
comments, I want to commend my colleague from California, who 
has served in this body with great distinction for a long time, 
who was present during the preceding impeachment proceedings 
under President Clinton, and who, time and again--and I have 
had the honor of following in her shoes on the Intelligence 
Committee--has always been a voice who stood up for what is 
right, for what is correct, oftentimes what may not be 
politically expedient but what she thinks is right and 
appropriate.
    It is with great honor that I follow her as I make my 
statement as well on this most serious of matters, the 
impeachment of Donald J. Trump. So I thank my friend, the 
senior Senator from California, for her comments.
    Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank Mr. Warner.
    Mr. WARNER. I will echo many of her thoughts.
    Madam President, I want to begin my remarks the way we 
began this trial: with the oath we each took to do impartial 
justice. Now, any other day, we walk into this Chamber as 
Republicans and Democrats, but in this trial we have a much 
greater responsibility.
    The allegations against this President are grave. The House 
managers presented a compelling case, based on the testimony of 
more than a dozen witnesses. And the remarkable thing about the 
dozen witnesses that we saw clips of: all of these witnesses 
were either appointees--political appointees--of President 
Trump or career public servants. The fact that these dozen-plus 
witnesses had the courage to speak truth to power when they 
knew that their careers, their reputations would be sullied in 
many ways speaks volumes.
    Their testimony and the House managers' case presents a 
clear fact pattern, a fact pattern that even many of my 
Republican colleagues acknowledge is true.
    This evidence reflects a corrupt scheme to solicit foreign 
interference in support of this President's reelection. The 
President both unlawfully withheld aid to an ally at war with 
Russia and he withheld a White House meeting that would have 
strengthened our relationship with a democratically elected 
leader of Ukraine, a leader who was trying to prevent further 
Russian occupation of his country.
    The President used these powerful tools of American foreign 
policy as leverage--not leverage to further advance America's 
national interests but leverage to secure investigations into a 
political opponent. He also used these as an opportunity to try 
to expound on the so-called CrowdStrike conspiracy theory, a 
notion that has been repeatedly debunked by Mr. Trump's own law 
enforcement and intelligence agencies; a theory that somehow it 
was Ukraine, not Russia, that attacked our democracy in 2016. 
It is a theory, by the way, that currently has been and 
continues to be promoted by the Russian spy services.
    Since this information came to light, the President has 
attempted to confound the House of Representatives' 
constitutional role in the impeachment process. The White House 
issued a blanket refusal to provide any witnesses or documents 
without any historical precedent or sound legal argument to 
support this position. For this reason, President Trump is also 
charged with obstruction of Congress.
    Frankly, I understand some of the points the President's 
defense team has raised concerning this second Article of 
Impeachment. There are legitimate questions to consider about 
executive privilege and separation of powers, but we cannot 
accept the absolute immunity argument this White House has 
invented. This absolute stance and the evidence we have seen 
about the President's corrupt actions and intentions do not 
reflect a principled, good-faith defense of executive 
privilege. Rather, it suggests an effort to deny Congress the 
constitutional authority to investigate Presidential wrongdoing 
and, ultimately, to prevent exposure of the President's 
conduct.
    In reviewing this evidence, I have tried to stick to my 
oath of impartiality. I have tried to keep an open mind about 
what witnesses like John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney--people who 
were in the room with the President--could tell us. If anyone 
can provide new information that further explains the 
President's actions, it is they. But I don't see how the White 
House's desperate efforts to block witnesses is anything but an 
admission that what they would say under oath would not be good 
for this President. And I am deeply disappointed that the 
Senate could not achieve the majority necessary for a full, 
fair trial. Consequently, the defense of the President that we 
are left with is thin, legalistic, and, frankly, cynical.
    Instead of disputing the core facts, which are damning on 
their own terms, the President's lawyers have resorted to 
remarkable legal gymnastics. The notion that even if the 
President did what he is accused of, abuse of power is not 
impeachable; that foreign interference is not a crime; that 
even calling witnesses to seek the truth about the President's 
actions and motivations might somehow endanger the Republic. 
And then when Professor Dershowitz made his bizarre argument 
that abusing Presidential power to aid your reelection cannot 
be impeachable if you believe your own election to be in the 
national interest, I paid close attention. Frankly, I paid 
closer attention to what Professor Dershowitz said in this 
Chamber than I paid when I was in his class back in 1977. But 
you don't need a Harvard Law School degree to understand what 
utter nonsense that argument is and where it could take us if 
we followed it to its logical conclusion.
    The Framers wrote impeachment into the Constitution 
precisely because they were worried about the abuse of 
Presidential power. And if an abuse of power is what the 
Framers had in mind when they crafted impeachment, then, the 
two questions remaining in our deliberations are simple: Did 
President Trump abuse his power and should he be removed from 
office?
    The House managers have presented a compelling case that 
the President did pressure Ukraine to announce politically 
motivated investigations. Again, a number of my Republican 
colleagues have acknowledged these facts, acknowledged that 
what the President did was wrong. And, frankly, it is clear why 
he did it. Does anyone here honestly believe that Donald Trump 
wanted an investigation into the Bidens for any other reason 
than to damage Joe Biden politically and, therefore, aid in his 
own reelection? Time and again, this President has shown a 
willingness to attack anyone who stands in his way. And on this 
he is ecumenical--Republicans, Democrats, members of his staff, 
Members of this body. Nobody is off limits. There is nothing 
out of character about this President using every available 
tool to damage an opponent regardless of their political party.
    I don't find fault for the President in his unorthodox 
style. That is not an impeachable offense. The long list of 
things I disagree with this President on are not impeachable 
offenses either. But the Constitution draws a line that is much 
clearer than the President's lawyers have tried to argue. The 
President crossed it. He abused his power. He commandeered 
America's foreign policy, not to advance America's interest but 
to advance Donald Trump's political interest. And despite his 
efforts to cover it up, he got caught.
    Now, each one of us must vote guilty or not guilty. I will 
vote to convict the President because I swore an oath to do 
impartial justice and the evidence proves the charges against 
him are true. There must be consequences for abusing the power 
of the Presidency to solicit foreign interference in our 
elections.
    If the Senate fails to hold him accountable, we will be 
setting a dangerous precedent. We will be giving the green 
light to foreign adversaries and future Presidents that this 
kind of behavior is OK. I will vote to convict the President 
because it is the Senate's constitutional responsibility to 
uphold this bedrock American principle that no one is above the 
law, not even the President, and especially not the President.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 4, 2020]

                    Statement of Senator Jon Tester

    Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I am going to read a statement 
and then I am going to go back through the information that I 
used to make the decision to be able to write this statement.
    Montanans sent me to the U.S. Senate to hold government 
accountable. I fought to allow this trial to include documents 
and testimony from witnesses with firsthand knowledge of the 
allegations against the President, regardless of whether they 
were incriminating or exculpatory, so that the Senate could 
make its decision based on the best information available.
    Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues and the 
administration blocked this information, robbing the American 
people of their legitimate right to hold their elected 
officials accountable.
    Based on the evidence that was available to me during this 
trial, I believe President Trump abused his power by 
withholding military aid from an ally for personal political 
gain and that he obstructed legitimate oversight by a coequal 
branch of government.
    It is a sad day for this country and for all Americans who 
believe that no one--not even the President of the United 
States--is above the law.
    So how did I get to this point? Well, just a little over 2 
weeks ago, we came into this Chamber, and we started hearing 
testimony. That testimony resulted in these two notebooks full 
of notes because, quite frankly, the House managers laid out a 
compelling case. The defense made their arguments, but the case 
of the House was incredibly compelling.
    An impeachment is a solemn time. It is not something we 
should be taking without the deepest and most serious 
consideration. I compare it to a vote to send our people to 
war. But in this particular case, there was very little 
transparency, and none, if the President would have had it his 
way, of information coming to this body during this trial. 
This, in fact, is the shortest impeachment trial of a President 
ever. If we are going to have information to make good 
decisions--and I always said if you have good information, you 
can make good decisions--then the President really needed to 
open up and cooperate just a little bit.
    This is the first time ever that we had a trial with no 
witnesses and no documents--a trial in the Senate with no 
information from the executive branch. And I get it. I get 
``executive privilege,'' and I think there are times when 
executive privilege has to be used because the information is 
sensitive.
    But I have to tell you that the Williams letter is a prime 
example. I went down to the SCIF. I read it. I have to tell you 
something. If there is something in there that needs to be 
classified, you have me. The information in that letter was 
information that I knew before I went in the SCIF. It is the 
same with many of the emails--if not all of the emails--that 
the President has requested to be classified and kept away from 
this body and kept away from the press.
    That is not the way this democracy should work. It should 
be open. If things are done, the people should be allowed to 
know.
    There are moments in time when documents have to be 
classified on sensitive information, but I am here to tell you 
I have seen none of that. I think many of the FOIA requests 
that have been brought forth show heavily redacted email 
messages, and then when we find out what was really in them, 
there was no need for that redaction.
    So when it comes to the obstruction of Congress, the 
article II impeachment, I don't think there is any doubt that 
the President obstructed our ability--the Senate of the United 
States--to do its job as a coequal branch to make sure that the 
executive branch is being honest and forthright.
    Let's talk about the abuse of power. There is a lot of 
information that was brought forth during this trial about what 
the President did. It has been stated many times on this floor 
over the last nearly 3 weeks. The fact of the matter is, there 
is little doubt that the President withheld the aid to an ally 
for the purpose of creating a position where they had to do an 
investigation if they were going to get that money, or at least 
announce that investigation on a U.S. citizen who happened to 
be a political foe, to corrupt our next election.
    There is no doubt about that. Many of the folks who are not 
going to vote for impeachment have already said that the 
President has wrongdoing, but it is not an impeachable offense. 
And I am here to tell you, if anybody in this country--
especially the President of the United States--corrupts an 
election and that is not an impeachable offense for the 
President of the United States, I don't know what is. Fair 
elections are a foundational issue for this country, and to 
corrupt our elections is something that we need to hold people 
accountable for if they have done it. And I will tell you that 
the prosecution proved that point beyond a shadow of a doubt.
    I would also say that if you take a look at the episodes 
that happened before we got to this point that have actually 
nothing to do with the impeachment, but it does have something 
to do with the point that the defense said about folks having 
been calling for impeachment since this President got in 
office, I offer you this: Freedom of speech is something that 
is very important to this country. And I can tell you that when 
the President first got into office and he got in a fight with 
the Prime Minister of Australia and the Prime Minister of 
Sweden and got in a fight with the Prime Minister of the best 
friend the United States has, Canada, I was critical of the 
President. When the President pushed back on NATO and embraced 
every dictator in the world, from Putin, to Erdogan, to Xi, to 
Kim Jong Un, yes, I was critical of the President. When the 
President pulled troops out of northern Syria and left our 
allies the Kurds on the field alone, I was critical of the 
President. When the President did his trade wars that put 
American family farmers and Main Street businesses at risk of 
closure, I was critical of the President. And we should be. 
That had nothing to do with the impeachment, but it absolutely 
has everything to do with your freedom of speech.
    Today--tomorrow, I should say--we are going to vote on 
whether to convict or acquit the President on taking taxpayer 
dollars and withholding them from an ally that is at war with 
an adversary for his own personal and political good, and we 
are going to vote on whether to convict a President of 
withholding information from the entire executive branch. And 
the only ones who testified were those patriotic Americans who 
defied his order. We are going to vote whether he obstructed 
Congress. This is a no-brainer. He absolutely, unequivocally is 
guilty of both article I and article II of the impeachment.
    So the question is this: If it goes as predicted tomorrow 
and the President gets acquitted, where do we go from here? I 
am very concerned about where we go from here because the next 
President will use this precedent to not give any information 
to a coequal branch of government when we question them. The 
next President will use this as, geez, if it is good for me and 
my election, it is good for the country, as Dershowitz said. 
So, Katy, bar the door.
    As Chairman Schiff said yesterday, if you think this 
President is going to stop doing these actions, you are living 
on a different planet than I am living on. This will empower 
him to do anything he wants.
    At some point in time--if we want to listen to what the 
Framers said--at some point in time, we are going to have to do 
our constitutional duty. It doesn't appear we are going to do 
it this time.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 4, 2020]

                 Statement of Senator Susan M. Collins

    Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, for more than 200 years after 
our Constitution was adopted, only one President faced an 
impeachment trial before the Senate. That was Andrew Johnson in 
1868. But now we are concluding our second impeachment trial in 
just 21 years.
    While each case must stand on its own facts, this trend 
reflects the increasingly acrimonious partisanship facing our 
Nation. The Founders warned against excessive partisanship, 
fearing that it would lead to ``instability, injustice, and 
confusion,'' ultimately posing a mortal threat to our free 
government.
    To protect against this, the Founders constructed an 
elaborate system of checks and balances to prevent ``factions'' 
from sacrificing ``both the public good and the rights of other 
citizens.'' Impeachment is part of that elaborate system. The 
Founders set a very high bar for its use, requiring that the 
President may only be removed by a two-thirds vote of the 
Senate.
    The Framers recognized that in removing a sitting 
President, we would be acting against not only the officeholder 
but also the voters who entrusted him with that position. Thus, 
the Senate must consider whether misconduct occurred, its 
nature, and the traumatic and disruptive impact that removing a 
duly elected President would have on our Nation.
    In the trial of President Clinton, I argued that in order 
to convict, ``we must conclude from the evidence presented to 
us with no room for doubt that our Constitution will be injured 
and our democracy suffer should the President remain in office 
one moment more.'' The House managers adopted a similar 
threshold when they argued that President Trump's conduct is so 
dangerous that he ``must not remain in power one moment 
longer.''
    The point is, impeachment of a President should be reserved 
for conduct that poses such a serious threat to our 
governmental institutions as to warrant the extreme step of 
immediate removal from office. I voted to acquit President 
Clinton, even though the House managers proved to my 
satisfaction that he did commit a crime, because his conduct 
did not meet that threshold.
    I will now discuss each of the articles.
    In its first Article of Impeachment against President 
Trump, the House asserts that the President abused the power of 
his Presidency. While there are gaps in the record, some key 
facts are not disputed.
    It is clear from the July 25, 2019, phone call between 
President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky that the 
investigation into the Bidens' activities requested by 
President Trump was improper and demonstrated very poor 
judgment.
    There is conflicting evidence in the record about the 
President's motivation for this improper request. The House 
managers stated repeatedly that President Trump's actions were 
motivated ``solely'' for his own political gain in the 2020 
campaign. Yet the President's attorneys argued that the 
President had sound public policy motivations, including a 
concern about widespread corruption in Ukraine.
    Regardless, it was wrong for President Trump to mention 
former Vice President Biden on that phone call, and it was 
wrong for him to ask a foreign country to investigate a 
political rival.
    The House Judiciary Committee identified in its report 
crimes that it believed the President committed. Article I, 
however, does not even attempt to assert that the President 
committed a crime. I sought to reconcile this contradiction 
between the report and the articles in a question I posed to 
the House managers, but they failed to address that point in 
their response.
    While I do not believe that the conviction of a President 
requires a criminal act, the high bar for removal from office 
is perhaps even higher when the impeachment is for a difficult-
to-define, noncriminal act.
    In any event, the House did little to support its assertion 
in article I that the President ``will remain a threat to 
national security and the Constitution if allowed to remain in 
office.''
    As I concluded in the impeachment trial of President 
Clinton, I do not believe that the House has met its burden of 
showing that the President's conduct, however flawed, warrants 
the extreme step of immediate removal from office, nor does the 
record support the assertion by the House managers that the 
President must not remain in office one moment longer. The fact 
that the House delayed transmitting the Articles of Impeachment 
to the Senate for 33 days undercuts this argument.
    For all of the reasons I have discussed, I will vote to 
acquit on article I.
    Article II seeks to have the Senate convict the President 
based on a dispute over witnesses and documents between the 
legislative and executive branches. As a general principle, an 
objection or privilege asserted by one party cannot be deemed 
invalid, let alone impeachable, simply because the opposing 
party disagrees with it.
    Before the House even authorized its impeachment inquiry, 
it issued 23 subpoenas to current and former administration 
officials. When the House and the President could not reach an 
accommodation, the House failed to compel testimony and 
document production. The House actually withdrew a subpoena 
seeking testimony from Dr. Charles Kupperman, a national 
security aide, once he went to court for guidance. And the 
House chose not to issue a subpoena to John Bolton, the 
National Security Advisor, whom the House has identified as the 
key witness.
    At a minimum, the House should have pursued the full extent 
of its own remedies before bringing impeachment charges, 
including by seeking the assistance of a neutral third party--
the judicial branch.
    In making these choices, the House substituted its own 
political preference for speed over finality. The House 
managers described impeachment as a ``last resort'' for the 
Congress. In this case, however, the House chose to skip the 
basic steps of judicial adjudication and instead leapt straight 
to impeachment as the first resort. Therefore, I will vote to 
acquit on article II.
    This decision is not about whether you like or dislike this 
President, or agree with or oppose his policies, or approve or 
disapprove of his conduct in other circumstances. Rather, it is 
about whether the charges meet the very high constitutional 
standard of ``Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes or 
Misdemeanors.''
    It has been 230 years since George Washington first took 
the oath of office, and there are good reasons why during that 
entire time the Senate has never removed a President. Such a 
move would not only affect the sitting President but could have 
unpredictable and potentially adverse consequences for public 
confidence in our electoral process.
    It is my judgment that, except when extraordinary 
circumstances require a different result, we should entrust to 
the people the most fundamental decision of a democracy; 
namely, who should lead their country.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 4, 2020]

                  Statement of Senator Cory A. Booker

    Mr. BOOKER. Madam President, in 1974, after the House 
Judiciary Committee voted to approve Articles of Impeachment 
against President Nixon, Chairman Peter Rodino, of my home 
State of New Jersey, a lifelong Newark resident of my home city 
who had been thrust into the high-profile position only the 
previous year, returned to his office and called his wife. When 
she answered the phone, this chairman, this longtime 
Congressman broke down in tears and cried.
    Forty-six years later, our Nation has found itself under 
similar duress, and I agree with my fellow Newarker--impeaching 
a President is a profoundly sad time for our Nation. It is a 
painful time. No matter what party, if you love your country, 
then this is heartbreaking.
    When we think about our history as Americans, so many of us 
have reverence for our Founding Fathers and our founding 
documents. They represented imperfect genius. We talk about the 
Declaration of Independence. We hail the Constitution. These 
documents literally bent the arc of not just our own history 
but human history for democratic governance on the planet. 
While these were milestones in the path of our Nation's 
relatively brief existence, the governing document that came 
between the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution is 
often overlooked--the Articles of Confederation.
    With the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to view the 
development of our Nation as preordained, inevitable--as if it 
were an expected march toward the greatness we now collectively 
hail, that this was somehow a perfectly plotted path toward a 
more perfect union. But it wasn't.
    In 1787, as our Founders gathered in Philadelphia, our 
fledgling country was at a crisis and at a crossroads. Its 
future, as in so many moments of our past, was deeply 
uncertain.
    You see, when the Framers designed our system of government 
in the Articles of Confederation, you can say they 
overcompensated. With the tyranny of King George III fresh in 
their minds, they created a government with powers so diffuse 
and decentralized that nothing could really get done. Instead 
of one Nation, we were operating essentially as 13 independent 
States. The Federal Government could not tax its citizens. It 
could not raise money. It lacked a judiciary and an executive 
branch.
    So when our Framers arrived in Philadelphia that hot 
summer, they would have to thread a difficult needle, providing 
for a strong central government that represented the people and 
one that also guarded against the corrupt tendencies that come 
when power is concentrated, as they well knew was so in a 
monarchy.
    Our democratic Republic was their solution. The Nation 
needed a powerful Executive, yes, but that Executive needed 
guardrails, and his power needed to be checked and balanced. So 
the Framers created what we now almost take for granted--three 
coequal branches of government: the legislative, the executive, 
and judicial branches. Each branch would have the ability to 
check the power of the other branches to ensure, as James 
Madison so profoundly argued, that ambition would ``be made to 
counteract ambition.''
    But this system of checks and balances was not enough for 
our Founders. Still reeling from their experience under the 
oppressive rule of the King, many feared an unaccountable, 
autocratic leader. So the Founders created a mechanism of last 
resort--impeachment.
    George Mason prophetically asked the Founders to wrestle 
with the concept of impeachment at the Constitutional 
Convention, saying: ``Shall any man be above Justice?''
    The Founders answered that question with a resounding no. 
The Constitution made clear that any Federal officer, even the 
President, would be subject to impeachment and removal. No 
one--no one--no one is above the law. This was seen as the 
ultimate safeguard, and it has only been invoked twice before 
in American history. This is the third.
    I sat in this very spot and listened to the evidence 
presented, honoring my oath to be objective, and based on the 
evidence that was presented in hour after hour after hour of 
presentations, I concluded that the President, Donald John 
Trump, is guilty of committing high crimes and misdemeanors 
against the United States of America, against the people. I 
believe he abused the awesome power of his office for personal 
and political gain to pressure a foreign power to interfere in 
the most sacred institution of our democracy, our elections. He 
then engaged in a concerted, far-reaching, and categorical 
effort to cover up his transgression and block any efforts for 
the people's representatives to have the truth.
    It brings me no satisfaction to come to this conclusion. I 
feel that sadness of my predecessor. Yet we have sworn an oath 
to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
    This is not a moment that should call for partisan 
passions. It is not a moment that we think of in terms of the 
limitlessness of personal ambition. This is a patriotic moment. 
It is about putting principle above party. It is about honoring 
this body and the Senate's rightful place in our constitutional 
system of checks and balances. It is about fulfilling the 
enormous trust the Founders placed in this body as an impartial 
Court of Impeachment and a necessary check on what they foresaw 
as the potential for ``grave abuses'' by the Executive.
    If we fail to hold this President accountable, then we fail 
the Founders' intent; we fail our democracy; and I fear the 
injury that will result.
    When our grandchildren and their children read about this 
chapter in the history books at a time far into the future, 
when this President is a memory along with those of us serving 
in this Chamber, it will not be seen through the eye of 
politics or partisanship. They will read about how this body 
acted in their moment of constitutional crisis. I fear that 
their unflinching eyes, at a time when the full body of 
evidence will be out in the public domain, will see clearly how 
this body abdicated its constitutional responsibilities, 
surrendering them to partisan passions. They will read about 
how the Senate shut its doors to the truth, even though it was 
within easy reach; how, for the first time in our history of 
impeachment proceedings for judges and for past Presidents, the 
world's greatest deliberative body conducted an impeachment 
trial without demanding a single witness and without 
subpoenaing a single document; how, even as new evidence during 
the trial continued to be uncovered, the Members of this body 
failed to even view it. They failed to pursue with even the 
faintest effort those things that would have easily and more 
perfectly revealed the breadth and depth of the President's 
misconduct.
    We know across the street, in the Supreme Court, the saying 
is that justice is blind, but that means that no one is above 
the law. It does not mean that this body should abdicate its 
responsibilities and it should abandon its senses and even 
abandon common sense. If there is evidence we know about that 
could speak beyond a reasonable doubt to this President's 
alleged crimes and misconduct, it makes no sense whatsoever 
that we should deny, in this deliberative body, the truth--the 
truth.
    This kind of willful ignorance, this metaphorical closing 
of our eyes and ears, is a grave danger to any democracy. It is 
the rot from within, when the ideals of truth and justice fall 
victim to the toxic tyranny of absolute partisanship.
    This President has claimed authoritarian power that our 
Constitution was explicitly designed to prevent. He has 
literally said that article II allows him to do whatever he 
wants. That outrageous statement tomorrow could be given life 
within this democracy.
    He has declared himself unaccountable to and above the law. 
He has shredded the very governing ideals of this great 
Republic, and we, the Senate, the body designed to check such 
abuses of power, that ``dignified . . . independent . . . 
unawed and uninfluenced'' tribunal, as Hamilton so famously 
wrote in Federalist Paper No. 65, have been enablers to this 
destructive instinct.
    This is a sad day. This is a sad moment in the history of 
this body and in our Nation, and I fear that it is emblematic, 
that it is a symptom of deeper challenges to this Nation, 
challenges that are being exploited by our enemies abroad and 
by opportunists here at home.
    The factionalism that our Founders warned us of has 
deepened beyond mere partisanship to a self-destructive 
tribalism. The ``cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men'' 
seeking to subvert the power of the people, as Washington 
predicted in his profound and prophetic Farewell Address, have 
found their season to flourish here in our time. Many in our 
society now hate other Americans, not because of the content of 
their character or their virtue and the values they hold dear, 
but we, as Americans, now more and more see hate proliferating 
in our country between fellow Americans because of what party 
we belong to.
    We have failed to listen to the words that come out of each 
other's mouths, failed to listen to the ideals or the 
principles or the underlying facts because we now simply listen 
to partisanship. This Nation was founded with great sacrifice. 
The blood, sweat, and tears of our ancestors, which gave life 
and strength to this Nation, are now being weakened and 
threatened, as our very first President warned.
    And, yes, today is a sad moment, but we, as a nation, have 
never been defined by our darkest hours. We have always been 
defined by how we respond to our challenges, how we have 
refused to surrender to cynicism, and how we have refused to 
give in to despair.
    As Senator after Senator today gets up and speaks, I fear 
that mere words in this time are impotent and ineffective. It 
may mark where we as individuals stand for the record, but the 
challenge demands more from all of us in this time. We have 
already seen on this Senate floor that sound arguments have 
been dismissed as partisanship. We have heard speech after 
speech and seen how they will not cure this time. They will not 
save this Republic from our deepening divides.
    So I ask: What will? How? How do we heal? How do we meet 
this crisis? I know that this President is incapable of healing 
this Nation. I have never seen a leader in high office ever 
take such glee in meanness. He considers it some kind of high 
badge of virtue in the way he demeans and degrades his 
political adversaries. He demonizes others, often the weak in 
our society, and I firmly believe that he has shown that he 
will even conspire with foreign nations to defeat his 
adversaries, and then defend himself not with any truth or 
transparency but by trying to heighten and ignite even more 
partisan passions.
    So the question is really, How do we heal this Nation? How 
do we meet this challenge that is not embodied in any 
individual?
    It was a man far greater than me named Learned Hand who 
said:

    Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no 
constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no 
court can even do much to help it. The spirit of liberty is the spirit 
which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the 
spirit which seeks to understand the minds of other men and women; the 
spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interests alongside 
its own without bias.

    I continue to quote this great judge.

    Our dangers, as it seems to me, are not from the outrageous but 
from the conforming; not from those who rarely and under the lurid 
glare of obloquy upset our moral complaisance, or shock us with 
unaccustomed conduct, but from those, the mass of us, who take their 
virtues and their tastes, like their shirts and their furniture, from 
the limited patterns which the market offers.

    I love our Nation's history. I am telling you right now we 
have seen that the true test of our democracy will not come 
simply from the low actions from our leaders on most high. The 
true test of our democracy will not turn alone on the actions 
of this body because Presidents before and this body before 
have failed us in dark times. They failed the ideals of freedom 
when time and again they defended slavery. This body has failed 
the ideals of liberty when time and again it rejected civil 
rights. This body has failed the ideals in the past of equality 
when it voted down, again and again, suffrage for women. Lo, 
Presidents before and the Senate before has failed this Nation 
in the darkest of times. As the songs of my ancestors have 
said, our path has been watered with the tears and blood of 
ancestors.
    How do we heal? How do we move forward? I say on this dark 
day that the hope of this Nation lies with its people. As 
Learned Hand said: The spirit of liberty is not embodied in the 
Constitution. Other nations have constitutions and have failed. 
The hope of this Nation will always lie with its people.
    So we will not be cured today, and, I tell you, tomorrow's 
vote--it is a defeat. But we, as a people facing other defeats 
in this body, must never be defeated. Just like they beat us 
down at Stonewall and they beat us back in Selma, the hope of 
this Nation lies with the people who faced defeats but must 
never be defeated.
    So my prayer for our Republic, now yet in another crisis in 
the Senate, is that we cannot let this be leading us further 
and further into a treacherous time of partisanship and 
tribalism where we tear at each other and when we turn against 
each other. Now is the time in America where we must begin, in 
the hearts of people, to turn to each other and to begin to 
find a way out of this dark time to a higher ground of hope. 
This is not a time to simply point blame at one side or 
another. This is a time to accept responsibility.
    Like our ancestors in the past so understood, that change 
does not come from Washington. It must come to Washington. As I 
was taught as a boy, we didn't get civil rights because Strom 
Thurmond came to the Senate floor one day and pronounced that 
he had seen the light. No, this body responded to the demands 
of people, and now is a time that we must demand the highest 
virtues of our land and see each other for who we are--our 
greatest hope and our greatest promise.
    We are a weary people in America again. We are tired. We 
are frustrated. But we cannot give up. That flag over there and 
we who swear an oath to it and don't just parrot words or say 
them with some kind of perfunctory obligation--but those who 
swear an oath to this Nation--must now act with a greater 
unyielding conviction. We must act to do justice. We must act 
to heal harms. We must act to walk more humbly. We must act to 
love one another unconditionally. And now, more than ever, 
perhaps we need to act in the words of a great abolitionist, a 
former slave, who in a dark, difficult time when America was 
failing to live up to its promise, gave forth a sentiment of 
his actions captured in the poetry of Langston Hughes. He 
declared through his deed and through his work and through his 
sacrifice:

    America never was America to me,
    And yet I swear this oath--
    America will be!

    As a nation, in this difficult time where we face the 
betrayal of a President, the surrender of obligation by a body, 
may we meet this time with our actions of good will, of a 
commitment to love and to justice, and to yet again elevating 
our country so that we, too, may be like, as it says in that 
great text, ``a light unto all Nations.''
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 4, 2020]

                    Statement of Senator Rob Portman

    Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am here today to talk about 
the Senate trial and the factors I have considered in making my 
decision on the Articles of Impeachment from the House. I have 
now read hundreds of pages of legal briefs and memos, including 
the testimony of 17 witnesses. Here, on the Senate floor, I 
have reviewed more than 190 witness videos and listened 
carefully to more than 65 hours of detailed presentations from 
both the House managers and from the President's legal team.
    As cofounder and cochair of the Ukraine Caucus and someone 
who is proud to represent many Ukrainian Americans in Ohio, I 
have been active for the past several years in helping Ukraine 
as it has sought freedom and independence since the 2014 
Revolution of Dignity that saw the corrupt Russian-backed 
government of Viktor Yanukovych replaced with pro-Western 
elected leaders.
    Since first seeing the transcript of the phone call between 
President Trump and President Zelensky 4 months ago, I have 
consistently said that the President asking Ukraine for an 
investigation into Joe Biden was inappropriate and wrong. I 
have also said, since then, that any actions taken by members 
of the administration or those outside the administration to 
try to delay military assistance or a White House meeting 
pending an investigation by Ukraine were not appropriate 
either.
    But while I don't condone this behavior, these actions do 
not rise to the level of removing President Trump from office 
and taking him off the ballot in a Presidential election year 
that is already well under way.
    I first looked to the fact that the Founders meant for 
impeachment of a President to be extremely rare, reserved for 
only ``Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and 
Misdemeanors.'' Any fair reading of what the Founders meant in 
the Constitution and in the Federalist papers in the context of 
history and just plain common sense makes it clear that 
removing a duly elected President demands that those arguing 
for conviction meet a high standard.
    As an example, for good reason there has never been a 
Presidential impeachment that didn't allege a crime. In the 
Clinton impeachment, the independent counsel concluded that 
President Clinton committed not one but two crimes. In this 
case, no crime is alleged. Let me repeat. In the two Articles 
of Impeachment that came over to us from the House, there is no 
criminal law violation alleged. Although I don't think that 
that is always necessary--there could be circumstances where a 
crime isn't necessary in an impeachment--without a crime, it is 
even a higher bar for those who advocate for a conviction, and 
that high bar is not met here.
    What is more, even though it was delayed, the President 
ultimately did provide the needed military assistance to 
Ukraine, and he provided it before the September 30 budget 
deadline, and the requested investigations by Ukraine were not 
undertaken. It is an important point to make. The aid went. The 
investigations did not occur.
    The military assistance is particularly important to me as 
a strong supporter of Ukraine. In fact, I was one of those 
Senators who fought to give President Obama and his 
administration the authority to provide badly needed lethal 
military assistance to Ukraine in response to the Russian 
aggression that came right after the Revolution of Dignity in 
2014.
    I must say, I strongly urged the Obama administration to 
use that authority, and, like Ukraine, I was deeply 
disappointed when they did not. I strongly supported President 
Trump's decision to change course and provide that assistance 
shortly after he came into office. While visiting Ukrainian 
troops on the frontlines in the Donbas region of Ukraine, I 
have seen firsthand how much those soldiers need the military 
assistance President Trump alone has provided.
    Beyond whether the President's conduct met the high bar of 
impeachment, there is also the underlying issue of the 
legitimacy of the House impeachment process. The House 
Democrats sent the Senate a flawed case built on what respected 
George Washington University constitutional law professor 
Jonathan Turley calls ``the shortest proceeding, with the 
thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever 
used to impeach a President.''
    Instead of using the tools available to compel the 
administration to produce documents and witnesses, the House 
followed a self-imposed and entirely political deadline for 
voting on the Articles of Impeachment before Christmas. After 
the rushed vote, the House then inexplicably stalled, keeping 
those articles from being delivered here in the Senate for 28 
days, time they could have used to subpoena witnesses and 
resolve legitimate disagreements about whether evidence was 
privileged or not. They didn't even bother to subpoena 
witnesses they then wanted the Senate to subpoena for them.
    The House process was also lacking in fundamental fairness 
and due process in a number of respects. It is incomprehensible 
to me that the President's counsel did not have the opportunity 
to cross-examine fact witnesses and that the House selectively 
leaked deposition testimony from closed-door sessions.
    Rushing an impeachment case through the House without due 
process and giving the Senate a half-baked case to finish sets 
a very dangerous precedent. If the Senate were to convict, it 
would send the wrong message and risk making this kind of 
quick, partisan impeachment in the House a regular occurrence 
moving forward. That would be terrible for the country.
    Less than a year ago, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said: 
``Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's 
something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I 
don't think we should go down that path.'' She was right.
    It is better to let the people decide. Early voting has 
already started in some States, and the Iowa caucuses occurred 
last night. Armed with all the information, we should let the 
voters have their say at the ballot box.
    During the last impeachment 21 years ago, now-House Manager 
Congressman Jerry Nadler said:

    There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment 
substantially supported by one of our major political parties and 
largely opposed by the other. Such an impeachment would lack 
legitimacy.

    In this case, the impeachment wasn't just ``substantially 
supported'' by Democrats; it was only supported by Democrats. 
In fact, a few Democrats actually voted with all the 
Republicans to oppose the impeachment.
    Founder Alexander Hamilton feared that impeachment could 
easily fall prey to partisan politics. That is exactly what 
happened here with the only purely partisan impeachment in the 
history of our great country. For all of these reasons, I am 
voting against the Articles of Impeachment tomorrow.
    It is time to move on and to move on to focus on bipartisan 
legislation to help the families whom we represent. Unlike the 
House, the Senate is blocked from conducting its regular 
business during impeachment.
    My colleague from New Jersey asked a moment ago, how do we 
heal? How do we heal the wounds? Our country is divided, and I 
think the impeachment has further divided an already polarized 
country. I think we heal, in part, by surprising the people and 
coming out from our partisan corners and getting stuff done--
stuff that they care about that affects the families we were 
sent here to represent.
    While in the impeachment trial, we were prevented from 
doing the important legislative work our constituents expect, 
like passing legislation to lower prescription drug costs, like 
rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, like addressing the 
new addiction crisis--the combination of synthetic opioids like 
fentanyl and crystal meth, pure crystal meth coming from 
Mexico. It is an opportunity for us to strengthen our economy 
with better skills training, including passing legislation to 
give workers the skills they need to meet the jobs that are out 
there. Those are just a few ideas that are ready to go--ideas 
the President supports, Republicans support, and Democrats 
support.
    I have been working on bipartisan initiatives like the JOBS 
Act to provide that needed skills training, the Restore Our 
Parks Act to deal with the infrastructure that is crumbling in 
our national parks, the Energy Savings and Industrial 
Competitiveness Act, which promotes energy efficiency--
something we should be able to agree on across the aisle. All 
of these have been sitting idle this year as we have grappled 
with impeachment.
    How do we heal? How do we heal the wounds? In part, let's 
do it by working together to pass legislation people care 
about.
    Back home, I have seen that the impeachment process has, 
indeed, further divided an already polarized country. A 
conviction in the Senate, removing Donald Trump from office and 
taking his name off the ballot, would dangerously deepen that 
growing rift. That is one reason I am glad we are not likely to 
see a conviction because I do care about our country and 
bringing it together.
    Instead, my hope is that lessons have been learned; that we 
can heal some wounds for the sake of the country; that we can 
turn to the bipartisan work most Americans expect us to do; and 
that we can allow American voters, exercising the most 
important constitutional check and balance of all, to have 
their say in this year's Presidential election. I believe this 
is what the Constitution requires and what the country needs.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 4, 2020]

               Statement of Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr.

    Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, as I rise today to discuss this 
impeachment trial, I am reminded of an inscription above the 
front door of the Finance Building in Harrisburg, PA, from the 
1930s. Here is the inscription: ``All public service is a 
trust, given in faith and accepted in honor.''
    I believe that President Trump and every public official in 
America must earn that trust every day. That sacred trust is 
given to us, as the inscription says, ``in faith,'' by virtue 
of our election.
    The question for the President and every public official is 
this: Will we accept this trust by our honorable conduct? The 
trust set forth in the inscription is an echo of Alexander 
Hamilton's words in Federalist No. 65, where Hamilton 
articulated the standard for impeachment as ``offenses which 
proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, 
from the abuse or violation of some public trust.''
    Over the past 2 weeks, I have listened carefully to the 
arguments put forward by the President's defense lawyers and 
the House managers. In light of the substantial record put 
forth by the managers in this case, I have determined that the 
managers have not only met but exceeded their burden of proof.
    President Trump violated his duty as a public servant by 
corruptly abusing his power to solicit foreign interference in 
the 2020 election and by repeatedly obstructing Congress's 
constitutionally based investigation into his conduct.
    President Trump's clearly established pattern of conduct 
indicates that he will continue to be ``a threat to national 
security and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office.'' 
For these reasons, I will vote guilty on both article I and 
article II.
    This impeachment was triggered by the President's conduct. 
We are here because the President abused his power--the awesome 
power of his office--to demand that an ally investigate a 
political opponent, proving his contempt for the Constitution 
and his duties as a public official.
    The House managers provided substantial evidence of 
wrongdoing. First, as to article I regarding abuse of power, 
many of the facts here are undisputed. For example, there is no 
dispute that the President has said, when referring to the 
Constitution itself: ``Article II allows me to do whatever I 
want.'' This is what the President of the United States of 
America said.
    Then he withheld congressionally authorized military 
assistance to Ukraine in a White House meeting with President 
Zelensky and conditioned that military assistance and the 
meeting on Ukraine publicly announcing investigations into Vice 
President Biden and his son, as well as a debunked conspiracy 
theory about the 2016 election interference. The memorandum of 
the July 25 phone call in which President Trump asked President 
Zelensky ``to do us a favor though,'' after Zelensky brought up 
in the conversation military assistance, that evidence is 
compelling evidence of wrongdoing.
    The President reiterated on the White House lawn on October 
3 that Ukraine should ``start a major investigation into the 
Bidens'' before adding that China should also ``start an 
investigation into the Bidens.''
    President Trump's own politically appointed Ambassador to 
the European Union, Gordon Sondland, explicitly testified that 
the meeting and the assistance were conditioned on announcing--
announcing--the investigations.
    The President's defense lawyers first insisted on this 
floor that he ``did absolutely nothing wrong.'' But later, 
after even Republican Senators would not make that claim, the 
new justification for his misconduct was ``corruption'' and 
``burden-sharing.''
    If the President were so concerned about corruption in 
Ukraine, why did he dismiss one of our best corruption-fighting 
diplomats, Marie Yovanovitch? In May, the Department of Defense 
also certified--certified--that Ukraine had taken ``substantial 
actions'' to decrease corruption.
    If there were legitimate foreign policy concerns about 
corruption, the President would not have released aid to 
Ukraine without delay in 2017 and in 2018, only to delay it in 
2019, after Joe Biden announced his run for President.
    If there were legitimate foreign policy concerns, the 
President would not have been interested in pursuing 
investigations based on--as Dr. Fiona Hill testified--a 
``fictional narrative that is being perpetrated and propagated 
by the Russian security services'' to raise doubts about 
Russia's own culpability in the 2016 election interference and 
to harm the relationship between the United States and Ukraine.
    Furthermore, the President's defense team would have us 
believe that he legitimately asserted executive privilege over 
the House's well-founded impeachment inquiry, despite the fact 
that he never actually asserted a privilege over a single 
document or witness. Rather, he issued a blanket directive in 
which he refused to cooperate entirely with the House 
investigation. This action not only obstructed the House's 
constitutional responsibility of oversight, it also sought to 
cover up the President's corrupt abuse of power.
    At the time of the drafting of the Constitution, the 
Framers' understanding of ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' was 
informed by centuries of English legal precedent. This 
understanding was reflected in the language of Federalist No. 
65 that I referred to earlier regarding ``an abuse or violation 
of some public trust.'' Based on this history, both Chambers of 
Congress have consistently interpreted ``high Crimes and 
Misdemeanors'' broadly to mean ``serious violations of the 
public trust.''
    The President's defense lawyers argued that impeachment 
requires the violation of a criminal statute to be 
constitutionally valid. This argument is offensive, dangerous, 
and not supported by historical precedent, credible 
scholarship, or common sense about the sacred notion of the 
public trust.
    When applying the impeachment standard of an ``abuse or 
violation of some public trust,'' it is clear that President 
Trump's conduct exceeded that standard. Any effort to corrupt 
our next election must be met with swift accountability, as 
provided for in the impeachment clause in the Constitution. 
There is no other remedy to constrain a President who has acted 
time and again to advance his personal interests over those of 
the Nation.
    Furthermore, as demonstrated through Special Counsel 
Mueller's report regarding Russian interference in the 2016 
election and the substantial evidence presented in this 
impeachment trial and the House proceedings, President Trump 
has engaged in ongoing efforts to solicit foreign interference 
in our elections.
    As the Washington Post reported on September 21 in a story 
written by three reporters who have covered the President for 
several years, the President's conduct on the Ukraine phone 
call revealed a ``President convinced of his own 
invincibility--apparently willing and even eager to wield the 
vast powers of the United States to taint a political foe and 
confident that no one could hold him back.''
    This President will abuse his power again.
    At the outset of this trial and throughout the proceedings, 
Senate Democrats and 75 percent of the American people have 
repeatedly called for relevant witnesses and relevant documents 
to be subpoenaed to ensure a full and fair trial for all 
parties. For example, we sought testimony from former National 
Security Advisor John Bolton, whose unpublished manuscript 
indicates that the President explicitly told Bolton that he 
wanted to continue the delay in military assistance to Ukraine 
until it announced the political investigations he was seeking. 
Fifty-one Senate Republicans refused to examine this or other 
relevant evidence, thereby rigging this trial to the benefit of 
the President. Fair trials have witnesses and documents. 
Coverups have neither.
    This is the third Presidential impeachment trial in our 
country's history, and it is the only one--the only one--to be 
conducted without calling a single witness. In fact, every 
completed impeachment trial in history has included new 
witnesses who were not even interviewed in the House of 
Representatives. Senate Republicans slammed the door shut on 
relevant testimony, contrary to the national interest.
    Our Founders had the foresight to ensure that the power of 
the President was not unlimited and that Congress could, if 
necessary, hold the Executive accountable for abuses of power 
through the impeachment process. This trial is not simply about 
grave Presidential abuse of power; it is about our democracy, 
the sanctity of our elections, and the very values that the 
Founders agreed should guide our Nation.
    I go back to the beginning and that inscription: ``All 
public service is a trust, given in faith and accepted in 
honor.'' President Trump dishonored that public trust and 
thereby abused his power for personal political gain. In order 
to prevent continuing interference in our upcoming election and 
blatant obstruction of Congress, I will vote guilty on both 
articles.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 4, 2020]

                   Statement of Senator John Boozman

    Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to address the 
topic that has consumed this body for the past several weeks, 
which is, of course, the impeachment trial of the President of 
the United States.
    After the passage of two Impeachment Articles in the House, 
Speaker Pelosi waited nearly a month to transmit the articles 
to the Senate. Once she finally did, the trial took precedence, 
and the wheels were set in motion to conduct the proceedings 
and render a verdict.
    Since it became clear that the House would vote to impeach 
the President, I have taken my constitutional duty to serve as 
a juror in the impeachment trial with the seriousness and 
attention that it demands.
    In light of the extensive coverage the situation received, 
it was impossible not to take notice of the process that 
unfolded in the House over the course of its investigation. Its 
inquiry was hasty, flawed, and clearly undertaken under 
partisan pretenses.
    Having rushed to impeach the President ahead of an 
arbitrary deadline, as well as failing to provide adequate 
opportunities for the President to defend himself, the 
impeachment investigation in this case specifically was 
contrived, at least partially, and was a vehicle to fulfill the 
fierce desire among many of the President's detractors that has 
existed since before he was even sworn in to remove him from 
office.
    Be that as it may, the Constitution makes clear that the 
Senate has a duty to try all the impeachments. As such, the 
chief concern I had, as I know many of my colleagues also 
shared, was for the process in this body to be fair. It was 
clear to me that what transpired in the House was incredibly 
partisan and unfair.
    I believed the Senate must and would rise to the occasion 
to conduct a trial that was fair, respectful, and faithful to 
the design and intent of our Founders. I believed that the 
organizing resolution that we passed was sufficient in 
establishing a framework for the trial and also would address 
the outstanding issues at the appropriate times.
    Throughout the course of the trial, I stayed attentive and 
engaged, taking in the arguments and the evidence presented to 
the Senate, which included the testimony of over a dozen 
witnesses and thousands of documents as part of the House 
investigation.
    The House impeachment managers were emphatic that their 
case against the President was overwhelming, uncontested, 
convincing, and proven. The President's counsel made an equally 
forceful case in his defense, countering the claims made by the 
House and underscoring the grounds on which the Senate should 
reject the articles and, by necessity, the attempt to expel him 
from office and a future ballot.
    Based on the work done by the House--or maybe, more 
accurately, the work not done and the inherently flawed and 
partisan nature of the product it presented to the Senate--I 
was skeptical that it could prove its case and convince 
anybody, apart from the President's longtime, most severe 
critics, that his behavior merited removal from office. After 2 
weeks of proceedings in the Senate, my assessment of the 
situation has not been swayed, nor has it changed. That is why 
I will vote to acquit the President and reject the 
weaponization of Congress's authority to impeach the duly 
elected President of the United States.
    To be clear, the partisan nature of this impeachment 
process potentially sets the stage for more impeachments along 
strictly partisan lines--a development that would be terrible 
for our country. The Constitution lays out justifications for 
impeachment, which include ``Treason, Bribery, or other high 
Crimes and Misdemeanors.''
    As a U.S. Senator, there is perhaps no more important 
decision that I am asked to make aside from voting to send 
Americans to war. That is exactly why I treated this 
impeachment trial with the gravity and the thoughtfulness I 
believe that it deserved.
    The accusations explicitly made by the House impeachment 
managers and echoed by some on the other side that the Senate 
is engaging in a coverup are wrong on the merits and further 
drag this process down into the rhetoric of partisan political 
warfare. I regret that it has descended to such a place. 
Fulfilling my constitutional obligation after drawing my own 
conclusions is far from a coverup.
    The attempt to turn the impeachment power into a weapon of 
political convenience will be far more damaging than any other 
aspect of this chapter in our Nation's history.
    At the end of the day, this partisan, deficient process 
yielded a product built on inadequate foundation, in addition 
to being clearly motivated by the desire to remove the 
President, who some vocal activists have viewed as illegitimate 
since Election Day 2016.
    Not even a year ago, Speaker Pelosi was still attempting to 
stem the push for impeachment within her own party, arguing 
that ``impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless 
there's something so compelling and overwhelming and 
bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path.'' She 
was right, and this impeachment process has failed by each of 
these metrics. It has further divided the country.
    The case is certainly not overwhelming, and it has been 
anything but bipartisan. In fact, the vote against impeaching 
the President in the House was bipartisan. As a result of 
Senate rules and precedents, it has also brought the 
legislative process nearly to a grinding halt.
    But as the trial reaches its conclusion, I believe we must 
move on and return to doing the work of trying to get things 
done for the American people. The average Arkansan, like many 
other Americans, is looking for results and asking how the 
elected leaders they have chosen are trying to help make their 
lives better and move our country forward. They are not 
interested in the political games and theater that have 
consumed much of Washington since September. It is my hope that 
we return to that real, pressing work in short order.
    In just a few months, the voters of this country will get 
to decide who they prefer to lead our country. I trust them to 
make that decision, and I trust that the process by which we 
choose our President and other leaders will remain free and 
fair and that the outcome will represent the will of the 
people. The hard-working men and women of our intelligence, law 
enforcement, and national security communities will continue to 
work tirelessly to ensure that this is the case, and I have 
every confidence they will succeed in that endeavor.
    It is time to get back to the important work before us and 
to remember that those we represent are capable of judging for 
themselves how this impeachment was conducted and, maybe just 
as importantly, how we conducted ourselves as it unfolded.
    We have a responsibility to lead by example. I implore my 
colleagues to join me in committing to getting back to doing 
the hard and necessary work before us when this impeachment 
trial reaches its conclusion.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 4, 2020]

                  Statement of Senator James Lankford

    Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, we are in our third week of 
the impeachment trial right now. After thousands of documents 
being reviewed and over a dozen witnesses that we have heard, 
well over 100 video testimony clips that we have gone through, 
we are nearing the end.
    The country is deeply divided on multiple issues right now, 
and the impeachment trial is both a symptom of our times and 
another example of our division.
    The Nation didn't have an impeachment inquiry for almost 
100 years, until 1868, the partisan impeachment of Andrew 
Johnson.
    Another impeachment wasn't conducted for over 100 years 
after that, when the House began a formal impeachment inquiry 
into President Nixon with an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 
410 to 4.
    Just a little over two decades later, there was another 
partisan impeachment process--President Clinton, when he was 
impeached on an almost straight partisan vote.
    Tomorrow I will join many others to vote to acquit the 
President of the United States. His actions certainly do not 
rise to the level of removal from office. This is clearly 
another one of our partisan impeachments, now the third in our 
history.
    Over the past 3 years, the House of Representatives has 
voted four times to open an impeachment inquiry: once in 2017, 
once in 2018, and twice in 2019. Only the second vote in 2019 
actually passed and turned into an actual impeachment inquiry.
    For 4 months the country has been consumed with impeachment 
hearings and investigations. First, rumors of issues with 
Ukraine arose on August 28, when POLITICO wrote a story about 
U.S. aid being slow-walked for Ukraine, and then September 18, 
when the Washington Post released a story about a whistleblower 
report that claimed President Trump pressured an unnamed 
foreign head of state to do an investigation for his campaign.
    Within days of the Washington Post story, before the 
whistleblower report came out, before anything was known, 
Speaker Pelosi announced the House would begin hearings to 
impeach the President, which led to a formal House vote to open 
an impeachment inquiry on October 31 and a formal vote to 
impeach the President on December 18.
    The House sent over two Articles of Impeachment, asking the 
Senate to decide if the President should be removed from office 
and barred from running for any future office in the United 
States--one on abuse of power; the second on obstruction of 
Congress. Let me take those two in order.
    The abuse of power argument hinges on two things: Did the 
President of the United States use official funds to compel the 
Ukrainian Government to investigate Joe Biden's son and his 
work for the corrupt natural gas company in Ukraine, Burisma, 
and did the President withhold a meeting with President 
Zelensky until President Zelensky agreed to investigate Joe 
Biden's son?
    To be clear, the theory of the funds being withheld from 
Ukraine in exchange for an investigation doesn't originate from 
that now-infamous July 25 call. There is nothing in the text of 
the call that threatens the withholding of funds for an 
investigation. The theory originates from the belief of 
Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland's--what he 
said--presumption--and he repeated that over and over again--
presumption that the aid must have been held because of the 
President's desire to get the Biden investigation done, since 
the President's attorney--his private attorney--Rudy Giuliani 
was working to find out more about the Biden investigation and 
Burisma.
    Ambassador Sondland told multiple people about his theory. 
When he actually called President Trump and asked him directly 
about it, the President responded that there wasn't any quid 
pro quo. He just said he wanted the President of Ukraine to do 
what he ran on and to do the right thing.
    Interestingly enough, that is the same thing that President 
Zelensky said and his Defense Minister said and his chief of 
staff said. The aid was held because there was legitimate 
concern about the transition of a brand-new President in 
Ukraine and his administration in the early days of his 
Presidency. An unknown on a world stage was elected, President 
Zelensky, on April 21. His swearing-in date was May 21. During 
his swearing-in, he also abolished Parliament and called for 
snap elections. No one knew what he was going to do or what was 
going to happen.
    Those elections happened July 21 in Ukraine, where an 
overwhelming number of President Zelensky's party won in 
Parliament. There was an amazing transition in a relatively 
short period of time in Ukraine, and there were a lot of 
questions.
    I will tell you, I was in Ukraine in late May of 2019, and 
our State Department officials there certainly had questions on 
the ground about the rapid transition that was happening in 
Ukraine. It was entirely reasonable for there to be able to be 
a pause in that time period. Those concerns were resolved in 
August and early September when the new Parliament started 
passing anti-corruption laws, and Vice President Pence sat down 
face-to-face with President Zelensky on September 1 in Poland 
to discuss the progress and corruption and their progress on 
getting other nations to help supply more aid to Ukraine.
    As for the meeting with the President being withheld, as I 
just mentioned, the Vice President of the United States met 
with President Zelensky on September 1. That meeting was 
originally scheduled to be with the President of the United 
States and all the planning had gone into it, and there was 
documentation for that. There was a meeting happening between 
President Zelensky, which was actually the place and date that 
he asked for to meet with President Trump, except in the final 
moments of that and the final days leading up to it, Hurricane 
Dorian approached the United States, and that meeting had to be 
called off by the President while he stayed here, so the Vice 
President went in his stead.
    There was no quid pro quo in a meeting. The meeting that 
was requested actually occurred. It was interesting to note, as 
well, when I researched the record about the aid dates for 
Ukraine in the past 3 years, I found out that, in 2019, the aid 
arrived in September. It is interesting, from 2016 to 2018, the 
vast majority of military aid for each of those years--2016, 
2017, and 2018--also went to Ukraine in September.
    Well, it is easy to create an intricate story about the 
hold of foreign aid. It is also clear that President Trump has 
held foreign aid from multiple countries over the last 2 years, 
including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Honduras, Guatemala, El 
Salvador, Lebanon, and others. There is no question that a 
President can withhold aid for a short period of time, but it 
has to be released by September 30, which it was to Ukraine on 
time.
    The hold did occur. There are messages back and forth about 
being able to hold, but it is entirely reasonable to have the 
hold, and it was such a short period of time--the aid arrived 
at the same time as it usually did each of the past 3 years--
that the Minister of Defense for Ukraine actually stated that 
the hold was so short, they didn't even know it.
    What is interesting about this is this is stretched from 
not just an ``abuse of power,'' but also ``obstruction of 
Congress.'' That is the second Article of Impeachment. The 
House argument was that the President didn't turn over every 
document and allow every witness without submitting everything 
to Congress immediately. They argued that, if the President 
challenged any subpoena, he was stalling, he was acting guilty, 
and so it was grounds for impeachment.
    Remember how fast this all happened. The investigation 
started September 24. The official start of impeachment started 
October 31 and ended on December 18, with a partisan vote in 
the House for impeachment. If President Trump obstructed 
Congress because he didn't turn over documents that didn't even 
have a legal subpoena within 2 months, then I would say 
President Obama was not impeached, but maybe he should have 
been, though I don't think he should have been.
    But you could argue in that same way because President 
Obama did not honor three subpoenas in 3 years on the Fast and 
Furious investigation when that happened. For 3 years, he 
stalled out, but there was no consideration for impeaching 
President Obama because he shouldn't have been impeached. He 
was working through the court system as things moved.
    This was a serious issue that became even more serious when 
the House managers moved, not just to say that this is 
obstruction of Congress if the President doesn't immediately 
submit, but they took this to a different level by saying the 
President should not have access to the courts at all, 
literally stating: Does the Constitution give the legislative 
branch the power to block the executive branch from the 
judicial branch?
    House managers said, yes, they can rapidly move through a 
trial, then bring the case to the Senate and have it only 
partially investigated and then try to use the power of the 
Senate to block the executive branch from ever going to court 
to resolve any issue. That has not been done in the past, nor 
should it be. The President, like every other citizen of the 
United States, should have access to the courts, and it is not 
grounds for contempt of Congress to block the President from 
ever trying to go to court to resolve issues that need to be 
resolved. Every other President has had that right. This one 
should have had that right as well.
    This tale that President Trump thinks he is a King and 
doesn't want to follow the law begs reality. Let me remind 
everyone of the Mueller investigation, where 2,800 subpoenas 
were done in over 2\1/2\ years, with 500 witnesses, including 
many of the President's inner circle. All of those were 
provided. None of those were blocked by the administration.
    After 2\1/2\ years, the final conclusion was there was no 
conspiracy between the President's campaign and the Russians. 
The President did honor those subpoenas. The President has been 
very clear in multiple court cases that he did not like it and 
he did not agree with it. He has been outspoken on those, but 
he has honored each court decision. It would be a terrible 
precedent for the Senate to remove a President from office 
because he didn't agree that Congress couldn't take away his 
rights in court like every other American.
    The difficulty in this process, as with every impeachment 
process, is separating facts and the politics of it. There are 
facts in this case that we took a lot of time to go through. 
Each of us in this body sat for hour upon hour upon hour, for 
2\1/2\ weeks, listening to testimony and going through the 
record. We all spent lots of time being able to read, on our 
own, the facts and details. That was entirely reasonable to be 
able to do.
    But we have to examine, at the end of the day, what is a 
fact-based issue that has been answered--and each of the key 
facts raised by the House all have answers--and what is a 
politics issue--to say in an election year, what is being 
presented by the House that says: What can we do to slow down 
this process and to try to give the President a bad name during 
the middle of an election time period? To separate out those 
two is not a simple process.
    But we begin with the most basic element. Do the facts line 
up with the accusations made by the House? They do not. Are 
there plenty of accusations? Yes, there are. My fear is that, 
in the days ahead, there will be more and more accusations as 
we go. There have been for the last 3 years.
    But at this moment and the facts at this time, in the 
partisan rancor from the House and into the Senate, I am going 
to choose to acquit the President of the United States. This 
certainly does not rise to the level of removal from office and 
forbidding him to run for any other office in the future. It 
certainly doesn't rise to that level.
    In the days ahead, as more facts come out, all of history 
will be able to see how this occurred and the details of what 
happens next. I look forward, actually, for that to continue to 
be able to come out so all can be known.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 4, 2020]

                Statement of Senator Angus S. King, Jr.

    Mr. KING. Mr. President, I would like to share my remarks, 
not only with my colleagues today, but more so with those who 
will come after us. I want to touch on four issues: the trial 
evidence; the President's actions as outlined in articles I and 
II of the Articles of Impeachment; and finally, and most 
importantly in my mind, the implications of our decision this 
week on the future of our government and our country.
    First, the trial--weeks ago, I joined my colleagues in 
swearing an oath to ``do impartial justice.'' Since that time, 
I have done everything possible to fulfill that responsibility. 
I paid full attention, taken three legal pads' worth of notes, 
reviewed press accounts, and had conversations with my 
colleagues and citizens in my home State of Maine.
    The one question I got most frequently back home was how we 
could proceed without calling relevant witnesses and securing 
the documents that would confirm or deny the charges against 
the President, which are at the heart of this matter.
    But for the first time in American history, we failed to do 
so. We robbed ourselves and the American people of a full 
record of this President's misuse of his office. This failure 
stains this institution, undermines tomorrow's verdict, and 
creates a precedent that will haunt those who come after us 
and, indeed, will haunt the country. But now, we are here, left 
to make this decision without the facts, concealed by the White 
House and left concealed by the votes of this body last Friday.
    This was not a trial in any real sense. It was, instead, an 
argument based upon a partial, but still damning, record. How 
much better it could have been had we had access to all the 
facts, facts which will eventually come out, but too late to 
inform our decisions?
    As to the articles themselves, I should begin by saying I 
have always been a conservative on the subject of impeachment. 
For the better part of the last 3 years, I have argued both 
publicly and privately against the idea. Impeachment should not 
be a tool to remove a President on the basis of policy 
disagreements. The President's lawyers are right when they 
argue that this would change our system of government and 
dangerously weaken any President.
    But this reluctance must give way if it requires my turning 
a blind eye to what happened last summer. The events of last 
summer were no policy disagreement. They were a deliberate 
series of acts whereby the President sought to use the power of 
his office in his own personal and political interests, 
specifically by pressuring a government of a strategic 
partner--a partner, by the way, significantly dependent upon 
our moral and financial support--pressuring that government to 
take action against one of the President's political rivals 
and, thereby, undermine the integrity of the coming American 
election.
    This last point is important. In normal circumstances, the 
argument of the President's defenders that impeachment is not 
necessary because the election is less than a year away would 
be persuasive. I could understand that. But the President, in 
this matter, was attempting to undermine that very election, 
and he gives every indication that he will continue to do so.
    He has expressed no understanding that he did anything 
wrong, let alone anything reassembling remorse. Impeachment is 
not a punishment; it is a prevention. The only way, 
unfortunately, to keep an unrepentant President from repeating 
his wrongful actions is removal. This President has made it 
plain that he will listen to nothing else.
    Article I charges a clear abuse of power, inviting foreign 
interference in the upcoming election. The President tasked his 
personal attorney to work with a foreign head of state to 
induce an investigation--or just the mere announcement of an 
investigation--that could harm one of the President's top 
political rivals.
    And to compel the Ukrainians to do so, he unilaterally 
withheld nearly $400 million appropriated by Congress to help 
them fend off Russia's naked and relentless aggression. The 
President's backers claim that this was done in an effort to 
root out corruption. So why not use official channels? Why did 
he focus on no examples of corruption generally other than ones 
directly affecting his political fortunes? And why did he not 
make public the withholding of funds, as the executive branch 
typically does, when seeking to leverage Federal moneys for 
policy goals?
    No matter how many times the President claims his phone 
call with President Zelensky was perfect, it simply wasn't. He 
clearly solicited foreign interference in our elections. He 
disregarded a congressionally passed law. He impaired the 
security of a key American partner. He undermined our own 
national security. And, if he was simply pursuing our national 
interests rather than his own, why was his personal attorney 
Rudy Giuliani put in charge? Why was Rudy Giuliani mentioned in 
that phone call?
    Put bluntly, no matter the defense, and as a majority of 
the Members of this body apparently now recognize, President 
Trump placed his own political interests above the national 
interests he is sworn to protect. And, as I mentioned, he has 
shown no sign that he will stop doing so when the next occasion 
arises, as it surely will.
    The implications of acquitting the President on article I 
are serious. This President will likely do it again, and future 
Presidents will be unbound from any restraints on the use of 
the world's most powerful political office for their own 
personal political gain.
    We are moving dangerously close to an elected Monarch--the 
very thing the Framers feared most.
    Article II, to me, is even more serious in its long-term 
implications. Article I concerns an incident--an egregious 
misuse of power, to be sure, but a specific set of actions in 
time. A scheme is probably the most appropriate description, 
which took place over the course of the past year.
    Article II, however, which concerns the President's 
wholesale obstruction of the impeachment process itself, goes 
to the heart of Congress's constitutionally derived power to 
investigate wrongdoing by this or any future President.
    I do not arrive at this conclusion lightly. I take 
seriously the White House counsel's argument that there is a 
legitimate separation of powers issue here, that executive 
privilege is real--although I have to note it was never 
actually asserted in this case, but that executive privilege is 
real--and that there must be limits on Congress's ability to 
intrude upon the executive function.
    But in this case, despite counsel's questions about which 
authorizing resolution passed when or whether the House should 
have more vigorously pursued judicial remedies, the record is 
clear and is summarized in the White House letter to the House 
in early October--that the President and his administration 
``cannot participate'' in the impeachment process--cannot 
participate.
    To me, it is this ongoing blanket refusal to cooperate in 
any way--no witnesses, no documents, no evidence of any kind--
that undermines the assertion that a categorical refusal, with 
overt witness intimidation thrown in, was based upon any 
legitimate, narrowly tailored legal or constitutional 
privilege.
    No prior President has ever taken such a position, and the 
argument that this blanket obstruction should be tested in 
court is severely undercut by the administration's recent 
argument that the courts have no jurisdiction over such 
disputes and that the remedy for stonewalling Congress is--you 
guessed it--impeachment. They argued that in the Federal court 
in Washington this week.
    Interestingly, the first assertion of executive privilege 
was by George Washington, when the House sought background 
documents on the Jay Treaty. Washington rested his refusal to 
produce those documents on the idea that the House had no 
jurisdiction over matters of foreign policy, but, 
interestingly, Washington, in his message to Congress, did 
specify one instance where the House would have a legitimate 
claim on the documents' release. What was the instance? You 
guessed it--impeachment.
    If allowed to stand, this position that the President--any 
President--can use his or her position to totally obstruct the 
production of evidence of their own wrongdoing eviscerates the 
impeachment power entirely, and it compromises the ongoing 
authority of Congress to provide any meaningful oversight of 
the executive whatsoever.
    For these and other reasons, I will vote guilty on both 
Articles of Impeachment.
    A final point, the Congress has been committing slow-motion 
institutional suicide for the past 70 years, abdicating its 
constitutional authorities and responsibilities one by one: the 
war power, effectively in the hands of the President since 
1942; authority over trade with other countries, superceded by 
unilateral Presidentially imposed tariffs on friends and foes 
alike; and even the power of the purse, which a supine Congress 
ceded to the President last year, enabling him to rewrite our 
duly passed appropriations bill to substitute his priorities 
for ours--and now this.
    The structure of our Constitution is based upon the bedrock 
principle that the concentration of power is dangerous, that 
power divided and shared is the best long-term assurance of 
liberty. To the extent we compromise that principle, give up 
powers the Framers bestowed upon us, and acquiesce to the 
growth of an imperial Presidency, we are failing. We are 
failing our oaths, we are failing our most fundamental 
responsibility, we are failing the American people.
    History may record this week as a turning point in the 
American experiment--the day that we stepped away from the 
Framers' vision, enabled a new and unbounded Presidency, and 
made ourselves observers rather than full participants in the 
shaping of our country's future.
    I sincerely hope I am wrong in all of this, but I deeply 
fear that I am right.

           [From the Congressional Record, February 5, 2020]

                   Statement of Senator Jeff Merkley

    Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, as Senators, our decisions 
build the foundation for future generations. I want those 
generations to know that I stood here on the floor of this 
Chamber fighting for equal justice under law. I stood here to 
defend our Senate's responsibility to provide a fair trial with 
witnesses and documents. I stood here to say that when our 
President invites and pressures a foreign government to smear a 
political opponent and corrupt the integrity of our 2020 
Presidential election, he must be removed from office.
    As a number of my Republican colleagues have confessed, the 
House managers have proven their case. President Trump did 
sanction a corrupt conspiracy to smear a political opponent, 
former Vice President Joe Biden. President Trump assigned Rudy 
Giuliani, his personal lawyer, to accomplish that goal by 
arranging sham investigations by the Government of Ukraine. 
President Trump advanced his corrupt scheme by instructing the 
three amigos--Ambassador Volker, Secretary of Energy Rick 
Perry, and Ambassador Gordon Sondland--to work with Rudy for 
this goal. President Trump did use the resources of America, 
including an Oval Office meeting and security assistance, to 
pressure Ukraine, which was at war with Russia, to participate 
in this corrupt conspiracy. The facts are clear.
    But do President Trump's acts rise to the level the Framers 
envisioned for removal of a President, or are they, as some 
colleagues in this Chamber have said, simply ``inappropriate,'' 
but not ``impeachable''? With respect to those colleagues, 
``inappropriate'' is lying to the public; ``inappropriate'' is 
shunning our allies or failing to put your personal assets into 
a blind trust or encouraging foreign governments to patronize 
your properties. That is something you might call 
``inappropriate,'' but that word does not begin to encompass 
President Trump's actions in this case--a corrupt conspiracy 
comprising a fundamental assault on our Constitution.
    This conspiracy is far worse than Watergate. Watergate was 
about a break-in to spy on the Democratic National Committee--
bad, yes; wrong, definitely. But Watergate didn't involve 
soliciting foreign interference to destroy the integrity of an 
election. It didn't involve an effort to smear a political 
opponent. Watergate did not involve an across-the-board 
blockade of access by Congress to witnesses and documents.
    If you believe that Congress was right to conclude that 
President Nixon's abuse of power merited expulsion from office, 
you have no choice but to conclude that President Trump's 
corrupt conspiracy merits his expulsion from office.
    President Trump should be removed from office this very day 
by action in this very Chamber, but he will not be removed 
because this Senate has failed to conduct a full and fair trial 
to reveal the extensive dimensions of his conspiracy and 
because the siren call to party loyalty over country has 
infected this Chamber.
    Every American understands what constitutes a full and fair 
trial. A full and fair trial has witnesses. A full and fair 
trial has documents. A full and fair trial does not begin with 
the jury foreman declaring that he is working hand-in-glove 
with the defendant. When discussing why the Senate tries 
impeachments, Alexander Hamilton stated: ``Where else than in 
the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently 
dignified, or sufficiently independent'' for that daunting 
responsibility?
    Every American should feel the sadness, the darkness, the 
tragedy of this moment in which this Senate is neither 
sufficiently dignified nor sufficiently independent for that 
responsibility.
    The Senate trial became a coverup when the majority voted 
on January 22 and again on January 31 to block all access to 
witnesses and documents. If this coverup goes forward, it will 
be the latest in a set of corrupt firsts this Senate has 
achieved under Republican leadership.
    It has been the first Senate to ignore our constitutional 
responsibilities to debate and vote on a Supreme Court nominee 
in 2016. It became the first Senate to complete the theft of a 
Supreme Court seat from one administration giving it to another 
in 2017.
    And now, it becomes the first Senate in American history to 
replace an impeachment trial with a coverup. President Trump 
might want to consider this: With a coverup in lieu of a trial, 
there is no ``exoneration,'' no matter how badly President 
Trump might want it. No matter how boldly he might claim it, 
there is no ``exoneration'' from a coverup.
    If this Senate fails to convict President Trump when we 
vote later today, we destroy our constitutional responsibility 
to serve as a check against the abuses of a runaway President. 
It is a devastating blow to the checks and balances which have 
stood at the heart of our Constitution.
    Our tripartite system is like a three-legged stool, where 
each leg works in balance with the others. If one leg is 
cracked or weakened, well, that stool topples over. If the 
Senate's responsibility is gutted and the limits on 
Presidential power are undermined, then, there is lasting 
damage to the checks and balances our Founders so carefully 
crafted.
    Let's also be clear. The situation that we find ourselves 
in today didn't spring out of nowhere. With respect to the 
Chief Justice, the road to this moment has been paved by 
decisions made in the Supreme Court undermining the ``We the 
People'' Republic, while Justice Roberts has led the Court--
decisions like Citizens United in 2010, which corrupted our 
political campaigns with a flood of dark money, the equivalent 
of a stadium sound system drowning out the voice of the people; 
decisions like Shelby County in 2013, which gutted the Voting 
Rights Act, opening the door to voter suppression and voter 
intimidation--if you believe in our Republic, you believe in 
voter empowerment, not voter supression--decisions like Rucho 
v. Common Cause in 2019, giving the green light to extreme 
partisan gerrymandering, in which politicians choose their 
voters rather than voters choosing their politicians. It is one 
blow after another giving more power to the powerful and 
undermining the vision of government of, by, and for the 
people--blow after blow making officials more responsive to the 
rich and wealthy donors than the people they are elected to 
represent.
    These Supreme Court decisions have elevated government by 
and for the powerful and trampled government by and for the 
people, paving the path for this dark moment in which the U.S. 
Senate chooses to defend a corrupt President by converting a 
trial into a coverup. A trial without access to witnesses and 
documents is what one expects of a corrupted court in Russia or 
China, not the United States of America.
    We know what democracy looks like, and it is not just about 
having the Constitution or holding elections. Our democracy is 
not set in stone. It is not guaranteed by anything other than 
the good will and good faith of the people of this country. 
Keeping a democracy takes courage and commitment. As the saying 
goes, ``freedom isn't free.'' It is an inheritance bequeathed 
to us by those who have fought and bled and died to ensure that 
government ``of the people, by the people, for the people shall 
not perish from the Earth.''
    Fighting for that inheritance doesn't only happen on the 
battlefield. It happens when Americans everywhere go to the 
polls to cast a ballot. It happens when ordinary citizens, 
distraught at what they are seeing, speak up, join a march, or 
run for office to make a difference. And it happens here in 
this Chamber--in this Senate Chamber--when Senators put 
addressing the challenges of our country over the pressures 
from their party.
    Before casting their votes today, I urge each and every one 
of my colleagues to ask themselves: Will you defend the 
integrity of our elections? Will you deliver impartial justice? 
Will you protect the separation of powers--the heart of our 
Constitution? Will you uphold the rule of law and the inspiring 
words carved above the doors of our Supreme Court, ``Equal 
Justice Under Law''?
    I stand here today in support of our Constitution, which 
has made our Nation that shining city on a hill. I stand here 
today for equal justice under law. I stand here today for a 
full and fair trial as our Constitution demands. I stand here 
today to say that a President who has abused this office by 
soliciting a foreign country to intervene in the election of 
2020 and bias the outcome--betraying the trust of the American 
people and undermining the strength of our Constitution--must 
be removed from office.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 5, 2020]

                    Statement of Senator John Cornyn

    Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, over the last months, our 
country has been consumed by a single word, one that we don't 
use often in our ordinary parlance. That word, of course, is 
``impeachment.'' It has filled our news channels, our Twitter 
feeds, and dinner conversations. It has led to a wide-ranging 
debate on everything from the constitutional doctrines of the 
separation of powers to the due process of law--two concepts 
which are the most fundamental building blocks of who we are as 
a nation. It has even prompted those who typically have no 
interest in politics to tune into C-SPAN or into their favorite 
cable news channels.
    The impeachment of a President of the United States is 
simply the gravest undertaking we can pursue in this country. 
It is the nuclear option in our Constitution--the choice of 
last resort--when a President has committed a crime so serious 
that Congress must act rather than leave the choice to the 
voters in the election.
    The Framers of the Constitution granted this awesome power 
to the U.S. Congress and placed their confidence in the Senate 
to use only when absolutely necessary, when there is no other 
choice.
    This is a rare, historic moment for the Members of this 
Chamber. This has been faced by the Senate only on two previous 
occasions during our Constitution's 232-year history--only two 
times previously. We should be extraordinarily vigilant in 
ensuring that the impeachment power does not become a regular 
feature of our differences and, in the process, cheapen the 
vote of the American people. Soon, Members of the Senate will 
determine whether, for the first time in our history, a 
President will be removed from office, and then we will decide 
whether he will be barred from the ballot in 2020.
    The question all Senators have to answer is, Did the 
President commit, in the words of the Constitution, a high 
crime and misdemeanor that warrants his removal from office or 
should he be acquitted of the charges made by the House?
    I did my best to listen intently to both sides as they 
presented their cases during the trial, and I am confident in 
saying that President Trump should be acquitted and not removed 
from office.
    First, the Constitution gives the Congress the power to 
impeach and remove a President from office only for treason, 
bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors, but the two 
Articles of Impeachment passed by the House of Representatives 
fail to meet that standard.
    The first charge, as we know, is abuse of power. House 
Democrats alleged that the President withheld military aid from 
Ukraine in exchange for investigations of Joe and Hunter Biden. 
But they failed to bring forward compelling and unassailable 
evidence of any crime--again, the Constitution talks about 
treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors; 
clearly, a criminal standard--and thus failed to meet their 
burden of proof. Certainly, the House managers did not meet the 
high burden required to remove the President from office, 
effectively nullifying the will of tens of millions of 
Americans just months before the next election. What is more, 
the House's vague charge in the first article is equivalent to 
acts considered and rejected by the Framers of our 
Constitution.
    That brings us to the second article we are considering--
obstruction of Congress. During the House inquiry, Democrats 
were upset because some of the President's closest advisers--
and their most sought-after witnesses--did not testify. To be 
clear, some of the executive branch witnesses were among the 13 
witnesses whose testimony we did hear during the Senate trial. 
But for those witnesses for whom it was clear the 
administration would claim a privilege, almost certainly 
leading to a long court battle, the House declined to issue the 
subpoenas and certainly did not seek judicial enforcement. 
Rather than addressing the privilege claims in court, as 
happened in the Nixon and Clinton impeachments, the Democratic 
managers moved to impeach President Trump for obstruction of 
Congress for protecting the Presidency itself from a partisan 
abuse of power by the House.
    Removing the President from office for asserting long-
recognized and constitutionally grounded privileges that have 
been invoked by both Republican and Democratic Presidents would 
set a very dangerous precedent and would do violence to the 
Constitution's separation of powers design. In effect, it would 
make the Presidency itself subservient to Congress.
    The father of our Constitution, James Madison, warned 
against allowing the impeachment power to create a Presidential 
tenure at the pleasure of the Senate.
    Even more concerning, at every turn throughout this 
process, the House Democrats violated President Trump's right 
to due process of law. All American law is built on a 
constitutional foundation securing basic rights and rules of 
fairness for a citizen accused of wrongdoing.
    It is undisputed that the House excluded the President's 
legal team from both the closed-door testimony and almost the 
entirety of the House's 78-day inquiry. They channeled 
personal, policy, and political grievances and attempted to use 
the most solemn responsibility of Congress to bring down a 
political rival in a partisan process.
    It is no secret that Democrats' crusade to remove the 
President began more than 3 years ago on the very day he was 
inaugurated. On January 20, 2017, the Washington Post ran a 
story with the headline ``The campaign to impeach President 
Trump has begun.''
    At first, Speaker Pelosi wisely resisted. Less than a year 
ago, she said, ``Impeachment is so divisive to the country that 
unless there is something so compelling and overwhelming and 
bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path because 
it divides the country.'' And she was right. But when she 
couldn't hold back the stampede of her caucus, she did a 180-
degree about-face. She encouraged House Democrats to rush 
through an impeachment inquiry before an arbitrary Christmas 
deadline.
    In the end, the articles passed with support from only a 
single party--not bipartisan. The bipartisanship the Speaker 
claimed was necessary was actually opposed to the impeachment 
of the President; that is, Democrats and Republicans voted in 
opposition to the Articles of Impeachment. Only Democrats voted 
for the Articles of Impeachment in the House.
    Once the articles finally made it to the Senate after a 
confusing, 28-day delay, Speaker Pelosi tried to have Senator 
Schumer--the Democratic leader here--use Speaker Pelosi's 
playbook, and he staged a number of political votes every 
Member of the Senate knew would fail, just so he could secure 
some perceived political advantage against Republican Senators 
in the 2020 election.
    What should be a solemn, constitutional undertaking became 
partisan guerilla warfare to take down President Trump and make 
Senator Schumer the next majority leader of the U.S. Senate.
    All of this was done on the eve of an election and just 
days shy of the first primary in Iowa.
    Well, to say the timing was a coincidence would be 
laughable. This partisan impeachment process could not only 
remove the President from office, it would also potentially 
prevent his name from appearing on the ballot in November. We 
are only 9 months away from an election--9 months away from the 
American people voting on the direction of our country--but our 
Democratic colleagues don't trust the American people, so they 
have taken matters into their own hands.
    This politically motivated impeachment sets a dangerous 
precedent. This is a very important point. This is not just 
about President Trump; this is about the Office of the 
Presidency and what precedent a conviction and removal would 
set for our Constitution and for our future. If successful, 
this would give a green light to future Congresses to weaponize 
impeachment to defeat a political opponent for any action--even 
a failure to kowtow to Congress's wishes.
    Impeachment is a profoundly serious matter that must be 
handled as such. It cannot become the Hail Mary pass of a party 
to remove a President, effectively nullifying an election and 
interfering in the next.
    I believe--I think we should all believe--that the results 
of the next election should be decided by the American people, 
not by Congress.
    The decision to remove a President from office requires 
undeniable evidence of a high crime. That is the language 
chosen by the Framers of our Constitution. But despite our 
colleagues' best attempts, the facts they presented simply 
don't add up to that standard.
    House managers failed to meet their heavy burden of proof 
that President Trump, beyond a reasonable doubt, committed a 
crime, let alone a high crime; therefore, I will not vote to 
convict the President.
    I hope our Democratic colleagues will finally accept the 
result of this trial--just as they have not accepted the result 
of the 2016 election--and I hope they won't take the advice of 
Congresswoman Waters, Maxine Waters in the House, and open a 
second impeachment inquiry. It is time for our country to come 
together to heal the wounds that divide us and to get the 
people's work done.
    There is no doubt, as Speaker Pelosi observed in March of 
2019, that impeachment is a source of division in our country, 
and it is also a period of great sadness. If this partisan 
impeachment were to succeed, my greatest fear is it would 
become a routine process for every President who serves with a 
House majority of the opposite party, and we would find 
ourselves in a recurring impeachment nightmare every time we 
elect a new President.
    Our country is deeply divided and damaged by this partisan 
impeachment process. It is time for us to bring it to a close 
and to let the wounds from this unnecessary and misguided 
episode heal.
    I ask unanimous consent that my statement regarding the 
impeachment be printed in the Record.
    There being no objection, the material was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

    Statement for the Record--Impeachment Trial of Donald John Trump

                      senator john cornyn of texas
    Mr. President, I would like to submit this statement for the record 
regarding the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump. This 
statement seeks to supplement the remarks that I made on the Senate 
floor on Wednesday, February 5, 2020. It includes some of my 
observations as a former judge on some of the complicated 
constitutional, legal, and factual issues associated with this 
impeachment proceeding and its implications for future presidential 
impeachments.
(1) What is the Constitutional standard?
    In America, all government derives its power, in the words of the 
Declaration of Independence, ``from the consent of the governed.''\1\ 
This is not just a statement of national policy, but a statement about 
legitimacy.
    Elections are the principal means of conferring legitimacy by the 
consent of the governed. Impeachments, by the House and tried in the 
Senate, while conferring authority on 535 Members of Congress to 
nullify one election and disqualify a convicted President from 
appearing on a future ballot, exercise delegated power from the 
governed, much attenuated from the direct consent provided by an 
election. It seems obvious that an impeachment of a President during an 
election year should give rise to heightened concerns about legitimacy.
    While there was extensive argument on what the Framers intended the 
impeachment standard to be, suffice it to say, they believed it should 
be serious enough to warrant removal, and disqualification from future 
office, of a duly elected President.
    The role of impeachments in a constitutional republic like the 
United States was borrowed, to some extent, from our British forebears. 
But it was not a wholesale acceptance of the British model, with its 
parliamentary system where entire governments can be removed on a vote 
of no confidence, but rather a distinctly Americanized system that 
purposefully created a strong and co-equal chief executive, elected by 
the people for a definite term, with a narrowed scope of impeachable 
offenses for the President.
    Under the U.S. Constitution, Presidents may be impeached for 
``treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.'' Due to 
the rarity of presidential impeachments (three in 232 years), the age 
of some precedents (dating back to the Johnson impeachment of 1868), 
and the diversity of impeachment cases (and in particular, the 
significant difference between the impeachment of judges and 
Presidents), there remains quite a bit of debate about precisely what 
actions by a President are impeachable.
    Some argue a crime is not required, although all previous 
presidential impeachments charged a crime. Some argue that not all 
crimes are impeachable, only serious crimes can be ``high'' crimes. 
Some categories, including ``malversation,'' ``neglect of duty,'' 
``corruption,'' ``malpractice,'' and ``maladministration'' were 
considered and rejected by the Framers.\2\
(2) Abuse of power
    The President's lawyers charge that ``abuse of power'' alleged in 
the first Article of Impeachment is not a crime, much less a ``high'' 
crime, nor a violation of established law. This argument raises Due 
Process of Law concerns with regard to notice of what is prohibited. As 
Justice Antonin Scalia observed shortly before his death in the 
criminal context, ``invoking so shapeless a provision to condemn 
someone . . . does not comport with the Constitution's guarantee of due 
process.''\3\
    Moreover, they argue that ``abuse of power'' is tantamount to 
``maladministration,'' which was rejected by the Framers. There is 
little doubt that a vague and ambiguous charge in an Article of 
Impeachment can be a generalized accusation into which the House can 
lump all of their political, policy, and personal differences with a 
President. This should be avoided.
    The House Managers say no crime is required for impeachment, and 
that abuse of power, which incorporates a host of nefarious acts, is 
all that is required. No violation of criminal statutes is alleged, nor 
required they say, and they disagree that abuse of power equates with 
``maladministration.'' They point to Alexander Hamilton's statement in 
Federalist 65 that impeachable offenses are ``those offenses which 
proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the 
abuse or violation of some public trust.''
(3) Obstruction of Congress.
    The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence issued dozens 
of subpoenas and heard testimony from 17 witnesses. As to other witness 
subpoenas issued to members of the Trump Administration, White House 
Counsel Pat Cipollone argued in his October 8, 2019 letter to Speaker 
of the House Pelosi that any subpoenas issued before passage of a 
formal resolution of the House establishing an impeachment inquiry were 
constitutionally invalid and a violation of due process. The House 
Managers rely on the Constitution's grant of the ``sole power of 
impeachment'' to the House and argue that no authorizing resolution was 
required. Essentially, they argue that under the Constitution the House 
can run an impeachment inquiry any way the House wants and no one can 
complain.
    No committee of the House was officially delegated the House's 
impeachment authority until October 31, 2019, when the House passed 
House Resolution 660 directing ``the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence and the Committees on Financial Services, Foreign Affairs, 
the Judiciary, Oversight and Reform, and Ways and Means to continue 
their ongoing investigations as part of the existing House of 
Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist for the 
House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to 
impeach Donald John Trump, President of the United States.''
    Neither the House's theory that it could act without a delegation 
resolution, nor the White House Counsel's argument that subpoenas were 
void without one was presented to a court during this impeachment 
inquiry.\4\ In fact, the House intentionally avoided litigation 
because, as House Manager Adam Schiff stated, it would slow down their 
inquiry.
    One example makes this point. Charles Kupperman was a deputy to 
former National Security Advisor John Bolton. Other than Bolton 
himself, Kupperman was one of the officials most likely to have direct 
knowledge of an alleged quid pro quo on aid to Ukraine. But after the 
House subpoenaed him last fall, Kupperman went to court and asked for a 
resolution of the competing claims between the President and the House. 
Rather than wait for a judicial determination in this interbranch 
dispute, the House withdrew its subpoena and affirmatively disclaimed 
any desire to pursue Kupperman's testimony in the future.\5\ The House 
also decided not to subpoena Bolton or any other key witnesses in the 
administration.
    Instead, the House elected to push through impeachment with an 
abbreviated period of roughly three months and declared any delay by 
President Trump, even to seek judicial review, to be obstruction of 
Congress and a high crime and misdemeanor. The Administration is 
currently in court challenging demands for witnesses and documents. 
Just a couple weeks ago, the Supreme Court accepted such cases for 
review and stayed the lower court decisions ordering the production of 
President Trump's financial records from third parties.\6\ Still, the 
House impeached President Trump before the Supreme Court or other 
federal courts could rule on the merits of claims of presidential 
privileges and immunities in this impeachment inquiry.
    The essence of the House's second Article of Impeachment is that it 
is Obstruction of Congress to decline to voluntarily submit to the 
House's inquiry and forgo any claims of presidential privileges or 
immunities. One interpretation of these facts is that the House simply 
gave up pursuing the testimony in the interest of speed. While 
undoubtedly litigation would have delayed for a time the House's 
impeachment inquiry if they were determined to secure the testimony 
they initially sought, it is clear that the President, and not the 
witnesses, would assert claims of executive privilege or absolute 
testimony immunity to protect the Office of the Presidency. These 
claims are constitutionally based in the separation of powers, long-
recognized by the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, and 
repeatedly asserted by both Republican and Democratic Administrations 
in countless disputes with Congress. And since the House did not pursue 
the testimony originally subpoenaed, the issue of presidential 
privileges or immunity was never decided.\7\
    But that is not all. Representative Eric Swalwell recently declared 
that not only should a sitting president be impeached if he or she goes 
to the courts rather than submit to Congress, but that contesting 
demands for evidence is actually evidence of guilt on all of the 
charged offenses. Congressman Swalwell claimed ``we can only conclude 
that you are guilty'' if someone refuses to give testimony or documents 
to Congress.\8\ So much for the presumption of innocence and other 
constitutional rights encompassed by the Constitution's guarantee of 
Due Process of Law.
    It is an odd argument that a person accused of running a red light 
has more legal rights than a President being impeached.
(4) The House's impeachment inquiry
    The House Managers argue that since Article 1, Section 2 of the 
Constitution gives the House the ``sole power of impeachment,'' the 
President cannot question the procedures as a denial of Due Process of 
Law or authority by which that House produced the Articles. What they 
don't explain is how House rules can preempt the Constitution. They 
can't. As Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in Marbury v. Madison, 
``the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, 
[and] the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case 
to which they both apply.''\9\
    While the Constitution gives the House the ``sole power to 
impeach'' it gives the Senate the ``sole power to try all 
impeachments.'' Some have analogized the House's role to a grand jury 
in criminal cases. Generally speaking, a grand jury may issue an 
indictment, also known as a ``true bill,'' only if it finds, based upon 
the evidence that has been presented to it, that there is probable 
cause to believe that a crime has been committed by a criminal suspect.
    But impeachment is not, strictly speaking, a criminal case, even 
though the Constitution speaks in terms of ``conviction'' and the 
impeachment standard is ``treason, bribery, or other high crimes and 
misdemeanors.'' Contrast that with Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7: 
``the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to 
Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.'' In 
other words, the constitutional prohibition of double jeopardy does not 
apply.
    Neither are Senators jurors in the usual sense of being 
``disinterested'' in the facts or outcome. Senators take the following 
oath: ``Do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the 
trial of the impeachment of Donald John Trump, President of the United 
States, now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the 
Constitution and laws, so help you God?''
    Hamilton wrote in Federalist 65 the Senate was chosen as the 
tribunal for courts of impeachment because:
    ``Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal 
sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent? What other body 
would be likely to feel confidence enough in its own situation, to 
preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between 
an individual accused, and the representatives of the people, his 
accusers?''
    Because impeachment is neither civil nor criminal in the usual 
sense, it must be something different. President Trump's counsel 
referred to the Senate role as sitting in a ``High Court of 
Impeachment,'' and ``Democracy's ultimate court.'' Hamilton, in 
Federalist 65, called it ``a method of national inquest.''
    One of most significant disputes in the Senate impeachment trial of 
President Trump was the duty of the House to develop evidence during 
its impeachment inquiry and the duty of the Senate when new evidence is 
sought by one or both parties during the trial. In addressing this 
issue, it is helpful to remind ourselves that the American system of 
justice is adversarial in nature. That is, it is a system that 
``resolves disputes by presenting conflicting views of fact and law to 
an impartial and relatively passive arbiter, who decides which side 
wins what.''\10\ This system ``consists of a core of basic rights that 
recognize and protect the dignity of the individual in a free 
society.''\11\
    The rights that comprise the adversary system include . . . the 
rights to call and to confront witnesses, and the right to require the 
government to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. . . . These 
rights, and others, are also included in the broad and fundamental 
concept [of] due process of law--a concept which itself has been 
substantially equated with the adversary system.''\12\
    The adversarial nature of these proceedings means that the House 
Managers were obligated to develop their case, including the evidence, 
in the House inquiry, and not rely on the Senate to do so. In typical 
court proceedings, the failure of the prosecutor to present sufficient 
evidence at trial results in dismissal, not in open-ended discovery or 
a re-opened investigation.
    President Trump's lawyers argued that there were three main errors 
in the House proceedings:
    (1) The House did not initially authorize the impeachment inquiry, 
thus delegating its ``sole power'' to the Intelligence Committee, which 
issued dozens of subpoenas the President deemed invalid;
    (2) Numerous due process violations during the Intelligence 
Committee's proceedings, including denial of notice, counsel, cross 
examination, and the opportunity to call witnesses;
    (3) And, finally, that as an interested fact witness regarding 
Intelligence Committee contacts with the whistleblower, Chairman Schiff 
could not be said to have fairly conducted the House investigation.
    Again, the House Managers argue that the method by which the 
Articles of Impeachment were approved in the House cannot be challenged 
in the Senate trial given the House's ``sole power to impeach.''
    Ominously, the President's lawyers argue that whatever precedent 
was set by the Senate in this trial would be the ``new normal'' and 
govern not just this trial but all impeachment trials in the future. 
They also argue that to make impeachment ``too easy'' in the House will 
result in more frequent presidential impeachments being approved by 
this and future Houses, which the Senate would then be obligated to 
try. Similarly, they argue that the Senate should not reward the 
failure of the House to litigate questions of presidential privileges 
and immunities in their impeachment inquiry and transfer that burden to 
the Senate. An important difference between the House and Senate is 
that House inquiries can be delegated to committees while the House 
conducts other business; not so in the Senate, which must sit as a 
court of impeachment until the trial is completed.
    Thus, during a Senate impeachment trial, absent unanimous consent--
unlikely given the contentious nature of the proceedings--the Senate is 
precluded from any other business, even during delays while executive 
privilege and similar issues are litigated in the courts. Given that 
the House chose to not seek judicial enforcement of subpoenas during 
its impeachment inquiry because of concerns about delay, the question 
is do they have a right to do so during the Senate trial? If so, the 
President's lawyers claim, such an outcome would significantly protract 
a Senate trial and permanently alter the relationship between the House 
and Senate in impeachment proceedings. Indeed, there is a strong 
textual and structural argument that the Constitution prohibits the 
Senate from performing the investigative role assigned to the House.
    The House Managers contend that Chief Justice John Roberts could 
rule on questions of privilege while presiding over the impeachment 
trial, avoiding delay during litigation, but the Chief Justice made 
clear his was not a judicial role in the usual sense.\13\ When the 
issue of whether the Chief Justice would be a tie-breaking vote came up 
during the trial, he said: ``I think it would be inappropriate for me, 
an unelected official from a different branch of government, to assert 
the power to change that result so that the motion would succeed.'' So 
it is that the Senate, not the Chief Justice presiding in an 
essentially ceremonial role during impeachment trials, determines 
disputed issues. This conclusion is further supported by the rule that 
a majority of Senators are empowered to effectively ``overrule'' an 
initial determination by the presiding officer. In the words of Senate 
Impeachment Rule Seven: ``The presiding officer may, in the first 
instance, submit to the Senate, without a division, all questions of 
evidence and incidental questions; but the same shall, on the demand of 
one-fifth of the members present, be decided by yeas and nays.'' The 
unseemliness of imposing this role on the Chief Justice is obvious and 
should be avoided.
(5) The Facts
    Of course, the main factual contentions of the House Managers 
involve President Trump's interest in an investigation of Hunter and 
Joe Biden's role in Ukraine. They allege the President's ``corrupt'' 
motive to dig up dirt on a potential political rival is an abuse of 
power. The President's lawyers argue that it is clearly within the 
President's authority to investigate corruption and leverage foreign 
aid in order to combat it. Even if it incidentally helps the President 
electorally, they argue it is not a ``high crime and misdemeanor.''
    But there are more basic factual conundrums. Any investigations 
discussed in the July 25 conversation between Ukrainian President 
Volodymyr Zelensky and President Trump never occurred. And the foreign 
aid, including lethal defensive aid and weapons, was paused for just a 
short time and delivered on September 11, 2019, before the deadline of 
September 30.
    The abuse of power alleged was based on desired investigations and 
the withholding of foreign aid. But neither, ultimately, occurred. This 
is similar to an ``attempted'' offense under the criminal law. Indeed, 
the law criminalizes a host of attempted offenses. But the Articles of 
Impeachment do not charge President Trump with any crimes, including 
any ``attempted'' offenses.
(6) Burden of Proof
    President Trump's counsel argued that the appropriate burden of 
proof in this quasi-criminal trial is ``proof beyond a reasonable 
doubt.'' This point was not seriously contested by the House Managers 
who repeatedly claimed the evidence in support of the Articles of 
Impeachment was ``overwhelming.'' Manager Jerry Nadler went further and 
claimed, repeatedly, that the evidence produced was ``conclusive'' and 
``uncontested.'' Manager Zoe Lofgren argued that Senators could use, 
literally, any standard they wished.
    This is significant on the issue of the President's motive in 
seeking a corruption investigation from President Zelensky, one that 
included former Vice President Biden and his son, Hunter, and the 
company on whose board he served, Burisma. The House Managers argued, 
repeatedly, that President Trump did not care about Ukrainian 
corruption or burden sharing with allies and that his sole motive was 
to get information damaging to a political rival, Joe Biden.
    President Trump's lawyers contend that he has a record of concerns 
about burden sharing with allies, as well as corruption, and produced 
several examples. At most, they say, his was a mixed motive--partly 
policy, partly political--and in any event it was not a crime and thus 
not impeachable.
    Therefore, the question arises: did the House Managers prove beyond 
a reasonable doubt that the sole motive for pausing military aid to 
Ukraine was for his personal benefit? Or, did they fail to meet their 
burden?
Conclusion
    Ultimately, the House Managers failed to prove beyond a reasonable 
doubt that President Trump's sole motive for seeking any corruption 
investigation in Ukraine, including of Hunter Biden, was for a personal 
political benefit. This is particularly true given the evidence of 
President Trump's documented interest in financial burden sharing with 
allies, and the widely shared concerns, including by the Obama/Biden 
Administration, with corruption in Ukraine and the need to protect 
American taxpayers.
    Even if President Trump had mixed motives--a public interest 
combined with a personal interest--the fact is the investigations never 
occurred and the aid to Ukraine was paused but delivered on schedule.
    Moreover, none of the above conduct rises to the level of a ``high 
crime and misdemeanor.'' The first article, Abuse of Power, which 
charges no crime or violation of existing law is too vague and 
ambiguous to meet the Constitution's requirements. It is simply a 
conclusion into which any disagreeable conduct can be lumped.
    Finally, the second article, Obstruction of Congress, cannot be 
sustained on this record. The President's counsel argued persuasively 
that its subpoenas were largely unauthorized in the absence of a House 
resolution delegating its authority to a House committee. What's more, 
the House never sought to enforce its subpoenas in the courts, 
essentially giving up efforts to do so in favor of expediting the House 
impeachment inquiry. The desire to meet an arbitrary deadline before 
Christmas was prioritized over a judicial determination in the 
interbranch dispute.
                                endnotes
    1. See Declaration of Independence (``We hold these truths to be 
self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by 
their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are 
Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these 
rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their powers 
from the consent of the government.'')
    2. See The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 (Max Farrand, 
ed., 1911).
    3. Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 2560 (2015). Chief 
Justice Roberts similarly relied on Justice Scalia's views when he 
raised due process concerns in the context of an amorphous definition 
of corruption in the criminal prosecution of public officials. 
McDonnell v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2355, 2373 (2016).
    4. A variation of these arguments came up in active litigation 
related to the House's access to testimony and evidence connected with 
Special Counsel Mueller's investigation. The district courts rejected 
the White House Counsel's position. See House of Representatives v. 
McGahn, No. 1:19-cv-02379-KBJ, 2019 WL 6312011 (D.D.C. Nov. 25, 2019) 
and In re Application of House of Representatives for Release of 
Certain Grand Jury Materials, No. 1:19-gj-00048, 2019 WL 5485221 
(D.D.C. Oct. 25, 2019). But those decisions are now on appeal, and the 
D.C. Circuit heard argument in those cases on January 3, 2020.
    5. See Kupperman v. House of Representatives, 1:19-cv-03224-RJL, 
2019 WL 729359 (D.D.C. Dec. 30, 2019).
    6. See Order of Supreme Court dated December 13, 2019 granting 
certiorari in Trump v. Mazars USA, 940 F.3d 710 (D.C. Cir. 2019); Trump 
v. Deutsche Bank, 943 F.3d 627 (2d Cir. 2019), and Trump v. Vance, 941 
F.3d 631 (2d Cir. 2019). The Supreme Court will hear argument in these 
cases on March 31, 2020.
    7. Issues associated with executive privilege were litigated and 
resolved in the courts well in advance of the Nixon and Clinton 
impeachments.
    8. See December 17, 2019 Interview of Congressman Eric Swalwell by 
CNN's Wolf Blitzer (``Unless you send those [witnesses] to us, we can 
only conclude that you are guilty, because in America, innocent men do 
not hide and conceal evidence. In fact, . . . they do just the 
opposite, they are forthcoming and they want to cooperate, and the 
President is acting like a very guilty person.'')
    9. See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 138 (1803) (``An act of 
congress repugnant to the constitution cannot become a law.'')
    10. Monroe H. Freeman, ``Our Constitutionalized Adversary System,'' 
1 Chapman Law Rev. 57, 57 (1998). Justice Scalia noted that the 
adversarial system is founded on ``the presence of a judge who does not 
(as the inquisitor does) conduct the factual and legal investigation 
himself, but instead decides on the basis of facts and arguments pro 
and con adduced by the parties.'' McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171, 
181 n.2 (1991).
    11. Id.
    12. Id.
    13. As even one of the witnesses who testified in the House has 
recognized, the Constitution designates the Chief Justice to serve as 
presiding officer of the Senate for presidential impeachments because 
the Framers understood the obvious conflict of interest and tension in 
allowing the Vice President to preside over the trial of the President. 
Michael Gerhardt, The Constitutional Limits to Impeachment and Its 
Alternatives, 68 Texas Law Review 1, 98 (1989).

                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 5, 2020]

                    Statement of Senator Josh Hawley

    Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, I come here today with the 
business of impeachment before this Chamber. It should hardly 
be necessary at this late juncture to outline again the train 
of abuses and distortions and outright lies that have brought 
us to today's impeachment vote: the secret meetings in the 
Capitol basement; the closed hearings without due process or 
basic fairness; the failure of the House to follow their own 
rules and authorize an impeachment inquiry and then the 
bipartisan vote against impeachment; and the attempt to 
manipulate or even prevent a trial here in the Senate--holding 
the Articles of Impeachment for 33 days--in brazen defiance of 
the Constitution's mandates.
    The House Democrats have given us the first purely partisan 
impeachment in our history and the first attempt to remove an 
elected President that does not even allege unlawful conduct.
    Animating it all has been the bitter resentment of a 
professional political class that cannot accept the verdict of 
the people in 2016, that cannot accept the people's priorities, 
and that now seeks to overturn the election and entrench 
themselves in power. That is how we arrived at this moment, 
that is how we got here, and that is what this is really about.
    Now it is time to bring this fiasco to a close. It is time 
to end this cycle of retribution and payback and bitterness. It 
is time to end the abuse of our institutions. It is time to let 
the verdict of the people stand. So I will vote today to acquit 
the President of these charges.
    You know, it has been clear for a long time that 
impeachment is not a priority of the people--it is not even 
close. It is a pipe dream of politicians. And as the Democrats 
have forced it on this country over these many months, it has 
sapped our energy and diverted our attention from the real 
issues that press upon our country, the issues the people of 
this Nation have tried to get this town to care about for 
years. I mean the crisis of surging suicides and drug addiction 
that is driving down life expectancy in my State and across 
this Nation. I mean the crisis at the border, where those drugs 
are pouring across. I mean the crisis of skyrocketing 
healthcare costs, which burden families, young and old, with 
bills they cannot pay. I mean the crisis of affordable housing, 
which robs parents of a safe place to raise their children and 
build a life. I mean the crisis of trafficking and 
exploitation, which robs our young girls and boys of a future 
and our society of their innocence. I mean the crisis of the 
family farm and the crisis of education costs for those who go 
to college and the lack of good-paying jobs for those who 
don't. I mean the crisis of connectivity in our heartland, 
where too many schoolchildren can't access the internet even to 
do their homework at night. I mean the crisis of unfair trade 
and lost jobs and broken homes. And I could go on.
    My point is this: When I listen to the people of my State, 
I don't hear about impeachment. No, I hear about the problems 
of home and neighborhood, of family and community, about the 
loss of faith in our government and about the struggle to find 
hope for the future. This town owes it to these Americans--the 
ones who sent us here--finally to listen, finally to act, and 
finally to do something that really matters to them.
    We must leave this impeachment circus behind us and ensure 
that our Constitution is never again abused in this way. It is 
time to turn the page. It is time to turn to a new politics of 
the people and to a politics of home. It is time to turn to the 
future--a future where this town finally accepts the people's 
judgment and the people's verdict and where this town finally 
delivers for the people who elected them; a future where the 
middle of our society gets a fair shake and a level playing 
field; a future where maybe--maybe--this town will finally 
listen.
    When I think of all the energy and all the effort that has 
been expended on this impeachment crusade over almost 3 years 
now, I wonder what might have been.
    Today is a sad day, but it does not have to remain that 
way. Imagine what we might achieve for the good of this Nation 
if we turn our energy and our effort to the work of the 
American people. Imagine what we could do to keep families in 
their homes and to bring new possibility to the Nation's 
heartland and to care for our children in every part of this 
society. Imagine what we could do to lift up the most 
vulnerable among us who have been exploited and trafficked and 
give them new hope and new life. Imagine what we could do for 
those who have been forgotten, from our rural towns to our 
inner cities. Imagine what we could do to give them control 
over their own destinies.
    We can find the common good. We can push the boundaries of 
the possible. We can rebuild this Nation if we will listen to 
the American people. Let us begin.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 5, 2020]

                  Statement of Senator Lamar Alexander

    Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, in this impeachment 
proceeding, I worked with other Senators to make sure that we 
had the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but 
there was no need for more evidence to prove something that I 
believe had already been proven and that did not meet the U.S. 
Constitution's high bar for an impeachable offense.
    There was no need for more evidence to prove that the 
President asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, 
Hunter. He said this on television on October 3, 2019, and he 
said it during his July 25, 2019, telephone call with the 
President of Ukraine.
    There was no need for more evidence to conclude that the 
President withheld United States aid, at least in part, to 
pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. The House managers 
have proved this with what they called a ``mountain of 
overwhelming evidence.'' One of the managers said it was 
``proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.''
    There was no need to consider further the frivolous second 
Article of Impeachment that would remove from the President and 
future Presidents--remove this President for asserting his 
constitutional prerogative to protect confidential 
conversations with his close advisers.
    It was inappropriate for the President to ask a foreign 
leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold 
U.S. aid to encourage this investigation. When elected 
officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations, 
it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law. But 
the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove 
the President from office and ban him from this year's ballot 
simply for actions that are inappropriate.
    The question, then, is not whether the President did it but 
whether the Senate or the American people should decide what to 
do about what he did. I believe that the Constitution clearly 
provides that the people should make that decision in the 
Presidential election that began on Monday in Iowa.
    The Senate has spent 11 long days considering this mountain 
of evidence, the arguments of the House managers and the 
President's lawyers, their answers to Senators' questions, and 
the House record. Even if the House charges were true, they 
don't meet the Constitution's ``Treason, Bribery, or other High 
Crimes and Misdemeanors'' standard for impeachable offense.
    The Framers believed that there never ever should be a 
partisan impeachment. That is why the Constitution requires a 
two-thirds vote of the Senate to convict. Yet not one House 
Republican voted for these articles.
    If this shallow, hurried, and wholly partisan impeachment 
were to succeed, it would rip the country apart, pouring 
gasoline on the fire of cultural divisions that already exist. 
It would create a weapon of perpetual impeachment to be used 
against future Presidents whenever the House of Representatives 
is of a different political party.
    Our founding documents provide for duly elected Presidents 
who serve with ``the consent of the governed,'' not at the 
pleasure of the U.S. Congress. Let the people decide.
    A year ago, at the Southeastern Conference basketball 
tournament, a friend of 40 years sitting in front of me turned 
to me and said: ``I am very unhappy with you for voting against 
the President.'' She was referring to my vote against the 
President's decision to spend money that Congress hadn't 
appropriated to build the border wall.
    I believed then and now that the U.S. Constitution gives to 
the Congress the exclusive power to appropriate money. This 
separation of powers creates checks and balances in our 
government that preserve our individual liberty by not 
allowing, in that case, the Executive to have too much power.
    I replied to my friend: ``Look, I was not voting for or 
against the President. I was voting for the United States 
Constitution.'' Well, she wasn't convinced.
    This past Sunday, walking my dog Rufus in Nashville, I was 
confronted by a neighbor who said she was angry and crushed by 
my vote against allowing more witnesses in the impeachment 
trial. ``The Senate should remove the President for 
extortion,'' she said.
    I replied to her: ``I was not voting for or against the 
President. I was voting for the United States Constitution, 
which, in my view, does not give the Senate the power to remove 
a President from his office and from this year's election 
ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate. The United 
States Constitution says a President may be convicted only for 
Treason, Bribery, and other High Crimes and Misdemeanors. 
President Trump's actions regarding Ukraine are a far cry from 
that. Plus,'' I said, ``unlike the Nixon impeachment, when 
almost all Republicans voted to initiate an impeachment 
inquiry, not one single Republican voted to initiate this 
impeachment inquiry against President Trump. The Trump 
impeachment,'' I said to her, ``was a completely partisan 
action, and the Framers of the United States Constitution, 
especially James Madison, believed we should never ever have a 
partisan impeachment. That would undermine the separation of 
powers by allowing the House of Representatives to immobilize 
the executive branch, as well as the Senate, by a perpetual 
partisan series of impeachments.'' Well, she was not convinced.
    When our country was created, there never had been anything 
quite like it--a democratic republic with a written 
Constitution. Perhaps its greatest innovation was the 
separation of powers among the Presidency, the Supreme Court, 
and the Congress.
    The late Justice Scalia said this of checks and balances: 
``Every tin horn dictator in the world today, every president 
for life, has a Bill of Rights. . . . What has made us free is 
our Constitution.'' What he meant was, what makes the United 
States different and protects our individual liberty is the 
separation of powers and the checks and balances in our 
Constitution.
    The goal of our Founders was not to have a King as a chief 
executive, on the one hand, or not to have a British-style 
parliament, on the other, which could remove our chief 
executive or prime minister with a majority or no-confidence 
vote. The principle reason our Constitution created a U.S. 
Senate is so that one body of Congress can pause and resist the 
excesses of the Executive or popular passions that could run 
through the House of Representatives like a freight train.
    The language of the Constitution, of course, is subject to 
interpretation, but on some things, its words are clear. The 
President cannot spend money that Congress doesn't 
appropriate--that is clear--and the Senate can't remove a 
President for anything less than treason, bribery, high crimes 
and misdemeanors, and two-thirds of us, the Senators, must 
agree on that. That requires a bipartisan consensus.
    We Senators take an oath to base our decisions on the 
provisions of our Constitution, which is what I have endeavored 
to do during this impeachment proceeding.
    Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to include a few 
documents in the Record following my remarks. They include an 
editorial from February 3 from the Wall Street Journal; an 
editorial from the National Review, also dated February 3; an 
opinion editorial by Robert Doar, president of the American 
Enterprise Institute on February 1; an article from 
KnoxTNToday, yesterday; and a transcript from my appearance on 
``Meet the Press'' on Sunday, February 2, 2020. These documents 
illuminate and further explain my statement today.
    Thank you.
    There being no objection, the material was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

              [From the Wall Street Journal, Feb. 3, 2020]

   Editorial Board: Lamar Alexander's Finest Hour--His Vote Against 
             Witnesses was Rooted in Constitutional Wisdom

    Senate Republicans are taking even more media abuse than usual 
after voting to bar witnesses from the impeachment trial of President 
Trump. ``Cringing abdication'' and ``a dishonorable Senate'' are two 
examples of the sputtering progressive rage. On the contrary, we think 
it was Lamar Alexander's finest hour.
    The Tennessee Republican, who isn't running for re-election this 
year, was a decisive vote in the narrowly divided Senate on calling 
witnesses. He listened to the evidence and arguments from both sides, 
and then he offered his sensible judgment: Even if Mr. Trump did what 
House managers charge, it still isn't enough to remove a President from 
office.``It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader 
to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid 
to encourage that investigation,'' Mr. Alexander said in a statement 
Thursday night. ``But the Constitution does not give the Senate the 
power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year's 
ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate.''
    The House managers had proved their case to his satisfaction even 
without new witnesses, Mr. Alexander added, but ``they do not meet the 
Constitution's `treason, bribery, or other high crimes and 
misdemeanors' standard for an impeachable offense.'' Nebraska Sen. Ben 
Sasse told reporters ``let me be clear: Lamar speaks for lots and lots 
of us.''
    This isn't an abdication. It's a wise judgment based on what Mr. 
Trump did and the rushed, partisan nature of the House impeachment. Mr. 
Trump was wrong to ask Ukraine to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden, and 
wrong to use U.S. aid as leverage. His call with Ukraine's President 
was far from ``perfect.'' It was reckless and self-destructive, as Mr. 
Trump often is.
    Nearly all of his advisers and several Senators opposed his 
actions, Senators like Wisconsin's Ron Johnson lobbied Mr. Trump hard 
against the aid delay, and in the end the aid was delivered within the 
fiscal year and Ukraine did not begin an investigation. Even the House 
managers did not allege specific crimes in their impeachment articles. 
For those who want the best overall account of what happened, we again 
recommend the Nov. 18 letter that Mr. Johnson wrote to House 
Republicans.
    Mr. Alexander's statement made two other crucial points. The first 
concerns the damage that partisan removal of Mr. Trump would do to the 
country.
    ``The framers believed that there should never, ever be a partisan 
impeachment. That is why the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote of the 
Senate for conviction. Yet not one House Republican voted for these 
articles,'' Mr. Alexander noted. ``If this shallow, hurried and wholly 
partisan impeachment were to succeed, it would rip the country apart, 
pouring gasoline on the fire of cultural divisions that already exist. 
It would create the weapon of perpetual impeachment to be used against 
future presidents whenever the House of Representatives is of a 
different political party.''
    Does anyone who isn't a Resistance partisan doubt this? Democrats 
and the press talk as if removing Mr. Trump is a matter of 
constitutional routine that would restore American politics to some 
pre-2016 normalcy. That's a dangerous illusion.
    The ouster of Mr. Trump, the political outsider, on such slender 
grounds would be seen by half the country as an insider coup d'etat. 
Unlike Richard Nixon's resignation, it would never be accepted by Mr. 
Trump's voters, who would wave it as a bloody flag for years to come. 
Payback against the next Democratic President when the Republicans 
retake the House would be a certainty.
    Mr. Alexander directed Americans to the better solution of our 
constitutional bedrock. ``The question then is not whether the 
president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American 
people should decide what to do about what he did,'' his statement 
said. ``Our founding documents provide for duly elected presidents who 
serve with `the consent of the governed,' not at the pleasure of the 
United States Congress. Let the people decide.''
    Democrats and their allies in the media have spent three years 
trying to nullify the election their candidate lost in 2016. They have 
hawked false Russian conspiracy theories, ignored abuse by the FBI, 
floated fantasies about triggering the 25th Amendment, and tried to 
turn bad presidential judgment toward Ukraine into an impeachable 
offense. Yet Mr. Trump's job approval rating has increased during the 
impeachment hearings and trial.
    Our friendly advice to Democrats and the impeachment press is to 
accept that you lost fair and square in 2016 and focus on nominating a 
better Democratic candidate this year. On the recent polling evidence, 
that task is urgent. In the meantime, thank you, Lamar Alexander.
                                 ______
                                 

                [From the National Review, Feb. 3, 2020]

             Editorial Board: Lamar Alexander Gets It Right

    The impeachment saga is drawing to a close.
    The Senate is prepared to acquit without hearing from witnesses, 
after Lamar Alexander, a swing vote, came out against calling them late 
last week.
    In his statement, Alexander expressed the correct view on the 
underlying matter--one we have been urging Republicans to publicly 
adopt since impeachment first got off the ground.
    The Tennessee Republican said that it has been amply established 
that Donald Trump used a hold on defense aid to pressure the Ukrainians 
to undertake the investigations that he wanted, and that this was, as 
he mildly put it, inappropriate. But this misconduct, he argued, 
doesn't rise to the level of the high crimes and misdemeanors required 
to remove a president from office. If the Senate were to do so anyway, 
it would further envenom the nation's partisan divide. Besides, there 
is a national election looming where the public itself can decide 
whether Trump should stay in office or not.
    Since we already know the core of what happened, Alexander 
explained, there was no need to hear from additional witnesses in the 
Senate trial. (On this theory of the case, the Senate is in effect 
acting like an appellate court, rendering a judgment on a threshold 
question of law, rather than a trial court sifting through the facts.)
    In the wake of Alexander's statement, other Senate Republicans 
endorsed his line of analysis, which, it must be noted, is superior to 
the defense mounted by the White House legal team over the last two 
weeks.
    Because the president refused to acknowledge what he did, his team 
implausibly denied there was a quid pro quo and argued that one hadn't 
been proven since there were no first-hand witnesses. Obviously, this 
position was at odds with the defense team's insistence that no further 
witnesses be called. It also raised the natural question why, if people 
with firsthand knowledge had exculpatory information, the White House 
wasn't eager to let them come forward.
    Additionally, the White House maintained that a president can't be 
impeached unless he's guilty of a criminal violation. This is an 
erroneous interpretation of the Constitution, although it is true that 
past presidential impeachments have involved violations of the law and 
that such violations provide a bright line that's missing if the charge 
is only abuse of power. Alan Dershowitz argued this position most 
aggressively for the president's defense, and made it even worse by 
briefly seeming--before walking it back--to argue that anything a 
president does to advance his reelection is properly motivated.
    As for the House managers, they were at their strongest making the 
case that the president had done what they alleged, and their weakest 
arguing that he should be removed for it.
    They tried to inflate the gravity of Trump's offense by repeatedly 
calling it ``election interference.'' At the end of the day, though, 
what the Trump team sought was not an investigation of Joe or Hunter 
Biden, but a statement by the Ukrainians that they'd look into Burisma, 
the Ukrainian company on whose board Hunter Biden sat. The firm has a 
shady past and has been investigated before. Trump should have steered 
clear of anything involving his potential opponent, but it's not 
obvious that a new Burisma probe would have had any effect on 2020 (the 
vulnerability for Biden is Hunter's payments, which are already on the 
record) and, of course, the announcement of an investigation never 
happened.
    They said that Trump's seeking this Ukrainian interference was in 
keeping with his welcoming of Russian meddling, implying that Trump had 
been found guilty of colluding with the Russians in 2016, rather than 
exonerated. (Part of the complaint here is that Trump made use of 
material that emerged via Russian hacking. Then again, so did Bernie 
Sanders in his fight with the DNC.)
    They alleged that the brief delay in aid to Ukraine somehow 
endangered our national security, a risible claim given that the 
Ukrainians got the aid and that Trump has provided Ukraine lethal 
assistance that President Obama never did.
    They accused the president of obstruction of justice for asserting 
privileges invoked by other presidents and not producing documents and 
witnesses on the House's accelerated timeline, a charge that White 
House lawyer Patrick Philbin effectively dismantled.
    Finally, they insisted that a trial without witnesses wouldn't be 
fair, despite making no real effort to secure the new witnesses during 
their own rushed impeachment inquiry.
    As for the Senate trial being a ``cover up,'' as Democrats now 
insist it is, there is nothing stopping the House--or the Senate, for 
that matter--from seeking testimony from John Bolton and others outside 
the confines of the trial. This would be entirely reasonable 
congressional oversight (despite the White House arguing otherwise) and 
there is still a public interest in knowing as much as possible about 
this matter, even if Trump isn't going to be removed.
    If nothing else, the last two weeks have been a forum for extensive 
discussion about the respective powers of the two elected branches of 
government. We are sympathetic to the view that the executive branch 
has too much power. If Congress seeks to remedy this imbalance by 
impeaching and removing presidents, though, it will be sorely 
disappointed, since the two-thirds requirement for a Senate conviction 
is an almost insuperable obstacle to removal (as both House Republicans 
and House Democrats have experienced the last 20 years).
    It would be better if Congress undertook a more systematic effort 
to take back prerogatives it has ceded to the executive branch and the 
courts. But we aren't optimistic on this score, since the same 
Democrats who claim to be sticklers about congressional power on the 
Ukraine matter won't say a discouraging word about Elizabeth Warren's 
and Bernie Sanders's promised adventures in unilateral rule as 
president.
    At the end of the day, Nancy Pelosi impeached knowing that the 
Senate wouldn't convict, and so here we are--with nine months to go 
until voters get to make their judgment: not just about Ukraine, but 
about the last four years and Trump's eventual opponent.
                                 ______
                                 

                      [From the AEI, Feb. 1, 2020]

      Alexander Got It Right: It Takes More To Remove a President

                            (By Robert Doar)

    ``It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to 
investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to 
encourage that investigation. When elected officials inappropriately 
interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle of 
equal justice under the law. But the Constitution does not give the 
Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from 
this year's ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate.''
    Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander's words reminded me of the struggle 
my father, John Doar, had as he considered whether the conduct of 
President Richard Nixon was so serious that it should lead the House to 
impeach him and the Senate to remove him from office. Dad was in charge 
of the House Judiciary Committee staff, which took seven months 
(between December 1973 and July 1974) to examine the evidence and 
consider the question. What he concluded, and what the House Judiciary 
Committee by bipartisan majorities also found, was that Nixon deserved 
impeachment and removal for a pattern of conduct over a multi-year 
period that both obstructed justice and abused power.
    So the first article, concerning obstruction of justice, found that 
Nixon and his subordinates had tampered with witnesses and interfered 
with the Department of Justice's investigations. They had paid hush 
money and attempted to misuse the CIA. And they had lied repeatedly to 
investigators and the American people.
    On abuse of power, Nixon was found to have misused his authority 
over the IRS, the FBI, the CIA, and the Secret Service to defeat 
political opponents and protect himself, and in the process he had 
violated the constitutional rights of citizens. After he came under 
suspicion, he tried to manipulate these agencies to interfere with the 
investigation.
    President Trump's conduct toward Ukraine, though inappropriate, 
differs significantly from Nixon's in one crucial respect. Where 
Nixon's impeachable abuse of power occurred over a period of several 
years, the conduct challenged by the House's impeachment of Trump was 
not nearly as prolonged. From July to September of last year, Trump 
attempted to cajole a foreign government to open an investigation into 
his political opponent. That conduct was wrong. But it's not the same 
as what Nixon did over multiple years.
    This contrast brings to light a critical difference between the 
House's behavior in 1974 and its efforts today. When Nixon's actions 
came to light, the House conducted an impeachment the right way: The 
House Judiciary Committee took seven months to examine all of the 
evidence, built up a theory of the case which matched the 
Constitution's requirements, and produced charges that implicated the 
president and his subordinates in a pattern of impeachable conduct. 
Faced with certain impeachment and removal from office, Nixon resigned. 
What Trump attempted to do, as Alexander rightly sees, is not that.
    Alexander is right about one other thing--we should let the people 
decide who our next president should be.
                                 ______
                                 

                 [From the Knox TN Today, Feb. 4, 2020]

                            Lamar Was Right

                            (By Frank Cagle)

    Since I'm older than dirt, there have been occasions over the years 
when first-term state legislators would ask me if I had any advice for 
them.
    Yes.
    When a major and controversial issue looms study it, decide where 
you are and let everyone know where you are. In other words, pick a 
side early, have a reputation for keeping your word, and do not be 
known as a member who will go where the wind blows.
    Make sure you do not get into the group known as the undecideds. 
You will get hammered by both sides, wooed by both sides and hounded by 
the media. And finally, do not under any circumstances be the deciding 
vote. Yours will be the only vote anyone remembers.
    You would think someone who has been around as long as Lamar 
Alexander could avoid this trap. But not so. In the impeachment trial 
of President Trump, he got the label undecided, he was then hounded by 
the media and hammered by both sides over whether he would march in 
lockstep with Majority Leader Mitch McConnell or whether he would vote 
to call more witnesses as the Democrats wanted.
    And horror of horrors, he was the deciding vote and the only one 
that will be remembered. When he announced how he would vote the ``more 
witnesses'' movement collapsed.
    Alexander now finds himself being excoriated by both sides. The 
Trump supporters will never forget his failure to fall in line and 
salute. The anti-Trumpers are expressing their disappointment.
    I've never been a Lamar fan. But I would like to make the case that 
he did exactly the right thing and he expressed the position of the 
majority of his Republican colleagues. He, and anyone who has been 
paying attention, says Trump did what he was accused of and what he did 
was wrong--inappropriate. But it did not rise to the level of removing 
him from office. There was no point in listening to additional 
witnesses and dragging things out. Everyone knew he was guilty. But if 
Trump is to be removed from office, let the voters do it.
    If you believe that Trump didn't hold up aid to Ukraine or that he 
didn't ask them to investigate Joe Biden you have surrendered your 
critical faculties or you haven't been paying attention.
    Joe and Hunter Biden should be investigated. By the FBI. I 
understand Trump's frustration that the mainstream media could not be 
counted on to investigate what should be disqualifying information 
about Biden's presidential run. (In the media's defense, Trump's kids 
are also trading off their father's position.) Trump's problem is that 
instead of turning to the FBI he turned the problem over to Rudy 
Giuliani and a couple of his questionable associates, otherwise known 
as the ``Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight.''
    I doubt you could find 10 Republican senators who, in their heart 
of hearts, didn't agree with Lamar's position. Many have echoed his 
argument. But it will be Lamar who will take the heat.
                                 ______
                                 

                  [From Meet the Press, Feb. 2, 2020]

   Interview With Senator Lamar Alexander, U.S. Senator for Tennessee

    Chuck Todd: Republican Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee. 
Senator Alexander, welcome back.
    Senator Lamar Alexander: Thank you, Chuck.
    Todd: So one of the reasons you gave in your release about not 
voting for more witnesses is that--and to decide that, okay, this trial 
is over, let's let the people decide--was that the election was too 
close. So let me ask you though, on the witness vote itself, would it 
be helpful for the people to decide if they had more information?
    Alexander: Well, I mean, if you have eight witnesses who say 
someone left the scene of an accident, why do you need nine? I mean, 
the question for me was, do I need more evidence to conclude that the 
president did what he did? And I concluded no. So I voted.
    Todd: What do you believe he did?
    Alexander: What I believe he did. One, was that he called the 
president of Ukraine and asked him to become involved in investigating 
Joe Biden, who was--
    Todd: You believe his wrongdoing began there, not before?
    Alexander: I don't know about that, but he admitted that. The 
president admitted that. He released the transcript. He said it on 
television. The second thing was, at least in part, he delayed the 
military and other assistance to Ukraine in order to encourage that 
investigation. Those are the two things he did. I think he shouldn't 
have done it. I think it was wrong. Inappropriate was the way I'd say 
it, improper, crossing the line. And then the only question left is, 
who decides what to do about that?
    Todd: Well, who decides what to do with that?
    Alexander: The people. The people is my conclusion. You know, it 
struck me really for the first time early last week, that we're not 
just being asked to remove the president from office. We're saying, 
tell him you can't run in the 2020 election, which begins Monday in 
Iowa.
    Todd: If this weren't an election year, would you have looked at 
this differently?
    Alexander: I would have looked at it differently and probably come 
to the same conclusion because I think what he did is a long way from 
treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors. I don't think it's the 
kind of inappropriate action that the framers would expect the Senate 
to substitute its judgment for the people in picking a president.
    Todd: Does it wear on you though that one of the foundational ways 
that the framers wrote the constitution was almost fear of foreign 
interference.
    Alexander: That's true.
    Todd: So, and here it is.
    Alexander: Well, if you hooked up with Ukraine to wage war on the 
United States, as the first Senator from Tennessee did, you could be 
expelled, but this wasn't that. What the president should have done 
was, if he was upset about Joe Biden and his son and what they were 
doing in Ukraine, he should've called the Attorney General and told him 
that and let the Attorney General handle it the way they always handle 
cases that involve public things.
    Todd: Why you think he didn't do that?
    Alexander: Maybe he didn't know to do it.
    Todd: Okay. This has been a rationale that I've heard from a lot of 
Republicans. Well boy, he's still new to this.
    Alexander: Well, a lot of people come to Washington--
    Todd: At what point though, is he no longer new to this?
    Alexander: The bottom line is not an excuse. He shouldn't have done 
it. And I said he shouldn't have done it and now I think it's up to the 
American people to say, okay, good economy, lower taxes, conservative 
judges, behavior that I might not like, call to Ukraine. And weigh that 
against Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders and pick a president.
    Todd: Are you at all concerned though when you seek foreign 
interference? He does not believe he's done anything wrong. That what 
has happened here might encourage him that he can continue to do this?
    Alexander: I don't think so. I hope not. I mean, enduring an 
impeachment is something that nobody should like. Even the president 
said he didn't want that on his resume. I don't blame him. So, if a 
call like that gets you an impeachment, I would think he would think 
twice before he did it again.
    Todd: What example in the life of Donald Trump has he been 
chastened?
    Alexander: I haven't studied his life that close, but, like most 
people who survive to make it to the Presidency, he's sure of himself. 
But hopefully he'll look at this and say, okay, that was a mistake I 
shouldn't have done that, shouldn't have done it that way. And he'll 
focus on the strengths of his Administration, which are considerable.
    Todd: Abuse of power, define it.
    Alexander: Well, that's the problem with abuse of power. As 
Professor Dershowitz said during his argument, he had a list of 40 
presidents who'd been accused of abuse of power from Washington to 
Obama. So it's too vague a standard to use to impeach a president. And 
the founders didn't use it. I mean, they said, I mean, think of what a 
high bar they set. They said treason, bribery, high crimes or 
misdemeanors. And then they said
    Todd: What do you think they meant by misdemeanors? Violation of a 
public trust.
    Alexander: At the time they used it, misdemeanor meant a different 
thing in Great Britain. But I think Dershowitz was right. It was 
something akin to treason, bribery and other high crimes and 
misdemeanors, very high. And then in addition to that, two thirds of us 
in the Senate have to agree to that, which is very hard to do, which is 
why we've never removed a president this way in 230 years.
    Todd: One of your other reasonings was the partisan nature of the 
impeachment vote itself in the House. Except now we are answering a 
partisan impeachment vote in the House with a partisan, I guess, I 
don't know what we would call this right now.
    Alexander: Well you all it acquittal. That's what happens.
    Todd: An acquittal, but essentially also, on how the trial was 
run--a partisan way from the trial. So, if we make bipartisanship a 
standard, if somebody has a stranglehold on a base of a political 
party, then what you're saying is, you can overcome any impeachable 
offense as long as you have this stranglehold on a group of people.
    Alexander: Well, as far as what the Senate did, I thought we gave a 
good hearing to the case. I mean, I help make sure that we didn't 
dismiss it. We heard it. There were some who wanted to dismiss it. I 
helped make sure that we had a right to ask for more evidence if we 
needed it, which we thought we didn't. We heard, we saw videotapes of 
192 times that witnesses testified. We sat there for 11 and 12 hour 
days for nine days. So, I think we heard the case pretty well, but the 
partisan points, the most important point to me, James Madison, others 
thought there never, ever should be a wholly partisan impeachment. And 
if you look at Nixon, when the vote that authorized that inquiry was 
410 to four and you look at Trump, where not a single Republican voted 
for it. If you start out with a partisan impeachment, you're almost 
destined to have a partisan acquittal.
    Todd: Alright, but what do you do if you have somebody who has the 
ability to essentially be a populist? You know, be somebody who is able 
to say it's fake news. It's deep state. Don't trust this. Don't trust 
that. The establishment is doing this. And so don't worry about truth 
anymore. Don't worry about what you hear over there. I mean, some may 
say I'm painting an accurate picture. Some may be saying I'm painting a 
radical picture. But how do you prevent that?
    Alexander: Well, the way you prevent that in our system, according 
to the Declaration of Independence, is we have duly elected presidents 
with the consent of the governed. So we vote them out of office. The 
other thing we do is, as in the Nixon case, Nixon had just been elected 
big in 1972 big time, only lost only one state, I think. But then a 
consensus developed, a bipartisan consensus, that what he was doing was 
wrong. And then when they found the crimes, he only had 10 or 12 votes 
that would have kept him in the Senate. So he quit. So those are the 
two options you have.
    Todd: Have we essentially eliminated impeachment as a tool for a 
first-term president?
    Alexander: No, I don't think so. I think impeachment as a tool 
should be rarely used and it's never been used in 230 years to remove a 
president. There been 63 impeachments, eight convictions. They're all 
federal judges on a lower standard.
    Todd: Does it bother you that the president's lead lawyer, Pat 
Cipollone, is now fingered as being in the room with John Bolton the 
first time the president asked John Bolton to call the new President of 
Ukraine and have him take a meeting with Rudy Giuliani? And I say that 
because Pat Cipollone is up there arguing that there's no direct 
evidence and yet, he may have been a firsthand witness.
    Alexander: Well, it doesn't have anything to do with my decision 
because my decision was, did the president do it, what he's charged 
with? He wasn't charged with a crime. He was charged with two things. 
And my conclusion was, he did do that and I don't need any more 
evidence to prove it. That doesn't have anything to do with where 
Cipollone was.
    Todd: No, I say that does it only reinforce what some believe is 
that the White House was disingenuous about this the whole time. 
They've been disingenuous about how they've handled subpoenas from the 
House or requests from the House.
    Alexander: I don't agree with that Chuck, either. The fact of the 
matter is in the Nixon case, the House voted 410 to four to authorize 
an inquiry. That means that it authorized subpoenas by the judiciary 
committee for impeachment. This House never did that. And so, all the 
subpoenas that they asked for were not properly authorized. That's the 
reason that the president didn't respond to them.
    Todd: Bill Clinton offered regret for his behavior. This president 
has not. Does that bother you?
    Alexander: Well, there hasn't been a vote yet either, so we'll see 
what he says and does. I think that's up to him.
    Todd: You're comfortable acquitting him before he says something of 
regret. Would that not, would that not help make your acquittal vote?
    Alexander: Well, I wasn't asked to decide who says his level of 
regret. I was asked, did he make a phone call and did he, at least in 
part, hold up aid in order to influence an investigation of Joe Biden? 
I concluded yes. So I don't need to assess his level of regret. What I 
hope he would do is when he makes his State of the Union address, that 
he puts this completely behind him, never mentions it and talks about 
what he thinks he's done for the country and where we're headed. He's 
got a pretty good story to tell. If he'll focus on it.
    Todd: You're one of the few people that detailed what you believe 
he did wrong. One of the few Republicans that have accepted the facts 
as they were presented. Mitt Romney was just uninvited from CPAC. Mike 
Pompeo can't speak freely in talking about Maria Bonovich, the ousted 
ambassador. Is there room for dissent in the Republican party right 
now?
    Alexander: Well, I believe there is. I mean, I dissent when I need 
to. Whether it's on--
    Todd: --not easy though right now, is it?
    Alexander: Well, I voted in a way that not everybody appreciated on 
immigration. Just before I was reelected, I voted against the 
president's decision to use what I thought was unauthorized money to 
build a wall, even though I think we need the wall. I said, I thought 
he did it this past week and we'll vote to acquit him. So I'm very 
comfortable saying what I believe. And I think others can as well.
    Todd: You know, in that phone call, there's one thing on the phone 
call that I'm surprised frankly, hasn't been brought up more by others. 
It's the mere mention of the word, CrowdStrike is a Russian 
intelligence sort of piece of propaganda that they've been circulating. 
Does it bother you that the President of United States is reiterating 
Russian propaganda?
    Alexander: Yes. I think that's a mistake. I mean if you, see what's 
happening in the Baltic States where Russians have a big warehouse in 
St. Petersburg in Russia where they're devoted to destabilizing Western 
democracies. I mean, for example, in one of the Baltic States, they 
accused a NATO officer of raping a local girl--of course it didn't 
happen, but it threw the government in a complete disarray for a week. 
So I think we need to be sensitive to the fact that the Russians are 
out to do no good to destabilize Western democracies, including us. And 
be very wary of theories that Russians come up with and peddle.
    Todd: Well, I was just going to say this, is it not alarming? The 
President of United States in this phone call and you clearly are 
judging him on the phone, more so than,
    Alexander: Well the phone call and the evidence. There was plenty 
of evidence. I mean the House managers came to us and said, we have 
overwhelming evidence. We have a mountain of evidence and we approve it 
beyond a shadow of a doubt. Which made me think, well then why do you 
need more evidence?
    Todd: Do you think it's more helpful for the public to hear from 
John Bolton?
    Alexander: They'll read his book in two weeks.
    Todd: You don't want to see him testify.
    Alexander: Well, if the question is do I need more evidence to 
think the president did it, the answer is no. I guess I'm coming back 
to this issue--if you looked at it as an isolated incident, here he is 
using Russian propaganda in order to try to talk to this new president 
of Ukraine. That's alarming. Where is he getting this CrowdStrike 
propaganda. My view is that that is Russian propaganda. Maybe he has 
information that I didn't have.
    Todd: Okay. Are you definitely voting to acquit or do you think you 
may vote present?
    Alexander: No question. I'm going to vote to acquit. I'm very 
concerned about any action that we could take that would establish a 
perpetual impeachment in the House of Representatives whenever the 
House was a different party than the president. That would immobilize 
the Senate. You know, we have to take those articles, stop what we're 
doing, sit in our chairs for 11 hours a day for three or four weeks and 
consider it. And it would immobilize the presidency. So I don't want a 
situation--and the framers didn't either--where a partisan majority in 
the house of either party can stop the government.
    Todd: You used the phrase ``pour gasoline on a fire.''
    Alexander: Yeah.
    Todd: It certainly struck home with me reading you saying something 
that I've been thinking long and hard about. How concerned are you 
about the democracy as it stands right now?
    Alexander: Well, I'm concerned and I want to give credit to Marco 
Rubio because that's really his phrase. I borrowed it from him--pouring 
gasoline on the cultural fires.
    Todd: He went a step further. He said this was an impeachable 
offense, but he was uncomfortable in an election year.
    Alexander: But, I'm concerned about the divisions in the country. 
They're reflected in the Senate. They make it harder to get a result. I 
mean, I work pretty hard to get results on healthcare, making it easier 
to go to college. And we've had some real success with it. But the 
Senate is for the purpose of solving big problems that the country will 
accept. And that goes back to what happened this past week. The country 
would not have accepted the Senate saying to it, you can't vote for or 
against President Trump in the Iowa caucus, New Hampshire primary, or 
the election this year.
    Todd: Are you glad you're leaving?
    Alexander: No, I've really loved being in the Senate, but it's time 
for me to go on, turn the page, think of something else to do. It'll be 
my third permanent retirement.
    Todd: You've retired a few times, is this one going to stick?
    Alexander: Well, we'll see.
    Todd: Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican from Tennessee, our 
always thoughtful guest. Thanks for coming on.
    Alexander: Thank you, Chuck.

                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 5, 2020]

                     Statement of Senator Ben Sasse

    Mr. SASSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to 
introduce into the Senate Record and into the impeachment trial 
record an op-ed that I wrote in the Omaha World-Herald this 
morning.
    There being no objection, the material was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

              [From the Omaha World Herald, Feb. 4, 2020]

   Midlands Voices: Open Letter From Ben Sasse Presents His Take on 
                              Impeachment

                             (By Ben Sasse)

    Impeachment is serious. It's the ``Break Glass in Case of 
Emergency'' provision of the Constitution.
    I plan to vote against removing the president, and I write to 
explain this decision to the Nebraskans on both sides who have 
advocated so passionately.
    An impeachment trial requires senators to carry out two 
responsibilities: We're jurors sworn to ``do impartial justice.'' We're 
also elected officeholders responsible for promoting the civic welfare 
of the country. We must consider both the facts before us, and the 
long-term effects of the verdict rendered. I believe removal is the 
wrong decision.
    Let's start with the facts of the case. It's clear that the 
president had mixed motives in his decision to temporarily withhold 
military aid from Ukraine. The line between personal and public was not 
firmly safeguarded. But it is important to understand, whether one 
agrees with him or not, three things President Trump believes:
    He believes foreign aid is almost always a bad deal for America. I 
don't believe this, but he has maintained this position consistently 
since the 1980s.
    He believes the American people need to know the 2016 election was 
legitimate, and he believes it's dangerous if they worry Russia picked 
America's president. About this, he's right.
    He believes the Crowdstrike theory of 2016, that Ukraine conducted 
significant meddling in our election. I don't believe this theory, but 
the president has heard it repeatedly from people he trusts, chiefly 
Rudy Giuliani, and he believes it.
    These beliefs have consequences. When the president spoke to 
Ukraine's president Zelensky in July 2019, he seems to have believed he 
was doing something that was simultaneously good for America, and good 
for himself politically--namely, reinforcing the legitimacy of his 2016 
victory. It is worth remembering that that phone call occurred just 
days after Robert Mueller's two-year investigation into the 2016 
election concluded that ``the investigation did not establish that 
members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian 
government in its election interference activities.''
    This is not a blanket excuse, of course. Some of the president's 
lawyers have admitted that the way the administration conducted 
policymaking toward Ukraine was wrong. I agree. The call with Zelensky 
was certainly not ``perfect,'' and the president's defense was made 
weaker by staking out that unrepentant position.
    Moreover, Giuliani's off-the-books foreign policy-making is 
unacceptable, and his role in walking the president into this airplane 
propeller is underappreciated: His Crowdstrike theory was a bonkers 
attempt not only to validate Trump's 2016 election, and to flip the 
media's narrative of Russian interference, but also to embarrass a 
possible opponent. One certainty from this episode is that America's 
Mayor shouldn't be any president's lawyer. It's time for the president 
and adults on his team to usher Rudy off the stage--and to ensure that 
we do not normalize rogue foreign policy conducted by political 
operatives with murky financial interests.
    There is no need to hear from any 18th impeachment witness, beyond 
the 17 whose testimony the Senate reviewed, to confirm facts we already 
know. Even if one concedes that John Bolton's entire testimony would 
support Adam Schiff's argument, this doesn't add to the reality already 
established: The aid delay was wrong.
    But in the end, the president wasn't seduced by the most malign 
voices; his honest advisers made sure Ukraine got the aid the law 
required. And importantly, this happened three weeks before the legal 
deadline. To repeat: The president's official staff repeatedly 
prevailed upon him, Ukraine ultimately got the money, and no political 
investigation was initiated or announced.
    You don't remove a president for initially listening to bad 
advisors but eventually taking counsel from better advisors--which is 
precisely what happened here.
    There is another prudential question, though, beyond the facts of 
the case: What is the right thing for the long-term civic health of our 
country? Will America be more stable in 2030 if the Senate--nine months 
from Election Day 2020--removes the president?
    In our Constitution's 232 years, no president has ever been removed 
from office by the Senate. Today's debate comes at a time when our 
institutions of self-government are suffering a profound crisis of 
legitimacy, on both sides of the aisle. This is not a new crisis since 
2016; its sources run much deeper and longer.
    We need to shore up trust. A reckless removal would do the 
opposite, setting the nation on fire. Half of the citizenry--tens of 
millions who intended to elect a disruptive outsider--would conclude 
that D.C. insiders overruled their vote, overturned an election and 
struck their preferred candidate from the ballot.
    This one-party removal attempt leaves America more bitterly 
divided. It makes it more likely that impeachment, intended as a tool 
of last resort for the most serious presidential crimes, becomes just 
another bludgeon in the bag of tricks for the party out of power. And 
more Americans will conclude that constitutional self-government today 
is nothing more than partisan bloodsport.
    We must do better. Our kids deserve better. Most of the restoration 
and healing will happen far from Washington, of course. But this week, 
senators have an important role: Get out of the way, and allow the 
American people to render their verdict on election day.

                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 5, 2020]

                 Statement of Senator Kamala D. Harris

    Ms. HARRIS. Mr. President, when the Framers wrote the 
Constitution, they didn't think someone like me would serve as 
a U.S. Senator, but they did envision someone like Donald Trump 
being President of the United States, someone who thinks he is 
above the law and that rules don't apply to him. So they made 
sure our democracy had the tool of impeachment to stop that 
kind of abuse of power.
    The House managers have clearly laid out a compelling case 
and evidence of Donald Trump's misconduct. They have shown that 
the President of the United States of America withheld military 
aid and a coveted White House meeting for his political gain. 
He wanted a foreign country to announce--not actually conduct, 
announce--an investigation into his political rivals. Then he 
refused to comply with congressional investigations into his 
misconduct. Unfortunately, a majority of U.S. Senators, even 
those who concede that what Donald Trump did was wrong, are 
nonetheless going to refuse to hold him accountable.
    The Senate trial of Donald Trump has been a miscarriage of 
justice. Donald Trump is going to get away with abusing his 
position of power for personal gain, abusing his position of 
power to stop Congress from looking into his misconduct and 
falsely claim he has been exonerated. He is going to escape 
accountability because a majority of Senators have decided to 
let him. They voted repeatedly to block key evidence like 
witnesses and documents that could have shed light on the full 
truth.
    We must recognize that still in America there are two 
systems of justice--one for the powerful and another for 
everyone else. So let's speak the truth about what our two 
systems of justice actually mean in the real world. It means 
that in our country too many people walk into courthouses and 
face systemic bias. Too often they lack adequate legal 
representation, whether they are overworked, underpaid, or 
both. It means that a young man named Emmett Till was falsely 
accused and then murdered, but his murderer didn't have to 
spend a day in jail. It means that four young Black men have 
their lives taken and turned upside-down after being falsely 
accused of a crime in Groveland, FL. It means that, right now, 
too many people in America are sitting in jail without having 
yet been convicted of a crime but simply because they cannot 
afford bail. And it means that future Presidents of the United 
States will remember that the U.S. Senate failed to hold Donald 
Trump accountable, and they will be emboldened to abuse their 
power knowing there will be no consequence.
    Donald Trump knows all this better than anybody. He may not 
acknowledge that we have two systems of justice, but he knows 
the institutions in this country, be it the courts or the 
Senate, are set up to protect powerful people like him. He told 
us as much when, regarding the sexual assault of women, he 
said, ``When you're a star, they let you do it. You can do 
anything.'' He said that article II of the U.S. Constitution 
gives him, as President, the right to do whatever he wants.
    Trump has shown us through his words and actions that he 
thinks he is above the law. And when the American people see 
the President acting as though he is above the law, it 
understandably leaves them feeling distrustful of our system of 
justice, distrustful of our democracy. When the U.S. Senate 
refuses to hold him accountable, it reinforces that loss of 
trust in our system.
    Now, I am under no illusion that this body is poised to 
hold this President accountable, but despite the conduct of the 
U.S. Senate in this impeachment trial, the American people must 
continue to strive toward the more perfect Union that our 
Constitution promises. It is going to take all of us--in every 
State, every town, everywhere--to continue fighting for the 
best of who we are as a country. We each have an important role 
to play in fighting for those words inscribed on the U.S. 
Supreme Court building: ``Equal Justice Under Law.''
    Frederick Douglass, who I, like many, consider to be one of 
the Founders of our Nation, wrote that ``the whole history of 
the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet 
made to her august claims have been born of earnest struggle.''
    The impeachment of Donald Trump has been one of those 
earnest struggles for liberty, and this fight, like so many 
before it, has been a fight against tyranny. This struggle has 
not been an easy one, and it has left too many people across 
our Nation feeling cynical. For too many people, this trial 
confirmed something they have always known, that the real power 
in this country lies not with them but with just a few people 
who advance their own interests at the expense of others' 
needs. For many, the injustice in this trial is yet another 
example of the way that our system of justice has worked or, 
more accurately, failed to work.
    But here is the thing. Frederick Douglass also told us that 
``if there is no struggle, there is no progress.'' He went on 
to say: ``Power concedes nothing without a demand.'' And he 
said: ``It never did, and it never will.''
    In order to wrestle power away from the few people at the 
very top who abuse their power, the American people are going 
to have to fight for the voice of the people and the power of 
the people. We must go into the darkness to shine a light, and 
we cannot be deterred, and we cannot be overwhelmed, and we 
cannot ever give up on our country.
    We cannot ever give up on the ideals that are the 
foundation for our system of democracy. We can never give up on 
the meaning of true justice. And it is part of our history, our 
past, clearly, our present, and our future that, in order to 
make these values real, in order to make the promise of our 
country real, we can never take it for granted.
    There will be moments in time, in history, where we 
experience incredible disappointment, but the greatest 
disappointment of all will be if we give up. We cannot ever 
give up fighting for who we know we are, and we must always see 
who we can be, unburdened by who we have been. That is the 
strength of our Nation.
    So, after the Senate votes today, Donald Trump will want 
the American people to feel cynical. He will want us not to 
care. He will want us to think that he is all powerful and we 
have no power, but we are not going to let him get away with 
that.
    We are not going to give him what he wants because the true 
power and potential of the United States of America resides not 
with the President but with the people--all the people.
    So, in our long struggle for justice, I will do my part by 
voting to convict this lawless President and remove him from 
office, and I urge my colleagues to join me on the right side 
of history.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 5, 2020]

               Statement of Senator Margaret Wood Hassan

    Ms. HASSAN. Mr. President, considering whether to convict a 
President of the United States on Articles of Impeachment is a 
solemn and consequential duty, and I do not take it lightly. 
Even before we had a country, our Founders put forward the 
notion of ``country first,'' pledging in the Declaration of 
Independence their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor--a pledge 
they made to an idea, imagining and hoping for a country where 
no one was above the law, where no one had absolute power.
    My dad, a World War II veteran, and my mom raised me to 
understand that this is what made our country the unique and 
indispensable democracy that it is.
    My obligation throughout this process has been to listen 
carefully to the case that the House managers put forward and 
the defenses asserted by the President's lawyers and then to 
carefully consider the constitutional basis for impeachment, 
the intent of our Founders, and the facts.
    That is what I have done over the past few days. The Senate 
heard extensive presentations from both sides and answers to 
the almost 200 questions that Senators posed to the House 
managers and the President's advocates.
    The facts clearly showed that President Trump abused the 
public's sacred trust by using taxpayer dollars to extort a 
foreign government into providing misinformation about a feared 
political opponent.
    Let me repeat that. The President of the United States used 
taxpayer money that had been authorized, obligated, and cleared 
for delivery as critical military aid to Ukraine to try to 
force that country to interfere in our elections. He violated 
the law and the public trust. And he put our national security 
and the lives of the Ukrainian soldiers on the frontlines of 
Russian aggression at risk.
    Although the country was alerted to the possibility that 
the President had crossed a critical line because of 
revelations about his now-infamous July 25 phone call, it is 
not the phone call alone that led to the President's 
impeachment. Instead, the phone call was a pivotal point in a 
scheme that had started earlier, spearheaded by President 
Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani.
    Mr. Giuliani has acknowledged that he was doing the 
President's personal and political bidding when he engaged with 
the Ukrainian Government.
    As the newly elected anti-corruption Ukrainian Government 
came into power, in need of recognition and support from the 
United States, President Trump forced officials from Ukraine 
and the United States to negotiate through Mr. Giuliani, 
conflating his personal and political interests with the 
national security and diplomatic interests of our country.
    And then, as President Zelensky resisted the request that 
he concoct and announce a fake investigation into the Bidens, 
the President and Mr. Giuliani increased the pressure. 
Suddenly, and without explanation or a legally required 
notification to Congress, the President ordered that previously 
approved and critically needed military aid to Ukraine be held 
up.
    Mr. Trump, at first through Mr. Giuliani, and then 
directly, solicited interference with an American election from 
a foreign government. And he ordered others in his 
administration to work with Mr. Giuliani to ensure this 
scheme's success.
    While there is still more evidence that the Senate should 
have subpoenaed both witnesses and documents that would have 
given us a more complete understanding of what happened, we 
know as much as we do because of the courage and strength of 
American patriots who put country before self--patriots like 
the intelligence community whistleblower, who was followed by 
Army Lieutenant Colonel Vindman and former U.S. Ambassadors to 
Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch and William Taylor, as well as 
current members of the administration.
    These Americans who came forward were doing exactly what we 
always ask of citizens: If you see something wrong, you need to 
speak up; ``See something, say something.'' It is a fundamental 
part of citizenship to alert each other to danger, to act for 
the greater good, to care about each other and our country 
without regard to political party.
    When Americans step forward, sometimes at real risk to 
themselves, they rightly expect that their government will take 
the information they provide and act to make them safer, to 
protect their fundamental rights. That is the understanding 
between the American people and their representative 
government.
    While the brave women and men who appeared before the House 
did their jobs, the Senate, under this majority, has 
unfortunately not. Rather than gathering full, relevant 
testimony under oath and with the benefit of cross-examination, 
the Senate majority has apparently decided that despite what it 
has heard, it is not interested in learning more; not 
interested in learning more about how a President, his personal 
agent, and members of his administration corrupted our foreign 
policy and put our Nation's security at risk; not interested in 
learning more about how they planned to use the power of his 
office to tilt the scales of the next election to ensure that 
he stays in power; not interested in learning more about how 
they worked to cover it up.
    Increasingly, over the last few days, the President's 
defense team and more and more of my colleagues in the Senate 
have acknowledged the facts of the President's scheme. Their 
argument has shifted from ``He didn't do it'' to ``He had a 
right to,'' to ``He won't do it again,'' or even ``It doesn't 
really matter.''
    I disagree so strongly.
    The idea that in our country, established by the very 
rejection of a monarchy, the President has absolute power is 
absurd, as is the idea that this President, whose conduct is 
ultimately the cause of this entire process, will suddenly 
stop. President Trump continues to invite foreign powers to 
interfere with our elections, maintaining to this day that ``it 
was a perfect call.''
    Our Founders knew that all people, all leaders, are 
fallible human beings. And they knew that our system of checks 
and balances could survive some level of human frailty, even in 
as important an office as the Presidency.
    The one thing that they feared it could not survive was a 
President who would put self-interest before the interests of 
the American people or who didn't understand the difference 
between the two. As citizen-in-chief, and one wielding enormous 
power, Presidents must put country first.
    Our Founders knew that we needed a mechanism to hold 
Presidents accountable for behavior that violated that basic 
understanding and that would threaten our democracy. And they 
provided a mechanism for removal outside of the election 
process because of the immense damage a President could do in 
the time between elections--damage, in the case of this 
President's continuing behavior, to our national security and 
election integrity.
    Our Founders believed that they were establishing a country 
that would be unique in the history of humankind, a country 
that would be indispensable, built on the rule of law, not the 
whims of a ruler. Generation after generation of Americans have 
fought for that vision because of what it has meant to our 
individual and collective success and to the progress of 
humankind worldwide.
    That is the America that I have sworn an oath to protect. I 
will vote in favor of both Articles of Impeachment because the 
President's conduct requires it, Congress's responsibility as a 
coequal branch of government requires it, and the very 
foundation and security of our American idea requires it.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 5, 2020]

                    Statement of Senator Doug Jones

    Mr. JONES. Mr. President, on the day I was sworn in as a 
United States Senator, I took an oath to protect and defend the 
Constitution. Just last month, at the beginning of the 
impeachment trial, I took a second oath to do fair and 
impartial justice, according to the same Constitution I swore 
to protect.
    As I took the oath and throughout the impeachment trial, I 
couldn't help but think of my father. As many of you know, I 
lost my dad over the holiday recess. While so many were arguing 
over whether or not the Speaker of the House should send 
Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, I was struggling with 
watching him slip away, while only occasionally trying to weigh 
in with my voice to be heard about the need for witnesses in 
the upcoming impeachment trial. My dad was a great man, a 
loving husband, father, grandfather, and great-grandfather who 
did his best to instill in me the values of right and wrong as 
I grew up in Fairfield, AL. He was also a fierce patriot who 
loved this country. Although, fortunately, he was never called 
on to do so, I firmly believe he would have placed his country 
even above his family because he knew and understood fully what 
America and the freedoms and liberties that come with her mean 
to everyone in this great country and, significantly, to people 
around the world.
    I know he would have put his country before any allegiance 
to any political party or even to any President. He was on the 
younger side of that ``greatest generation'' who joined the 
Navy at age 17 to serve our great military. That service and 
love of country shaped him into the man of principle that he 
was, instilling in me those same principles. In thinking of 
him, his patriotism, his principles, and how he raised me, I am 
reminded of Robert Kennedy's words that were mentioned in this 
trial:

    Few men are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the 
censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage 
is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet 
it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change a 
world that yields most painfully to change.

    Candidly, to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I 
fear that moral courage, country before party is a rare 
commodity these days. We can write about it and talk about it 
in speeches and in the media, but it is harder to put into 
action when political careers may be on the line. Nowhere is 
the dilemma more difficult than in an impeachment of the 
President of the United States. Very early on in this process, 
I implored my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, in both 
Houses of Congress, to stay out of their political and partisan 
corners. Many did, but so many did not. Even the media 
continually view this entire process through partisan, 
political eyes and how it may or may not affect an election. 
That is unfortunate. The country deserves better, and we must 
find a way to move beyond such partisan divides.
    The solemn oaths that I have taken have been my guides 
during what has been a difficult time for the country, my 
State, and for me personally. I did not run for the Senate 
hoping to participate in the impeachment trial of a duly 
elected President, but I cannot and will not shrink from my 
duty to defend the Constitution and to do impartial justice.
    In keeping with my oath as Senator and my oath to do 
impartial justice, I resolved that throughout this process, I 
would keep an open mind, to consider the evidence without 
regard to political affiliation, and to hear all of the 
evidence before making a final decision on either charge 
against the President. I believe that my votes later today will 
reflect that commitment.
    With the eyes of history upon us, I am acutely aware of the 
precedents that this impeachment trial will set for future 
Presidencies and Congresses. Unfortunately, I do not believe 
that those precedents are good ones. I am particularly 
concerned that we have now set a precedent that the Senate does 
not have to go forward with witnesses or review documents, even 
when those witnesses have firsthand information and the 
documents would allow us to test not just the credibility of 
witnesses but also test the words of counsel of both parties.
    It is my firm belief that the American people deserve more. 
In short, witnesses and documents would provide the Senate and 
the American people with a more complete picture of the truth. 
I believe the American people deserve nothing less.
    That is not to say, however, that there is not sufficient 
evidence in which to render a judgment. There is. As a trial 
lawyer, I once explained this process to a jury as like putting 
together the pieces of a puzzle. When you open the box and 
spread all the pieces on the table, it is just an incoherent 
jumble. But one by one, you hold those pieces up, and you hold 
them next to each other and see what fits and what doesn't. 
Even if, as was often the case in my house growing up, you are 
missing a few pieces--even important ones--you more often than 
not see the picture.
    As I have said many times, I believe the American people 
deserve to see a completed puzzle, a picture with all of the 
pieces--pieces in the form of documents and witnesses with 
relevant, firsthand information, which would have provided 
valuable context, corroboration, or contradiction to that which 
we have heard. But even with missing pieces, our common sense 
and life's experiences allow us to see the picture as it comes 
into full view.
    Throughout the trial, one piece of evidence continued to 
stand out for me. It was the President's statement that under 
the Constitution, ``we have Article II, and I can do anything I 
want.'' That seems to capture this President's belief about the 
Presidency; that he has unbridled power, unchecked by Congress 
or the Judiciary or anyone else. That view, dangerous as it is, 
explains the President's actions toward Ukraine and Congress.
    The sum of what we have seen and heard is, unfortunately, a 
picture of a President who has abused the great power of his 
office for personal gain--a picture of a President who has 
placed his personal interest well above the interests of the 
Nation and, in so doing, threatened our national security, the 
security of our European allies, and the security of Ukraine. 
The evidence clearly proves that the President used the weight 
of his office and the weight of the U.S. Government to seek to 
coerce a foreign government to interfere in our election for 
his personal political benefit. His actions were more than 
simply inappropriate; they were an abuse of power.
    When I was a lawyer for the Alabama Judicial Inquiry 
Commission, there was a saying that the chairman of the inquiry 
commission and one of Alabama's great judges, Randall Cole, 
used to say about judges who strayed from the canons of ethics. 
He would say that the judge ``left his post.''
    Sadly, President Trump left his post with regard to the 
withholding of military aid to Ukraine and a White House visit 
for the new Ukrainian President, and in so doing, he took the 
great powers of the Office of the President of the United 
States with him. Impeachment is the only check on such 
Presidential wrongdoing.
    The second article of impeachment, obstruction of Congress, 
gave me more pause. I have struggled to understand the House's 
strategy in their failure to fully pursue documents and 
witnesses and wished that they had done more. However, after 
careful consideration of the evidence developed in the 
hearings, the public disclosures, the legal precedents, and the 
trial, I believe that the President deliberately and 
unconstitutionally obstructed Congress by refusing to cooperate 
with the investigation in any way. While I am sensitive to 
protecting the privileges and immunities afforded to the 
President and his advisers, I believe it is critical to our 
constitutional structure that we also protect the authorities 
of the Congress of the United States. Here it was clear from 
the outset that the President had no intention whatsoever of 
accommodating Congress when he blocked both witnesses and 
documents from being produced. In addition, he engaged in a 
course of conduct to threaten potential witnesses and smear the 
reputations of the civil servants who did come forward and 
provide testimony.
    The President's actions demonstrate a belief that he is 
above the law, that Congress has no power whatsoever in 
questioning or examining his actions, and that all who do so, 
do so at their peril. That belief, unprecedented in the history 
of this country, simply must not be permitted to stand. To do 
otherwise risks guaranteeing that no future whistleblower or 
witness will ever come forward, and no future President, 
Republican or Democrat, will be subject to congressional 
oversight as mandated by the Constitution even when the 
President has so clearly abused his office and violated the 
public trust.
    Accordingly, I will vote to convict the President on both 
Articles of Impeachment. In doing so, I am mindful that in a 
democracy there is nothing more sacred than the right to vote 
and respecting the will of the people. But I am also mindful 
that when our Founders wrote the Constitution, they envisioned 
a time or at least a possibility that our democracy would be 
more damaged if we fail to impeach and remove a President. Such 
is the moment in history that we face today.
    The gravity of this moment, the seriousness of the charges, 
and the implication for future Presidencies and Congress have 
all contributed to the difficulty at which I arrived at my 
decision.
    I am mindful that I am standing at a desk that once was 
used by John F. Kennedy, who famously wrote ``Profiles in 
Courage,'' and there will be so many who simply look at what I 
am doing today and say that it is a profile in courage. It is 
not. It is simply a matter of right and wrong, where doing 
right is not a courageous act; it is simply following your 
oath.
    This has been a divisive time for our country, but I think 
it has nonetheless been an important constitutional process for 
us to follow. As this chapter of history draws to a close, one 
thing is clear to me. As I have said before, our country 
deserves better than this. They deserve better from the 
President, and they deserve better from the Congress. We must 
find a way to come together, to set aside partisan differences, 
and to focus on what we have in common as Americans.
    While so much is going in our favor these days, we still 
face great challenges, both domestically and internationally. 
But it remains my firm belief that united we can conquer them 
and remain the greatest hope for the people around the world.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 5, 2020]

                     Statement of Senator Jack Reed

    Mr. REED. Mr. President, today the Senate is called upon to 
uphold our oath of office and our duty to the Constitution 
because President Trump failed to do so himself.
    After listening closely to the impeachment managers and the 
President's defense team, weighing the evidence that was 
presented to us, and being denied the opportunity to see 
relevant documents and hear from firsthand witnesses, I will 
vote to find President Trump guilty on both Articles of 
Impeachment.
    I take no pleasure in voting to impeach a President and 
remove him from office. I agree with those who say that 
impeachment should be rare and American voters should decide 
our elections. That is why it is so galling that President 
Trump blatantly solicited foreign interference in our 
democratic process. And he did it as he geared up for 
reelection.
    The evidence shows President Trump deliberately and 
illicitly sought foreign help to manufacture a scandal that 
would elevate him by tarnishing a political rival.
    He attempted to undermine our democracy, using U.S. 
taxpayer money in the form of U.S. military aid for Ukraine as 
leverage for his own personal benefit. The President's aides 
who heard President Trump's call seeking ``a favor'' from the 
Ukrainian President immediately sensed it was wrong. So when 
they alerted the White House lawyers, the record of the call 
was immediately placed on a highly classified computer system. 
And despite the President claiming that the version of the call 
that was publicly released ``is an exact word-for-word 
transcript of the conversation,'' we know from testimony that 
there are key omissions in the document we all read.
    Compounding the President's misconduct, he then engaged in 
an extended cover up that appears to be ongoing to this day.
    There is a lot to unravel here, and I will provide a more 
detailed legal explanation in the near future. But for now, let 
me briefly explain my decision and outline my thoughts on the 
Senate's impeachment proceedings and the disturbing precedents 
I fear will be set when the majority chooses to side with the 
President over the Constitution's checks and balances.
    The House of Representatives voted to impeach the President 
for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Based on the 
uncontested evidence, I concur.
    It is clear that President Trump and others, such as Mr. 
Giuliani, who was serving as the President's lawyer, attempted 
to coerce the newly elected President of Ukraine to announce 
two sham investigations, including one that sought to directly 
damage President Trump's rival in the upcoming election. The 
President's actions served his personal and political needs, 
not those of our country. His efforts to withhold military aid 
to Ukraine for his own personal benefit undermined our national 
security.
    The second article of impeachment charges the President 
with obstruction of Congress for blocking testimony and 
refusing to provide documents in response to House subpoenas in 
the impeachment inquiry. Again, the House managers produced 
overwhelming evidence of the President's obstruction and his 
efforts to cover up his malfeasance.
    The President's counsel offered a number of unpersuasive 
arguments against this article, which fail to overcome the 
following: first, that the legislative branch has sole power 
over impeachment under the Constitution. That could not be more 
clear; second, past precedents of prior administrations and 
court rulings; and third, the blatant October 8 letter 
expressing a complete rejection of the House's impeachment 
proceedings.
    The Constitution grants the executive branch significant 
power, but as every student in America learns, our system is 
one of checks and balances so that no branch is entirely 
unfettered from oversight and the law.
    President Trump would have us believe this system of checks 
and balances is wrong. In President Trump's own words, he 
expressed the misguided imperial belief in the supremacy of his 
unchecked power, stating: ``I have an Article II, where I have 
the right to do whatever I want as President.''
    Couple this sentiment with his January 2016 boast that: ``I 
could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody 
and I wouldn't lose voters.'' That paints a chilling picture of 
someone who clearly believes, incorrectly, that he is above the 
law. The President's attorneys have hewn to this line of faulty 
reasoning and, in one notably preposterous effort, even claimed 
the President could avoid impeachment for an inappropriate 
action motivated entirely by his own political and personal 
interests.
    The President's defense also failed to sufficiently 
demonstrate that the President's blanket defiance of subpoenas 
and document requests overcomes the precedents established in 
prior impeachment proceedings and the record of congressional 
oversight of the executive branch.
    In the Clinton impeachment, there was an enormous amount of 
documentary evidence, as well as sworn depositions and 
testimony by the President and his closest advisers.
    In the cases of United States v. Nixon, House Judiciary 
Committee v. Miers, and others, the House managers rightly 
point out that the courts have held ``Congress's power to 
investigate is as broad as its power to legislate and lies at 
the heart of Congress's constitutional role.''
    While President Trump's impeachment lawyers claim the House 
should take the President to court over these previously 
settled issues, President Trump's lawyers at the Justice 
Department are simultaneously arguing in the courts that the 
judicial branch cannot even rule on such matters.
    As President Trump staked out new, expansive, and 
aggressive positions about executive privilege, immunity, and 
the limits of Congress's oversight authority, Republican 
leaders went along with it.
    I have heard a variety of explanations for why my 
Republican colleagues voted against witnesses. But no one has 
offered the simplest explanation: My Republican colleagues did 
not want to hear new evidence because they have a hunch it 
would be really, really bad for this President. It would 
further expose the depth of his wrongdoing. And it would make 
it harder for them to vote to acquit.
    My colleagues on the other side of the aisle did not ask to 
be put in this position. President Trump's misconduct forced it 
on them. But in the partisan rush to spare President Trump from 
having his staff and former staff publicly testify against him 
under oath, a bar has been lowered, a constitutional guardrail 
has been removed, the Senate has been voluntarily weakened, and 
our oversight powers severely diminished.
    This short-term maneuver to shield President Trump from the 
truth is a severe blow against good government that will do 
lasting damage to this institution and our democracy. I hope 
one day the damage can be repaired.
    The arc of history is indeed long, and it does bend toward 
justice--but not today. Today, the Senate and the American 
people have been denied access to relevant, available evidence 
and firsthand witnesses. We have been prohibited from 
considering new, material information that became available 
after the House's impeachment vote.
    The Constitution is our national compass. But at this 
critical moment, clouded by the fog of President Trump's 
misconduct, the Senate majority has lost its way, and is no 
longer guided by the Constitution. In order to regain our moral 
bearings, stay true to our core values, and navigate a better 
path forward, we must hold President Trump accountable.
    The President was wrong to invite foreign interference in 
our democracy. He was wrong to try and stonewall the 
investigation. And he is wrong if he thinks he is above the 
law.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 5, 2020]

                  Statement of Senator Tammy Duckworth

    Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, from the first words in the 
Constitution, the weight that lies on every American's 
shoulders has been clear: We the people are the ones who 
dreamed up this wild experiment that we call America, and we 
the people are the ones charged with ensuring its survival.
    That is the tension--the push and the pull--behind our 
democracy because, while there is no greater privilege than 
living in a country whose Constitution guarantees our rights, 
there is no greater burden than knowing that our actions could 
sap that very same Constitution of its power; that our inaction 
risks allowing it to wither like any other piece of parchment 
from some bygone era.
    For the past few weeks, it has been my sworn duty as a U.S. 
Senator to sit as an impartial juror in the impeachment trial 
of Donald J. Trump. While I wish the President had not put our 
Nation in this position, after having listened closely with an 
open mind to both sides, it is now my duty as an American to 
vote on whether to remove him from office. Other than sending 
our troops into harm's way, I cannot think of a more serious, 
more somber vote to take in this Chamber, but as sobering as it 
is, the right path forward is clear.
    Throughout this trial, we have seen unprecedented 
obstruction from the Trump administration--obstruction so 
flagrant that it makes Nixon, when in the thick of Watergate, 
look like the model of transparency. Yet the facts uncovered 
still prove the truth of the matter: Trump abused his power 
when he secretly withheld security aid and a White House 
meeting to try to force Ukraine to announce investigations into 
a political rival in order to help him swing November's 
election. He put his political self-interest ahead of our 
national security. He smeared the name of an American 
Ambassador, even seemingly risking her safety because she was 
simply too principled to further his corruption, because she 
was too clean to help him strong-arm Ukraine into that favor he 
demanded.
    When the reports first emerged about what he had done, he 
denied it. Then his explanation changed to: Well, maybe I did 
do it, but it was only because I was trying to root out 
corruption.
    If that were true, there would be some documentary record 
to prove that, and we have seen absolutely none, even after I 
asked for it during the questioning period.
    Now his defense team has gone so far as to claim that, 
well, it doesn't matter if he did it because he is the 
President and the President can do anything he wants if it will 
help him get reelected. Breathtaking. To put it another way, 
when he got caught, he lied. Then, when that lie was found out, 
he lied again, then again, then again.
    Along the way, his own defense counsel could not papier-
mache together even the most basic argument to actually 
exonerate him. The best case they could muster boiled down to: 
When the President does it, it is not illegal. Nixon already 
tried that defense. It did not work then, and it does not work 
now because--here is the thing--in America, we believe not in 
rulers but in the rule of law.
    Through all we have seen over the past few months, the 
truth has never changed. It is what National Security Council 
officials and decades-long diplomats testified to under oath. 
It is what foreign policy experts and Trump administration 
staffers--and, yes, an American warrior with a Purple Heart--
have raised their right hands to tell us, time after time, 
since the House hearings had begun.
    Even some of my Republican colleagues have admitted that 
Trump ``cross[ed] a line.'' Some said it as recently as this 
weekend, but many more said months ago that, if Trump did do 
what he is accused of, then it would, indeed, be wrong. Well, 
it is now obvious that those allegations were true, and it is 
pretty clear that Trump's defense team knows that also. If they 
actually believe Trump did nothing wrong--that his call was 
``perfect''--then why would they fight so hard to block the 
witnesses and the documents from coming to light that could 
exonerate him? The only reason they would have done so is if 
they had known that he was guilty. The only reason for one to 
vote to acquit Trump today is if one is OK with his trying to 
cover it up.
    Now, I know that some folks have been saying that we should 
acquit him--that we should ignore our constitutional duty and 
leave him in office--because we are in an election year and 
that the voters should decide his fate. That is an argument 
that rings hollow because this trial was about Trump's trying 
to cheat in the next election and rob the voters of their 
ability to decide. Any action other than voting to remove him 
would give him the license and the power to keep tampering with 
that race, to keep trying to turn that election into as much of 
a sham as an impeachment trial without witnesses.
    You know, I spent 23 years in the military, and one of the 
most critical lessons anyone who serves learns is of the damage 
that can be done when troops don't oppose illegal orders, when 
fealty becomes blind and ignorance becomes intentional. Just as 
it is the duty of military officers to oppose unlawful orders, 
it is the responsibility of public servants to hold those in 
power accountable.
    Former NSC official Fiona Hill understood that when she 
testified before Congress because she knew that politics must 
never eclipse national security.
    Ambassador Bill Taylor understood that as well. The veteran 
who has served in every administration since Reagan's answered 
the question that is at the heart of the impeachment inquiry. 
He said under oath that, yes, there was a ``clear 
understanding'' of a quid pro quo--exactly the sort of abuse of 
power no President should be allowed to get away with.
    LTC Alexander Vindman--the Purple Heart recipient who 
dedicated decades of his life to our Armed Forces--understood 
the lessons of the past, too, in his saying that, here in 
America, right matters.
    My colleagues in this Chamber who have attacked Lieutenant 
Colonel Vindman or who have provided a platform for others to 
tear him down just for his doing what he believes is right 
should be ashamed of themselves.
    We should all be aware of the example we set and always 
seek to elevate the national discourse. We should be thoughtful 
about our own conduct both in terms of respecting the rule of 
law and the sacrifices our troops make to keep us safe because, 
at the end of the day, our Constitution is really just a set of 
rules on some pieces of paper. It is only as strong as our will 
to uphold its ideals and hold up the scales of justice.
    So I am asking each of us today to muster up just an ounce 
of the courage shown by Fiona Hill, Ambassador Taylor, and 
Lieutenant Colonel Vindman. When our names are called from the 
dais in a few hours, each of us will either pass or fail the 
most elementary, yet most important, test any elected official 
will ever take--whether to put country over party or party over 
country.
    It may be a politically difficult vote for some of us, but 
it should not be a morally difficult vote for any of us 
because, while I know that voting to acquit would make the 
lives of some of my colleagues simpler come election day, I 
also know that America would have never been born if the heroes 
of centuries past made decisions based on political expediency.
    It would have been easier to have kept bowing down to King 
George III than to have pushed 342 chests of tea into the 
Boston Harbor, and it would have been easier to have kept 
paying taxes to the Crown than to have waged a revolution. Yet 
those patriots knew the importance of rejecting what was easy 
if it were in conflict with what was right. They knew that the 
courage of just a few could change history.
    So, when it is time to vote this afternoon, we cannot think 
of political convenience. If we say abuse of power doesn't 
warrant removal from office today, we will be paving the way 
for future Presidents to do even worse tomorrow--to keep 
breaking the law and to keep endangering our country--one 
``perfect'' call, one ``favor,'' one high crime and misdemeanor 
at a time.
    Time and again, over these past few months, we have heard 
one story about our Founders, perhaps, more than any other. It 
was the time when Benjamin Franklin walked out of Independence 
Hall after the Constitutional Convention and someone asked: 
``What have we got--a republic or a monarchy?''
    We all know what he said: ``A Republic if you can keep 
it.''
    Keeping it may very well come down to the 100 of us in this 
very Chamber. We are the ones the Constitution vests with the 
power to hold the President accountable, and through our 
actions, we are the ones who vest the Constitution with its 
power.
    In this moment, let's think not just of today but of 
tomorrow too. In this moment, let's remember that, here, right 
matters; truth matters. The truth is that Donald Trump is 
guilty of these Articles of Impeachment. I will vote to do the 
right thing, and I hope my colleagues will as well. For the 
sake of tomorrow and the tomorrow after that, we must.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 5, 2020]

                     Statement of Senator Roy Blunt

    Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, later today I will vote to acquit 
the President on the charges of the two Articles of 
Impeachment. A not-guilty verdict, as every Senator on this 
floor has known for some time, was always what would happen in 
a House-driven, partisan impeachment process.
    Less than a year ago, the Speaker of the House said that we 
should not go through this process unless something was 
compelling, unless something was overwhelming, unless something 
was bipartisan. I think the Speaker was exactly right then, and 
I hope all future Speakers look at that guidance as we think 
about this process of impeachment.
    In the first 180 years of the Constitution, individual 
Members talked about impeachment of Presidents--maybe of almost 
every President--but the Congress only seriously touched this 
topic one time--one time in 180 years.
    In the last 46 years, Presidential impeachment has been 
before the country three times, and each case has been less 
compelling than the one before it. We don't want partisan 
impeachment to become an exercise that happens when one party--
not the party of the President--happens to have a majority of 
the votes in the House of Representatives.
    Impeachment is fundamentally a political process. The 
Members of the Senate meet no standards for a regular jury. The 
jury can override the judge. Two-thirds of the Senate is 
necessary to remove the President. We really have no better 
term in the Constitution, I suppose, to use than ``trial,'' but 
in any classic sense, this isn't a trial. In any classic sense, 
a partisan impeachment isn't any kind of a real indictment.
    Maybe, first and foremost, the House has to do its job. 
Part of that job would be to create a case that would produce a 
bipartisan vote on the articles in the House. If you haven't 
met that standard--going back to the Speaker's standard--you 
should work on the case some more and then wonder, if you can't 
meet the standard, what is wrong with the process you are going 
through. Part of that job is to do everything necessary to have 
Articles of Impeachment that are compelling and complete.
    The House has time available to it to consider impeachment 
as they go about their essential work. They can continue to do 
the work of the Congress. They have weeks, months, if they 
choose to have, even maybe years to put a case together. They 
can call witnesses. They can go to court to seek testimony. 
They can determine if this is an impeachment question or just 
an oversight question.
    The House can do lots of things, but once the Senate gets 
the Articles of Presidential Impeachment, they become for the 
Senate an absolute priority. Both our rules and reality mean we 
cannot do anything else, realistically, until we are done 
dealing with the case the House sent over.
    That was fundamentally what was so wrong with the House 
sending over a case that they said needed more work. If it 
needed more work, it should have had more work.
    You can be for strong review of the Executive. You can be 
for strong congressional oversight and still support the idea 
of Executive privilege. The President has the right to 
unfettered advice and to know all the options. In fact, I think 
when you pierce that right, you begin to have advisers who may 
not want to give all the options to the President because it 
might appear they were for all the options. But the President's 
advisers need to see that the President understands all the 
options and implications of a decision.
    The President, by the way--another topic that came up here 
several times--the President determines executive policy. The 
staff, the assistants, and whoever else works in the executive 
branch doesn't determine executive policy; the President 
determines executive policy. The staff can put all the notes in 
front of the President they want to, but it is the President's 
decision what the policy of the administration will be. Sharing 
that decision with the Congress, sharing how he got to that 
point--or later, she got to that point--with that decision is a 
negotiated balance.
    Congress says: We want to know this.
    The President says: No. I need to have some ability for 
people to give me advice that isn't all available for the 
Congress.
    So this is balanced out, and if that can't happen, if that 
balance can't be achieved, the judiciary decides what the 
balance is. The judiciary decides a question and says: You 
really must talk to the Congress about this, but you don't have 
to talk to them about the next sentence you said at that same 
meeting.
    That is the kind of balance that occurs.
    The idea repeatedly advanced by the House managers that the 
Senate, by majority vote, can decide these questions is both 
outrageous and dangerous.
    The idea that the government would balance itself is, 
frankly, the miracle of the Constitution. Nobody had ever 
proposed, until Philadelphia in 1787, one, that the basis for 
government was the people themselves, and two, you could have a 
government that was so finely balanced that it would operate 
and maintain itself over time.
    The House managers would really upend that balance. By 
being unwilling to take the time the House had to pursue the 
constitutional solution, they decided: We don't have to worry 
about the Constitution to have that solution.
    To charge that the President's assertion of article II 
rights that go back to Washington is one of the actual Articles 
of Impeachment, that is dangerous.
    The legislative branch cannot also be the judicial branch. 
The legislative branch can't also decide ``here is the 
balance'' if the executive and legislative branch are in a 
fight about what should be disclosed and what shouldn't. You 
can't continue to have the three balances of power in our 
government if one of the branches can decide what the 
legislative branch should decide.
    In their haste to put this case together, the House sent 
the Senate the two weakest Articles of Impeachment possible. 
Presidents since Washington have been accused by some Members 
of Congress of abuse of power. Presidents since Washington have 
been accused by some Members of Congress of failure to 
cooperate with the Congress.
    The House managers argued against their own case. They 
repeatedly contended that they had made their case completely, 
they had made their case totally, they had made their case 
incontrovertibly, but they wanted us to call witnesses they had 
chosen not to call. They said they had already been in court 9 
months to get the President's former White House Counsel to 
testify and weren't done yet, but somehow they thought the 
Senate could get that person and others in a matter of days.
    These arguments have been and should have been rejected by 
the Senate.
    Today, the Articles of Impeachment should be and will be 
rejected by the Senate. Based on the Speaker's March comments, 
these articles should have never been sent to the Senate. They 
were not compelling, they were not overwhelming, they were not 
bipartisan, and most importantly, they were not necessary.
    One of the lessons we send today is to this House and to 
future Houses of Representatives: Do your job. Take it 
seriously. Don't make it political.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 5, 2020]

                     Statement of Senator Mike Lee

    Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I have long maintained that most, 
if not all, of the most serious and vexing problems within our 
Federal Government can be traced to a deviation from the twin 
core structural protections of the Constitution.
    There are two of these protections--one that operates along 
a vertical axis; the other, a horizontal.
    The vertical protection we call federalism, which states a 
very simple fact: that in the American system of government, 
most power is to be reserved to the States respectively, or the 
people, where it is exercised at the State and local level. It 
is only those powers enumerated in the Constitution, either in 
article I, section 8 or elsewhere, that are made Federal, those 
things that the Founding Fathers appropriately deemed 
unavoidably, necessarily national or that we have otherwise 
rendered national through a subsequent constitutional 
amendment.
    As was the case when James Madison wrote Federalist No. 45, 
the powers reserved to the States are numerous and indefinite, 
while those that are given to the Congress to be exercised 
federally are few and defined--few and defined powers, the 
Federal Government; numerous and indefinite reserved for the 
States.
    The horizontal protection operates within the Federal 
Government itself, and it acknowledges that we have three 
coequal, independent branches within the Federal Government: 
one that makes the laws, one that executes the laws, and one 
that interprets the laws when people can't come to an agreement 
and have an active, live dispute as to the meaning of a 
particular law in a particular case or controversy.
    Sadly, we have drifted steadily, aggressively from both of 
these principles over the last 80 years. For roughly the first 
150 years of the founding of our Republic and of the operation 
of our constitutional structure, we adhered pretty closely to 
them, but over the last 80 years or so, we have drifted 
steadily. This has been a bipartisan problem. It was one that 
was created under the broad leadership of Republicans and 
Democrats alike and, in fact, in Senates and Houses of 
Representatives and White Houses of every conceivable partisan 
combination.
    We have essentially taken power away from the American 
people in two steps--first, by moving power from the State and 
local level and taking it to Washington, in violation of the 
vertical protection we call federalism; and then a second time, 
moving it away from the people's elected lawmakers in 
Washington to unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats placed 
within the executive branch of government but who are neither 
elected by the people nor accountable to anyone who is 
electable. Thus, they constitute essentially a fourth branch of 
government within our system, one that is not sanctioned or 
contemplated by the Constitution and doesn't really fit all 
that well within its framework.
    This has made the Federal Government bigger and more 
powerful. It has occurred in a way that has made people less 
powerful. It has made government in general and in particular, 
this government, the Federal Government, less responsive to the 
needs of the people. It has been fundamentally contrary to the 
way our system of government operates.
    What, one might ask, does any of this have to do with 
impeachment? Well, in my opinion, everything--or at least a 
lot. This distance that we have created in these two steps--
moving power from the people to Washington and within 
Washington, handing it to unelected lawmakers or unelected 
bureaucrats--has created an amount of anxiety among the 
American people. Not all of them necessarily recognize it in 
the same way that I do or describe it with the same words, but 
they know something is not right. They know it when their 
Federal Government requires them to work many months out of 
every year just to pay their Federal taxes, only to be told 
later that it is not enough and hasn't been enough for a long 
time since we have accumulated $22 to $23 trillion in debt, and 
when they come to understand that the Federal Government also 
imposes some $2 trillion in regulatory compliance costs on the 
American people.
    This harms the poor and middle class. It makes everything 
we buy more expensive. It results in diminished wages, 
unemployment, and underemployment. On some level, the American 
people feel this. They experience this. They understand it. It 
creates anxiety. It was that very anxiety that caused people to 
want to elect a different kind of leader in 2016, and they did. 
It was this set of circumstances that caused them to elect 
Donald J. Trump as the 45th President of the United States, and 
I am glad they did because he promised to change the way we do 
things here, and he has done that.
    But as someone who has focused intently on the need to 
reconnect the American people with their system of government, 
Donald Trump presents something of a serious threat to those 
who have occupied these positions of power, these individuals 
who, while hard-working, well-intentioned, well-educated, and 
highly specialized, occupy these positions of power within what 
we loosely refer to as the executive branch but is in reality 
an unelected, unaccountable fourth branch of government.
    He has bucked them on many, many levels and has infuriated 
them as he has done so, even as he is implementing the American 
people's wishes to close that gap between the people and the 
government that is supposed to serve them.
    He has bucked them on so many levels, declining to defer to 
the opinions of self-proclaimed government experts who claim 
that they know better than any of us on a number of levels.
    He pushed back on them, for example, when it comes to the 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act--or FISA, as it is 
sometimes described--when he insisted that FISA had been abused 
in efforts to undermine his candidacy and infringe on the 
rights of the American people. When he took that position, 
Washington bureaucrats predictably mocked him, but he turned 
out to be right.
    He called out the folly of engaging in endless nation-
building exercises as part of a two-decade-long war effort that 
has cost this country dearly in terms of American blood and 
treasure. Washington bureaucrats mocked him again, but he 
turned out to be right.
    He raised questions with how U.S. foreign aid is used and 
sometimes misused throughout the world, sometimes to the 
detriment of the American people and the very interests that 
such aid was created to alleviate. Washington bureaucrats 
mocked him, but he turned out to be right.
    President Trump asked Ukraine to investigate a Ukrainian 
energy company, Burisma. He momentarily paused U.S. aid to 
Ukraine while seeking a commitment from the then newly elected 
Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky, regarding that effort. 
He wanted to make sure that he could trust this recently 
elected President Zelensky before sending him the aid. Within a 
few weeks, his concerns were satisfied, and he released the 
aid. Pausing briefly before doing so isn't criminal. It 
certainly isn't impeachable. It is not even wrong.
    Quite to the contrary, this is exactly the sort of thing 
the American people elected President Trump to do. He would and 
has decided to bring a different paradigm to Washington, one 
that analyzes things from how the American citizenry views the 
American Government.
    This has in some respects, therefore, been a trial of the 
Washington, DC, establishment itself but not necessarily in the 
way the House managers apparently intended. While the House 
managers repeatedly invoked constitutional principles, 
including separation of powers, their arguments have tended to 
prove the point opposite of the one they intended.
    Yes, we badly need to restore and protect both federalism 
and separation of power, and it is my view that the deviation 
from one contributes to the deviation from the other. But here, 
in order to do that, we have to respect the three branches of 
government for what they are, who leads them, how they operate, 
and who is accountable to whom.
    For them to view President Trump as somehow subservient to 
the career civil servant bureaucratic class that has tended to 
manage agencies within the Federal Government, including the 
National Security Council, the Department of Defense, the 
Office of Management and Budget, individuals in the White 
House, and individuals within the State Department, among 
others, is not only mischaracterizing this problem, it helps 
identify the precise source of this problem.
    Many of these people, including some of the witnesses we 
have heard from in this trial, have mistakenly taken the 
conclusion that because President Trump took a conclusion 
different from that offered by the so-called interagency 
process, that that amounted to a constitutionally impeachable 
act. It did not. It did nothing of the sort.
    Quite to the contrary, when you actually look at the 
Constitution itself, it makes clear that the President has the 
power to do what he did here. The very first section of article 
II of the Constitution--this is the part of the Constitution 
that outlines the President's authority--makes clear that 
``[t]he executive Power [of the United States Government] shall 
be vested in the President of the United States.''
    It is important to remember that there are exactly two 
Federal officials who were elected within the executive branch 
of government. One is the Vice President, and the other is the 
President.
    The Vice President's duties, I would add, are relatively 
limited. Constitutionally speaking, the Vice President is the 
President of the Senate and thus performs a quasi-legislative 
role, but the Vice President's executive branch duties are 
entirely bound up with those of the President's. They consist 
of aiding and assisting the President as the President may deem 
necessary and standing ready to step into the position of the 
Presidency should it become necessary as a result of 
disability, incapacitation, or death. Barring that, the entire 
executive branch authority is bound up within the Presidency 
itself. The President is the executive branch of government, 
just as the Justices who sit across the street themselves 
amount to the capstone of the judicial branch, just as 100 
Senators and 435 Representatives are the legislative branch.
    The President is the executive branch. As such, it is his 
prerogative, within the confines of what the law allows and 
authorizes and otherwise provides, to decide how to execute 
that. It is not only not incompatible with that system of 
government, it is entirely consistent with it--indeed, 
authorized by it.
    A President should be able to say: Look, we have a newly 
elected President in Ukraine.
    We have longstanding allegations of corruption within 
Ukraine. Those allegations have been well-founded in Ukraine. 
No one disputes that corruption is rampant in Ukraine.
    A newly elected President comes in. This President or any 
President in the future decides: Hey, we are giving a lot of 
aid to this country--$391 million for the year in question. I 
want to make sure that I understand how that President 
operates. I want to establish a relationship of trust before 
taking a step further with that President. So I am going to 
take my time a little bit. I am going to wait maybe a few weeks 
in order to make sure we are on a sure footing there.
    He did that. There is nothing wrong with that.
    What is the response from the House managers? Well, it gets 
back to that interagency process, as if people whom the 
American people don't know or have reason to know because those 
people don't stand accountable to the people--they are not 
elected by the people; they are not really accountable to 
anyone who is in turn elected by the people--the fact that 
those people involved in the interagency process might disagree 
with a foreign policy decision made by the President of the 
United States and the fact that this President of the United 
States might take a different approach than his predecessor or 
predecessors does not make this President's decisions criminal. 
It certainly doesn't make them impeachable. It doesn't even 
make them wrong.
    In the eyes of many and I believe most Americans--they want 
a President to be careful about how the United States spends 
money. They want the United States to stop and reconsider from 
time to time the fact that we spend a lot of money throughout 
the world on countries that are not the United States. We want 
a President of the United States to be able to exercise a 
little bit of discretion in pushing pause before that President 
knows whether he can trust a newly elected government in the 
country in question.
    So to suggest here that our commitment to the Constitution; 
to suggest here, as the House managers have, that our respect 
for the separation of powers within the constitutional 
framework somehow demands that we remove the duly elected 
President of the United States is simply wrong. It is elevating 
to a status completely foreign to our constitutional structure 
an entity that the Constitution does not name. It elevates a 
policy dispute to a question of high crimes and misdemeanors. 
Those two are not the same thing.
    At the end of the day, this government does, in fact, stand 
accountable to the people. This government is of, by, and for 
the people. We cannot remove the 45th President of the United 
States for doing something that the law and the Constitution 
allow him to do without doing undue violence to that system of 
government to which every single one of us has sworn an oath.
    We have sworn to uphold and protect and defend that system 
of government. That means standing up for the American people 
and those they have elected to do a job recognized by the 
Constitution.
    I will be voting to defend this President's actions. I will 
be voting against undoing the vote taken by the American people 
some 3\1/2\ years ago. I will be voting for the principle of 
freedom and for the very principles that our Constitution was 
designed to protect.
    I urge all of my colleagues to reject these deeply 
factually and legally flawed Articles of Impeachment and to 
vote not guilty.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 5, 2020]

                   Statement of Senator Kevin Cramer

    Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, I rise today to officially 
declare that I will vote against both Articles of Impeachment 
brought against President Trump by the very partisan and, quite 
frankly, ridiculous House of Representatives. I know my 
position is hardly a surprise, but it is almost as unsurprising 
as the House impeaching the President, to begin with.
    Since the moment he was sworn into office, Democrats have 
schemed to remove Donald Trump from office. It is not my 
opinion. I take them at their word. Their fixation on his 
removal was a conclusion in search of a justification, which 
they manufactured from a phone conversation between world 
leaders leaked--leaked--by one of the many career bureaucrats 
who seem to have forgotten that they work for the elected 
leaders in this country, not the other way around.
    So the two Articles of Impeachment before this body today, 
in my view, are without merit. They are an affront, in fact, to 
this institution and to our Constitution, representing the very 
same partisan derangement that worried our Founding Fathers so 
much that they made the threshold for impeachment this high.
    The Senate exists exactly for moments like this. I didn't 
arrive at my conclusion to support acquittal hastily or 
flippantly, and I don't believe any of my colleagues did 
either, including those who come to a different conclusion from 
mine. Despite being sent such flawed Articles by the House, the 
Senate did in fact dutifully and solemnly follow its 
constitutional obligation. During the last days of the trial, 
we heard sworn testimony from 13 witnesses, read 17 
depositions, asked 180 questions, viewed 193 video clips, and 
poured over 28,000 pages of documents.
    But even more than the House managers' shallow arguments 
and lack of evidence against and due process for our President 
and the obvious derangement at the very root of every 
investigation, beginning with the corrupt FBI Crossfire 
Hurricane counterintelligence investigation during the 2016 
election cycle, the Articles of Impeachment we will vote on in 
a few hours should have ended at their beginning.
    Can we agree that if a Speaker of the House unilaterally 
declares an impeachment inquiry, it represents the opinion of 
one Member of Congress, not the official authorization of the 
entire Congress? Can we agree that a vote to begin an 
impeachment inquiry that has only partisan support and 
bipartisan opposition is not what the Founders had in mind and 
in fact is what they firmly rejected and cautioned about? Can 
we agree that impeachment articles passed by a majority of one 
party and opposed by Members of both parties on their face 
fail, if not the letter of the law, certainly, the spirit of 
the Constitution?
    Yet, even under the cloud of purely partisan politics of 
the House of Representatives, the Senate conducted a complete, 
comprehensive trial, resulting, in my view, in a crystal clear 
conclusion: The Democratic-led House of Representatives failed 
to meet the most basic standards of proof and has dramatically 
lowered the bar for impeachment to unacceptable levels. It is 
deeply concerning, and I believe we must commit to never, ever 
letting it happen again to the President of any political 
party.
    That can start today. In just a few hours, the Senate will 
have the opportunity to cast a vote to end this whole ordeal, 
and, in doing so, can make a statement that the threshold for 
undoing the will of the American people in the most recent 
election and undoing the will of a major political party in the 
upcoming election should be higher than one party's petty 
obsession.
    I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle join me in 
voting against these charges. But whether he is acquitted or 
convicted and removed, it is my prayer, as we were admonished 
many times throughout the last few weeks by our Chaplain Black, 
that God's will is the one that will be done.
    Then we can move on to the unifying issues the American 
people want us to tackle--issues like infrastructure, 
education, energy security and dominance, national security, 
and the rising cost of healthcare, among many others. These are 
issues the American people care about. These are issues that 
North Dakotans care about. These are issues that the people 
have sent us here to deal with. Let's do it together. Let's 
start now.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 5, 2020]

                 Statement of Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith

    Mrs. HYDE-SMITH. Mr. President, I will vote to acquit 
President Donald J. Trump on both Articles of Impeachment 
presented by House Democrats. I have listened carefully to the 
arguments presented by the House Democratic managers and the 
White House defense team. Those prosecuting the President 
failed on a legal and constitutional basis to produce the 
evidence required to undertake the very serious act of removing 
a duly elected President from this office.
    This trial exposed that pure political partisanship fueled 
a reckless investigation and the subsequent impeachment of the 
President on weak, vague, and noncriminal accusations. The 
Democrats' case, which lacked the basic standards of fairness 
and due process, was fabricated to fulfill their one long-held 
hope to impeach President Trump.
    We should all be concerned about the dangerous precedent 
and consequences of convicting any President on charges 
originating from strictly partisan reasons. The Founding 
Fathers warned against allowing impeachment to become a 
political weapon. In this case, House Democrats crossed that 
line.
    Rejecting the abuse of power and obstruction of Congress 
articles before us will affirm our belief and the impeachment 
standards intended by the Founders. With my votes to acquit 
President Trump, justice will be served. The Senate has 
faithfully executed its constitutional duties to hear and judge 
the charges leveled against the President.
    I remain hopeful that we can finally set aside this flawed 
partisan investigation, prosecution, and persecution of 
President Trump. The people of Mississippi and this great 
Nation are more interested in us getting back to doing the work 
they sent us here to do.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 5, 2020]

                  Statement of Senator James E. Risch

    Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, fellow Senators, I come today to 
talk about the business at hand. Obviously, it is the vote that 
we are going to take at 4 o'clock this afternoon.
    We were subjected to days and days of trial here--many 
witnesses, witness statements, and all that sort of thing--and 
it is incumbent upon us now as jurors to reach a conclusion, 
and I have done so.
    I come at this with a little bit of a different view, 
probably, than others. I have tried more cases, probably, than 
anyone on the floor, both as a prosecutor and in private 
practice. So I watched carefully as the case was presented to 
us and how the case had been put together by the managers from 
the House. What I learned in the many years of trial experience 
that I had is that the only way, really, to try a case and to 
reach where you want to get is to do it in good faith and to do 
it honestly.
    I had real trouble right at the beginning when I saw that 
the lead manager read a transcript purporting to be a 
transcript of the President's phone call that has been at issue 
here, and it was falsified. It was falsified knowingly, 
willfully, and intentionally. So, as a result of that, when 
they walked through the door and wanted to present their case, 
there was a strike there already, and I put it in that 
perspective.
    How the case unfolded after that was stunning because I 
have never seen a case succeed the way they put the case 
together. They put the case together by taking every fact that 
they wanted to make fly and put it only in the best light 
without showing the other side but more importantly--more 
importantly--intentionally excluding evidence. Of course, this 
whole thing centered on witness statements that the President 
had somehow threatened or pressured the President of Ukraine to 
do what he was going to do. That simply wasn't the case. The 
transcript didn't say that.
    Now, admittedly, they had a witness who was going around 
saying that, and they called every person he told to tell us 
that that was the situation. The problem is, it was hearsay. 
There is a good reason why they don't allow hearsay in a court 
of law, and that is, it simply wasn't true.
    When the person who was spreading that rumor actually 
talked to the President about it, the President got angry and 
said: That is not true. I would never do that.
    They never told us that. Once the tape was shown, the House 
managers spent days putting together that proposition for us. 
The President's counsel dismantled that in about an hour and 
did so really quickly. And, as a result of that, simply from a 
factual basis, it is my opinion that the prosecution in this 
case did not meet its burden.
    Now, much has been said about witnesses and how they did 
this and what have you, but the Constitution is crystal clear. 
It gives the House absolute, total, 100-percent control of 
impeachment; that is, the investigation and the vote on it. It 
gives us the same thing but on the trial basis.
    The thing I think was surprising is that they came over 
here and tried to tell us how to do their job. I suspect they, 
in the House, would feel the exact same way about it if we went 
over there and told them how they should impeach. They came 
over here and told us how we should do witnesses and all that 
sort of thing. They had every opportunity to prepare the case. 
It was totally in their hands. They had as much time as they 
wanted, and they simply didn't do it. So in that respect, I 
also found that they came short.
    But the bottom line for me, too, is that there is a second 
reason I would vote to acquit, and that is the stunning attack 
that this was on the U.S. Constitution. This is really the 
first time in history when a purely political attack was 
instigated by reaching to the U.S. Constitution and using what 
is really a sacred item in that Constitution, a process that 
the Founding Fathers gave us for good reason, and that is 
impeachment.
    It was not intended to be used as a political bludgeon. It 
simply wasn't. We had in front of us the Federalist Papers, and 
we had the debates of the Constitutional Convention. Really, 
the one silver lining that came out of this was it underscored 
again for us the genius of the Founding Fathers giving us three 
branches of government--not just three branches of government 
but three branches of government that had distinct lanes in 
which they operated and, most importantly, indicating that they 
were separate but equal.
    They wanted not a parliamentary system like they had looked 
at from Britain with a head of state that was a Prime Minister 
who could be removed and changed, as happens all around the 
world today. They gave us a unique system with three branches 
of government.
    So the Founding Fathers were very clear. They debated the 
question of what should it take to get rid of the head of 
state, and they concluded that the second branch of government 
couldn't be a strong branch of government if, indeed, the 
President could be removed as a Prime Minister could be 
removed, simply by Congress getting unhappy with his policies 
or disagreeing with him. So, as a result of that, they did give 
us impeachment, and it is a unique process. They were very 
clear that it was supposed to be used only in very extreme 
circumstances and not just simply because of a political 
disagreement or a policy disagreement. And that is exactly what 
happened here.
    The Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention 
debates are very, very clear that it is not a broad swath of 
reasons to impeach the President that is given to the first 
branch of government but, indeed, a very, very narrow swath. It 
was interesting that, from the beginning, they picked the two 
words of ``treason'' and ``bribery,'' and to that they then had 
a long debate about what it would be in addition to that. They 
had such words as ``malfeasance,'' ``misfeasance,'' 
``corruption,'' and all those kinds of things that could be 
very broad. They rejected all those and said, no, specifically, 
it had to be ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors.''
    So what they did was they narrowed the lane considerably 
and made it difficult to remove the head of the second branch 
of government. And then, on top of that, for frosting on the 
cake, they said it has got to be two-thirds. Now, what did that 
simply mean? They knew--they knew--that human beings being the 
way they are, that human beings who were involved in the 
political process and political parties would reach to get rid 
of a political enemy using everything they could. So they 
wanted to see that that didn't happen with impeachment. So, as 
a result of that, they gave us the two-thirds requirement, and 
that meant that no President was going to be impeached without 
a bipartisan movement.
    This movement has been entirely partisan. No Republican 
voted to impeach him in the House of Representatives. This 
afternoon at 4 we are going to have a vote, and it is going to 
be along party lines and, again, it is going to be political.
    So what do we have here? At the end of the day, we have a 
political exercise, and that political exercise is going to 
fail. And once again--once again--God has blessed America, and 
the Republic that Benjamin Franklin said we have, if we can 
keep it, is going to be sustained.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 5, 2020]

                   Statement of Senator Sherrod Brown

    Mr. BROWN. Madam President, over the past 3 weeks, we have 
heard from the House managers and the President's counsel 
regarding the facts of the case against President Donald Trump.
    Much like trials in Lorain and Lima and Lordstown, OH, or 
in Marietta, in Massillon, and in Marion, OH, we have seen the 
prosecution--in this case, the House managers--and the 
defense--in this case, the President's lawyers--present their 
cases. All 100 of us--every one of us--are the jury. We took an 
oath to be impartial jurors. We all took an oath to be 
impartial jurors just like juries in Ohio and across America. 
But to some of my colleagues, that just appeared to be a joke.
    The great journalist Bill Moyers summed up the past 3 
weeks: ``What we've just seen is the dictator of the Senate 
manipulating the impeachment process to save the demagogue in 
the White House whose political party has become the 
gravedigger of democracy.''
    Let me say that again. ``What we have just seen is the 
dictator of the Senate manipulating the impeachment process to 
save the demagogue in the White House whose political party has 
become the gravedigger of democracy.''
    Even before this trial began, Leader McConnell admitted out 
loud that he was coordinating the trial process with the White 
House. The leader of the Senate was coordinating with the White 
House on impeachment. I challenge him to show me one trial in 
my State of Ohio or his State of Kentucky where the jury 
coordinated with the defense lawyers. In a fair trial, the 
defense and prosecution would have been able to introduce 
evidence, to call witnesses, and to listen to testimony.
    Every other impeachment proceeding in the Senate for 250 
years had witnesses. Some of them had dozens. We had zero. 
Leader McConnell rushed this trial through. He turned off 
cameras in this body so that the American public couldn't see 
the whole process. He restricted reporter access. We know 
reporters roam the halls to talk to Members of the House and 
Senate. He restricted access there. He twisted arms to make 
sure every Republican voted with him to block witnesses. He 
didn't get a couple of them, but he had enough to protect 
himself.
    The public already sees through it. This is a sham trial. I 
said from the beginning that I would keep an open mind. If 
there are witnesses who would exonerate the President, the 
American people need to hear from them.
    Over the course of this trial we heard mounting, 
overwhelming evidence that President Trump did something that 
not even Richard Nixon ever did: He extorted a foreign leader. 
He fired a career foreign service officer for rooting out 
corruption. He put his own Presidential campaign above our 
collective national security.
    The President said this is just hearsay, but he and the 
Republican leader, together with 51 of 53 Republican Senators, 
blocked every single potential witness we wanted to call. The 
President says it was hearsay. We knew there were witnesses who 
were in the room with President Trump. We didn't get to hear 
from them. We didn't hear from Ambassador Bolton. We didn't 
hear from interim Chief of Staff Mulvaney. We didn't hear from 
Secretary Pompeo. The Republican leader denied the American 
people the chance to hear all of them testify under oath.
    We have seen more information come to light each day, which 
builds on the pattern of facts laid out in great detail by the 
House managers. We have now heard tape recordings of the 
President of the United States telling associates to ``get rid 
of'' U.S. Ambassador Yovanovitch, a public servant who devoted 
her life to fighting corruption and promoting American ideals 
and foreign policy throughout her long, distinguished career at 
the State Department. With her removed from the post, it 
appears the President thought he would be able to compel our 
ally Ukraine to investigate President Trump's political 
opponent.
    Reporters have now revealed that Ambassador Bolton--again, 
a firsthand witness--outlined that the President did exactly 
what the Impeachment Articles allege: He withheld security 
assistance to an ally at war with Russia in exchange for a 
political favor.
    The Justice Department admits there are 24 emails showing 
the President's thinking on Ukraine assistance. But you know 
what? Senator McConnell, down the hall, will not allow us to 
see any of these 24 emails.
    Make no mistake, the full truth is going to come out. The 
Presiding Officer, my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, they are all going to be embarrassed because they 
covered this up. It wasn't just the President and the Vice 
President and Secretary Pompeo and Chief of Staff Mulvaney; it 
was 51 Republican U.S. Senators, including the Presiding 
Officer, who is a new Member of this body, who covered up this 
evidence.
    It will come out this week. It will come out this month, 
this year, the year after that, for decades to come. And when 
the full truth comes out, we will be judged by our children and 
grandchildren.
    Without additional witnesses, we must judge based on the 
facts presented. The House managers made a clear, compelling 
case. In the middle of a war with Russia, the President froze 
$400 million in security assistance to Ukraine. He wanted an 
investigation into his 2020 political opponent. He refused a 
critical meeting with President Zelensky in the Oval Office.
    These actions don't promote our national security or the 
rule of law; they promote Donald Trump personally and his 
campaign.
    We know the President extorted President Zelensky. He asked 
the leader of a foreign government to help him. That is the 
definition of an abuse of power. That is why we have no 
choice--no choice--but to convict this President of abusing his 
office. All of us know this. To acquit would set a clear, 
dangerous precedent: If you abuse your office, it is OK. 
Congress will look the other way.
    This trial and these votes we are about to cast are about 
way more than just President Trump. They are about the future 
of democracy. It will send a message to this President--or 
whomever we elect in November--and to all future Presidents. It 
will be heard around the world--our verdict--by our allies and 
enemies alike, especially the Russians. Are we going to roll 
out the welcome mat to our adversaries to interfere in our 
elections? Are we going to give a green light to the President 
of the United States to base our country's foreign policy not 
on our collective, agreed-upon national security or that of our 
allies, like Ukraine, but on the President's personal political 
campaign?
    These are the issues at stake. If we don't hold this 
President accountable for abuse of office, if no one in his own 
party, if no one on this side of the aisle--no one--has the 
backbone to stand up and say ``stop,'' there is no question it 
will get worse. How do I know that? I have heard it from a 
number of my Republican colleagues when, privately, they will 
tell me, yes, we are concerned about what the President is 
going to do if he is exonerated.
    I was particularly appalled by the words of Mr. Dershowitz. 
He said: ``If a President does something which he believes will 
help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the 
kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.''
    Think about that for a moment. If the President thinks it 
is OK, he thinks it is going to help his election, and he 
thinks his election is in the public interest, then it is OK; 
the President can break any law, can funnel taxpayer money 
toward his reelection, can turn the arm of the State against 
his political enemies and not be held accountable. That is what 
this claim comes down to.
    Remember the words of Richard Nixon: ``When the President 
does it, that means it is not illegal.'' Our country rejected 
that argument during Watergate. We had a Republican Party with 
principle in those days and Senators with backbone, and they 
told that President to resign because nobody is above the 
State; nobody is above the law.
    If we have a President who can turn the Office of the 
Presidency and the entire executive branch into his own 
political campaign operation, God help us.
    My colleagues think I am exaggerating. We don't have the 
option to vote in favor of some arguments made during the trial 
and not others. Mr. Dershowitz's words will live forever in the 
historical record. If they are allowed to stand beside a ``not 
guilty'' verdict--make no mistake--they will be used as 
precedent by future aspiring autocrats. In the words of House 
Manager Schiff, ``that way madness lies.''
    I know some of my colleagues agree this sets a dangerous 
precedent. Some of you have admitted to me that you are 
troubled by the President's behavior. You know he is reckless. 
You know he lies. You know what he did was wrong. I have heard 
Republican after Republican after Republican Senator tell me 
that privately. If you acknowledge that, if you have said it to 
me, if you said it to your family, if you said it to your 
staff, if you just said it to yourself, I implore you, we have 
no choice but to vote to convict.
    What are my colleagues afraid of? I think about the words 
of Adam Schiff in this Chamber on Tuesday: ``If you find that 
the House has proved its case and still vote to acquit''--if 
you still vote to acquit--``your name will be tied to his with 
a cord of steel and for all of history.''
    ``[Y]our name will be tied to his with a cord of steel and 
for all of history.''
    So I ask my colleagues again: What are you afraid of?
    One of our American fundamental values is that we have no 
Kings, no nobility, no oligarchs. No matter how rich, no matter 
how powerful, no matter how much money you give to Mitch 
McConnell's super PAC, everyone can and should be held 
accountable.
    I hope my colleagues remember that. I hope they will choose 
courage over fear. I hope they will choose country over party. 
I hope they will join me in holding this President accountable 
to the American people we all took an oath to serve.
    We know this: Americans are watching. They will not forget.
    I will close with quoting, again, Bill Moyers, a longtime 
journalist: ``What we have just seen is the dictator of the 
Senate manipulating the impeachment process to save the 
demagogue in the White House whose political party has become 
the gravedigger of democracy.''
    I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle know 
better. I hope they vote what they really know.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 5, 2020]

                  Statement of Senator Mazie K. Hirono

    Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, when the Framers debated 
whether to include the power of impeachment in the 
Constitution, they envisioned a moment very much like the one 
we face now. They were fearful of a corrupt President who would 
abuse the Presidency for his or her personal gain, particularly 
one who would allow any foreign country to interfere in the 
affairs of our United States. With this fear in mind, the 
Framers directed the Senate to determine whether to ultimately 
remove that President from office.
    In normal times, the Senate--conscious of its awesome 
responsibility--would meet this moment with the appropriate 
sobriety and responsibility to conduct a full and fair trial. 
That includes calling appropriate witnesses and subpoenaing 
relevant documents, none of which happened here.
    In normal times, the Senate would have weighed the evidence 
presented by both sides and rendered impartial justice. And in 
normal times, having been presented with overwhelming evidence 
of impeachable acts, the Senate would have embraced its 
constitutional responsibility to convict the President and 
remove him or her from office.
    But as we have learned too often over the past 3 years, 
these are not normal times. Instead of fulfilling its duty 
later today, the U.S. Senate will fail its test at a crucial 
moment of our country by voting to acquit Donald J. Trump of 
abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
    The Senate cannot blame its constitutional failure on the 
House managers. They proved their case with overwhelming and 
compelling evidence. Manager Jerry Nadler laid out a meticulous 
case demonstrating how and why the President's actions rose to 
the constitutional standard for impeachment and removal.
    Manager Hakeem Jeffries explained how Donald Trump 
``directly pressured the Ukrainian leader to commence phony 
political investigations as a part of his effort to cheat and 
solicit foreign interference in the 2020 election.''
    Manager Val Demings walked us through the evidence of how 
Donald Trump used $391 million of taxpayer money to pressure 
Ukraine to announce politically motivated investigations. She 
concluded: ``This is enough to prove extortion in court.''
    Manager Sylvia Garcia showed us how Donald Trump's demand 
for investigations was purely for his personal, political 
benefit. She debunked the conspiracy theories the President's 
counsel raised against former Vice President Joe Biden--Donald 
Trump's political rival and the true target of his corrupt 
scheme.
    Manager Jason Crow described vividly the human costs of 
withholding aid from Ukrainian troops fighting a hot war 
against Russia.
    Manager Adam Schiff tied together the evidence of Donald 
Trump's abuse of power--the most serious of impeachable 
offenses and one that includes extortion and bribery.
    And Manager Zoe Lofgren used her extensive experience to 
provide perspective on Donald Trump's unprecedented, 
unilateral, and complete obstruction of Congress to cover up 
his corrupt scheme. She is the only Member of Congress to be 
involved in three Presidential impeachments.
    The President's lawyers could not refute the House's case. 
Instead, they ultimately resorted to the argument that, even 
accepting the facts as presented by the House managers, Donald 
Trump's conduct is not impeachable. It is what I have called 
the ``He did it; so what?'' argument.
    Many of my Republican colleagues are using the ``So what?'' 
argument to justify their votes to let the President off the 
hook. Yet the senior Senator from Tennessee said: ``I think he 
shouldn't have done it. I think it was wrong.'' He said it was 
``inappropriate'' and ``improper, crossing a line.'' But he 
refused to hold the President accountable, arguing that the 
voters should decide.
    The junior Senator from Iowa said: ``The President has a 
lot of latitude to do what he wants to do'' but he ``did it 
maybe in the wrong manner.''
    She also said that ``whether you like what the President 
did or not,'' the charges didn't rise to the level of an 
impeachable offense.
    The junior Senator from Ohio called the President's actions 
``wrong and inappropriate'' but said they did not ``rise to the 
level of removing a duly-elected president from office and 
taking him off the ballot in the middle of an election.''
    And the senior Senator from Florida went so far as to say: 
``Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not 
mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a 
president from office.''
    By refusing to hold this President accountable, my 
Republican colleagues are reinforcing the President's misguided 
belief that he can do whatever he wants under article II of the 
U.S. Constitution.
    Donald Trump was already a danger to this country. We have 
seen it in his policy decisions--from taking away healthcare 
from millions of Americans to threatening painful cuts to 
Social Security and Medicare, to engaging in an all-out assault 
on immigrants in this country.
    But today, we are called on to confront a completely 
different type of danger--one that goes well beyond the 
significant policy differences I have with this President.
    If we let Donald Trump get away with extorting the 
President of another country for his own personal, political 
benefit, the Senate will be complicit--complicit--in his next 
corrupt scheme.
    Which country will he bully or invite to interfere in our 
elections next? Which pot of taxpayer money will he use as a 
bribe to further his political schemes?
    Later today, I will vote to convict and remove President 
Donald Trump for abusing his power and obstructing Congress. I 
am under no illusion that my Republican colleagues will do the 
same. They have argued it is up to the American people to 
decide, as though impeachment were not a totally separate, 
constitutional remedy for a lawless President.
    As I considered my vote, I listened closely to Manager 
Schiff's closing statement about why the Senate needs to 
convict this President. He said:

    I do not ask you to convict him because truth or right or decency 
matters nothing to him--

    He is referring to the President--

but because we have proven our case, and it matters to you. Truth 
matters to you. Right matters to you. You are decent. He is not who you 
are.

    It is time for the Senate to uphold its constitutional 
responsibility by convicting this President and holding him 
accountable.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 5, 2020]

                 Statement of Senator Michael F. Bennet

    Mr. BENNET. Madam President, when I was in the second 
grade--which I did twice because I was dyslexic, so I don't 
know which year of the second grade it was, but one of those 2 
years--we were asked to line up in order of whose family had 
been here the longest period of time and whose family had been 
here the shortest period of time.
    I turned out to be the answer to both of those questions. 
My father's family went all the way back to the Mayflower, and 
my mom's family were Polish Jews who survived the Holocaust. 
They didn't leave Warsaw because my grandfather had a large 
family he didn't want to leave behind. And in the event--
everybody was killed in the war, except my mom, her parents, 
and an aunt. They lived in Warsaw for 2 years after the war. 
Then they went to Stockholm for a year. They went to Mexico 
City for a year, of all places. And then they came to the 
United States--the one place in the world they could rebuild 
their shattered lives, and they did rebuild their shattered 
lives. My mom was the only person in the family who could speak 
any English. She registered herself in the New York City public 
schools. She graduated from Hunter College High School. She 
went on to graduate from Wellesley College in Massachusetts in 
one generation. My grandparents rebuilt the business they had 
lost during the war.
    I knew from them how important this symbol of America was 
to people struggling all over the world. They had been through 
some of the worst events in human history, and their joy of 
being Americans was completely unadulterated. I have met many 
immigrants across this country, and I still haven't met anybody 
with a stronger accent than my grandparents had, and I have 
never met anybody who were greater patriots than they were. 
They understood how important the idea of America was, not 
because we were perfect--exactly the opposite of that--because 
we were imperfect. But we lived in a free society that was able 
to cure its imperfections with the hard work of our citizens to 
make this country more democratic, more free, and more fair--a 
country committed to the rule of law. Nobody was above the rule 
of law, and nobody was treated unfairly by the law, even if you 
were an immigrant to this country.
    From my dad's example, I learned something really 
different. It might interest some people around here to know he 
was a staffer in the Senate for many years. I actually grew up 
coming here on Saturday mornings, throwing paper airplanes 
around the hallways of the Dirksen Building and Russell 
Building.
    He worked here at a very different time in the Senate. He 
worked here at a time when Republicans and Democrats worked 
together to uphold the rule of law, to pass important 
legislation that was needed by the American people to move our 
country forward, a time when Democrats and Republicans went 
back home and said: I didn't get everything I wanted, to be 
sure, but the 65 percent I did get is worth the bill we have, 
and here is why the other side needed 35 percent.
    Those days are completely gone in the U.S. Senate, and I 
grieve for them. My dad passed away about a year ago. I know 
how disappointed he would be about where we are, but there 
isn't anybody who can fix it, except the 100 people who are 
here and, I suppose, the American people for whom we ostensibly 
work.
    In the last 10 years that I have been here, I have watched 
politicians come to this floor and destroy the solemn 
responsibility we have--the constitutional responsibility we 
have--to advise and consent on judicial appointments, to turn 
that constitutional responsibility into nothing more than a 
vicious partisan exercise. That hasn't been done by the 
American people. That wasn't done by any other generation of 
politicians who were in this place. It has been done by this 
generation of politicians led by the Senator from Kentucky, the 
majority leader of the Senate.
    We have become a body that does nothing. We are an 
employment agency. That is what we are. Seventy-five percent of 
the votes we took last year were on appointments. We voted on 
26 amendments last year--26--26. In the world's greatest 
deliberative body, we passed eight amendments in a year. 
Pathetic. We didn't consider any of the major issues the 
American people are confronting in their lives, not a single 
one--10 years of townhalls with people saying to me: Michael, 
we are killing ourselves, and we can't afford housing, 
healthcare, higher education, early childhood education. We 
cannot save. We can't live a middle-class life. We think our 
kids are going to live a more diminished life than we do.
    What does the U.S. Senate do? Cut taxes for rich people. We 
don't have time to do anything else around here. And now, when 
we are the only body on planet Earth charged with the 
responsibility of dealing with the guilt or innocence of this 
President, we can't even bring ourselves to have witnesses and 
evidence as part of a fair trial, even when there are literally 
witnesses with direct knowledge of what the President did 
practically banging on the door of the Senate saying: Let me 
testify.
    We are too lazy for that. The reality is, we are too broken 
for that. We are too broken for that. And we have failed in our 
duty to the American people.
    Hamilton said in Federalist 65 that in an impeachment trial 
we were the inquisitors for the people. The Senate--we would be 
the inquisitors for the people. How can you be the inquisitors 
for the people when you don't even dignify the process with 
evidence and with witnesses?
    I often have school kids come visit me here in the Senate, 
which I really enjoy because I used to be the superintendent of 
the Denver Public Schools. When they come visit me, they very 
often have been on the Mall. They have seen the Lincoln 
Memorial. They have seen the Washington Monument. They have 
been seen the Supreme Court, this Capitol. And there is a 
tendency among them to believe that this was just all here, 
that it was all just here. And of course, 230 years ago, I tell 
them, none of it was here. None of it was here. It was in the 
ideas of the Founders, the people whom we call the Founders, 
who did two incredible things in their lifetime, in their 
generation, that had never been done before in human history. 
They wrote a Constitution that would be ratified by the people 
who lived under it. It never happened before. They would never 
have imagined that we would have lasted 230 years--at least 
until the age of Donald Trump.
    They led an armed insurrection against a colonial power. We 
call that the Revolutionary War. That succeeded too.
    They did something terrible in their generation that will 
last for the rest of our days and that is they perpetuated 
human slavery. The building we are standing in today was built 
by enslaved human beings because of the decisions that they 
made.
    But I tell the kids who come and visit me that there is a 
reason why there are not enslaved human beings in this country 
anymore and that is because of people like Frederick Douglass. 
He was born a slave in the United States of America, escaped 
his slavery in Maryland, risked his life and limb to get to 
Massachusetts, and he found the abolitionist movement there. 
And the abolitionist movement has been arguing for generations 
that the Constitution was a pro-slavery document. Frederick 
Douglass, who is completely self-taught, said to them: You have 
this exactly wrong, exactly backward, 180 degrees from the 
truth. The Constitution is an anti-slavery document, Frederick 
Douglass said, not a pro-slavery document.
    But we are not living up to the words of the Constitution. 
It is the same thing Dr. King said the night before he was 
killed in Memphis when he went down there for the striking 
garbage workers and he said: I am here to make America keep the 
promise you wrote down on the page.
    In my mind, Frederick Douglass and Dr. King are Founders, 
just as much as the people who wrote the Constitution of the 
United States. How could they not be? How could they not be?
    The women who fought to give my kids, my three daughters, 
the right to vote, who fought for 50 years to get the right to 
vote--mostly women in this country--are Founders, just like the 
people who wrote the Constitution, as well.
    Over the years that I have been here, I have seen this 
institution crumble into rubble. This institution has become 
incapable of addressing the most existential questions of our 
time that the next generation cannot address. They can't fix 
their own school. They can't fix our immigration system. They 
can't fix climate change, although they are getting less and 
less patient with us on that issue.
    But what I have come to conclude is that the responsibility 
of all of us--not just Senators but all of us as citizens in a 
democratic republic--230 years after the founding of this 
Republic, is the responsibility of a Founder. It is that 
elevated sense of what a citizen is required to do in a 
republic to sustain that republic, and I think that is the 
right way to think about it. It gives you a sense of what is 
really at stake beyond the headlines on the cable television at 
night and, certainly, in the social media feeds that divide us 
minute to minute in our political life today.
    The Senate has clearly failed that standard. We have 
clearly failed that standard. The idea that we would turn our 
backs and close our eyes to evidence pounding on the outside of 
the doors of this Capitol is pitiful. It is disgraceful, and it 
will be a stain on this body for all time. More than 50 percent 
of the people in this place have said that what the President 
did was wrong. It clearly was wrong. It clearly was 
unconstitutional. It clearly was impeachable. What President 
would run for office saying to the American people: I am going 
to try to extort a foreign power for my own electoral interest 
to interfere in our elections? It is exactly the kind of 
conduct that the impeachment clause was written for. It is a 
textbook case of why the impeachment clause exists.
    But even if you don't agree with me that he should have 
been convicted or that he should be convicted, I don't know how 
anybody in this body goes home and faces their constituents and 
says that we wouldn't even look at the evidence.
    So I say to the American people: Our democracy is very much 
at risk. I am not one of those people who believes that Donald 
Trump is the source of all our problems. I think he has made 
matters much worse, to be sure, but he is a symptom of our 
problem. He is a symptom of our failure to tend to the 
democracy--to our responsibility--as Founders. And if we don't 
begin to take that responsibility as seriously as our parents 
and grandparents did--people who faced much bigger challenges 
than we ever did--nobody is asking us, thank God, to end human 
slavery. Nobody is asking us to fight for 50 years for the 
self-evident proposition that women should have the right to 
vote. We are not marching in Selma, being beaten for the self-
evident prospect that all people are created equal. Nobody is 
asking us to climb the Cliffs of Normandy to fight for freedom 
in a world war.
    But we are being asked to save the democracy and we are 
going to fail that test today in the Senate. And my prayer for 
our country is that the American people will not fail that 
test. I am optimistic that we will not. We have never failed it 
before, and I don't think we will fail it in our time.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 5, 2020]

                   Statement of Senator Tammy Baldwin

    Ms. BALDWIN. Madam President, in 2012, the good people of 
Wisconsin elected me to work for them in the Senate. Like every 
one of my fellow Senators, I took an oath of office. In 2018, I 
was reelected, and I took that same oath. We have all taken 
that oath. It is not to support and defend the President--this 
President or any other. Our oath is to support and defend the 
Constitution of the United States. That is our job every day 
that we come to work, and it certainly is our job here today.
    Just over 2 weeks ago, we all stood together right here, 
and we took another oath given to us by Chief Justice Roberts 
to do impartial judgment in this impeachment trial. I have 
taken this responsibility very seriously. I have listened to 
both sides make their case. I have reviewed the evidence 
presented, and I have carefully considered the facts.
    From the beginning, I have supported a full, fair, and 
honest impeachment trial. A majority of this Senate has failed 
to allow it. I supported the release of critical evidence that 
was concealed by the White House. The other side of the aisle 
let President Trump hide it from us, and they voted to keep it 
a secret from the American people. I voted for testimony of 
relevant witnesses with direct, firsthand evidence about the 
President's conduct. Senate Republicans blocked witness 
testimony because they didn't want to be bothered with the 
truth.
    Every Senate impeachment trial in our Nation's history has 
included witnesses, and this Senate trial should have been no 
different. Unfortunately, it was. A majority of the Senate has 
taken the unprecedented step of refusing to hear all the 
evidence, declining all the facts, denying the full truth about 
this President's corrupt abuse of power. President Trump has 
obstructed Congress, and this Senate will let him.
    Last month, President Trump's former National Security 
Advisor, John Bolton, provided an unpublished manuscript to the 
White House. The recent media reports about what Ambassador 
Bolton could have testified to, had he not been blocked as a 
witness, go to the heart of this impeachment trial--abuse of 
power and obstruction of Congress.
    As reported, in early May 2019, there was an Oval Office 
meeting that included President Trump, Mick Mulvaney, Pat 
Cipollone, Rudy Giuliani, and John Bolton. According to Mr. 
Bolton, the President directed him to help with his pressure 
campaign to solicit assistance from Ukraine to pursue 
investigations that would not only benefit President Trump 
politically but would act to exonerate Russia from their 
interference in our 2016 elections.
    Several weeks later, the U.S. Department of Defense 
certified the release of military aid to Ukraine, concluding 
that they had taken substantial actions to decrease corruption. 
This was part of the security assistance we approved in 
Congress with bipartisan support to help Ukraine fight Russian 
aggression. However, President Trump blocked it and covered it 
up from Congress.
    On July 25, 2019, as President Trump was withholding the 
support for Ukraine, he had a telephone call with Ukrainian 
President Zelensky. Based on a White House call summary memo 
that was released 2 months later, we all know the President put 
his own political interest ahead of our national security and 
the integrity of our elections.
    Based on the clear and convincing evidence presented in 
this trial, we know President Trump used American taxpayer 
dollars in security assistance in order to get Ukraine to 
interfere in our elections to help him politically. We know the 
President solicited assistance from Ukraine to pursue an 
investigation of phony conspiracy theories about our 2016 U.S. 
elections that are a part of a Russian disinformation campaign. 
We know the President solicited assistance from Ukraine to 
discredit the conclusion by American law enforcement, the U.S. 
intelligence community, and confirmed by a bipartisan Senate 
report that Russia interfered with our 2016 elections. We also 
know President Trump solicited foreign interference in the 
upcoming election by pressuring Ukraine to publicly announce 
investigations to help him politically.
    I ask my friends to consider the fact that the Ukrainian 
President was pressured and prepared to go on an American cable 
television network to announce these political investigations.
    To those who are making the argument to acquit the 
President because to convict would create further division in 
our country, I ask you to acknowledge the fact that President 
Trump's corrupt scheme has given Russia another opening to 
attack our democracy, interfere in our elections, and further 
divide our already divided country. We know this to be true, 
but the Senate is choosing to ignore the truth.
    As reported just weeks after the Zelensky call, President 
Trump told Ambassador Bolton in August that he wanted to 
continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to 
Ukraine until it helped with the political investigations. Had 
Ambassador Bolton testified to these facts in this trial, it 
would have directly contradicted what the President told 
Senator Johnson in a phone call on August 31, 2019, in which, 
according to Senator Johnson, the President said:

    I would never do that. Who told you that?

    John Bolton not only has direct evidence that implicates 
President Trump in a corrupt abuse of power, but he has direct 
evidence that President Trump lied to one of our colleagues in 
an attempt to cover it up. It may not matter to this Senate, 
but I can tell you that it matters to the people of the State 
of Wisconsin that this President did not tell their Senator the 
truth.
    Based on the facts presented to us, I refuse to join this 
President's coverup, and I refuse to conclude that the 
President's abuse of power doesn't matter, that it is OK, and 
that we should just get over it.
    I recognize the courageous public servants who did what 
this Senate has failed to do--to put our country first. In the 
House impeachment inquiry, brave government servants came 
forward and told the truth. They put their jobs on the line. 
Instead of inspiring us to do our duty--to do our jobs--they 
have faced character assassination from this President, the 
White House, and some of my colleagues here in the Senate. It 
is a disgrace to this institution that they have been treated 
as anything less than the patriots they are.
    As Army LTC Alexander Vindman said, ``This is America. 
Here, right matters.''
    My judgment is inspired by these words, and I am guided to 
my commitment to put country before party and our Constitution 
first.
    My vote on the President's abuse of power and obstruction 
of Congress is a vote to uphold my oath of office and to 
support and defend the Constitution. My vote is a vote to 
uphold the rule of law and our uniquely American principle that 
no one--not even the President--is above the law. I only have 1 
of 100 votes in the U.S. Senate, and I am afraid that the 
majority is putting this President above the law by not 
convicting him of these impeachable offenses.
    Let's be clear. This is not an exoneration of President 
Trump. It is a failure to show moral courage and hold this 
President accountable.
    Now every American will have the power to make his or her 
own judgment. Every American gets to decide what is in our 
public interest. We the people get to choose what is in our 
national interest. I trust the American people. I know they 
will be guided by our common good and the truth. The people we 
work for know what the truth is, and they know, in America, it 
matters.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 5, 2020]

                Statement of Senator Christopher Murphy

    Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, it is important to remind 
ourselves, at moments like this, how unnatural and uncommon 
democracy really is.
    Just think of all of the important forums in your life. 
Think about your workplace, your family, your favorite sports 
team. None of them makes decisions by democratic vote. The CEO 
decides how much money you are going to make. It is not by the 
vote of your fellow employees. You love your kids, but they 
don't get an equal say in household matters as mom and dad do. 
The plays the Chiefs called on their game-winning drives were 
not decided by a team vote.
    No, most everything in our lives that matters, other than 
the government under which we live, is not run by democratic 
vote, and, of course, a tiny percentage of humans--well under 1 
percent--have lived in a democratic society over the last 
thousand years of human history.
    Democracy is unnatural. It is rare. It is delicate. It is 
fragile, and untended to, neglected, or taken for granted, it 
will disappear like ashes that scatter into the cold night.
    This body--the U.S. Senate--was conceived by our Founders 
to be the ultimate guardians of this brittle experiment in 
governance. We, the 100 of us, were given the responsibility to 
keep it safe from those who may deign to harm it, and when the 
Senate lives up to this charge, it is an awesome, inspirational 
sight to behold.
    I was born 3 weeks after Alexander Butterfield revealed the 
existence of a taping system in the White House that likely 
held evidence of President Nixon's crimes, and I was born 1 
week after the Senate Watergate Committee, in a bipartisan 
vote, ordered Nixon to turn over several key tapes.
    Now, my parents were Republicans. My mom is still a 
Republican. Over the years, they have voted for a lot of 
Democrats and Republicans. They raised me, in the shadow of 
Watergate, to understand that what mattered in politics wasn't 
really someone's party. It was whether you were honest and 
decent and if you were pursuing office for the right reasons.
    In the year I was born, this Senate watched a President 
betray the Nation, and this Senate--both Democrats and 
Republicans--stood together to protect the country from this 
betrayal. This is exactly what our Founders envisioned when 
they gave the Congress the massive responsibility of the 
impeachment power. They said to use it sparingly, to use it not 
to settle political scores but to use it when a President has 
strayed from the bonds of decency and propriety.
    The Founders wanted Congress to save the country from bad 
men who would try to use the awesome power of the executive 
branch to enrich themselves or to win office illicitly, and I 
grew up under the belief that, when those bad men presented 
themselves, this place had the ability to put aside party and 
work to protect our fragile democracy from attack.
    This attack on our Republic that we are debating today, if 
left unchecked, is potentially lethal. The one sacred covenant 
that an American President makes with the governed is to use 
the massive power of the executive branch for the good of the 
country, not for personal financial or political benefit. The 
difference between a democracy and a tin-pot dictatorship is 
that, here, we don't allow Presidents to use the official 
levers of power to destroy political opponents. Yet that is 
exactly what President Trump did, and we all know it. Even the 
Republicans who are going to vote to acquit him today admit 
that. If you think that our endorsement through acquittal will 
not have an impact, then, just look at Rudy Giuliani's trip to 
Ukraine in December, which was in the middle of the impeachment 
process. He went back, looking for more dirt, and the President 
was ringing him up to get the details before Giuliani's plane 
even hit the gate. The corruption hasn't stopped. It is 
ongoing. If this is the new normal--the new means by which a 
President can consolidate power and try to destroy political 
opponents--then we are no longer living in America.
    What happened here over the last 2 weeks is as much a 
corruption as Trump's scheme was. This trial was simply an 
extension of Trump's crimes--no documents, no witnesses. It was 
the first-ever impeachment trial in the Senate without either. 
John Bolton, in his practically begging to come here and tell 
his firsthand account of the President's corruption, was 
denied--just to make sure that voters couldn't hear his story 
in time for them to be able to pressure their Senators prior to 
an impeachment vote.
    This was a show trial--a gift-wrapped present for a 
grateful party leader. We became complicit in the very attacks 
on democracy that this body is supposed to guard against. We 
have failed to protect the Republic.
    What is so interesting to me is that it is not like the 
Republicans didn't see this moment coming. In fact, many of my 
colleagues across the aisle literally predicted it. Prior to 
the President's election, here is what the Republican Senators 
said about Donald Trump.
    One said:

    He is shallow. He is ill-prepared to be Commander in Chief. I think 
he is crazy. I think he is unfit for office.

    Another said:

    The man is a pathological liar. He doesn't know the difference 
between truth and lies.

    Yet another Republican Senator said:

    What we are dealing with is a con artist. He is a con artist.

    Now, you can shrug this off as election-year rhetoric, but 
no Democrat has ever said these kinds of things about a 
candidate from our party, and prior to Trump, no Republican had 
said such things about candidates from their party either. The 
truth is the Republicans, before Trump became the head of their 
party, knew exactly how dangerous he was and how dangerous he 
would be if he won. They knew he was the archetype of that bad 
man the Founders intended the Senate to protect democracy from.
    That responsibility seems to no longer retain a position of 
primacy in this body today. The rule of law doesn't seem to 
come first today. Our commitment to upholding decency and truth 
and honor is not the priority today. In the modern Senate 
today, all that seems to matter is party. What is different 
about this impeachment is not that the Democrats have chosen to 
make it partisan. It is that the Republicans have chosen to 
excuse their party's President's conduct in a way that they 
would not have done and did not do 45 years ago. That is what 
makes this moment exceptional.
    Now, Congressman Schiff, in his closing argument, rightly 
challenged the Democrats to think about what we would do if a 
President of our party ever committed the same kind of offense 
that Donald Trump has. I think it was a very wise query and one 
that we as Democrats should not be so quick on the trigger to 
answer self-righteously.
    Would we have the courage to stand up to our base, to our 
political supporters, and vote to remove a Democratic President 
who had chosen to trade away the safety of the Nation for 
political help? It would not be easy. No, the easy thing to do 
would be to just do what is happening today--to box our ears, 
close our eyes, and just hope the corruption goes away.
    So I have thought a lot about this question over these past 
2 days, and I have come to the conclusion that, at least for 
me, I would hold the Democrats to the same standard. I would 
vote to remove. But I admit to some level of doubt, and I think 
that I need to be honest about that because the pressures today 
to put party first are real on both sides of the aisle, and 
they are much more acute today than they were during Watergate.
    It is with that reality as context that I prepare to vote 
today. I believe that the President's crimes are worthy of 
removal. I will vote to convict on both Articles of 
Impeachment.
    But I know that something is rotten in the state of 
Denmark. Ours is an institution built to put country above 
party, and today we are doing, often, the opposite. I believe 
within the cult of personality that has become the Trump 
Presidency, the disease is more acute and more perilous to the 
Nation's health on the Republican side of the ledger, but I 
admit this affliction has spread to all corners of this 
Chamber.
    If we are to survive as a democracy--a fragile, delicate, 
constantly in need of tending democracy--then this Senate needs 
to figure out a way after today to reorder our incentive system 
and recalibrate our faiths so that the health of one party 
never ever again comes before the health of our Nation.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 5, 2020]

                    Statement of Senator Mitt Romney

    Mr. ROMNEY. Mr. President, the Constitution is at the 
foundation of our Republic's success, and we each strive not to 
lose sight of our promise to defend it.
    The Constitution established a vehicle of impeachment that 
has occupied both Houses of our Congress these many days. We 
have labored to faithfully execute our responsibilities to it. 
We have arrived at different judgments, but I hope we respect 
each other's good faith.
    The allegations made in the Articles of Impeachment are 
very serious. As a Senator juror, I swore an oath before God to 
exercise impartial justice. I am profoundly religious. My faith 
is at the heart of who I am. I take an oath before God as 
enormously consequential.
    I knew from the outset that being tasked with judging the 
President--the leader of my own party--would be the most 
difficult decision I have ever faced. I was not wrong.
    The House managers presented evidence supporting their 
case, and the White House Counsel disputed that case.
    In addition, the President's team presented three defenses: 
first, that there could be no impeachment without a statutory 
crime; second, that the Bidens' conduct justified the 
President's actions; and third, that the judgment of the 
President's actions should be left to the voters. Let me first 
address those three defenses.
    The historic meaning of the words ``high crimes and 
misdemeanors,'' the writings of the Founders, and my own 
reasoned judgment convinced me that a President can indeed 
commit acts against the public trust that are so egregious 
that, while they are not statutory crimes, they would demand 
removal from office.
    To maintain that the lack of a codified and comprehensive 
list of all the outrageous acts that a President might 
conceivably commit renders Congress powerless to remove such a 
President defies reason.
    The President's counsel also notes that Vice President 
Biden appeared to have a conflict of interest when he undertook 
an effort to remove the Ukrainian prosecutor general. If he 
knew of the exorbitant compensation his son was receiving from 
a company actually under investigation, the Vice President 
should have recused himself. While ignoring a conflict of 
interest is not a crime, it is surely very wrong.
    With regard to Hunter Biden, taking excessive advantage of 
his father's name is unsavory but also not a crime.
    Given that in neither the case of the father nor the son 
was any evidence presented by the President's counsel that a 
crime had been committed, the President's insistence that they 
be investigated by the Ukrainians is hard to explain other than 
as a political pursuit. There is no question in my mind that 
were their names not Biden, the President would never have done 
what he did.
    The defense argues that the Senate should leave the 
impeachment decision to the voters. While that logic is 
appealing to our democratic instincts, it is inconsistent with 
the Constitution's requirement that the Senate, not the voters, 
try the President. Hamilton explained that the Founders' 
decision to invest Senators with this obligation rather than 
leave it to the voters was intended to minimize to the extent 
possible the partisan sentiments of the public at large. So the 
verdict is ours to render under our Constitution. The people 
will judge us for how well and faithfully we fulfill our duty.
    The grave question the Constitution tasks Senators to 
answer is whether the President committed an act so extreme and 
egregious that it rises to the level of a high crime and 
misdemeanor. Yes, he did. The President asked a foreign 
government to investigate his political rival. The President 
withheld vital military funds from that government to press it 
to do so. The President delayed funds for an American ally at 
war with Russian invaders. The President's purpose was personal 
and political. Accordingly, the President is guilty of an 
appalling abuse of public trust.
    What he did was not ``perfect.'' No, it was a flagrant 
assault on our electoral rights, our national security, and our 
fundamental values. Corrupting an election to keep one's self 
in office is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation 
of one's oath of office that I can imagine.
    In the last several weeks, I have received numerous calls 
and texts. Many demanded, in their words, that I ``stand with 
the team.'' I can assure you that thought has been very much in 
my mind. You see, I support a great deal of what the President 
has done. I have voted with him 80 percent of the time. But my 
promise before God to apply impartial justice required that I 
put my personal feelings and political biases aside. Were I to 
ignore the evidence that has been presented and disregard what 
I believe my oath and the Constitution demands of me for the 
sake of a partisan end, it would, I fear, expose my character 
to history's rebuke and the censure of my own conscience.
    I am aware that there are people in my party and in my 
State who will strenuously disapprove of my decision, and in 
some quarters, I will be vehemently denounced. I am sure to 
hear abuse from the President and his supporters. Does anyone 
seriously believe that I would consent to these consequences 
other than from an inescapable conviction that my oath before 
God demanded it of me?
    I sought to hear testimony from John Bolton, not only 
because I believe he could add context to the charges but also 
because I hoped that what he might say could raise reasonable 
doubt and thus remove from me the awful obligation to vote for 
impeachment.
    Like each Member of this deliberative body, I love our 
country. I believe that our Constitution was inspired by 
providence. I am convinced that freedom itself is dependent on 
the strength and vitality of our national character.
    As it is with each Senator, my vote is an act of 
conviction. We have come to different conclusions, fellow 
Senators, but I trust we have all followed the dictates of our 
conscience.
    I acknowledge that my verdict will not remove the President 
from office. The results of this Senate court will, in fact, be 
appealed to a higher court--the judgment of the American 
people. Voters will make the final decision, just as the 
President's lawyers have implored. My vote will likely be in 
the minority in the Senate. But irrespective of these things, 
with my vote, I will tell my children and their children that I 
did my duty to the best of my ability, believing that my 
country expected it of me.
    I will only be one name among many--no more, no less--to 
future generations of Americans who look at the record of this 
trial. They will note merely that I was among the Senators who 
determined that what the President did was wrong, grievously 
wrong.
    We are all footnotes at best in the annals of history, but 
in the most powerful Nation on Earth, the Nation conceived in 
liberty and justice, that distinction is enough for any 
citizen.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 5, 2020]

                     Statement of Senator Tim Scott

    Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, over the past 
few weeks, we have heard a lot of arguments, accusations, and 
anecdotes. Some very skilled speakers on both sides have 
presented their case both for and against impeachment.
    I listened intently, hour after hour, day after day, to the 
House managers and the President's lawyers, and the word that 
kept coming to me, that I kept writing down in my notes was 
``fairness'' because, you see, here in America you are innocent 
until proven guilty.
    As the President's defense team noted, ``[A]t the 
foundation of those authentic forms of justice is fundamental 
fairness. It's playing by the rules. It's why we don't allow 
deflated footballs or stealing signs from the field. Rules are 
rules. They're there to be followed.''
    You can create all the rhetorical imagery in the world, but 
without the facts to prove guilt, it doesn't mean a thing. They 
can say the President cannot be trusted, but without proving 
why he can't be trusted, their words are just empty political 
attacks.
    You can speak of David v. Goliath, but if you were the one 
trying to subvert the presumption of innocence, if you were the 
one to will facts into existence, you are not David; you have 
become Goliath.
    Our job here in the Senate is to ensure a fair trial based 
on the evidence gathered by the House. I have been accused, as 
have many of my colleagues, of not wanting that fair trial. The 
exact opposite is true. We have ensured a fair trial in the 
Senate after House Democrats abused historical precedents in 
their zeal to impeach a President they simply do not like.
    During prior impeachment proceedings in the last 50 years--
lasting around 75 days or so in the House--the House's opposing 
party was allowed witnesses and the ability to cross-examine. 
This time, House Republicans were locked out of the first 71 of 
78 days. Let me say that differently. The ability to cross-
examine the witnesses who are coming before the House against 
the President, the House Republicans and the President's team 
were not allowed to cross-examine those witnesses. The ability 
to contradict and/or to cross-examine or have a conversation 
about the evidence at the foundation of the trial? The White 
House counsel and Republicans were not allowed. Think about the 
concept of due process. The House Republicans and President's 
team, were not allowed for 71 of 78 days in the House. This is 
not a fair process. Does that sound fair to you?
    Democrats began talking about impeachment within months of 
President Trump's election and have made it clear that their 
No. 1 goal--perhaps their only goal--has been to remove him 
from office. Does that sound fair to you?
    They have said: ``We are going to impeach the . . . '' and 
used an expletive.
    They said: ``We have to impeach him, otherwise he's going 
to win the election.'' Now that might be the transparency we 
have been looking for in this process--the real root or 
foundation of why we found ourselves here for 60 hours of 
testimony. It might be because, as they said themselves, if we 
don't impeach him, he might just win.
    What an amazing thought that the American people and not 
Members of Congress would decide the Presidency of the United 
States. What a novel concept that the House managers and 
Congress would not remove his name from the ballot in 2020, but 
we would allow the American people to decide the fate of this 
President and of the Presidency.
    They don't get it. They don't understand that the American 
people should be and are the final arbiters of what happens. 
They want to make not only the President vulnerable, but they 
want to make Republican Senators vulnerable so that they can 
control the majority of the U.S. Senate because the facts are 
not winning for them. The facts are winning for us because when 
you look at the facts, they are not their facts and our facts, 
they are just the facts. What I have learned from watching the 
House managers who were very convincing--they were very 
convincing the first day--and after that what we realized was, 
some facts mixed with a little fiction led to 100 percent 
deception. You cannot mix facts and fiction without having the 
premise of deceiving the American public, and that is what we 
saw here in our Chamber.
    Why is that the case? It is simple. When you look at the 
facts of this Presidency, you come to a few conclusions that 
are, in fact, indisputable. One of those conclusions is that 
our economy is booming, and it is not simply booming from the 
top. When you start looking into the crosstabs, as I like to 
say, what you find is that the bottom 20 percent are seeing 
increases that the top 20 percent are not seeing. So this 
economy is working for the most vulnerable Americans, and that 
is challenging to our friends on the other side.
    When you think about the fact that the opportunity zone 
legislation supported by this President is bringing $67 billion 
of private sector dollars into the most vulnerable communities, 
that is challenging to the other side, but those, too, are 
facts. When you think about the essence of criminal justice 
reform and making communities safer and having a fairer justice 
system for those who are incarcerated, that is challenging to 
the other side, but it is, indeed, a fact, driven home by the 
Republican Party and President Donald John Trump. These facts 
do have consequences, just like elections.
    Our friends on the other side, unfortunately, decided that 
if they could not beat him at the polls, give Congress an 
opportunity to, in fact, impeach the President. My friends on 
the left simply don't want a fair process. This process has 
lacked fairness. Instead, they paint their efforts as fighting 
on behalf of democracy when, in fact, they are just working on 
behalf of Democrats. That is not fair. It is not what the 
American people deserve.
    House managers said over and over again, the Senate had to 
protect our Nation's free and fair elections, but they are 
seeking to overturn a fairly won election with absurd charges.
    The House managers said over and over again that the Senate 
has to allow new witnesses so as to make the Senate trial fair, 
but they didn't bother with the notion of fairness when they 
were in charge in the House.
    Their notion of fairness is to give the prosecution do-
overs and extra latitude but not the defendants.
    Actions speak louder than words, and the Democrats' actions 
have said all we need to hear.
    Let's vote no on these motions today and get back to 
working for the American people.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 5, 2020]

               Statement of Senator Christopher A. Coons

    Mr. COONS. Mr. President, the last time this body--the last 
time the Senate--debated the fate of a Presidency in the 
context of impeachment, the legendary Senator from West 
Virginia, Robert Byrd, rose and said:

    I think my country sinks beneath the yoke. It weeps, it bleeds, and 
each new day a gash is added to her wounds.

    Our country today, as then, is in pain. We are deeply 
divided, and most days, it seems to me that we here are the 
ones wielding the shiv, not the salve.
    The Founders gave this Senate the sole power to try 
impeachments because, as Alexander Hamilton wrote: ``Where else 
than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal 
sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent?''
    I wish I could say with confidence that we here have lived 
up to the faith our Founders entrusted in us. Unfortunately, I 
fear, in this impeachment trial, the Senate has failed a 
historic test of our ability to put country over party.
    Foreign interference in our democracy has posed a grave 
threat to our Nation since its very founding. James Madison 
wrote that impeachment was an ``indispensable'' check against a 
President who would ``betray his trust to foreign powers.''
    The threat of foreign interference remains grave and real 
to this day. It is indisputable that Russia attacked our 2016 
election and interfered in it broadly. President Trump's own 
FBI Director and Director of National Intelligence have warned 
us they are intent on interfering in our election this coming 
fall.
    So, to my Republican colleagues, I have frankly found it 
difficult to understand why you would continue to so fervently 
support a President who has repeatedly and publicly invited 
foreign interference in our elections.
    During his 2016 campaign, Donald Trump looked straight into 
the cameras at a press conference and said: Russia, if you're 
listening, I hope you're able to find Secretary Clinton's 
30,000 emails.
    We now know with certainty that Russian military 
intelligence hackers first attempted to break into Secretary 
Clinton's office servers for the first time that very day. 
Throughout his campaign, President Trump praised the 
publication of emails that Russian hackers had stolen from his 
political opponent. He mercilessly attacked former FBI Director 
Robert Mueller throughout his investigation into the 2016 
election and allegations of Russian interference.
    Now we know, following this trial, that the day after 
Special Counsel Mueller testified about his investigation to 
this Congress, President Trump, on a phone call with the 
President of Ukraine, asked for a favor. He asked President 
Zelensky to announce an investigation of his chief political 
rival, former Vice President Joe Biden, and he asked for an 
investigation into a Russian conspiracy theory about that DNC 
server. In the weeks and the months since, he has repeated that 
Ukraine should investigate his political opponent and that 
China should as well.
    During the trial here, after the House managers and 
President's counsel made their presentation, Senators had the 
opportunity to ask questions. I asked a question of the 
President's lawyers about a sentence in their own trial brief 
that stated: ``Congress has forbidden foreigners' involvement 
in American elections.''
    I simply asked whether the President's own attorneys 
believed their client, President Trump, agrees with that 
statement, and they refused to confirm that he does. And how 
could they when he has repeatedly invited and solicited foreign 
interference in our elections?
    So, to my colleagues: Do you doubt that President Trump did 
what he is accused of? Do you doubt he would do it again? Do 
you think for even one moment he would refuse the help of 
foreign agents to smear any one of us if he thought it was in 
his best political interest? And I have to ask: What becomes of 
our democracy when elections become a no-holds-barred blood 
sport, when our foreign adversaries become our allies, and when 
Americans of the opposing party become our enemies?
    Throughout this trial, I have listened to the arguments of 
the House managers prosecuting the case against President Trump 
and of the arguments of counsel defending the President. I 
engaged with colleagues on both sides of the aisle and listened 
to their positions.
    The President's counsel have warned us of danger in 
partisan impeachments. They have cautioned that abuse of 
power--the first article--is a difficult standard to define. 
They have expressed deep concern about an impeachment conducted 
on the brink of our next Presidential election.
    I understand those concerns and even share some of them. 
The House managers, in turn, warned us that our President has 
demonstrated a perilous willingness to seek foreign 
interference in our elections and presented significant 
evidence that the President withheld foreign aid from a 
vulnerable ally, not to serve our national interest but to 
attack a political opponent. They demonstrated the President 
has categorically obstructed congressional investigations to 
cover up his misconduct. These are serious dangers too.
    We, then, are faced with a choice between serious and 
significant dangers. After listening closely to the evidence, 
weighing the arguments, and reflecting on my constitutional 
responsibility and my oath to do impartial justice, I have 
decided today I will vote guilty on both articles.
    I recognize that many of my colleagues have made up their 
minds. No matter what decision you have reached, I think it is 
a sad day for our country. I myself have never been on a 
crusade to impeach Donald Trump, as has been alleged against 
all Democrats. I have sought ways to work across the aisle with 
his administration, but in the years that have followed his 
election, I have increasingly become convinced our President is 
not just unconventional, not just testing the boundaries of our 
norms and traditions, but he is at times unmoored.
    Throughout this trial, I have heard from Delawareans who 
are frustrated the Senate refused to hear from witnesses or 
subpoena documents needed to uncover all the facts about the 
President's misconduct. I have heard from Delawareans who fear 
our President believes he is above the law and that he acts as 
if he is the law. I have also heard from Delawareans who just 
want us to find a way to work together.
    It is my sincere regret that, with all the time we have 
spent together, we could not find common ground at all. From 
the opening resolution that set the procedures for trial 
adopted on a party-line basis, the majority leader refused all 
attempts to make this a more open and more fair process. Every 
Democrat was willing to have Chief Justice Roberts rule on 
motions to subpoena relevant witnesses and documents. Every 
Member of the opposing party refused. We could not even forge a 
consensus to call a single witness who has said he has 
firsthand evidence, who is willing to testify and was even 
preparing to appear before us.
    When an impeachment trial becomes meaningless, we are 
damaged and weakened as a body, and our Constitution suffers in 
ways not easily repaired. We have a President who hasn't turned 
over a single scrap of paper in an impeachment investigation. 
Unlike Presidents Nixon and Clinton before him, who directed 
their senior advisers and Cabinet officials to cooperate, 
President Trump stonewalled every step of this Congress's 
impeachment inquiry and then personally attacked those who 
cooperated. The people who testified to the House of 
Representatives in spite of the President's orders are 
dedicated public servants and deserve our thanks, not 
condemnation.
    Where do we go from here? Well, after President Clinton's 
impeachment trial, he said: ``This can be and must be a time of 
reconciliation and renewal for [our country],'' and he 
apologized for the harm he had done to our Nation.
    When President Nixon announced his resignation, he said: 
``The first essential is to begin healing the wounds of this 
Nation.''
    I wish President Trump would use this moment to bring our 
country together, to assure us he would work to make the 2020 
election a fair contest; that he would tell Russia and China to 
stay out of our elections; that he would tell the American 
people, whoever his opponent might be, the fight will be 
between candidates, not families; that if he loses, he will 
leave peacefully, in a dignified manner; and that if he wins, 
he will work tirelessly to be the President for all people.
    But at this point, some might suggest it would be 
hopelessly naive to expect of President Trump that he would 
apologize or strive to heal our country or do the important 
work of safeguarding our next election. So that falls to us.
    To my colleagues who have concluded impeachment is too 
heavy a hammer to wield, if you believe the American people 
should decide the fate of this President in the next election, 
what will you do to protect our democracy? What will you do to 
ensure the American people learn the truth of what happened so 
that they can cast informed votes? Will you cosponsor bills to 
secure our elections? Will you insist they receive votes on 
this floor? Will you express support for the intelligence 
community that is working to keep our country safe? Will you 
ensure whistleblowers who expose corruption are protected, not 
vilified? Will you press this administration to cooperate with 
investigations and to allow meaningful accommodations so that 
Congress can have its power of oversight? Why can we not do 
this together?
    Each day of this trial, we have said the Pledge of 
Allegiance to our common Nation. For my Republican friends who 
have concluded the voters should decide President Trump's fate, 
we need to do more together to make that possible. Many of my 
Democratic friends, I know, are poised to do their very best to 
defeat President Trump at the ballot box.
    So here is my plea--that we would find ways to work 
together to defend our democracy and safeguard our next 
election. We have spent more time together here in the last few 
weeks than in the last few years. Imagine if we dedicated that 
same time to passing the dozens of bipartisan bills that have 
come over from the House that are awaiting action. Imagine what 
we could accomplish for our States and our country if we 
actually tackled the challenges of affordable healthcare and 
ending the opioid crisis, making our schools and communities 
safer, and bridging our profound disagreements.
    What fills me with dread, to my colleagues, is that each 
day we come to this floor and talk past each other and not to 
each other and fail to help our constituents.
    Let me close by paraphrasing our Chaplain--Chaplain Black--
whose daily prayers brought me great strength in recent weeks: 
May we work together to bring peace and unity. May we permit 
Godliness to make us bold as lions. May we see a clear vision 
of our Lord's desire for our Nation and remember we borrow our 
heartbeats from our Creator each day.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 5, 2020]

                   Statement of Senator Cory Gardner

    Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, over the last several months 
and last several weeks, the American people have watched 
Washington convulse in partisan accusations, investigations, 
and endless acrimony. That division reached its high watermark 
as the U.S. Senate carried out the third Presidential 
impeachment trial in our Nation's history.
    We saw, over the last 2 weeks, an impeachment process that 
included the testimony of 17 witnesses, more than 100 hours of 
testimony, and tens of thousands of pages of evidence, records, 
and documents, which I successfully fought to make part of the 
record. I fought hard to extend the duration of testimony to 
ensure that each side could be heard over 6 days instead of 
just 4. But what we did not see over the last 2 weeks was a 
conclusive reason to remove the President of the United 
States--an act which would nullify the 2016 election and rob 
roughly half the country of their preferred candidate for the 
2020 elections.
    House managers repeatedly stated that they had established 
``overwhelming evidence'' and an ``airtight'' case to remove 
the President. Yet they also repeatedly claimed they needed 
additional investigation and testimony. A case cannot be both 
``overwhelming'' and ``airtight'' and yet incomplete at the 
same time. That contradiction is not mere semantics.
    In their partisan--their partisan--race to impeach, the 
House failed to do the fundamental work required to prove its 
case, to meet the heavy burden. For the Senate to ignore this 
deficiency and conduct its own investigation would weaponize 
the impeachment power. A House majority could simply short-
circuit an investigation, impeach, and demand the Senate 
complete the House's work--what they were asking us to do.
    The Founders were concerned about this very point. 
Alexander Hamilton wrote, regarding impeachments: ``[T]here 
will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be 
regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by 
real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.''
    More recently, Congressman Jerry Nadler, one of the House 
managers in the trial, said:

    There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment 
substantially supported by one of our major political parties and 
largely opposed by the other. Such an impeachment will lack legitimacy.

    Last March, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said: ``Impeachment is so 
divisive to the country that unless there's something so 
compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we 
should go down that path, because it divides the country.''
    The Framers knew that partisan impeachments could lead to 
impeachments over policy disagreements. Legal scholars like 
Charles Black have written that policy differences are not 
grounds for impeachment. But policy differences about 
corruption and the proper use of tax dollars are at the very 
heart of this impeachment. Nevertheless, that disagreement led 
the House to deploy this most serious of constitutional 
remedies.
    The reason the Framers were concerned about partisan or 
policy impeachments was their concern for the American people. 
Removing a President disenfranchises the American people. For a 
Senate of only 100 people, to do that requires a genuine, 
bipartisan, national consensus. Here, especially only 9 months 
before an election, I cannot pretend the people will accept 
this body removing a President who received nearly 63 million 
votes without meeting that high burden.
    The House managers' other argument to remove the 
President--obstruction of Congress--is an affront to the 
Constitution. The Framers created a system of government in 
which the legislative, executive, and the judiciary are evenly 
balanced. The Framers consciously diluted each branch's power, 
making all three separate but equal and empowered to check each 
other.
    The obstruction charge assumes the House is superior to the 
executive branch. In their zeal, the House managers would 
disempower the judiciary and demand that the House's 
interpretation of the sole power of impeachment be accepted by 
the Senate and the other branches without question. They claim 
no constitutional privilege exists to protect the executive 
branch against the legislature seeking impeachment. They go 
further and claim that a single Justice--a single Justice--
exercising the Senate's sole power to try impeachments, can 
actually strip the executive of its constitutional protections 
with a simple decree.
    In Federalist 78, Hamilton wrote: ``[L]iberty can have 
nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have 
everything to fear from its union with either of the other 
departments.''
    If the House managers prevail, the House would have 
destroyed our constitutional balance, declaring itself the 
arbiter of constitutional rights and conscripting the Chief 
Justice to do it.
    To be clear, the executive branch is not immune from 
legislative oversight or impeachment and trial, but that cannot 
come at the expense of constitutional rights--certainly not 
without input from the judiciary. After all, since Marbury v. 
Madison, ``[i]t is emphatically the duty of the Judicial 
Department to say what the law is.'' Without this separation, 
nothing stops the House from seeking privileged information 
under the guise of an impeachment inquiry.
    But the House managers say that no matter how flimsy the 
House's case, if the Executive tries to protect that 
information constitutionally, that itself is an impeachable 
offense. That dangerous precedent would weaken the stability of 
government--constantly threatening the President with removal 
and setting the stage for a constitutional crisis without 
recourse to the courts. With that precedent set, the separation 
of powers would simply cease to exist.
    Over the 244-year history of our country, no President has 
been removed from office. The first Presidential impeachment 
occurred in 1868. The next was more than 100 years later. Now, 
50 percent of Presidents have been impeached in the last 25 
years alone. A tool so rarely used in the past is now being 
used more frequently. It is a dangerous development, and the 
Senate stands as the safeguard as passions grow even more 
heated.
    These defective articles and the defective process leading 
to them allow the House to muddy things and claim we are 
setting a destructive precedent for the future.
    Of course, bad cases make bad law. The House's decision to 
short-circuit the investigation--moving faster than any 
Presidential impeachment ever, and a wholly partisan one at 
that--certainly makes for a bad case.
    So, again, let me be clear about what this precedent does 
not do. At the outset, this case does not set the precedent 
that a President can do anything as long as he believes it to 
be in his electoral interest. I also reject the claim that 
impeachment requires criminal conduct. Rather, this shows, 
first, that House committees cannot simply assume the 
impeachment power to compel evidence without express authority 
from the full body and corresponding political accountability.
    Second, the House should work in good faith with the 
Executive through the accommodation process. If that process 
reaches an impasse, the House should seek the assistance of the 
judicial branch before turning to impeachment.
    Finally, when Articles of Impeachment come to the Senate 
along partisan lines, when nearly half of the people appear 
unmoved and maintain adamant support for the President and when 
the country is just months away from an election, in these 
circumstances, the American people would likely not accept 
removing the President, and the Senate can wisely decline to 
usurp the people's power to elect their own President.
    It has been said in this trial that the American people 
cannot make that decision for themselves. I couldn't disagree 
more. I believe in the American people. I believe in the power 
of our people to evaluate the President, to make their decision 
in November, and to move forward in our enduring effort to form 
a more perfect union. I do not believe a Senate nullification 
of two elections over defective Impeachment Articles is in the 
Nation's best interest.
    So let's move forward with the people's business and bring 
this Nation back together. Let's rise up together, not fight 
each other. Not all of us voted for President Trump. Not all of 
us voted for the last President or the one before him. Yet we 
should work to make our Nation successful regardless of 
partisan passions. Passion, positively placed, will provide our 
Nation with the prosperity it has always been blessed with. 
Partisan poison will prove devastating to our Nation's long-
term prosperity.
    We must not allow our fractures to destroy our national 
fabric or partisanship to destroy our friendships. If we come 
together, we will succeed together, for surely we are bound 
together in this, the great United States of America.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 5, 2020]

                 Statement of Senator Patrick J. Leahy

    Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I entered the Senate in the wake 
of Watergate in 1975, a time when the American people's faith 
in our institutions was profoundly shaken. The very first vote 
I cast was in favor of creating the Select Committee to Study 
Government Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities 
and the Rights of Americans--that is, the Church Committee. 
Through that committee's work, the American public soon learned 
of years of abuses that had occurred at the hands of the 
executive branch's intelligence agencies. In response, the 
Senate passed sweeping reforms to rein in this overreach. In 
many ways, this represented the best of the Senate: We came 
together across party lines to thoroughly investigate, and 
ultimately curb, gross executive branch abuses.
    The Senate has never been perfect. And much has changed in 
the 45 years I have served in this body. Yet today we face a 
similar test: whether the Senate, in the face of egregious 
misconduct directed by the President himself, will rise again 
to serve as the check on executive abuses our Founders intended 
us to be.
    But today, and throughout this ``trial,'' we are failing 
this test and witnessing the very worst of the modern Senate. 
After being confronted with overwhelming evidence of a brazen 
abuse of executive power, and an equally brazen attempt to keep 
that scheme hidden from Congress and the American people, the 
Senate is poised to look the other way. To simply move on. To 
pretend the Senate has no responsibility to reveal the 
President's misconduct and, God forbid, hold him to account.
    Indeed we are being told the Senate has no constitutional 
role to play, and only the American people should judge the 
President's misconduct in the next election. This is despite 
the Senate's constitutionally-mandated role and despite the 
fact that the President's scheme was aimed at cheating in that 
very election. And now the Senate is cementing a cover-up of 
the President's misconduct, to keep its extent hidden from the 
American people. How, then, will the American people be 
equipped to judge the President's actions? How far the Senate 
has fallen.
    In some ways, President Nixon's misconduct--directing a 
break-in of the Democratic National Committee headquarters to 
benefit himself politically--seems quaint compared to what we 
face today. As charged in article I, President Trump secretly 
directed a sweeping, illegal scheme to withhold $400 million in 
military aid from an ally at war in order to extort that ally 
into announcing investigations of his political opponent to 
boost his reelection. Then, instead of hiding select 
incriminating records, as President Nixon did, President Trump 
attempted to hide every single record from the American people. 
As reflected in article II, President Trump has the distinction 
of being the only President in our Nation's history to direct 
all executive branch officials not to cooperate with a 
congressional investigation.
    I want to be clear: I did not relish the prospect of an 
impeachment trial. I have stark disagreements with this 
President on issues of policy and the law, on morality and 
honesty. But it is for the American people to judge a President 
on those matters. Today is not about differences over policy. 
It is about the integrity of our elections, and it is about the 
Constitution.
    The Constitution cannot protect itself. During this trial, 
the words of Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, and 
Lincoln have frequently been invoked on behalf of our 
Constitution. Now it is our turn to record our names in defense 
of our democracy.
    In Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton described 
impeachment as the remedy for ``the abuse or violation of some 
public trust.'' Although that definition has guided the Nation 
for 230 years, President Trump's counsels would have us rely on 
a very different definition.
    The central arguments presented by the President's defense 
team were stunning. The President argues that we cannot convict 
him because abuse of power is not impeachable. He can abuse his 
power to benefit his reelection and engage in improper quid pro 
quos so long as he believes his reelection is in the national 
interest. King Louis XIV of France--who famously declared ``I 
am the State''--might approve of that reasoning, but the Senate 
should condemn it. The President and his attorneys even argue 
that a President may welcome and even request foreign 
governments to ``dig up dirt'' on their opponents with 
impunity. Yet not only are such requests illegal, they violate 
the very premise of our democracy--that American elections are 
decided only by Americans.
    The Senate should flatly reject the President's brazen and 
dangerous arguments. But an acquittal today will do the 
opposite. If you believe that the President's outlandish 
arguments are irrelevant after today and will have no lasting 
impact on our democracy, remember this: The President's 
counsel's claim that abuse of power is not impeachable is 
largely--and mistakenly--based on the argument of another 
counsel, Justice Benjamin Curtis, defending another President 
from impeachment, President Johnson. That was 150 years ago.
    What we do today will set a weighty precedent. An acquittal 
today--despite the overwhelming evidence of guilt, and 
following a sham of a trial--may fundamentally, and perhaps 
irreparably, distort our system of checks and balances for 
another 150 years.
    And what a sham trial it was. The fact that this body would 
not call a uniquely critical witness who has declared his 
willingness to testify, John Bolton, is beyond outrageous. And 
why? To punish the House for not taking years to first litigate 
a subpoena and then litigate every line of testimony? Or is it 
because testimony detailing this corrupt scheme, no matter how 
damning, would not alter the Majority Leader's preordained 
acquittal?
    The Senate had a constitutional obligation to try this 
impeachment impartially. Yet the Senate willfully blinded 
itself to evidence that will soon be revealed. Senate 
Republicans even defeated a motion merely to consider and 
debate whether to seek critical documents and key witnesses. 
The notion that the Senate could retain the title of the 
``world's greatest deliberative body'' following this charade 
rings hollow.
    It is often said that history is watching. I expect that's 
true. But in this moment we are not merely witnesses to 
history--we are writing it. It is ours to shape. And let me 
briefly describe the dark chapters we are inscribing in the 
story of our republic today.
    In his farewell address, George Washington warned us that 
``foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of 
republican government.'' Yet, as a candidate, President Trump 
famously requested that Russia hack his political opponent's 
emails. Hours later, Russia did. The President then weaponized 
Russia's criminal influence campaign, which resulted in an 
investigation that uncovered a morass of inappropriate contacts 
with Russians, lies to cover them up, multiple instances of the 
President's obstruction of justice, and 37 other indictments 
and convictions. Yet, after the saga concluded, the President 
felt liberated. Literally the day after Special Counsel Robert 
Mueller testified, the President asked the Ukrainian President 
``for a favor.'' He has since publicly repeated his request for 
Ukraine to intervene in our election and made the same request 
to China on national television.
    All of us must ask: If we acquit President Trump today, 
what will he do tomorrow? None of us knows. But two things I am 
confident of: President Trump's willingness to abuse his 
office, and his eagerness to exploit foreign interference in 
our elections, will only grow. And, crucially, Congress's 
capacity to do anything about it will be crippled.
    While the President's lawyers stood on the Senate floor and 
admonished the House managers for failing to litigate each 
subpoena in court to exhaustion, he had other lawyers in court 
making the mutually exclusive argument that article III courts 
have no jurisdiction to settle disputes between our two 
branches. Such duplicity would put the two-faced Roman God 
Janus to shame. Meanwhile, the President's Department of 
Justice claims not only that President Trump cannot be indicted 
while in office, he cannot even be investigated.
    But don't worry, the President's lawyers promise us, the 
President is still not above the law because Congress can hold 
him in check through our confirmation power and power of the 
purse. Neither would come close to checking a lawless 
Executive. It is well known that the President has effectively 
stopped nominating senior officials in his administration. He 
has now set a modern record for acting Cabinet Secretaries. The 
President has said that he prefers having acting officials, who 
bypass Senate scrutiny because they are easier to control.
    More crucially, with this vote today, we inflict grave 
damage on our power of the purse. I am the vice chairman of 
Appropriations, a committee on which I have served for 40 
years. Members of this committee not only write the spending 
bills, they are the guardians of this body's power of the 
purse, granted exclusively to Congress by the Founders to 
counter ``all the overgrown prerogatives of the other 
branches.'' The Framers, having broken free from the grip of a 
monarchy, feared an unchecked executive who would use public 
dollars like a King: as a personal slush fund. Yet this is 
precisely what President Trump has done.
    If we fail to hold President Trump accountable for 
illegally freezing congressionally appropriated military aid to 
extract a personal favor, what would stop him from freezing 
disaster aid to States hit by hurricanes and flooding until 
Governors or home State Senators agree to endorse him? What 
would stop any future President from holding any part of the 
$4.7 trillion budget hostage to their personal whims? The 
answer is nothing. We will have relinquished the very check 
that the Founders entrusted to us to ensure a President could 
never behave like a King.
    The President's defense team also argued that impeachment 
is inappropriate unless it is fully bipartisan. Decades ago, I 
questioned whether an impeachment would be accepted if not 
bipartisan. But this argument has revealed itself to be 
painfully flawed. In 1974, Republicans ultimately convinced 
President Nixon to resign; in 1999, Democrats condemned 
President Clinton's private misconduct and supported a formal 
censure. In contrast, with one important exception, President 
Trump's supporters have thus far shown no limits in their 
tolerance of overwhelming misconduct; they even chased out of 
their party a Congressman who stood up to the President. 
Indeed, a prerequisite for membership in the Republican Party 
today appears to be the belief that he can do no wrong. Under 
this standard, claiming that President Trump's impeachment 
would only be valid if it were supported by his most 
unflinching enablers renders the impeachment clause null and 
void.
    That said, I do understand the immense pressure my 
Republican friends are under to support this President. I know 
well how much easier it is for me to express my disgust and 
disappointment that the President has proven himself so unfit 
for his office. That is one reason why I feel it is important 
to make a commitment right now. If any President, Republican or 
Democrat, uses the power of his or her office to extort a 
foreign nation to interfere in our elections to do the 
President's domestic political bidding, I will support their 
impeachment and removal. It is wrong, no matter the party. And 
we all should say so.
    Before I close, I want to thank the brave individuals who 
shared their testimony with both the House of Representatives 
and American people. Each of these witnesses served this 
President in his administration. And they have served their 
country. They witnessed misconduct originating in the highest 
office in world, and they spoke up. They did not hide behind 
the President's baseless order not to cooperate. Most knew that 
by stepping forward they would be attacked by the President and 
some of his vindictive defenders. Yet they came forward anyway. 
We owe them our enduring appreciation. They give me hope for 
tomorrow.
    Yet today is a dark day for our democracy. And what 
frightens me most is this: We are currently on a dangerous 
road, and no one has any idea where this road will take us. Not 
one of us here knows. But we all know our democracy has been 
indelibly altered.
    The notion that the President has learned his lesson is 
farcical. The President's lead counsel opened and closed this 
trial by claiming the President did nothing wrong. The 
President himself describes his actions as ``perfect.'' On 75 
separate occasions, including yesterday, he has claimed he has 
done nothing wrong. Lord help us if the Senate agrees. The only 
lesson the President has learned from this trial is how easily 
he can get away with egregious, illegal misconduct.
    If the Senate does not recognize the gravity of President 
Trump's ``violation of the public trust,'' and hold him 
accountable, we will have seen but a preview of what is to 
come. Foreign interference in our elections. Total 
noncompliance with lawful congressional oversight. Disregard of 
our constitutional power of the purse. Open, flagrant 
corruption. I fear there is no bottom.
    This is the tragic result of the Senate failing its 
constitutional duty to hold a real trial. We will leave 
President Trump ``sacred and inviolable'' and with ``no 
constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable; no punishment 
to which he can be subjected without involving the crisis of a 
national revolution.'' As Hamilton warned over two centuries 
ago, that is not a President; that is a King. I, for one, will 
not merely ``get over it.''
    I have listened very carefully to both sides over the past 
2 weeks. The record has established, leaving no doubt in my 
view, that President Trump directed the most impeachable, 
corrupt scheme by any President in this country's history. To 
protect our constitutional republic and to safeguard our 
government's system of checks and balances, my oath to our 
Constitution compels me to hold the President of the United 
States accountable.
    I will vote to convict and remove President Donald J. Trump 
from office.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 5, 2020]

                 Statement of Senator Richard C. Shelby

    Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, over the past 2 weeks, my 
colleagues and I have patiently listened to arguments from both 
the House managers and the President's counsel right here in 
the Senate regarding a grave allegation from the House that the 
President has committed an act worthy of impeachment.
    As a Senator, I believe that the first and perhaps most 
important consideration is whether abuse of power and 
obstruction of Congress are impeachable offenses as asserted by 
our House managers.
    Impeachment is a necessary and essential component of our 
Constitution. It serves as an important check on civil officers 
who commit crimes against the United States. However, our 
Founding Fathers were wise to ensure that the impeachment and 
the conviction of a sitting President would not be of partisan 
intent. Since President Trump took office, many have sought to 
delegitimize his Presidency with partisan attacks. We have 
heard this right here in the Senate, and we have experienced 
it. This extreme effort to unseat the President, I believe, is 
unjustified and intolerable.
    Now that the Senate has heard and studied the arguments 
from both sides, I believe the lack of merit in the House 
managers' case is evident. The outcome of the impeachment trial 
is a foregone conclusion. Acquittal is the judgment the Senate 
should and, I believe, will render--and soon.
    For my part, I have weighed the House managers' case and 
found it wanting in fundamental aspects. I will try to explain.
    I believe that their case does not allege an impeachable 
offense. Even if the facts are as they have stated, the 
managers have failed, I believe, as a matter of constitutional 
law, to meet the exceedingly high bar for removal of the 
President as established by our Founding Fathers, the Framers 
of the Constitution.
    In their wisdom, the Framers rejected vague grounds for 
impeachment--offenses like we have heard here, 
``maladministration''--for fear that it would, in the words of 
Madison, result in a Presidential ``tenure during [the] 
pleasure of the Senate.''
    ``Abuse of power,'' one of the charges put forward here by 
the House managers, is a concept as vague and susceptible to 
abuse, I believe, as ``maladministration.'' If you take just a 
minute or two to look at the definitions of ``abuse'' and 
``mal,'' they draw distinct similarities. ``Mal,'' a prefix of 
Latin origin, means bad, evil, wrong. ``Abuse,'' also of Latin 
origin, means to wrongly use or to use for a bad effect. There 
is a kinship between ``mal'' and ``abuse.''
    As the Framers rejected in their wisdom 
``maladministration,'' I believe that they, too, would reject 
the noncriminal ``abuse of power.'' Instead, the Framers, as 
the Presiding Officer knows, provided for impeachment only in a 
few limited cases: treason, bribery, and high crimes and 
misdemeanors. Only those offenses justify taking the dire step 
of removing a duly elected President from office and 
permanently taking his name off the ballot.
    This institution, the U.S. Senate, I believe, should not 
lower the constitutional bar and authorize their theory of 
impeachment for abuse of power. It is simply not an impeachable 
offense, in my judgment. Their criteria for removal centers not 
on the President's actions but on their loose perception of his 
motivations. If the Senate endorses this approach, we will 
dramatically transform the impeachment power as we have known 
it over the years. We will forever turn this grave 
constitutional power into a tool for adjudicating policy 
disputes and political disagreements among all of us. The 
Framers, in their wisdom, cautioned us against this dangerous 
path, and I believe the Senate will heed their warning.
    The other article, the House managers' obstruction of 
Congress claim, is similarly flawed. Congress's investigative 
and oversight powers are critical tools, and we use them in 
ensuring our system of checks and balances. But those powers 
are not absolute.
    The President, too, as head of a coequal branch of 
government, enjoys certain privileges and immunities from 
congressional factfinding. That is his constitutional right and 
has been the right of former Presidents from both parties. The 
President's mere assertion of privileges and immunities is not 
an impeachable offense. Endorsing otherwise would be 
unprecedented and would ignore the past practices of 
administrations of both parties. Adopting otherwise would 
drastically undermine the separation of powers enshrined in our 
Constitution.
    This was not what our Framers intended. Nowhere in the 
Constitution or in the Federal statute is abuse of power or 
obstruction of Congress listed as a crime--nowhere. What 
constitutes an impeachable offense is not left to the 
discretion of the Congress. We cannot expand, I believe, on the 
scope of actions that could be deemed impeachable beyond that 
which the Framers intended.
    What we really have here, I believe, is nothing more than 
the abuse of the power of impeachment itself by the Democratic 
House. Doesn't our country deserve better? The President 
certainly deserves better.
    Today I am proud to stand and repudiate those very weak 
impeachment efforts, and I will accordingly vote to acquit the 
President on both articles.
    My hope is that, in the future, Congress will reject this 
episode and, instead, choose to be guided by the Constitution 
and the words from our Framers.
    Basically, I believe it is a time to move on. We know that 
the American economy is booming. The United States is 
projecting strength and promoting peace abroad. The President 
is unbowed. I believe the American people see all of this. At 
the end of the day, the ultimate judgment rests in their hands. 
In my judgment, that is just as it should be.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 5, 2020]

                 Statement of Senator Richard J. Durbin

    Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, Benjamin Franklin knew the 
strength of our Constitution, but he also knew its 
vulnerability. His words, oft repeated on this floor--``a 
republic, if you can keep it''--were a stark warning. Franklin 
believed every generation could face the challenge of 
protecting and defending our Nation's liberty-affirming 
document.
    We know this personally. Before we can legally serve as 
Senators, we must publicly swear an oath to support and defend 
the Constitution of the United States. A trial of impeachment, 
more than any other Senate assignment, tests the oath each one 
of us takes before the people of this Nation.
    The President's legal team warns us of the danger of 
impeachment and conviction. They tell us to think carefully 
about what the removal of a duly elected President could mean 
for our democracy. But if we should have our eyes wide open to 
the danger of conviction, we also cannot ignore the danger of 
acquittal. The facts of this impeachment are well known, and 
many Republicans concede that they are likely true. They 
believe as I do, that President Trump pressured the Ukrainian 
President by withholding vital military aid and a prized White 
House visit in return for the announcement of an investigation 
of the Bidens and the Russian-concocted CrowdStrike fantasy.
    Some of these same Republicans acknowledge that what the 
President did was ``inappropriate.'' At least one has used the 
word ``impeachable.'' But many say they are still going to vote 
to acquit him regardless. So let's open our eyes to the morning 
after a judgment of acquittal. Facing a well-established 
election siege by Russia and other enemies of the United 
States, we, the Senate, will have absolved a President who 
continues to brazenly invite foreign interference in our 
elections. Expect more of the same.
    A majority of this body will have voted for the President's 
argument that inviting interference by a foreign government is 
not impeachable if it serves the President's personal political 
interests.
    We will also have found for the first time in the history 
of this Nation that an impeachment proceeding in the Senate can 
be conducted without any direct witnesses or evidence presented 
on either side of the case and that a President facing 
impeachment can ignore subpoenas to produce documents or 
witnesses to Congress.
    Alexander Hamilton described the Senate as the very best 
venue for an impeachment trial because it is ``independent and 
dignified,'' in his words. When the Senate voted 51 to 49 
against witnesses and evidence, those 51 raised into question 
any claim to independence or dignity.
    In addition, an acquittal will leave the extreme views 
stated by the President's defense counsel Alan Dershowitz 
unchallenged: first, that abuse of power is not an impeachable 
offense; second, that the impeachment charges against the 
President were constitutionally insufficient; and, third, his 
most dangerous theory, that unless the President has committed 
an actual crime, his conduct cannot be corrupt or impeachable 
as long as he believes it was necessary for his reelection.
    By this logic, Professor Dershowitz would have excused 
Richard Nixon's ordering of IRS audits of his political 
enemies. Mr. Dershowitz has created an escape clause to 
impeachment, which is breathtaking in its impact and unfounded 
in our legal history. We have all received a letter signed by 
nearly 300 constitutional law scholars flatly rejecting the 
arguments offered by the President's defense team.
    I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the 
scholars' letter.
    There being no objection, the material was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                                  January 31, 2020.
    To the United States Senate: The signatories of this letter are 
professors of law and scholars of the American constitution who write 
to clarify that impeachment does not require proof of crime, that abuse 
of power is an impeachable offense, and that a president may not abuse 
the powers of his office to secure re-election, whatever he may believe 
about how beneficial his continuance in power is to the country.
        impeachable conduct does not require proof of any crime
    Impeachment for ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' under Article II 
of the U.S. Constitution does not require proof that a president 
violated any criminal law. The phrase ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' 
is a term of art consciously adopted by the drafters of the American 
constitution from Great Britain. Beginning in 1386, the term was 
frequently used by Parliament to describe the wide variety of conduct, 
much of it non-criminal abuses of official power, for which British 
officials were impeached.
    The phrase ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' was introduced into the 
American constitution by George Mason, who explained the necessity for 
expanding impeachment beyond ``treason and bribery'' by drawing his 
colleagues' attention to the ongoing parliamentary impeachment trial of 
Warren Hastings. Hastings was charged with a long list of abuses of 
power that his articles of impeachment labeled ``high crimes and 
misdemeanors,'' but which even his chief prosecutor, Edmund Burke, 
admitted were not prosecutable crimes. On George Mason's motion, the 
Philadelphia convention wrote into our constitution the same phrase 
Parliament used to describe Hastings' non-criminal misconduct.
    No convention delegate ever suggested that impeachment be limited 
to violations of criminal law. Multiple founders emphasized the need 
for impeachment to extend to plainly non-criminal conduct. For example, 
James Madison and George Nicholas said that abuses of the pardon power 
should be impeachable. Edmund Randolph believed that violation of the 
foreign emoluments clause would be.
    Thus, Alexander Hamilton's famous observation in Federalist 65 that 
impeachable offenses ``are of a nature which may with peculiar 
propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries 
done immediately to the society itself'' was not merely an advocate's 
rhetorical flourish, but a well-informed description of the shared 
understanding of those who wrote and ratified the Constitution.
    Since ratification, one senator and multiple judges have been 
impeached for non-criminal behavior. The first federal official 
impeached, convicted, and removed for ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' 
was Judge John Pickering, whose offenses were making bad legal rulings, 
being drunk on the bench, and taking the name of the Supreme Being in 
vain.
    Among presidents, the tenth and eleventh articles of impeachment 
against President Andrew Johnson charged non-criminal misconduct. The 
first and second articles of impeachment against President Richard 
Nixon approved by the House Judiciary Committee allege both criminal 
and non-criminal conduct, and the third alleges non-criminal 
obstruction of Congress. Indeed, the Nixon House Judiciary Committee 
issued a report in which it specifically rejected the contention that 
impeachable conduct must be criminal.
    The consensus of scholarly opinion is that impeachable conduct does 
not require proof of crime.
      abuse of power is an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor
    It has been suggested that abuse of power is not an impeachable 
high crime and misdemeanor. The reverse is true. The British Parliament 
invented impeachment as a legislative counterweight to abuses of power 
by the Crown and its ministers. The American Framers inserted 
impeachment into our constitution primarily out of concern about 
presidential abuse of power. They inserted the phrase ``high crimes and 
misdemeanors'' into the definition of impeachable conduct in order to 
cover non-criminal abuses of power of the type charged against Warren 
Hastings.
    As Edmund Randolph observed at the Constitutional Convention, ``the 
propriety of impeachments was a favorite principle with him'' because 
``[t]he Executive will have great opportunities of abusing his power.'' 
In Federalist 65, Hamilton defined ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' as 
``those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, 
in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.''
    This understanding has often been expressed in the ensuing 
centuries. For example, in 1926, the House voted to impeach U.S. 
District Judge George English. The Judiciary Committee report on the 
matter reviewed the authorities and concluded:
    Thus, an official may be impeached for offenses of a political 
character and for gross betrayal of public interests. Also, for abuses 
or betrayals of trusts, for inexcusable negligence of duty [or] for the 
tyrannical abuse of power.
    Two of the three prior presidential impeachment crises have 
involved charges of abuse of power. The eleventh article of impeachment 
against President Andrew Johnson alleged that he abused his power by 
attempting to prevent implementation of reconstruction legislation 
passed by Congress in March 1867, and thus violated Article II, Section 
3, of the constitution by failing to ``take care that the laws be 
faithfully executed.'' The second article of impeachment against 
Richard Nixon charged a litany of abuses of presidential power, 
including ``interfering with agencies of the Executive Branch.''
    Even if no precedent existed, the constitutional logic of 
impeachment for abuse of presidential power is plain. The president is 
granted wide powers under the constitution. The framers recognized that 
a great many misuses of those powers might violate no law, but 
nonetheless pose immense danger to the constitutional order. They 
consciously rejected the idea that periodic elections were a sufficient 
protection against this danger and inserted impeachment as a remedy.
    The consensus of scholarly opinion is that abuse of power is an 
impeachable ``high crime and misdemeanor.''
  a president may not abuse his powers of office to secure his own re-
                                election
    Finally, one of President Trump's attorneys has suggested that so 
long as a president believes his re-election is in the public interest, 
``if a president did something that he believes will help get him 
elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro 
quo that results in his impeachment.'' It is true that merely because a 
president makes a policy choice he believes will have beneficial 
political effects, that choice is not necessarily impeachable. However, 
if a President employs his powers in a way that cannot reasonably be 
explained except as a means of promoting his own reelection, the 
president's private conviction that his maintenance of power is for the 
greater good does not insulate him from impeachment. To accept such a 
view would be to give the president carte blanche to corrupt American 
electoral democracy.
    Distinguishing between minor misuses of presidential authority and 
grave abuses requiring impeachment and removal is not an exact science. 
That is why the Constitution assigns the task, not to a court, but to 
Congress, relying upon its collective wisdom to assess whether a 
president has committed a ``high crime and misdemeanor'' requiring his 
conviction and removal.
                              signatories
    Frank O. Bowman, III; Michael Gerhardt; Laurence H. Tribe; Brenda 
Wineapple; Timothy Naftali; Neal Kumar Katyal; Pamela S. Karlan; Noah 
Feldman; Jack M. Balkin; David A. Strauss; Martha Minow; Geoffrey R. 
Stone; Walter Dellinger; Charles Fried; Erwin Chemerinsky.
    Paul Butler; Ralph G. Steinhardt; Dawn Johnsen; Sanford Levinson; 
John Mikhail; Michael C. Dorf; Julie R. O'Sullivan; Girardeau A. Spann; 
Richard Primus; Corey Brettschneider; Victoria Nourse; Robin West; Abbe 
Smith; James V. Feinerman; Jane M. Spinak, Esq.
    Peter L. Strauss; Jeffrey Fagan; Ira C. Lupu; David C. Vladeck; 
Eric M. Freedman; Carol L. Chomsky; Jennifer Taub; Naomi R. Cahn; 
Stephen I. Vladeck; Jed Shugerman; Ilya Somin; Michael Diamond; Paul 
Litton; Charles G. Geyh; Prof. Joshua Schwartz.
    Alan B. Morrison; Deborah Epstein; Dale A. Whitman; Rodney J. 
Uphoff; Barry Friedman; Greer Donley; Justin Levitt; Barbara A. Atwood; 
Daniel J. Steinbock; Samantha Buckingham; Maxwell Stearns; Lauren E. 
Willis; Kirsten Matoy Carlson; Steven Alan Childress; Liz Ryan Cole.
    Florence Wagman Roisman; Margo Kaplan; Mark A. Graber; Sally 
Goldfarb; Carli N. Conklin; Kandice Johnson; Jeffrey O. Cooper; John 
Lande; Mary M. Beck; Benjamin G. Davis; Randy Diamond; Melanie 
DeRousse; Gerald S. Dickinson; Laura Rovner; J. Amy Dillard; Martha 
Albertson Fineman; Nancy Ota; Ann F. Thomas.
    Prof. Dr. Jennifer A. Drobac; Cynthia Matson Adams; Denise Platfoot 
Lacey, Esq.; David A. Fischer; Ann E. Freedman; Michael A. Middleton; 
S. David Mitchell; Lance Gable; Julie Goldscheid; Stuart Green; Alan K. 
Chen; Christopher Hawthorne.
    Joshua Aaron Jones, JD, LL.M.; David R. Katner; Nicole B. Godfrey; 
Stefan H. Krieger; Sarah Lamdan; Laurie L. Levenson; Ann E. Tweedy; 
Caroline Mala Corbin; Nicole K. McConlogue; David S. Cohen; Perry Dane; 
Stephen Meili.
    James May; Nancy Ota; Catherine J. Ross; April Dawson; Professor 
Laura J. Hines; Jane C. Murphy; John T. Nockleby; Professor Nancy 
Levit; Jonathan Oberman; Michele Gilman; Katherine A. Perez; Stephen 
Loffredo; William D. Rich.
    Joyce Saltalamachia; Dveera Segal; Liz Ryan Cole; Ann Shalleck; 
Kate Shaw; Earl Singleton; Keith Werhan; Mary B. Culbert; Robert 
Calhoun; Christine Minhee; Nancy Chi Cantalupo; Professor Steven 
Zeidman; Kathleen Kim; Professor Lisa Kelly; Alan Saltzman.
    Prof. Karl Manheim; Jeffrey M. Feldman; Leah M Litman; Elliott 
Milstein; Prof. Deborah A Ramirez; Stacy Hawkins; Jeffrey T. Renz; Mary 
Crossley; Barbara S. Barron; Ira P. Robbins; Clark B. Lombardi, JD, 
PhD; Penny M. Venetis; Michael Lawrence; Joanna L. Grossman; Theo 
Liebmann.
    Paul L. Tractenberg; Mikah K. Thompson; Professor Vernon Valentine 
Palmer; Barbara Stark; Anya Bernstein; Ruti Teitel; William D. Araiza; 
Lauren Gilbert, Esq.; Christopher E. Czerwonka; James May; Kimberly 
West-Faulcon; Natalie Gomez-Velez; Phyllis Goldfarb; Rachel Van Cleave; 
Arnold Rochvarg; Lindsey Webb.
    Ethan J. Leib; Carlton F.W. Larson; Natalie M. Chin; Heidi K. 
Brown; Elizabeth McCormick; Bernard P. Perlmutter, Esq.; Robert St. 
Martin Westley; John Burkoff; David Rudenstine; Inge M. Van der 
Cruysse; James Levin; Babe Howell; Robert Knowles; Yvonne Lindgren; Mae 
Kuykendall.
    Marie A. Failinger; Katherine Mattes; Rebecca L. Brown; David B. 
Cruz; Christoph Henkel; Jim Rowan; Elizabeth B. Cooper; Debra Bechtel; 
Cornell Clayton; Paul Barron; Allie Robbins; Wanda M. Temm; Jean C. 
Love; Rosemary Salomone; Rachel Vorspan; Beryl Blaustone.
    Susan Etta Keller; Tom I. Romero, II J.D., Ph.D.; Prof. Dr. Frank 
Emmert, LL.M., FCIArb; Kiel Brennan-Marquez; Marcy Strauss; David A. 
Harris; Catherine M. Grosso; Lissa Griffin; Steven Mulroy; William W. 
Berry III; Richard D. Friedman; Anthony M. Dillof; Leslie Rose; Arthur 
B. Lafrance; Pamela R. Metzger.
    Eric J. Miller; Marianne Wesson; Stephen F. Smith; Professor Mark 
A. Dotson; Donna Coker; Janet Dolgin; Lynda G. Dodd, J.D., Ph.D.; David 
B. Wexler; Prof. Deborah A Ramirez; Ric Simmons; Matthew R. Hall; 
Miriam R. Albert; Jennifer A. Gundlach; Michael M. O'Hear.
    Robert Westley; Lolita Buckner Inniss; Margie Paris; Amy T. 
Campbell; Prof. Bruce A. Boyer; Fabio Arcila, Jr.; Michael L. Perlin, 
Esq.; Vincent M. Southerland; Robert M. Sanger; Cynthia Godsoe; Caren 
Morrison; Daniel JH Greenwood; Paula C. Johnson; Michael H. Hoffheimer.
    Jenia I. Turner; Ben Trachtenberg; Catherine Powell; Ruth-Arlene W. 
Howe; Charisa Kiyo Smith, Esq.; Dana Alicia Thompson; Mark C. Modak-
Truran, J.D., Ph.D.; Professor Irma S. Russell; Nicholas W. Allard; 
Sarah E. Ricks; Daniel Farber; M. Isabel Medina; Evan Caminker; Miguel 
Schor; Nina Chernoff.
    Rashmi Goel; Barbara Ann White; Monica Eppinger; Jimmy Gurule; 
Odeana R. Neal; Gabriel J. Chin; Margaret Montoya, J.D.; Anil Kalhan; 
Rebecca K. Stewart; Anthony Paul Farley; Sahar Aziz; Jaya Ramji-
Nogales; Amy Widman; Perry Dane; Maya Manian.
    Amanda Leiter; Paula Galowitz; Jesse A. Goldner; Anthony Paul 
Farley; Elizabeth Nevins; Rick Wilson; Prof. Jonathan Askin; James R. 
Maxeiner; Genevieve Byrne; Daniel L. Hatcher; Fred B. Brown; Joseph 
Pileri; David Jaros; Mark N. Aaronson.
    Sonia Gipson Rankin; Richard C. Reuben; Sam Erman; Katy Ramsey; 
Janet M. Calvo; R. Wilson Freyermuth; Sarah Helene Duggin; Danaya C. 
Wright; Charles S. Bobis; Kim D. Ricardo; James Gray Pope; Chuck 
Henson; George W. Conk, M.A., J.D.

    Mr. DURBIN. Yet a verdict of acquittal by the Senate 
blesses the professor's torturous reasoning. An acquittal 
verdict would also give President Trump's personal attorney 
Rudy Giuliani a pat on the back to continue his global 
escapades, harassing American Ambassadors whose service he 
distrusts, and lounging at European cigar bars with an 
entourage of post-Soviet amigos.
    More than anything, a verdict of acquittal says a majority 
of the Senate believes this President is above the law and 
cannot be held accountable for conduct abusing the powers of 
his office. And make no mistake, this President believes that 
is true.
    On July 23--2 days before his phone call with President 
Zelensky--President Trump spoke to a group of young supporters 
and he said: ``I have an Article II, where I have the right to 
do whatever I want as president.''
    This is the dangerous principle that President Trump and 
his lawyers are asking us, with a verdict of acquittal, to 
accept. Under the oath I have sworn, I cannot.
    What does it say of this Congress and our Nation that in 3 
years, we have become so anesthetized to outrage that, for a 
majority in this Senate, there is nothing--nothing--this 
President can do or say that rises to the level of blushworthy, 
let alone impeachable?
    Nearly 6 years ago, I traveled to Ukraine with a bipartisan 
group of Senate colleagues led by John McCain. It was one of 
John's whirlwind visits where we crammed 5 days' worth of 
meetings into 48 hours. We arrived in Kyiv on March 14, 2014. 
It was bitterly cold. Ukrainians had just ousted a corrupt, 
Russian-backed leader who looted the national treasury and 
hollowed out their nation's military. They had done so by 
taking to the streets, risking their lives for democracy and a 
better future. More than 100 ordinary citizens in Kyiv had been 
killed by security forces of the old government simply because 
they were protesting for democracy.
    Seeing Ukraine in a fragile democratic transition, Vladimir 
Putin pounced on them, ordered an invasion and occupied Crimea. 
Putin and his thinly disguised Russian thugs were on the verge 
of seizing Donetsk in the east.
    I asked the Prime Minister what Ukraine needed to defend 
itself. He said:

    Everything. We don't have anything that floats, flies or 
runs.

    Many may not appreciate how devastating Russia's war on 
Ukraine has been to that struggling young democracy. Their 
costly battle with Russia was for a principle that is really 
basic to America's national security as well.
    In a country with one-eighth of our population, more 
Ukrainian troops have died defending Ukraine from Russia than 
American troops have perished in Afghanistan.
    During the months President Trump illegally withheld 
military aid, as many as two dozen Ukrainian soldiers were 
killed in battle. By withholding security aid from Ukraine for 
President Trump's personal political benefit, he endangered the 
security of a fragile democracy.
    Can there be any deeper betrayal of a President's 
responsibility than to endanger our national security and the 
security of an ally for his own personal political gain?
    And to those of my colleagues who describe the President's 
conduct as merely ``inappropriate,'' I disagree. Disparaging 
John McCain's service to our country is disgusting and 
inappropriate. What this President has done to Ukraine crosses 
that line. It is impeachable.
    I will close by remembering two public servants who, like 
us, were called by history to judge a President. Tom Railsback 
passed away as this impeachment proceeding began. He was 2 days 
shy of his 88th birthday. I knew Tom. I considered him a 
friend.
    In 1974, Tom was a Republican Congressman from Moline, IL, 
and a member of the House Judiciary Committee. He regarded 
President Nixon as a political friend. He believed that Richard 
Nixon had achieved much for America, including the opening of 
the door to China.
    After studying the Watergate evidence closely, Congressman 
Railsback came to believe that Richard Nixon had violated the 
Constitution. When President Nixon refused to turn over records 
and recordings requested by Congress, Tom Railsback took to the 
House floor to say: ``If the Congress doesn't get the material 
we think we need and then votes to exonerate, we'll be regarded 
as a paper tiger.''
    When he voted to impeach President Nixon, Tom believed it 
was probably the end of his career, but he was elected four 
more times. To his dying day, Tom Railsback was proud of his 
vote. He voted for his country above his party.
    Bill Cohen--also a Republican--was a freshman Congressman 
at the time and a member of the House Judiciary Committee. He 
studied the evidence with Tom Railsback and then worked with 
him to draft Articles of Impeachment.
    Bill Cohen received death threats, and he thought his votes 
to impeach President Nixon would be the end of his political 
career. But he went on to a distinguished career in the House, 
three terms in the Senate, and served as Secretary of Defense.
    Listen to what Bill Cohen said recently of President's 
Trump's actions:

    This is presidential conduct that you want to be ashamed 
of. He is corrupting institutions, politicizing the military, 
and acts like he is THE law.

    And then Cohen added:

    If [the President's conduct] is acceptable, we really don't 
have a Republic as we've known it any more.

    May I respectfully say to my Senate colleagues, Ben 
Franklin warned us of this day.
    I will vote guilty on both Articles of Impeachment against 
President Donald John Trump, on article I abuse of power and 
article II obstruction of Congress. But at this moment of high 
constitutional drama, I hope my last words can be a personal 
appeal to my Senate colleagues.
    Last night, many of us attended a State of the Union 
Address which was as emotionally charged as any I have ever 
attended. As divided as our Nation may be and as divided as the 
Senate may be, we should remember America has weathered greater 
storms than this impeachment and our current political 
standoff.
    It was Abraham Lincoln, in the darkness of our worst storm, 
who called on us ``to strive on to finish the work we are in, 
to work to bind the nation's wounds.''
    After this vote and after this day, those of us who are 
entrusted with this high office must each do our part to work 
to bind the wounds of our divided nation. I hope we can leave 
this Chamber with that common resolve.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 5, 2020]

                  Statement of Senator Lindsey Graham

    Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, let me just begin with a note of 
optimism. You are going to get to pick the next President, not 
a bunch of politicians driven by sour grapes. I don't say that 
lightly. I didn't vote for President Trump. I voted for 
somebody I wouldn't know if they walked in the door. But I 
accepted the fact that he won. That has been hard for a lot of 
people to do. And it is not like I am above the President being 
investigated.
    I supported the Mueller investigation. I had Democratic 
colleagues come to me and say: We are afraid he is going to 
fire Mueller. Will you stand with us to make sure Mueller can 
complete his investigation? And I did--2 years, $32 million, 
FBI agents, subpoenas, you name it. The verdict is in. What did 
we find? Nothing. I thought that would be it.
    But it is never enough when it comes to President Trump. 
This sham process is the low point in the Senate for me. If you 
think you have done the country a good service by legitimizing 
this impeachment process, what you have done is unleashed the 
partisan forces of Hell. This is sour grapes.
    They impeached the President of the United States in 78 
days. You cannot get a parking ticket, if you contested it, in 
78 days. They gave out souvenir pens when it was over.
    If you can't see through that, your hatred of Donald Trump 
has blinded you to the obvious. This is not about protecting 
the country; this is about destroying the President.
    There are no rules when it comes to Donald Trump. Everybody 
in America can confront the witnesses against them, except 
Donald Trump. Everybody in America can call witnesses on their 
behalf, except President Trump. Everybody in America can 
introduce evidence, except for President Trump. He is not above 
the law, but you put him below the law. In the process of 
impeaching this President, you have made it almost impossible 
for future Presidents to do their job.
    In 78 days, you took due process, as we have come to know 
it in America, and threw it in the garbage can. This is the 
first impeachment in the history of the country driven by 
politicians.
    The Nixon impeachment had outside counsel, Watergate 
prosecutors. The Clinton impeachment had Ken Starr, who looked 
at President Clinton for years before he brought it to 
Congress. The Mueller investigation went on for 2 years. I 
trusted Bob Mueller. And when he rendered his verdict, it broke 
your heart. And you can't let it go.
    The only way this is going to end permanently is for the 
President to get reelected. And he will.
    So as to abuse of Congress, it is a wholesale assault on 
the Presidency; it is abandoning every sense of fairness that 
every American has come to expect in their own lives; it is 
driven by blind partisanship and hatred of the man himself. And 
they wanted to do it in 78 days. Why? Because they wanted to 
impeach him before the election. I am not making this up. They 
said that.
    The reason the President never was allowed to go to court 
and challenge the subpoenas that were never issued is because 
the House managers understood it might take time. President 
Clinton and President Nixon were allowed to go to article III 
court and contest the House's action. That was denied this 
President because it would get in the way of impeaching him 
before the election.
    And you send this crap over here, and you are OK with it, 
my Democratic colleagues. You are OK with the idea that the 
President was denied his day in court, and you were going to 
rule on executive privilege as a political body. You are 
willing to deal out the article III court because you hate 
Trump that much.
    What you have done is you have weakened the institution of 
the Presidency. Be careful what you wish for because it is 
going to come back your way.
    Abuse of Congress should be entitled ``abuse of power by 
the Congress.'' If you think Adam Schiff is trying to get to 
the truth, I have a bridge I want to sell you. These people 
hate Trump's guts. They rammed it through the House in a way 
you couldn't get a parking ticket, and they achieved their goal 
of impeaching him before the election.
    The Senate is going to achieve its goal of acquitting him 
in February. The American people are going to get to decide in 
November whom they want to be their President.
    Acquittal will happen in about 2 hours; exoneration comes 
when President Trump gets reelected because the people of the 
United States are fed up with this crap. But the damage you 
have done will be long-lasting.
    Abuse of power. You are impeaching the President of the 
United States for suspending foreign aid for a short period of 
time that they eventually received ahead of schedule to 
leverage an investigation that never happened. You are going to 
remove the President of the United States for suspending 
foreign aid to leverage an investigation of a political 
opponent that never occurred. The Ukrainians did not know of 
the suspension until September. They didn't feel any pressure. 
If you are OK with Joe Biden and Hunter Biden doing what they 
did, it says more about you than it does anything else. The 
point of the abuse of power article is that you made it almost 
impossible now for any President to pick up the phone, if all 
of us can assume the worst and impeach somebody based on this 
objective standard. He was talking about corruption in Ukraine 
with a past President.
    And the Bidens' conduct in Ukraine undercut our ability to 
effectively deal with corruption by allowing his son to receive 
$3 million from the most corrupt gas company in Ukraine. Can 
you imagine how the Ukrainian Parliamentarian must have felt to 
be lectured by Joe Biden about ending sweetheart deals?
    What you have done is impeached the President of the United 
States and willing to remove him because he suspended foreign 
aid for 40 days to leverage an investigation that never 
occurred.
    And to my good friend Dick Durbin, Donald Trump has done 
more to help the Ukrainian people than Barack Obama did in his 
entire 8 years. If you are looking for somebody to help the 
Ukrainian people fight the Russians, how about giving them some 
weapons?
    This is a sham. This is a farce. This is disgusting. This 
is an affront to President Trump as a person. It is a threat to 
the office. It will end soon. There is going to be an 
overwhelming rejection of both articles. We are going to pick 
up the pieces and try to go forward.
    But I can say this without any hesitation: I worry about 
the future of the Presidency after what has happened here. 
Ladies and gentlemen, you will come to regret this whole 
process.
    And to those who have those pens, I hope you will 
understand history will judge those pens as a souvenir of 
shame.
    Mr. President, this is my second Presidential impeachment. 
My first was as a House manager for the impeachment of 
President Clinton. I believe President Clinton corruptly 
interfered in a lawsuit filed against him by a private citizen 
alleging sexual assault and misconduct. It was clear to me that 
President Clinton tampered with the evidence, suborned perjury, 
and tried to deny Paula Jones her day in court. I believed then 
and continue to believe now that these criminal acts against a 
private citizen by President Clinton were wholly unacceptable 
and should have cost him his job. However, at the end of the 
Clinton impeachment, I accepted the conclusions of the Senate 
and said that a cloud had been removed from the Presidency, and 
it was time to move on.
    During the Clinton impeachment, I voted against one Article 
of Impeachment that related to lying under oath regarding his 
sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. While the conduct 
covered by that article was inappropriate, to have made such 
conduct impeachable would have done grave damage to the 
Presidency by failing to recognize that, in the future, the 
office will be occupied by flawed human beings. It was obvious 
to me that President Clinton's lying under oath about his 
relationship with Monica Lewinsky, while wrong, was not a high 
crime or misdemeanor and that many people in similar 
circumstances would be inclined to lie to protect themselves 
and their families.
    As to the impeachment of President Trump, I feel compelled 
to condemn the impeachment process used in the House because I 
believe it was devoid of basic, fundamental due process. The 
process used in the House for this impeachment was unlike that 
used for Presidents Nixon or Clinton. This impeachment was 
completed within 78 days and had a spirit of partisanship and 
revenge that if accepted by the Senate will lead to the 
weaponization of impeachment against future presidents.
    President Trump was entirely shut out of the evidence 
gathering stage in the House Intelligence Committee, denied the 
right to counsel, and the right to cross-examine and call 
witnesses. Moreover, the great volume of evidence gathered 
against President Trump by the House Intelligence Committee 
consists of inadmissible hearsay. The House Judiciary Committee 
impeachment hearings were, for lack of a better term, a sham. 
And most importantly, the House managers admitted the reason 
that neither the House Intelligence Committee nor the House 
Judiciary Committee sought testimony in the House from 
President Trump's closest advisers, including former National 
Security Advisor John Bolton, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, 
and Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, is because it would 
have required the House to go to court, impeding their desire 
to impeach the President before the election. It was a 
calculated decision to deal article III courts out of President 
Trump's impeachment inquiry due to a political timetable. The 
Senate must send a clear message that this can never, ever 
happen again.
    As to the substance of the allegations against President 
Trump, the abuse of power charge as defined by the House is 
vague, does not allege criminal misconduct, and requires the 
Senate to engage in a subjective analysis of the President's 
motives and actions. The House managers argued to the Senate 
that the sole and exclusive purpose of freezing aid to Ukraine 
was for the private, political benefit of President Trump. It 
is clear to me that there is ample evidence--much more than a 
mere scintilla--that the actions of Hunter Biden and Vice 
President Biden were inappropriate and undercut American 
foreign policy.
    Moreover, there was evidence in the record that officials 
in Ukraine were actively speaking against Candidate Trump and 
were pulling for former Secretary of State Clinton. Based on 
the overwhelming amount of evidence of inappropriate behavior 
by the Bidens and statements by State Department officials 
about certain Ukrainians' beliefs that one American candidate 
would be better than the other, I found it eminently reasonable 
for the President to be concerned about Ukraine corruption, 
election interference, and the behavior of Vice President Biden 
and his son Hunter. It is hard to believe that Vice President 
Biden was an effective messenger for reform efforts in Ukraine 
while his son Hunter was receiving $3 million from Burisma, one 
of Ukraine's most corrupt companies.
    As Professor Dershowitz described, there are three buckets 
for examining allegations of corrupt motive or action with 
regards to impeachment. The first is where there is clearly 
only a public, national benefit, as in the analogy of freezing 
aid to Israel unless it stops building new settlements. The 
second is the mixed motive category in which there is a public 
benefit--in this case, the public benefit of exposing the 
Bidens' conduct in the Ukrainian energy sector--and the 
possibility of a personal, political benefit as well. The third 
is where there is clearly a pure corrupt motive, as when there 
is a pecuniary or financial benefit, an allegation that has not 
been made against President Trump.
    It is obvious to me that, after the Mueller report, 
President Trump viewed the House impeachment inquiry as a gross 
double standard when it comes to investigations. The House 
launched an investigation into his phone call with President 
Zelensky while at the same time the House showed no interest in 
the actions of Vice President Biden and Hunter Biden. The 
President, in my view, was justified in asking the Ukrainians 
to look into the circumstances surrounding the firing of 
Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, who was 
investigating Burisma, and whether his termination benefited 
Hunter Biden and Burisma.
    It is clear to me that the phone call focused on burden-
sharing, corruption, and election interference in an 
appropriate manner. The most vexing question was how the 
President was supposed to deal with these legitimate concerns. 
The House managers in one moment suggest that President Trump 
could not have asked the Attorney General to investigate these 
concerns because that would be equivalent to President Trump 
asking for an investigation of a political rival. But in the 
next moment, the House managers declare that the proper way for 
President Trump to have dealt with those allegations would have 
been to ask the Attorney General to investigate. They cannot 
have it both ways. I believe that it is fair to criticize 
President Trump's overreliance on his private attorney, Rudy 
Giuliani, to investigate alleged corruption and conflicts of 
interest regarding the Bidens and Burisma. However, I do not 
find this remotely an impeachable offense, and it would be 
beneficial for the country as a whole to find ways to deal with 
such matters in the future.
    Assuming the facts in the light most favorable to the House 
managers, that for a period of time the aid was suspended by 
President Trump to get Ukraine to investigate the Bidens and 
election interference, I find both articles fail as 
nonimpeachable offenses. I find this to be the case even if we 
assume the New York Times article about Mr. Bolton is accurate. 
The Ukrainians received the military aid and did not open the 
requested investigation.
    The abuse of power Article of Impeachment is beyond vague 
and requires a subjective analysis that no Senator should have 
to engage in. It also represents an existential threat to the 
Presidency. Moreover, the obstruction of Congress article is 
literally impeaching the President because he chose to follow 
the advice of White House counsel and the Department of Justice 
and he was willing to use constitutional privileges in a manner 
consistent with every other President. This article must be 
soundly rejected, not only in this case, but in the future. 
Whether one likes President Trump or not, he is the President 
with privileges attached to his office.
    The House of Representatives, I believe, abused their 
authority by rushing this impeachment and putting the Senate in 
the position of having to play the role of an article III 
court. The long term effect of this practice would be to neuter 
the Presidency, making the Office of the President only as 
strong as the House will allow.
    The allegations contained in this impeachment are not what 
the Framers had in mind as high crimes or misdemeanors. The 
Framers, in my view, envisioned serious, criminal-like 
misconduct that would shake the foundation of the American 
constitutional system. The Nixon impeachment had broad 
bipartisan support once the facts became known. The Clinton 
impeachment started with bipartisan support in the House and 
ended with bipartisan support in the Senate, even though it 
fell well short of the two-thirds vote requirement to remove 
the President. In the case of President Trump, this impeachment 
started as a partisan affair with bipartisan rejection of the 
Articles of Impeachment in the House and, if not rejected in 
the Senate, will lead to impeachment as almost an 
inevitability, as future Presidents will be subject to the 
partisan whims of the House in any given moment.
    My decision to vote not guilty on both Articles of 
Impeachment, I hope, will be seen as a rejection of what the 
House did and how they did it. I firmly believe that article 
III courts have a role in the impeachment process and that, to 
remove a President from office, the conduct has to be of a 
nature that would shake the very foundation of our 
constitutional system. The impeachment of President Trump was 
driven by a level of partisanship and ends justify the means 
behavior that the American people have rejected. The best way 
to end this matter is to allow the American people to vote for 
or against President Trump in November, not to remove him from 
the ballot.
    These Articles of Impeachment must be soundly rejected by 
the Senate because they represent an assault on the Presidency 
itself and the weaponization of impeachment as a political 
tool. They must fail for a variety of reasons. First, the 
conduct being alleged by House managers is that there was a 
temporary suspension on military assistance to Ukraine, which 
was eventually received ahead of schedule to leverage an 
investigation that never occurred. This is not the 
constitutional earthquake the Founders had in mind regarding 
bribery, treason, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. 
Second, the articles as drafted do not allege any semblance of 
a crime and require the Senate to make a subjective analysis of 
the President's motives. Third, the record is abundant with 
evidence that the President had legitimate concerns about 
corruption, election interference emanating from Ukraine, and 
that Vice President Biden and his son undercut U.S. efforts to 
reform corruption inside Ukraine.
    The second article, alleging obstruction of Congress, is 
literally punishing the President for exercising the legal 
rights available to all Presidents as part of our 
constitutional structure. This article must fail because the 
House chose their impeachment path based on a political 
timetable of impeaching the President before Christmas to set 
up an election year trial in the Senate. The Senate must reject 
the theory offered by the House managers with regard to 
obstruction of Congress; to do otherwise would allow the House 
in the future to deal article III courts out of the impeachment 
process and give the House complete control over the 
impeachment field in a way that denies fundamental fairness.
    Because it took the House 78 days from start to finish to 
impeach the President of the United States and, during its 
fact-gathering process, the House denied the President the 
right to counsel, to cross-examine witnesses against him, and 
the ability to introduce evidence on his behalf, the Senate 
must reject both Articles of Impeachment.
    I am compelled to vote not guilty, to ensure impeachment 
will not become the new normal.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 5, 2020]

                Statement of Senator Charles E. Schumer

    Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, the Articles of Impeachment 
before us charged President Donald John Trump with offenses 
against the Constitution and the American people.
    The first Article of Impeachment charges that President 
Trump abused the Office of the Presidency by soliciting the 
interference of a foreign power, Ukraine, to benefit himself in 
the 2020 election. The President asked a foreign leader to ``do 
us a favor''--``us'' meaning him--and investigate his political 
opponents.
    In order to elicit these political investigations, 
President Trump withheld a White House meeting and hundreds of 
millions of dollars in military assistance from an ally at war 
with Russia. There is extensive documentation in the record 
proving this quid pro quo and the corrupt motive behind it. The 
facts are not seriously in dispute. In fact, several Republican 
Senators admitted they believe the President committed this 
offense with varying degrees of ``inappropriate,'' ``wrong,'' 
``shameful.'' Almost all Republicans will argue, however, that 
this reprehensible conduct does not rise to the level of an 
impeachable offense.
    The Founders could not have been clearer. William Davie, a 
delegate to the Constitutional Convention, deemed impeachment 
``an essential security,'' lest the President ``spare no 
efforts or means whatever to get himself reelected.''
    James Madison offered a specific list of impeachable 
offenses during a debate in Independence Hall:
    A President ``might lose his capacity'' or embezzle public 
funds.
    ``A despicable soul might even succumb to bribes while in 
office.''
    Madison then arrived at what he believed was the worst 
conduct a President could engage in: the President could 
``betray his trust to foreign powers,'' which would be ``fatal 
to the Republic.'' Those are Madison's words.
    When I studied the Constitution and the Federalist Papers 
in high school, admittedly, I was skeptical of George 
Washington's warning that ``foreign influence is one of the 
most baneful foes of republican government.'' It seemed so far-
fetched. Who would dare? But the foresight and wisdom of the 
Founders endure. Madison was right. Washington was right.
    There is no greater subversion of our democracy than for 
powers outside of our borders to determine elections within 
them. If Americans believe that they don't determine their 
Senator, their Governor, their President, but, rather, some 
foreign potentate does, that is the beginning of the end of 
democracy.
    For a foreign country to attempt such a thing on its own is 
contemptible. For an American President to deliberately solicit 
such a thing--to blackmail a foreign country into helping him 
win an election--is unforgivable.
    Does this rise to the level of an impeachable offense? Of 
course it does. Of course it does. The term ``high crimes'' 
derives from English law. ``Crimes'' were committed between 
subjects of the monarchy. ``High crimes'' were committed 
against the Crown itself. The Framers did not design a 
monarchy; they designed a democracy, a nation where the people 
were King. High crimes are those committed against the entire 
people of the United States.
    The President sought to cheat the people out of a free and 
fair election. How could such an offense not be deemed a high 
crime--a crime against the people? As one constitutional 
scholar in the House Judiciary hearings testified: ``If this is 
not impeachable, nothing is.'' I agree.
    I judge that President Trump is guilty of the first Article 
of Impeachment.
    The second Article of Impeachment is equally 
straightforward. Once the President realized he got caught, he 
tried to cover it up. The President asserted blanket immunity. 
He categorically defied congressional subpoenas, ordered his 
aides not to testify, and withheld the production of relevant 
documents.
    Even President Nixon, author of the most infamous 
Presidential coverup in history, permitted his aides to testify 
in Congress in the Watergate investigation. The idea that the 
Trump administration was properly invoking the various rights 
and privileges of the Presidency is nonsense. At each stage of 
the House inquiry, the administration conjured up a different 
bad-faith justification for evading accountability. There is no 
circumstance under which the administration would have 
complied.
    When I asked the President's counsel twice to name one 
document or one witness the President provided to Congress, 
they could not answer. It cannot be that the President, by dint 
of legal shamelessness, can escape scrutiny entirely.
    Once again, the facts are not in dispute, but some have 
sought to portray the second Article of Impeachment as somehow 
less important than the first. It is not. The second Article of 
Impeachment is necessary if Congress is to ever hold a 
President accountable--again, Democratic or Republican. The 
consequences of sanctioning such categorical obstruction of 
Congress will be far-reaching, and they will be irreparable.
    I judge that President Trump is guilty of the second 
Article of Impeachment.
    The Senate should convict President Trump, remove him from 
the Presidency, and disqualify him from holding future office. 
The guilt of the President on these charges is so obvious that 
here, again, several Republican Senators admit that the House 
has proved its case.
    So instead of maintaining the President's innocence, the 
President's counsel ultimately told the Senate that even if the 
President did what he was accused of, it is not impeachable. 
This has taken the form of an escalating series of 
Dershowitzian arguments, including ``Abuse of power is not an 
impeachable offense''; ``The President can't be impeached for 
noncriminal conduct, but he also can't be indicted for criminal 
conduct''; ``If a President believes his own reelection is 
essential to the Nation, then a quid pro quo is not corrupt.'' 
These are the excuses of a child caught in a lie.
    Each explanation is more outlandish and desperate than the 
last. It would be laughable if not for the fact that the 
cumulative effect of these arguments would render not just this 
President but all Presidents immune from impeachment and 
therefore above the law.
    Several Members of this Chamber said that even if the 
President is guilty and even if it is impeachable, the Senate 
still shouldn't convict the President because there is an 
election coming up--as if the Framers forgot about elections 
when they wrote the impeachment clause. If the Founders 
believed that even when a President is guilty of an impeachable 
offense, the next election should decide his fate, they never 
would have included an impeachment clause in the Constitution. 
That much is obvious.
    Alone, each of the defenses advanced by the President's 
counsel comes close to being preposterous. Together, they are 
as dangerous to the Republic as this President--a fig leaf so 
large as to excuse any Presidential misconduct. Unable to 
defend the President, arguments were found to make him a King.
    Let future generations know that only a fraction of the 
Senate swallowed these fantasies. The rest of us condemn them 
to the ash heap of history and the derision of first-year law 
students everywhere.
    We are only the third Senate in history to sit as a Court 
of Impeachment for the President. The task we were given was 
not easy, but the Framers gave the Senate this responsibility 
because they could not imagine any other body capable of it. 
They considered others, but they entrusted it to us, and the 
Senate failed. The Republican caucus trained its outrage not on 
the conduct of the President but on the impeachment process in 
the House, deriding--falsely--an alleged lack of fairness and 
thoroughness.
    The conjured outrage was so blinding that the Republican 
majority ended up guilty of the very sins it falsely accused 
the House of committing. It conducted the least fair, least 
thorough, most rushed impeachment trial in the history of this 
country.
    A simple majority of Senators denied the Senate's right to 
examine relevant evidence, to call witnesses, to review 
documents, and to properly try the impeachment of the 
President, making this the first impeachment trial in history 
that heard from no witnesses. A simple majority of Senators, in 
deference to and most likely in fear of the President of their 
party, perpetrated a great miscarriage of justice in the trial 
of President Trump. As a result, the verdict of this kangaroo 
court will be meaningless.
    By refusing the facts, by refusing witnesses and documents, 
the Republican majority has placed a giant asterisk--the 
asterisk of a sham trial--next to the acquittal of President 
Trump, written in permanent ink. Acquittal and an unfair trial 
with this giant asterisk--the asterisk of a sham trial--are 
worth nothing at all to President Trump or to anybody else.
    No doubt, the President will boast he received total 
exoneration, but we know better. We know this wasn't a trial by 
any stretch of the definition. And the American people know it, 
too.
    We have heard a lot about the Framers over the past several 
weeks, about the impeachment clause they forged, the separation 
of powers they wrought, the conduct they most feared in our 
chief magistrate. But there is something the Founders 
considered even more fundamental to our Republic: truth. The 
Founders had seen and studied societies governed by the iron 
fist of tyrants and the divine right of Kings, but none by 
argument, rational thinking, facts, and debate.
    Hamilton said the American people would determine ``whether 
societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good 
government from reflection and choice, or . . . forever 
destined to depend on accident and force.'' And what an 
astonishing thing the Founders did. They placed a bet with long 
odds. They believed that ``reflection and choice'' would make 
us capable of self-government; that we wouldn't agree on 
everything, but at least we could agree on a common baseline of 
fact and of truth. They wrote a Constitution with the 
remarkable idea that even the most powerful person in our 
country was not above the law and could be put on trial. A 
trial--a place where you seek truth. The faith our Founders 
placed in us makes the failure of this Senate even more 
damning.
    Our Nation was founded on the idea of truth, but there was 
no truth here. The Republican majority couldn't let truth into 
this trial. The Republican majority refused to get the evidence 
because they were afraid of what it might show.
    Our Nation was founded on the idea of truth, but in order 
to countenance this President, you have to ignore the truth. 
The Republicans walk through the halls with their heads down. 
They didn't see the tweet. They can't respond to everything he 
says. They hope he learned his lesson this time. Yes, maybe, 
this time, he learned his lesson.
    Our Nation was founded on truth, but in order to excuse 
this President, you have to willfully ignore the truth and 
indulge in the President's conspiracy theories: Millions of 
people voted illegally. The deep state is out to get him. 
Ukraine interfered in our elections. You must attempt to 
normalize his behavior. Obama did it, too, they falsely claim. 
The Democrats are just as bad.
    Our Nation was founded on the idea of truth, but this 
President is such a menace--so contemptuous of every virtue, so 
dishonorable, so dishonest--that you must ignore--indeed, 
sacrifice--the truth to maintain his favor.
    The trial of this President--its failure--reflects the 
central challenge of this Presidency and, maybe, the central 
challenge of this time in our democracy. You cannot be on the 
side of this President and be on the side of truth, and if we 
are to survive as a nation, we must choose truth because, if 
the truth doesn't matter, if the news you don't like is fake, 
if cheating in an election is acceptable, if everyone is as 
wicked as the wickedest among us, then hope for the future is 
lost.
    The eyes of the Nation are upon this Senate, and what they 
see will strike doubt in the heart of even the most ardent 
patriot.
    The House managers established that the President abused 
the great power of his office to try to cheat in an election, 
and the Senate majority is poised to look the other way.
    So I direct my final message not to the House managers, not 
even to my fellow Senators, but to the American people. My 
message is simple: Don't lose hope. There is justice in this 
world and truth and right. I believe that. I wouldn't be in 
this government if I didn't. Somehow, in ways we can't predict, 
with God's mysterious hand guiding us, truth and right will 
prevail.
    There have been dark periods in our history, but we always 
overcome. The Senate's opening prayer yesterday was Amos 5:24: 
Let justice roll down like water, righteousness like an ever-
flowing stream.
    The long arc of the moral universe, my fellow Americans, 
does bend toward justice. America does change for the better 
but not on its own. It took millions of Americans hundreds of 
years to make this country what it is today--Americans of every 
age and color and creed who marched and protested, who stood up 
and sat in; Americans who died while defending this democracy, 
this beautiful democracy, in its darkest hours.
    On Memorial Day in 1884, Oliver Wendell Holmes told his 
war-weary audience: ``[W]hether [one] accepts from Fortune her 
spade, and will look downward and dig, or from Aspiration her 
axe and cord, and will scale the ice, the one and only success 
which it is [yours] to command is to bring to [your] work a 
mighty heart.''
    I have confidence that Americans of a different 
generation--our generation--will bring to our work a mighty 
heart to fight for what is right, to fight for the truth, and 
never, never lose faith.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 5, 2020]

                  Statement of Senator Mitch McConnell

    Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the U.S. Senate was made for 
moments like this. The Framers predicted that factional fever 
might dominate House majorities from time to time. They knew 
the country would need a firewall to keep partisan flames from 
scorching our Republic. So they created the Senate--out of 
``necessity,'' James Madison wrote, ``of some stable 
institution in the government.''
    Today, we will fulfill this founding purpose. We will 
reject this incoherent case that comes nowhere near--nowhere 
near--justifying the first Presidential removal in history. 
This partisan impeachment will end today, but I fear the threat 
to our institutions may not because this episode is one symptom 
of something much deeper.
    In the last 3 years, the opposition to this President has 
come to revolve around a truly dangerous concept. Leaders in 
the opposite party increasingly argue that, if our institutions 
don't produce the outcomes they like, our institutions 
themselves must be broken. One side has decided that defeat 
simply means the whole system is broken, that we must literally 
tear up the rules and write new ones.
    Normally, when a party loses an election, it accepts 
defeat. It reflects and retools--but not this time.
    Within months, Secretary Clinton was suggesting her defeat 
was invalid. She called our President ``illegitimate.'' A 
former President falsely claimed: ``[President] Trump didn't 
actually win.'' ``He lost the election,'' a former President 
said. Members of Congress have used similar rhetoric--a 
disinformation campaign, weakening confidence in our democracy.
    The very real issue of foreign election interference was 
abused to fuel conspiracy theories. For years, prominent voices 
said there had been a secret conspiracy between the President's 
campaign and a foreign government, but when the Mueller 
investigation and the Senate Intelligence Committee debunked 
that, the delegitimizing endeavor didn't stop. It didn't stop.
    Remember what Chairman Schiff said here on the floor? He 
suggested that if the American people reelect President Trump 
in November that the election will be presumptively invalid as 
well. That was Chairman Schiff, on this floor, saying, if the 
American people reelect President Trump this November, the 
election will be presumptively invalid as well.
    So they still don't accept the American voters' last 
decision, and now they are preparing to reject the voters' next 
decision if they don't like the outcome--not only the last 
decision but the next decision. Heads, we win. Tails, you 
cheated. And who can trust our democracy anyway, they say?
    This kind of talk creates more fear and division than our 
foreign adversaries could achieve in their wildest dreams. As 
Dr. Hill testified, our adversaries seek to ``divide us against 
each other, degrade our institutions, and destroy the faith of 
the American people in our democracy.'' As she noted, if 
Americans become ``consumed by partisan rancor,'' we can easily 
do that work for them.
    The architects of this impeachment claimed they were 
defending norms and traditions. In reality, it was an assault 
on both.
    First, the House attacked its own precedents on fairness 
and due process and by rushing to use the impeachment power as 
a political weapon of first resort. Then their articles 
attacked the Office of the Presidency. Then they attacked the 
Senate and called us ``treacherous.'' Then the far left tried 
to impugn the Chief Justice for remaining neutral during the 
trial.
    Now, for the final act, the Speaker of the House is trying 
to steal the Senate's sole power to render a verdict. The 
Speaker says she will just refuse to accept this acquittal. The 
Speaker of the House of Representatives says she refuses to 
accept this acquittal--whatever that means. Perhaps she will 
tear up the verdict like she tore up the State of the Union 
Address.
    So I would ask my distinguished colleagues across the 
aisle: Is this really--really--where you want to go? The 
President isn't the President? An acquittal isn't an acquittal? 
Attack institutions until they get their way? Even my 
colleagues who may not agree with this President must see the 
insanity of this logic. It is like saying you are so worried 
about a bull in a china shop that you want to bulldoze the 
china shop to chase it out.
    Here is the most troubling part. There is no sign this 
attack on our institutions will end here. In recent months, 
Democratic Presidential candidates and Senate leaders have 
toyed with killing the filibuster so that the Senate could 
approve radical changes with less deliberation and less 
persuasion.
    Several of our colleagues sent an extraordinary brief to 
the Supreme Court, threatening political retribution if the 
Justices did not decide a case the way they wanted.
    We have seen proposals to turn the FEC--the regulator of 
elections and political speech--into a partisan body for the 
first time ever.
    All of these things signal a toxic temptation to stop 
debating policy within our great American governing traditions 
and, instead, declare war on the traditions themselves--a war 
on the traditions themselves.
    So, colleagues, with whatever policy differences we may 
have, we should all agree this is precisely the kind of 
recklessness the Senate was created to stop. The response to 
losing one election cannot be to attack the Office of the 
Presidency. The response to losing several elections cannot be 
to threaten the electoral college. The response to losing a 
court case cannot be to threaten the judiciary. The response to 
losing a vote cannot be to threaten the Senate.
    We simply cannot let factional fever break our 
institutions. It must work the other way, as Madison and 
Hamilton intended. The institutions must break the fever rather 
than the other way around.
    The Framers built the Senate to keep temporary rage from 
doing permanent damage to our Republic.
    The Framers built the Senate to keep temporary rage from 
doing permanent damage to our Republic. That is what we will do 
when we end this precedent-breaking impeachment.
    I hope we will look back on this vote and say this was the 
day the fever began to break.
    I hope we will not say this was just the beginning.
    Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as Senators, we cast a lot of 
votes throughout our tenure in this body. I have cast over 
13,200 of them. Each vote is important. A vote to convict or 
acquit the President of the United States on charges of 
impeachment is one of the most important votes a Senator could 
ever cast. Until this week, such a vote has only taken place 
twice since the founding of our Republic.
    The President has been accused of committing ``high Crimes 
and Misdemeanors'' for requesting that a foreign leader launch 
an anti-corruption investigation into his potential political 
opponent and obstructing Congress's subsequent inquiry into his 
actions. For such conduct, the House of Representatives asks 
this body to remove the President from office and prohibit him 
from ever again serving in a position of public trust. As both 
a judge and juror, this Senator asks first whether the conduct 
alleged rises to the level of an offense that unquestionably 
demands removal. If it does, I ask whether the House has proven 
beyond a reasonable doubt that the conduct actually occurred. 
The House's case clearly fails on the first of those questions. 
Accordingly, I will vote not guilty on both articles.
    The President's request, taken at face value, is not 
impeachable conduct. A President is not prohibited by law or 
any other restriction from engaging the assistance of a foreign 
ally in an anti-corruption investigation. The House attempts to 
cure this defect by suggesting that the President's subjective 
motive--political advantage--is enough to turn an otherwise 
unimpeachable act into one that demands permanent removal from 
office. I will not lend my vote in support of such an 
unnecessary and irreversible break from the Constitution's 
clear standard for impeachment.
    The Senate is an institution of precedent. We are informed 
and often guided, especially in times like this, by history and 
the actions of our predecessors. While we look to history, 
however, we must be mindful of the reality that our choices 
make history, for better or for worse. What we say and do here 
necessarily becomes part of the roadmap for future Presidential 
impeachments and their consideration by this body. These days, 
that reality can be difficult to keep front and center. 
Partisan fervor to convict or acquit a President of the United 
States who has been impeached can lead to cut corners, 
overheated rhetoric, and rushed results. We are each bound by 
the special oath we take while sitting as a Court of 
Impeachment to ``do impartial justice according to the 
Constitution and laws.'' But as President pro tempore, I 
recognize we must also do justice to the Senate as an 
institution and to the Republic that it serves.
    This trial began with a full and fair opportunity to debate 
and amend the rules that would guide our process. The Senate 
considered and voted on 11 separate amendments to the 
resolution, over the span of nearly 13 hours. Consistent with 
precedent, the Senate adopted a resolution to allow the same 
length of time for opening arguments and questions as was 
agreed to unanimously in 1999 during the Clinton impeachment 
trial. Consistent with precedent, the Senate agreed to table 
the issue of witnesses and additional evidence until after the 
conclusion of questions from Members. Consistent with 
precedent, the Senate engaged in a robust and open debate on 
the necessity of calling witnesses and pursuing additional 
evidence. We heard nearly 24 hours of presentation from the 
House managers, nearly 12 hours of presentation from the 
President's counsel, and we engaged in 16 hours of questioning 
to both sides.
    Up to today, the Senate has sat as a Court of Impeachment 
for a combined total of over 70 hours. The Senate did not and 
does not cut corners, nor can the final vote be credibly called 
a rushed result or anything less than the product of a fair and 
judicious process. Future generations, if faced with the toxic 
turmoil of impeachment, will be better served by the precedent 
we followed and the example we set in this Chamber. I cannot in 
good conscience say the same of the articles before us today.
    I have said since the beginning of this unfortunate episode 
that the House's articles don't, on their face, appear to 
allege anything satisfying the Constitution's clear requirement 
of ``Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' 
Yet I took my role as a juror seriously. I committed to hear 
the evidence in the record and to reflect on the arguments 
made. After 9 days of presentation and questions and after 
fully considering the record as presented to the Senate, I am 
convinced that what the House is asking us to do is not only 
constitutionally flawed but dangerously unprecedented.
    The House's first article, impeaching the President for 
``abuse of power,'' rests on objectively legal conduct. Until 
Congress legislates otherwise, a President is well within his 
or her legal and constitutional authority, as the head of 
state, to request that a foreign leader assist with an anti-
corruption investigation falling outside of the jurisdiction of 
our domestic law enforcement authorities. Short of political 
blowback, there is also nothing in the law that prohibits a 
President from conditioning his or her official acts upon the 
agreement by the foreign leader to carry out such an 
investigation.
    In an attempt to cure this fundamental defect in its 
charge, the House's ``abuse of power'' article sets out an 
impermissibly flexible and vague standard to justify removing 
the Chief Executive from office. As the House's trial brief and 
presentation demonstrated, its theory of the case rests 
entirely on the President's subjective motive for carrying out 
objectively permissible conduct. For two reasons, this cannot 
be sustained.
    First, the House would seemingly have the Senate believe 
that motive by itself is sufficient to prove the illegality of 
an action. House managers repeatedly described the President's 
``corrupt motive'' as grounds for removal from office. But this 
flips basic concepts in our justice system upside down and 
represents an unprecedented expansion of the scope of the 
impeachment authority. With limited exception, motive is 
offered in court to show that the defendant on trial is the one 
who most likely committed the illegal act that has been 
charged. Jealousy might compel one neighbor to steal something 
from the other. But a court doesn't convict the defendant for a 
crime of jealousy. Second, let's assume, however, that motive 
could be grounds for impeachment and removal. The House offers 
no limiting principle or clear standard whatsoever of what 
motives are permissible. Under such an amorphous standard, 
future Houses would be empowered to impeach Presidents for 
taking lawful action for what the House considers to be the 
wrong reasons.
    The House also gives no aid to this institution or to our 
successors on whether impeachment should rest on proving a 
single, ``corrupt'' motive or whether mixed motive suffices 
under their theory for removing a President from office. In its 
trial brief presented to the Senate, the House asserts that 
there is ``no credible alternative explanation'' for the 
President's alleged conduct. This formulation, in the House's 
own brief, necessarily implies that the presence of a credible 
alternative explanation for the President's conduct would 
defeat the ``abuse of power'' theory. But once the Senate heard 
the President's counsel's presentation, the House changed its 
tune. Even a credible alternative explanation--or multiple 
benign motives--shouldn't stop this body from removing the 
President, so long as one ``corrupt'' motive is in the mix. 
This apparent shift in trial strategy seems less indicative of 
a cohesive theory and more reflective of an ``impeach-by-any-
means-necessary'' mindset. But reshaping their own standard 
mid-trial only served to undercut their initial arguments.
    Simply asserting at least 63 times, as the House managers 
did, during the trial that their evidence was ``overwhelming'' 
and that the President's guilt was proven does not make the 
underlying allegations accurate or prove an impeachable 
offense. Even in the midst of questions and answers, after 
opening arguments had concluded, the House managers started 
repeating the terms ``bribery'' and ``extortion'' on the floor 
of the Senate, while neither appears anywhere in the House's 
articles. These are serious, statutory crimes that have 
specific elements of proof; they shouldn't be casually used as 
window dressing to inflame the jury. And the House's attempts 
to shoehorn those charges into their articles is itself a due 
process violation.
    It is not the Senate's job to read into the House's 
articles what the House failed or didn't see fit to incorporate 
itself. No more so is it the job of a judge to read nonexistent 
provisions into legislation that Congress passes and the 
President signs. Articles of Impeachment should not be moving 
targets.
    The Senate, accordingly, doesn't need to resolve today the 
question of whether a criminal violation is necessary for a 
President's conduct to be impeachable. The text of the 
Constitution and the Framers' clear intent to limit the scope 
of the impeachment power counsels in favor of such a brightline 
rule. And until this episode, no President has been impeached 
on charges that didn't include a violation of established law. 
Indeed, the only Presidential impeachments considered by this 
body included alleged violations of laws, and both resulted in 
acquittals. But the stated ambiguities surrounding the House's 
``abuse of power'' theory, acknowledged even by the House 
managers, give this Senator reason enough to vote not guilty. 
If we are to lower the bar of impeachment, we better be clear 
on where the bar is being set.
    The President himself, however, should not conclude from my 
vote that I think his conduct was above reproach. He alone 
knows what his motives were. The President has a duty to the 
American people to root out corruption no matter who is 
implicated. And running for office does not make one immune 
from scrutiny. But the President's request was poorly timed and 
poorly executed, and he should have taken better care to avoid 
even the mere appearance of impropriety. Had he done so, this 
impeachment saga might have been avoided altogether. It is 
clear that many of the President's opponents had plans to 
impeach him from the day he took office. But the President 
didn't have to give them this pretense.
    The House's second article, impeaching the President for 
``obstruction of Congress,'' is equally unprecedented as 
grounds for removal from office and patently frivolous. It 
purports that, if the President claims constitutional 
privileges against Congress, ``threatens'' to litigate, or 
otherwise fails to immediately give up the goods, he or she 
must be removed from office.
    I know a thing or two about obstruction by the executive 
branch under both Democrat and Republican administrations. 
Congressional oversight--rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse--
is central to my role as a Senator representing Iowa taxpayers 
and has been for 40 years. If there is anything as sure as 
death and taxes, it is Federal agencies resisting Congress' 
efforts to look behind the curtain. In the face of obstruction, 
I don't retreat. I go to work. I use the tools the Constitution 
provides to this institution. I withhold consent on nominees 
until I get an honest answer to an oversight request. I work 
with my colleagues to exercise Congress's power of the purse. 
And when necessary, I take the administration to court. That is 
the very core of checks and balances. For years, I fought the 
Obama administration to obtain documents related to Operation 
Fast and Furious. I spent years seeking answers and records 
from the Obama administration during my investigation into 
Secretary Clinton's mishandling of highly classified 
information.
    Under the House's ``obstruction of Congress'' standard, 
should President Obama have been impeached for his failure to 
waive privileges during the course of my and other committees' 
oversight investigations? We fought President Obama on this for 
3 years in the courts, and we still didn't end up with all we 
asked for. We never heard a peep from the Democrats then. So 
the hypocrisy here by the House Democrats is on full display.
    When I face unprecedented obstruction, I don't agitate to 
impeach. Rather, my office aggressively negotiates, in good 
faith, with the executive branch. We discuss the scope of 
questions and document requests. We discuss the intent of the 
inquiry to provide context for the requested documents. We 
build an airtight case and demand cooperation. Negotiations are 
difficult. They take time.
    In the case before us, the House issued a series of 
requests and subpoenas to individuals within the White House 
and throughout the administration. But it did so rather early 
in its inquiry. The House learned of the whistleblower 
complaint in September, issued subpoenas for records in 
October, and impeached the President by December, 4 months from 
opening the inquiry to impeachment for ``obstruction.'' As one 
who can speak from experience, that is unreasonable and doesn't 
allow an investigation to appropriately and reasonably run its 
course. That timeline makes clear to me that the House majority 
really had one goal in mind: to impeach the President at all 
costs, no matter what the facts and the law might say. Most 
importantly, the House failed to exhaust all legal remedies to 
enforce its requests and subpoenas. When challenged to stand up 
for the legality of its requests in court, the investigating 
committee simply retreated. Yet, now, the House accuses the 
Senate of aiding and abetting a coverup, if we don't finish 
their job for them. The evidence is ``overwhelming,'' yet the 
Senate must entertain more witnesses and gather more records 
that the House chose to forgo.
    The House's failure to proceed with their investigation in 
an orderly, reasonable, good-faith manner has created 
fundamental flaws in its own case. They skipped basic steps. It 
is not the job of the Senate to fix the fundamental flaws that 
directly result from the House's failure to do its job. The 
House may cower to defend its own authority, but it will not 
extort and demean this body into cleaning up a mess of the 
House's own making.
    For the myriad ways in which the House failed to exercise 
the fundamentals of oversight, for the terrible new precedent 
the House wants us to endorse, and for the risk of future 
generations taking it up as the standard, I will vote not 
guilty on the obstruction article.
    Now, there has been much discussion and debate about the 
whistleblower whose complaint framed the House's inquiry in 
this case. I have worked for and with whistleblowers for more 
than 30 years. They shed light on waste, fraud, and abuse that 
ought to be fixed and that the public ought to know about, all 
frequently at great personal cost. Whistleblowers are patriots, 
and they are heroes. I believed that in the 1980s. I believe it 
today. I have sponsored, cosponsored, and otherwise strongly 
supported numerous laws designed to strengthen whistleblowers 
protections. I have reminded agencies of the whistleblowers' 
rights to speak with us and of their protection under the law 
for doing so. And this is how it works. Of course, it is much 
better to have firsthand information because it is more 
reliable. However, whether it is firsthand information or 
secondhand, it is possible to conduct a thorough investigation 
of a whistleblower's claims and respect his or her request for 
confidentiality.
    As I said in October of last year, attempts by anyone in 
government or the media to ``out'' a whistleblower just to sell 
an article or score a political point is not helpful. It 
undermines the spirit and purpose of the whistleblower 
protection laws. I remember very well the rabid, public lashing 
experienced by the brave whistleblowers who came to me about 
the Obama administration's Operation Fast and Furious. 
President Obama's Justice Department worked overtime to 
discredit them and tarnish their good names in the press, all 
to protect an operation that it tried to keep hidden from 
Congress and the American people, and that resulted in the 
death of an American Border Patrol agent. That was not the 
treatment those whistleblowers deserved. It is not the 
treatment any whistleblower deserves, who comes forward in good 
faith, to report what he or she truly believes is waste, fraud, 
or abuse.
    But whistleblower claims require careful evaluation and 
follow up, particularly because their initial claim frames your 
inquiry and forms the basis for further fact finding. The 
questions you ask and the documents and witnesses you seek all 
start there. Any investigator worth their salt will tell you 
that part of the investigative process involving a 
whistleblower, or indeed any witness, requires the investigator 
to evaluate that individual's claim and credibility. It is 
standard procedure. So we talk to the whistleblowers, we meet 
with them when possible, we look at their documents. We keep 
them confidential from potential retaliators, but not from the 
folks who need to speak with them to do their jobs. When 
whistleblowers bring to us significant cases of bipartisan 
interest, where we have initially evaluated their claim and 
credibility and determined that the claim merits additional 
follow up, we also frequently work closely with the other side 
to look into those claims.
    We have done many bipartisan investigations of 
whistleblowers' claims over the years and hopefully will 
continue to do so. We trust the other side to respect the 
whistleblower's confidence as well and treat the investigation 
seriously. We have also worked with many witnesses in 
investigations who want to maintain low profiles and who 
request additional security measures to come and speak with us. 
We are flexible on location. We have the Capitol Police. We 
have SCIFs. We have interviewed witnesses in both classified 
and unclassified settings. We are willing to work with those 
witnesses to make them comfortable and to ensure they are in a 
setting that allows them to share sensitive information with 
us.
    I know the House committees, particularly the oversight 
committees, have all taken that course themselves. They 
routinely work with whistleblowers too. Both sides understand 
how to talk to whistleblowers and how to respect their role and 
confidentiality. So why no efforts were taken in this case to 
go through these very basic, bipartisan steps is baffling. I do 
not under any circumstances support reprisal or efforts to 
throw stones without facts. But neither do I support efforts to 
skirt basic fundamental investigative procedures to try and 
learn those facts. I fear that, to achieve its desired ends, 
the House weaponized and politicized whistleblowers and 
whistleblower reporting for purely partisan purposes. I hope 
that the damage done from all sides to these decades-long 
efforts will be short lived.
    Finally, throughout my time on the Judiciary Committee, 
including as chairman, I have made it a priority to hold 
judicial nominees to a standard of restraint and fidelity to 
the law. As judges in the Court of Impeachment, we too should 
be mindful of those factors which counsel restraint in this 
matter.
    To start, these articles came to the Senate as the product 
of a flawed, unprecedented and partisan process. For 71 of the 
78 days of the House's expedited impeachment inquiry, the 
President was not permitted to take part or have agency counsel 
present. Many of the rights traditionally afforded to the 
minority party in impeachment proceedings were altered or 
withheld. And an authorizing vote by the full House didn't 
occur until 4 weeks after hearings had already begun. When the 
articles themselves were put to a vote by the full House, just 
in time for Christmas, the only bipartisanship we saw was in 
opposition. Moreover, the Iowa caucuses have already occurred. 
The 2020 Presidential election is well underway. Yet we are 
being asked to remove the incumbent from the ballot, based on 
Articles of Impeachment supported by only one party in 
Congress. Taken together, the Senate should take no part in 
endorsing the dangerous new precedent this would set for future 
impeachments.
    With more than 28,000 pages of evidence, 17 witnesses, and 
over 70 hours of open, transparent consideration by the Senate, 
I believe the American people are more than adequately prepared 
to decide for themselves the fate of this President in 
November. This decision belongs to them.
    When the Chief Justice spoke up at the start of this trial 
to defuse some rising emotions, he challenged both sides 
addressing the Chamber to ``remember where they are.'' We, too, 
should remember where we are. The U.S. Senate has ably served 
the American people through trying times. These are trying 
times. And when this trial adjourns, the cloud of impeachment 
may not so quickly depart. But if there is any institution best 
equipped to help bridge the divide and once again achieve our 
common goals, it is this one.
    Let's get back to work for the People.
    Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the question before us is 
incredibly serious, but it is also more than a little absurd. 
We are sitting as a court, exercising the sole power to try 
impeachments, entrusted to us by the Framers. The President of 
the United States has been charged with high crimes--a 
constitutional charge of abuse of power that includes in its 
text each of the elements of criminal bribery. The President's 
lawyers have complained all week about the absence of sworn 
testimony from officials with firsthand knowledge of the 
President's actions and intent. They claim not to know when the 
President froze the aid. They falsely claim there is no 
evidence the President withheld the aid in exchange for his 
political errand--announcing an investigation into his 
political rival. And yet whenever the President's counsels have 
pled ignorance or claimed a lack of evidence, they ask not that 
we pursue the truth; they ask instead that we look away.
    The Senate simply cannot look away. In the 220 years this 
body has served as a constitutional court of impeachment, we 
have never refused to look at critical evidence sitting in 
front of us. We have never raced to a pre-ordained verdict 
while deliberately avoiding the truth or evaluating plainly 
critical evidence.
    And when I say ``sitting in front of us,'' I mean that 
literally. Just this morning, we learned that Pat Cipollone, 
lead counsel for the President, along with Rudy Giuliani and 
Mick Mulvaney, was part of a meeting where President Trump 
directed John Bolton to ``ensure [President] Zelensky would 
meet with Mr. Giuliani.'' A meeting with the President's 
personal lawyer is not subject to executive privilege; and a 
meeting with Bolton and Mulvaney is not subject to attorney-
client privilege. And this afternoon we received a proffer from 
Lev Parnas's attorney, claiming that Pamas could provide us 
with testimony implicating several Cabinet officials and 
Members of Congress in the President's scheme. I cannot say 
whether that is credible, but shouldn't he at least be heard 
and cross-examined? The Senate cannot turn a blind eye to such 
directly relevant evidence.
    This slipshod process reminds me of another trial. That was 
the trial of Alice in Wonderland. In that trial, the accusation 
was read, and the King immediately said to the jury, ``Consider 
your verdict.'' But even in that case it was acknowledged that 
``There's a great deal to come before that,'' and the first 
witness was called. With apologies to Lewis Carroll, surely the 
U.S. Senate can at least match the rigorous criminal procedure 
of Wonderland?
    The oath that each of us swore just 2 weeks ago requires 
that we do ``impartial justice.'' Reasonable people can 
disagree about what that means, but every single time this body 
has sat as a court--every single time--it has heard from 
witnesses and weighed sworn testimony. We have never been 
denied the opportunity to hear from critical witnesses with 
firsthand information. During the Johnson trial, this court 
heard live testimony from 41 witnesses, including private 
counsel for the President and a Cabinet secretary. During the 
Clinton trial, three witnesses were deposed, and we considered 
the grand jury testimony of the President's chief of staff, 
deputy chief of staff, and White House Counsel--plus the grand 
jury testimony of the President himself. ``Impartial justice'' 
cannot mean burying our collective heads in the sand, and 
preventing relevant, probative testimony from being taken.
    Briefly, I also want to address the arguments made against 
calling witnesses. The President has said that ``Witnesses are 
up to the House, not up to the Senate.'' But the Senate has 
never been, and should not be now, limited to the House record. 
The Senate's constitutional obligation to try impeachments 
stands independent of the House's obligation. The Constitution 
does not allow the House's action or inaction to limit the 
evidence and testimony the Senate can and must consider. The 
last time we sat as a court we heard from 26 witnesses in 
total, including 17 who had not testified before the House. 
Seventeen.
    Some have also said that calling witnesses like John Bolton 
would leave us tangled up in an endless court battle over 
executive privilege. Not so. The Senate alone has the ``sole 
Power to try all Impeachments,'' and the Chief Justice reminded 
us just a few years ago in Zivotofsky v. Clinton that article 
III courts cannot hear cases ``where there `is a textually 
demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a 
coordinate political department.''' And in Walter Nixon v. 
United States, the Supreme Court expressly ruled out 
``[j]udicial involvement in impeachment proceedings, even if 
only for purposes of judicial review.''
    Moreover, and more simply, executive privilege cannot 
prevent testimony from a private citizen like Bolton who is 
willing to testify. And, in any event, the President has almost 
certainly waived any claim to privilege by endlessly tweeting 
and talking to the media about his conversations with Bolton. 
The Senate is not helpless. We are the only court with 
jurisdiction. We can and should resolve these questions.
    Let us conduct this trial with the seriousness it 
deserves--consistent with Senate precedent, the overwhelming 
expectations of the American people, and how every other trial 
across the country is conducted every single day.
    As Senators, we are here to debate and vote on difficult 
questions. I understand this may be a difficult question 
politically--but it is nowhere close to a difficult question 
under the law or common sense. I do not believe for 1 second 
that any of us sought public office to become an accomplice to 
what can only be described as a cover-up. As the Chief Justice 
has reminded us, we have the privilege of serving in the 
world's greatest deliberative body. So let's actually 
deliberate.
    But if we adopt the rule--rejected even in Wonderland--of 
verdict first, witnesses later, be assured those witnesses will 
eventually follow. Whether through FOIA, journalism, or book 
releases, the American people will learn the truth, likely 
sooner rather than later. Maybe even over the upcoming weekend. 
What will they think of a Senate that went to such 
extraordinary lengths--ignoring 220 years of precedent, any 
notions of fairness or respect for facts, and indeed ignoring 
our duties to the Constitution itself--to keep the truth 
buried?
    A vote to preclude witnesses will embolden this President 
to further demean the Congress, this Senate, and the balance of 
power so carefully established by the Framers in the 
Constitution. It will ratify the President's shell game of 
telling the House it should sue to enforce its subpoenas and 
then telling courts that the House has no standing to do so. 
Just today, after a week of his counsel arguing that the 
President cannot be impeached for failing to respond to House 
subpoenas, the Justice Department argued in court that the 
House can use its impeachment power to enforce its subpoenas. 
It is up to all 100 of us to put a stop to this nonsense.
    I have served in this body for 45 years. It is not often we 
face votes like this--votes that will leave a significant mark 
on history and will shape our constitutional ability to serve 
as a check against presidents for generations to come. I pray 
the Senate is worthy of this responsibility and of this moment. 
I fear the repercussions if it is not.
    I will vote to hear from witnesses. With deep respect, I 
ask my fellow Senators to do the same.
    Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the trial 
of President Trump.
    After information from more than a dozen witnesses, over a 
hundred questions, and days of oral arguments, I believe the 
House failed to prove its case for the two Articles of 
Impeachment. The House's story relies on too much speculation, 
guessing games and repetition. It fails to hold up under 
scrutiny. The House claims to have proven its case, but insists 
on more evidence. It was the House's responsibility to ensure 
it had developed a complete record of the evidence it needed to 
make its case, and it is not up to the Senate to start the 
process over again.
    There were contradictions in the House's case from the very 
beginning. The House counted on repetition to make its claims 
seem true, but often didn't provide the underlying evidence. 
For example, the House managers relied on telephone records for 
timing, but speculated on the content of the calls.
    The House managers claimed the President wanted to 
influence an election, but it is difficult to see how the 
House's rush to bring this case in such a haphazard manner is 
nothing more than an attempt to influence the 2020 election. 
The House managers asked the Senate to do additional witnesses 
in 1 week, which could mean the Senate would essentially have 
to start the trial all over.
    I not only can't call their efforts adequate, I have to say 
they have been entirely inadequate. Consequently, I did not 
vote for more witnesses or more evidence and will vote to 
acquit the President on both counts.
    I hope we can learn from everything we do, especially in 
regard to impeachment. The animosity toward President Trump is 
unprecedented, and I believe it is the reason we have ended up 
where we are today. I believe we should give each newly elected 
President a chance to show what he or she can do. We should 
provide them the opportunity to prove themselves and 
demonstrate our faith in our country and its leadership.
    We have to give the President an opportunity to lead or 
even to fail. Unfortunately, President Trump was promised an 
impeachment from the day he was elected, before he even took 
his oath of office. On the day of his inauguration, before any 
official act, there were riots where, and I quote from the New 
York Times, ``protesters threw rocks and bricks at police 
officers, set a car on fire and shattered storefront windows.'' 
I have never seen that kind of conduct before stemming from the 
result of our democratic process. I hope to never see it again.
    The obstruction continued as President Trump's nominations 
were held up in an unprecedented way. This obstruction kept the 
new President from getting his key people in place. The few 
nominations approved had to work with career or hold-over staff 
from the previous administration. We have read in news articles 
that some of those staffers not only disliked their new bosses, 
but they tried to actively undercut their policies. Sometimes 
they even delayed or used inaction or gave adverse advice. 
These types of tactics were used to put blame on their boss and 
on President Trump, and that ultimately hurt our country, too.
    Again, almost immediately after the election came the call 
for investigations, ending with the appointment of Special 
Counsel Robert Mueller. This investigation went on for almost 2 
years. When the Mueller investigation didn't yield the desired 
results, the President's detractors returned to the continuing 
cry for an impeachment. The volume and pitch increased even as 
the 2020 election got closer.
    Eventually, the House of Representatives found its latest 
accusation. Yet, not willing to conduct a thorough impeachment 
investigation and wanting to reach a foregone conclusion as the 
election year approached, the House of Representatives hurried 
its investigation so it would be done before Christmas and the 
Senate would be forced to address these articles as a new year 
started. Ironically, after all that rushing and taking 
shortcuts, the House delayed sending the articles to the Senate 
until the new year. All of this was just the latest example of 
the efforts to block President Trump's agenda.
    I have now served in two Presidential impeachment trials, 
one during my first term and this one in my last. I have never 
underestimated the responsibility of the task at hand or 
forgotten the oaths I took to uphold the Constitution. There 
are few duties Senators will face as grave as deciding the fate 
of the President of the United States, but just like 21 years 
ago, this decision is about country, not politics. These 
experiences have helped refine my views, which I will now 
share.
    Our Forefathers did well setting the trial in the Senate 
where it takes a two-thirds majority, currently 67 votes, to 
convict. They could see the difficulty it would bring to the 
Nation if impeachment could easily be convicted by a slight 
majority. Even though it is not the law, I would counsel the 
House not to impeach without at least a three-fifths vote in 
their own body, and that should include some number from the 
minority party.
    I have also come to believe that impeachment should be 
primarily about a criminal activity. Impeachment is inherently 
undemocratic because it reverses an election, so in election 
years, the bar for considering impeachment and removal goes 
even higher. Ultimately, the American people should and will 
have the final say.
    The House of Representatives must also be sure to complete 
its investigation. It shouldn't send the Senate impeachment 
charges and then expect the Senate to continue gathering more 
evidence. The House should subpoena witnesses and deal with 
defense claims such as privilege, even if that means going 
through the judicial process rather than placing such a burden 
on the Senate.
    The House cannot simply rely on repetition of possibilities 
of violations, no matter how many times stated, to make their 
accusations true. A complete investigation means the 
investigators don't rush to judgment, don't speculate about the 
content of calls, and don't rely on repetition of accusations 
about the content of such calls as a substitute for seeking the 
truth.
    During the initial investigation, witnesses should have 
already been deposed by both sides before it comes to the 
Senate. The President's counsel must be allowed to cross-
examine all persons deposed by the House. Then, and only then, 
can any of the witnesses be called to testify at the Senate 
trial. The House investigation has to be complete.
    Finally, I would call for our outside institutions to also 
think about how they contribute to the well-being of our 
country. I have often said that conflict sells. It might even 
increase sales to consumers of news for both parties, but I 
fear that we are all treating this like a sport, speculating 
which team will win and which will lose. I suspect that some 
venomous statements about this process have ended some 
friendships and strained some families. In the end, if we lose 
faith in our institutions, our friends, and our families, we 
will all lose.
    We desperately need more civility. That is simply being 
nice to each other. My mom said, ``Bad behavior is 
inexcusable.'' It violates the Golden Rule as revised by my 
mom, ``Do what's right. Do your best. Treat others as THEY wish 
to be treated.'' One of the first movies I saw was the now-
ancient animated picture, ``Bambi.'' I am reminded of the 
little rabbit saying, ``My Mom always says, if you can't say 
something nice, don't say anything at all!'' I believe we all 
agree on at least 80 percent of most issues, but the trend 
seems to be shifting to concentrate on the other 20 percent we 
don't agree on. That 20 percent causes divisiveness, 
opposition, venomous harsh words, and anger.
    Too often, it feels like our Nation is only becoming more 
divided, more hostile. I do not believe that our country will 
ever be able to successfully tackle our looming problems if we 
continue down this road. As we move forward from this chapter 
in our Nation's history, I hope that we will focus more on our 
shared goals that can help our Nation, and not the issues that 
drive us apart.
    Mr. BURR. Mr. President, in my 25 years representing North 
Carolina in Congress, I have cast thousands of votes, each with 
its own significance. The ones that weigh most heavily are 
those that send our men and women in uniform into armed 
conflict. Those are the votes I spend the most time debating 
before casting--first and foremost because of the human cost 
involved but secondly because they hold the power to 
irrevocably set the course of American history.
    With similar consideration, I have taken a sober and 
deliberate approach to the impeachment proceedings of the last 
few weeks, conscious of my constitutional responsibility to 
serve as an impartial juror.
    As the investigative body, the House has charged President 
Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The 
Senate's role is to determine whether the House has proven its 
case beyond a reasonable doubt and whether, if true, these 
charges rise to the level of removing the President from 
office.
    After listening to more than 70 hours of arguments from the 
House managers and the President's counsel, I have concluded 
that the House has not provided the Senate with a compelling 
reason for taking the unprecedented and destabilizing step of 
removing the President from office.
    In my role as chairman of the Senate Intelligence 
Committee, I have visited countries all over the world. What 
separates the United States from every other nation on Earth is 
our predictable, peaceful transitions of power. Every 4 years, 
Americans cast their ballots with the confidence their vote 
will be counted and the knowledge that both winners and losers 
will abide by the results.
    To remove a U.S. President from office, for the first time 
in history, on anything less than overwhelming evidence of 
``Treason, Bribery, or High Crimes and Misdemeanors'' would 
effectively overturn the will of the American people.
    As the Speaker said last year, ``Impeachment is so divisive 
to the country that unless there's something so compelling and 
overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down 
that path, because it divides the country.''
    I believe the Speaker was correct in her assessment. A year 
later, however, the House went down that exact path, choosing 
to conduct a highly partisan impeachment inquiry, with 
underwhelming evidence, in a deeply flawed process.
    The House had ample opportunity to pursue the answers to 
its inquiry in order to prove their case beyond a reasonable 
doubt. They chose not to do so. Instead, investigators followed 
an arbitrary, self-imposed timeline dictated by political, 
rather than substantive, concerns.
    For example, the House did not attempt to compel certain 
witnesses to testify because doing so would have meant 
confronting issues of executive privilege and immunity. They 
argued navigating executive privilege--something every 
administration lays claim to--may have caused some level of 
delays and involved the courts.
    At the time, the House justified their decision by claiming 
the issue was too important, too urgent, for any delays. Yet, 
after the House voted on the Articles of Impeachment, the 
Speaker waited 4 full weeks before transmitting the articles to 
the Senate. Those were weeks the House could have spent 
furthering its inquiry, had it not rushed the process. Instead, 
without a hint of irony, House leadership attempted to use that 
time to pressure the Senate into gathering the very witness 
testimony their own investigators chose not to pursue.
    Additionally, in drafting the Articles of Impeachment, the 
House stated President Trump committed ``Criminal bribery and 
honest services wire fraud,'' two crimes that carry penalties 
under our Criminal Code. Inexplicably, the House chose not to 
include those alleged criminal misdeeds in the articles sent to 
the Senate, much less argue them in front of this body.
    At every turn, it appears the House made decisions not 
based on the pursuit of justice but on politics. When due 
process threatened to slow down the march forward, they took 
shortcuts. When evidence was too complicated to obtain or an 
accusation did not carry weight, the House created new, flimsy 
standards on the fly, hoping public pressure would sway Senate 
jurors in lieu of facts.
    The Founding Fathers who crafted our modern impeachment 
mechanism predicted this moment and warned against a solely 
partisan and politically motivated process.
    In Federalist 65, Alexander Hamilton wrote, ``In many cases 
[impeachment] will connect itself with the pre-existing 
factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, 
influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in 
such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the 
decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of 
parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or 
guilt.''
    Hamilton believed impeachment was a necessary tool but one 
to be used when the evidence of wrongdoing was so overwhelming, 
it elevated the process above partiality and partisanship. The 
House has failed to meet that standard.
    The Founders also warned against using impeachment as 
recourse for management or policy disagreements with the 
President.
    Prior to America's founding, impeachment had been used for 
centuries in England as a measure to reprimand Crown-appointed 
officials and landed gentry. At the time, it included the vague 
charge of ``maladministration,'' as well.
    During the Constitutional Convention in 1787, George Mason 
moved to add ``maladministration'' to the U.S. Constitution's 
list of impeachable offenses, asking: ``Why is the provision 
restrained to Treason & bribery only? Treason as defined in the 
Constitution will not reach many great and dangerous offences. 
Attempts to subvert the Constitution may not be Treason as 
above defined.''
    I submit for this body James Madison's response: ``So vague 
a term will be equivalent to a tenure during the pleasure of 
the Senate.''
    Madison knew that impeachment based purely on disagreements 
about governance would turn the U.S. Congress into a 
parliamentary body, akin to those tumultuous coalitions in 
Europe, which could recall a President on little more than a 
whim. To do so would subordinate the Executive to the Congress, 
rather than delineating its role as a coequal branch of our 
Federal Government. And with political winds changing as 
frequently then as they do now, he saw that every President 
could theoretically be thus impeached on fractious and 
uncertain terms.
    In a functioning democracy, the President cannot serve at 
``the pleasure of Senate.'' He must serve at the pleasure of 
the people.
    Gouverneur Morris supported Madison's argument, adding at 
the time: ``An election every four years will prevent 
maladministration.''
    Thus ``maladministration'' was not made an impeachable 
offense in America, expressly because we have the recourse of 
free and fair elections.
    I bring up this story for two reasons. First, the Founder's 
decision signals to me they felt strongly that an impeachable 
offense must be a crime akin to treason, bribery, or an act 
equally serious, as defined in the Criminal Code. Second, this 
story tells me the Founders believed anything that does not 
meet the constitutional threshold should be navigated through 
the electoral process.
    By that standard, I do not believe the Articles of 
Impeachment presented to the Senate rise to the level of 
removal from office, nor do I believe House managers succeeded 
in making the case incumbent upon them to prove. Given the weak 
underpinnings of the articles themselves and the House's 
partisan process, it would be an error to remove the President 
mere months before a national election; therefore, I have 
concluded I will vote to acquit President Donald J. Trump on 
both Articles of Impeachment.
    Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, today is a somber day for our 
country. As Senators, we are here as representatives of the 
American people. It is our duty, as we each swore to do when we 
took our oath of office, to support and defend the 
Constitution. We also took an oath, as judges and jurors in 
this proceeding, to pursue ``impartial justice'' as we consider 
these articles--including the serious charge that the President 
of the United States leveraged the power of his office for his 
own personal gain.
    Those are the oaths that the Framers set out for us in the 
Constitution, to guide the Senate in its oversight 
responsibilities. The Framers believed that the legislative 
branch was best positioned to provide a check on the Executive. 
They envisioned that the separation of powers would allow each 
branch of government to oversee the other. They also knew, 
based on their experience living under the British monarchy, 
that someday a President might corrupt the powers of the 
office. William Davie from North Carolina was particularly 
concerned that a President could abuse his office by sparing 
``no efforts or means whatever to get himself reelected.''
    So the Framers put in place a standard that would cover a 
range of Presidential misconduct, settling on: ``Treason, 
Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' As Alexander 
Hamilton explained in Federalist 65, the phrase was intended to 
cover the ``abuse or violation of some public trust'' and 
``injuries done immediately to society itself.'' The Framers 
designed a remedy for this public harm: removal from public 
office. So now we are here as judge and jury to try the case 
and to evaluate whether the President's acts have violated the 
public trust and injured our democracy.
    I am concerned of course that the Senate has decided that 
we must make this decision without all the facts. With a 51 to 
49 vote, the Senate blocked the opportunity to call witnesses 
with firsthand knowledge or to get relevant documents. Fairness 
means evidence--it means documents, and it means witnesses. In 
every past impeachment trial in the Senate, in this body's 
entire 231-year history, there have been witnesses. There is no 
reason why the Senate should not have called people to testify 
who have firsthand knowledge of the President's conduct, 
especially if, as some of my colleagues have suggested, you 
believe the facts are in dispute.
    During the question period, I asked about the impeachment 
of Judge Porteous in 2010. I joined several of my colleagues in 
serving on the trial committee. We heard from 26 witnesses in 
the Senate, 17 of whom were new witnesses who had not 
previously testified in the House. What possible reason could 
there be for allowing 26 witnesses in a judicial impeachment 
trial and zero in a President's trial? How can we consider this 
a fair trial if we are not even willing to try and get to the 
truth?
    We do not even have to try and find it. John Bolton has 
firsthand knowledge about central facts in this case, and he 
said he would comply with a subpoena from the Senate. We also 
know there are documents that could verify testimony presented 
in the House, like records of emails sent between 
administration officials in the days after the July 25 call. We 
cannot ignore this evidence--we have a constitutional duty to 
consider it.
    And since this trial began, new evidence has continued to 
emerge. One way or another, the truth is going to come out. I 
believe that history will remember that the majority in this 
body did not seek out the evidence and instead decided that the 
President's alleged corrupt acts did not even require a closer 
look.
    But even without firsthand accounts and without primary 
documents, the House managers have presented a compelling case. 
I was particularly interested in the evidence that the managers 
presented showing that the President's conduct put our national 
security at risk by jeopardizing our support for Ukraine.
    Protecting Ukraine's fragile democracy has been a 
bipartisan priority. I went to Ukraine with the late Senator 
John McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham right after the 2016 
election to make clear that the United States would continue to 
support our ally Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression--
that we will stand up for democracy. As the House managers 
stressed, it is in our national security interest to strengthen 
Ukraine's democracy. The United States has 60,000 troops 
stationed in Europe, and thousands of Ukrainians have died 
fighting Russian forces and their proxies.
    Our Nation's support for Ukraine is critically needed. 
Ukraine is at the frontline of Russian aggression, and since 
the Russians invaded Crimea in 2014, the United States has 
provided over $1.5 billion in aid. Russia is watching 
everything we do. So this summer, as a new Ukrainian President 
prepared to lead his country and address the war with Russia, 
it was critical that President Trump showed the world that we 
stand with Ukraine. Instead, President Trump decided to 
withhold military security assistance and to deny the Ukrainian 
President an Oval Office meeting. In doing so, he jeopardized 
our national security interests and put the Ukrainians in 
danger. But worse yet, he did so to benefit himself.
    Testimony from the 17 current and former officials from the 
President's administration made it clear that the President 
leveraged the power of his office to pressure Ukraine to 
announce an investigation into his political rival. These brave 
public servants defied the President's order and agreed to 
testify about what happened despite the risks to their careers. 
Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch showed 
particular courage, testifying before the House even as the 
President disparaged her on Twitter. And I will never forget 
when Lieutenant Colonel Vindman testified and sent a message to 
his immigrant father, saying, ``Don't worry Dad, I will be fine 
for telling the truth.''
    As Manager Schiff said, in our country ``right matters.'' 
What is right and wrong under our Constitution does not turn on 
whether or not you like the President. It is not about whether 
the disregard for its boundaries furthers policies that you 
agree or disagree with. It is about whether it remains true 
that in our country, right matters. Through his actions, the 
President compromised the security of our ally Ukraine, invited 
foreign interference in our elections, and undermined the 
integrity of our democratic process--conduct that I believe the 
Framers would see as an abuse of power and violation of his 
oath of office.
    The Articles of Impeachment include a second charge: that 
the President used the powers of his office to prevent Congress 
from investigating his actions and attempted to place himself 
above the law.
    Unlike any President before him, President Trump 
categorically refused to comply with any requests from 
Congress. Even President Nixon directed ``all the president's 
men'' to comply with congressional requests. Despite that 
history, President Trump directed every member of his 
administration not to comply with requests to testify and also 
directed the executive branch not to release a single document.
    The President's refusal to respect the Congress's authority 
is a direct threat to the separation of powers. The 
Constitution gives the House the ``sole power of impeachment,'' 
a tool of last resort to provide a check on the president. By 
refusing to cooperate, the President is attempting to erase the 
Congress's constitutional power and to prevent the American 
people from learning of his misconduct. As we discussed during 
our questions, the President is asserting that his aides have 
absolute immunity, a proposition that Federal courts have 
consistently rejected. Manager Demings warned, ``absolute power 
corrupts absolutely.''
    But this President has taken many steps to place himself 
above the law. This administration has taken the position that 
a sitting President cannot be indicted or prosecuted. This 
President has argued that he is immune from State and criminal 
investigations. And now we are being asked to say that the 
Constitution's check on a President's power, as set out by the 
Framers, cannot prevent a President from abusing his power and 
covering it up.
    During the trial, we have heard this directly from the 
President's defense. In the words of Alan Dershowitz, ``If a 
president does something which he believes will help him get 
elected--in the public interest--that cannot be the kind of 
quid pro quo that results in impeachment.'' These echo the 
words of an impeached President, Richard Nixon, who said: 
``When the president does it, that means it is not illegal.'' 
We cannot accept that conclusion. In this country the President 
is not King, the law is King. But if the Senate looks past the 
President's defiance of Congress, we will forever undermine our 
status as a coequal branch and undermine the rule of law.
    So as we consider these Articles of Impeachment, I ask my 
colleagues to think about the consequences. Our system, 
designed by the Framers 232 years ago, is one not of absolute 
power but of power through and by the people. We are, in some 
ways, faced with the same question the Founders faced when they 
made the fateful decision to challenge the unchecked power of a 
King.
    When signing the Declaration of Independence, John Hancock 
signed his name large and said, ``There must be no pulling 
different ways. We must all hang together.'' Benjamin Franklin 
replied, ``Yes, we must, indeed, all hang together, or most 
assuredly we shall all hang separately.''
    We have the opportunity today to stand together and say 
that the Constitution, that these United States, are stronger 
than our enemies, foreign and domestic, and we, together, are 
stronger than a President who would corrupt our democracy with 
an abuse of power and an attempt to deny the rights of a 
coequal branch of government. We do not have to agree on 
everything today or tomorrow or a year from now, but surely we 
can agree on the same basic principles: that this is a 
government of laws, not of men and women; that in this country, 
no one is above the law. If we can agree on that much, then I 
submit to my colleagues that the choice before us is clear.
    Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, an impeachment trial of a 
sitting President of the United States is not a matter to be 
taken lightly. A President should not and must not be impeached 
because of political disagreements or policy differences. That 
is what elections are for. Instead, an impeachment trial occurs 
when a President violates the oath he or she swore to uphold 
the Constitution of the United States.
    Therefore, there are two questions for me to answer as a 
juror in the impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump: 
whether President Trump is guilty of abusing his power as 
President for his own political gain and whether he obstructed 
Congress in their investigation of him.
    The first Article of Impeachment charges President Trump 
with abuse of power when he ``solicited the interference of a 
foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States 
Presidential election.'' Based on the evidence I heard during 
the Senate trial, Trump ``corruptly solicited'' an 
investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son 
in order to benefit his own reelection chances. To increase the 
pressure on Ukraine, President Trump then withheld 
approximately $400 million in military aid from Ukraine. 
Finally, according to the charges, even when Trump's scheme to 
withhold aid was made public, he ``persisted in openly and 
corruptly urging and soliciting Ukraine to undertake 
investigations for his personal political benefit.'' So on this 
first Article of Impeachment, it is my view that the President 
is clearly guilty.
    The second Article of Impeachment asserts that Trump 
obstructed Congress in its investigation of Trump's abuse of 
power, stating that Trump ``has directed the unprecedented, 
categorical, and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued by 
the House of Representatives pursuant to its `sole Power of 
Impeachment.''' According to the warped logic of the arguments 
presented by the President's counsel, there are almost no legal 
bounds to anything a President can do so long as it benefits 
his own reelection. If a President cannot be investigated 
criminally or by Congress while in office, then he or she would 
be effectively above the law. President Trump, who raised 
absurd legal arguments to hide his actions and obstruct 
Congress, is clearly guilty here as well.
    Now, frankly, while the House of Representatives passed two 
Articles of Impeachment, President Trump could have been 
impeached for more than just that.
    For example, it seems clear that Donald Trump has violated 
both the domestic and foreign emoluments clauses. In other 
words, it appears Trump has used the Federal Government over 
and over to benefit himself financially.
    In 2018 alone, Trump's organization made over $40 million 
in profit just from his Trump hotel in DC alone. And foreign 
governments, including lobbying firms connected to the Saudi 
Arabian Government, have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars 
at that hotel. That appears to be corruption, pure and simple.
    In addition, as we all know, there is significant evidence 
that Donald Trump committed obstruction of justice with regard 
to the Robert Mueller investigation by, among other actions, 
firing the FBI Director, James Comey.
    One of the difficulties of dealing with President Trump and 
his administration is that we cannot trust his words. He is a 
pathological liar who, according to media research, has lied 
thousands of times since he was elected. During the trial, I 
posed a question to the House impeachment managers: Given that 
the media has documented President Trump's thousands of lies 
while in office--more than 16,200 as of January 20, 2020--why 
would we be expected to believe that anything President Trump 
says has credibility? The answer is that, sadly, we cannot.
    Sadly, we now have a President who sees himself as above 
the law and is either ignorant or indifferent to the 
Constitution. And we have a President who clearly committed 
impeachable offenses.
    The evidence of Trump's guilt is so overwhelming that the 
Republican Party, for the first time in the history of 
Presidential impeachment, obstructed testimony from witnesses--
even willing witnesses. It defies basic common sense that in a 
trial to determine whether the President of the United States 
is above the law, the Senate would not hear from the people who 
could speak directly to President Trump's behavior and motive. 
Leader Mitch McConnell's handling of this trial, unfortunately, 
was nothing more than a political act.
    Yet this impeachment trial is about more than just the 
charges against President Trump. What this impeachment vote 
will decide is whether we believe that the President, any 
President, is above the law.
    Last week, Alan Dershowitz, one of President Trump's 
lawyers, argued to the Senate that a President cannot be 
impeached for any actions he or she takes that are intended to 
benefit their own reelection. That is truly an extraordinary 
and unconstitutional assertion. If Trump is acquitted, I fear 
the repercussions of this argument would do grave damage to the 
rule of law in our country.
    Imagine what such a precedent would allow an incumbent 
President to get away with for the sake of their own 
reelection. Hacking an opponent's email using government 
resources? Soliciting election interference from China? Under 
this argument, what would stop a President from withholding 
infrastructure or education funding to a given State to 
pressure elected officials into helping the President 
politically?
    Let me be clear: Republicans will set a dangerous and 
lawless precedent if they vote to acquit President Trump. A 
Republican acquittal of Donald Trump won't just mean that the 
current President is above the law; it will give a green light 
to all future Presidents to disregard the law so long as it 
benefits their reelection.
    It gives me no pleasure to conclude that President Donald 
Trump is guilty of the offenses laid out in the two Articles of 
Impeachment. I will vote to convict on both counts. But my 
greater concern is if Republicans acquit President Trump by 
undercutting the very rule of law. That will truly be 
remembered as a sad and dangerous moment in the history of our 
country.
    Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the House 
Articles of Impeachment against President Donald Trump.
    In 1999, then-Senator Joe Biden of Delaware asked the 
following question during the impeachment trial of President 
Bill Clinton: ``[D]o these actions rise to the level of high 
crimes and misdemeanors necessary to justify the most obviously 
antidemocratic act the Senate can engage in--overturning an 
election by convicting the president?'' He answered his own 
question by voting against removing President Clinton from 
office.
    It is this constitutionally grounded framework--articulated 
well by Vice President Biden--that guided my review of 
President Trump's impeachment and, ultimately, my decision to 
oppose his removal.
    House Democrats' impeachment articles allege that President 
Trump briefly paused aid and withheld a White House meeting 
with Ukraine's President to pressure Ukraine into investigating 
two publicly reported corruption matters. The first matter was 
possible Ukrainian interference in our 2016 election. The 
second was Vice President Biden's role in firing the 
controversial Ukrainian prosecutor investigating a company on 
whose board Vice President Biden's son sat. When House 
Democrats demanded witnesses and documents concerning the 
President's conduct, he invoked constitutional rights and 
resisted their demands.
    The President's actions were not ``perfect.'' Some were 
inappropriate. But the question before the Senate is not 
whether his actions were perfect; it is whether they constitute 
impeachable offenses that justify removing a sitting President 
from office for the first time and forbidding him from seeking 
office again.
    Let's consider the case against President Trump: 
obstruction of Congress and abuse of power. On obstruction, 
House Democrats allege the President lacked ``lawful cause or 
excuse'' to resist their subpoenas. This ignores that his 
resistance was based on constitutionally grounded legal 
defenses and immunities that are consistent with longstanding 
positions taken by administrations of both parties. Instead of 
negotiating a resolution or litigating in court, House 
Democrats rushed to impeach. But as House Democrats noted 
during President Clinton's impeachment, a President's defense 
of his legal and constitutional rights and responsibilities is 
not an impeachable offense.
    House Democrats separately allege President Trump abused 
his power by conditioning a White House meeting and the release 
of aid on Ukraine agreeing to pursue corruption investigations. 
Their case rests entirely on the faulty claim that the only 
possible motive for his actions was his personal political 
gain. In fact, there are also legitimate national interests for 
seeking investigations into apparent corruption, especially 
when taxpayer dollars are involved.
    Here is what ultimately occurred: President Trump met with 
Ukraine's President, and the aid was released after a brief 
pause. These actions happened without Ukraine announcing or 
conducting investigations. The idea that President Trump 
committed an impeachable offense by meeting with Ukraine's 
President at the United Nations in New York instead of 
Washington, DC, is absurd. Moreover, the pause in aid did not 
hinder Ukraine's ability to combat Russia. In fact, as 
witnesses in the House impeachment proceedings stated, U.S. 
policy in support of Ukraine is stronger under President Trump 
than under President Obama.
    Even if House Democrats' presumptions about President 
Trump's motives are true, additional witnesses in the Senate, 
beyond the 17 witnesses who testified in the House impeachment 
proceedings, are unnecessary because the President's actions do 
not rise to the level of removing him from office, nor do they 
warrant the societal upheaval that would result from his 
removal from office and the ballot months before an election. 
Our country is already far too divided, and this would only 
make matters worse.
    As Vice President Biden also stated during President 
Clinton's impeachment trial, ``[t]here is no question the 
Constitution sets the bar for impeachment very high.'' A 
President can only be impeached and removed for ``Treason, 
Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' While there 
is debate about the precise meaning of ``other high Crimes and 
Misdemeanors,'' it is clear that impeachable conduct must be 
comparable to the serious offenses of treason and bribery.
    The Constitution sets the impeachment bar so high for good 
reasons. Removing a President from office and forbidding him 
from seeking future office overturns the results of the last 
election and denies Americans the right to vote for him in the 
next one. The Senate's impeachment power essentially allows 67 
Senators to substitute their judgment for the judgment of 
millions of Americans.
    The framework Vice President Biden articulated in 1999 for 
judging an impeachment was right then, and it is right now. 
President Trump's conduct does not meet the very high bar 
required to justify overturning the election, removing him from 
office, and kicking him off the ballot in an election that has 
already begun. In November, the American people will decide for 
themselves whether President Trump should stay in office. In 
our democratic system, that is the way it should be.
    Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, voting to find the President 
guilty in the Senate is not simply a finding of wrongdoing; it 
is a vote to remove a President from office for the first time 
in the 243-year history of our Republic.
    When they decided to include impeachment in the 
Constitution, the Framers understood how disruptive and 
traumatic it would be. As Alexander Hamilton warned, 
impeachment will ``agitate the passions of the whole 
community.''
    This is why they decided to require the support of two-
thirds of the Senate to remove a President we serve as a 
guardrail against partisan impeachment and against removal of a 
President without broad public support.
    Leaders in both parties previously recognized that 
impeachment must be bipartisan and must enjoy broad public 
support. In fact, as recently as March of last year, Manager 
Adam Schiff said there would be ``little to be gained by 
putting the country through'' the ``wrenching experience'' of a 
partisan impeachment. Yet, only a few months later, a partisan 
impeachment is exactly what the House produced. This meant two 
Articles of Impeachment whose true purpose was not to protect 
the Nation but, rather, to, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, stain 
the President's record because ``he has been impeached 
forever'' and ``they can never erase that.''
    It now falls upon this Senate to take up what the House 
produced and faithfully execute our duties under the 
Constitution of the United States.
    Why does impeachment exist?
    As Manager Jerry Nadler reminded us last week, removal is 
not a punishment for a crime, nor is removal supposed to be a 
way to hold Presidents accountable; that is what elections are 
for. The sole purpose of this extraordinary power to remove the 
one person entrusted with all of the powers of an entire branch 
of government is to provide a last-resort remedy to protect the 
country. That is why Hamilton wrote that in these trials our 
decisions should be pursuing ``the public good.''
    Even before the trial, I announced that, for me, the 
question would not just be whether the President's actions were 
wrong but ultimately whether what he did was removable. The two 
are not the same. It is possible for an offense to meet a 
standard of impeachment and yet not be in the best interest of 
the country to remove a President from office.
    To answer this question, the first step was to ask whether 
it would serve the public good to remove the President, even if 
the managers had proven every allegation they made. It was not 
difficult to answer that question on the charge of obstruction 
of Congress. The President availed himself of legal defenses 
and constitutional privileges on the advice of his legal 
counsel. He has taken a position identical to that of every 
other administration in the last 50 years. That is not an 
impeachable offense, much less a removable one.
    Negotiations with Congress and enforcement in the courts, 
not impeachment, should be the frontline recourse when Congress 
and the President disagree on the separation of powers. But 
here, the House failed to go to court because, as Manager 
Schiff admitted, they did not want to go through a yearlong 
exercise to get the information they wanted. Ironically, they 
now demand that the Senate go through this very long exercise 
they themselves decided to avoid.
    On the first Article of Impeachment, I reject the argument 
that abuse of power can never constitute grounds for removal 
unless a crime or a crime-like action is alleged. However, even 
if the House managers had been able to prove every allegation 
made in article I, would it be in the interest of the Nation to 
remove the President? Answering this question requires a 
political judgment--one that takes into account both the 
severity of the wrongdoing they allege and the impact removal 
would have on the Nation.
    I disagree with the House managers' argument that, if we 
find the allegations they have made are true, failing to remove 
the President leaves us with no remedy to constrain this or 
future Presidents. Congress and the courts have multiple ways 
by which to constrain the power of the Executive. And 
ultimately, voters themselves can hold the President 
accountable in an election, including the one just 9 months 
from now.
    I also considered removal in the context of the bitter 
divisions and deep polarization our country currently faces. 
The removal of the President--especially one based on a 
narrowly voted impeachment, supported by one political party 
and opposed by another and without broad public support--would, 
as Manager Nadler warned over two decades ago, ``produce 
divisiveness and bitterness'' that will threaten our Nation for 
decades. Can anyone doubt that at least half of the country 
would view his removal as illegitimate--as nothing short of a 
coup d'etat? It is difficult to conceive of any scheme Putin 
could undertake that would undermine confidence in our 
democracy more than removal would.
    I also reject the argument that unless we call new 
witnesses, this is not a fair trial. First, they cannot argue 
that fairness demands we seek witnesses they did little to 
pursue. Second, even if new witnesses would testify to the 
truth of the allegations made, these allegations, even if they 
had been able to prove them, would not warrant the President's 
removal.
    This high bar I have set is not new for me. In 2014, I 
rejected calls to pursue impeachment of President Obama, noting 
that he ``has two years left in his term,'' and, instead of 
pursuing impeachment, we should use existing tools at our 
disposal to ``limit the amount of damage he's doing to our 
economy and our national security.''
    Senator Patrick Leahy, the President pro tempore emeritus, 
once warned, ``[A] partisan impeachment cannot command the 
respect of the American people. It is no more valid than a 
stolen election.'' His words are more true today than when he 
said them two decades ago. We should heed his advice.
    I will not vote to remove the President because doing so 
would inflict extraordinary and potentially irreparable damage 
to our already divided Nation.
    Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am glad that this unfortunate 
chapter in American history is over. The strength of our 
Republic lies in the fact that, more often than not, we settle 
our political differences at the ballot box, not on the streets 
or battlefield and not through impeachment.
    Just last year, Speaker Pelosi said that any impeachment 
``would have to be so clearly bipartisan in terms of acceptance 
of it.'' And in 1998, Representative Nadler, currently a House 
impeachment manager, said, ``There must never be . . . an 
impeachment substantially supported by one of our major 
political parties and largely opposed by the other . . . Such 
an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would produce 
divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come . 
. .''
    And yet, that is exactly what House Democrats passed. I 
truly wish Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Nadler, and their House 
colleagues would have followed their own advice.
    As I listened to the House managers' closing arguments, I 
jotted down adjectives describing the case they were making: 
angry, disingenuous, hyperbolic, sanctimonious, distorted--if 
not outright dishonest--and overstated; they were making a 
mountain out of a molehill.
    Congressman Schiff and the other House managers are not 
stupid. They had to know that their insults and accusations--
that the President had threatened to put our heads on a pike, 
that the Senate was on trial, that we would be part of the 
coverup if we didn't cave to their demand for witnesses--would 
not sway Republican Senators. No, they had another goal in 
mind. They were using impeachment and their public offices to 
accomplish the very thing they accused President Trump of 
doing, interfering in the 2020 election.
    Impeachment should be reserved for the most serious of 
offenses where the risk to our democracy simply cannot wait for 
the voters' next decision. That was not the case here.
    Instead, the greater damage to our democracy would be to 
ratify a highly partisan House impeachment process that lacked 
due process and sought to impose a duty on the Senate to repair 
the House's flawed product. Caving to House managers' demands 
would have set a dangerous precedent and dramatically altered 
the constitutional order, further weaponizing impeachment and 
encouraging more of them.
    Now that the trial is over, I sincerely hope everyone 
involved has renewed appreciation for the genius of our 
Founding Fathers and for the separation of powers they 
incorporated into the U.S. Constitution. I also hope all the 
players in this national travesty go forward with a greater 
sense of humility and recognition of the limits the 
Constitution places on their respective offices.
    I am concerned about the divisiveness and bitterness that 
Chairman Nadler warned us about. We are a divided nation, and 
it often seems the lines are only hardening and growing farther 
apart. But hope lies in finding what binds us together--our 
love of freedom, our faith, our families.
    We serve those who elect us. It is appropriate and 
necessary to engage in discussion and debate to sway public 
opinion, but in the end, it is essential that we rely upon, 
respect, and accept the public's electoral decisions.
    In addition, I ask unanimous consent that my November 18, 
2019, letter to Congressmen Nunes and Jordan, and the January 
22, 2020, Real Clear Investigations article written by Paul 
Sperry be printed in the Record following my remarks.
    The November 18, 2019, letter responds to Nunes' and 
Jordan's request to provide information regarding my firsthand 
knowledge of events regarding Ukraine that were relevant to the 
impeachment inquiry. The January 22, 2020, article was 
referenced in my question to the House managers and counsel to 
the President during the 16-hour question and answer phase of 
the impeachment trial. Specifically, that question asked: 
``Recent reporting described two NSC staff holdovers from the 
Obama administration attending an `all hands' meeting of NSC 
staff held about two weeks into the Trump administration and 
talking loudly enough to be overheard saying, `we need to do 
everything we can to take out the president.' On July 26, 2019, 
the House Intelligence Committee hired one of those 
individuals, Sean Misko. The report further describes 
relationships between Misko, Lt. Col. Vindman, and the alleged 
whistleblower. Why did your committee hire Sean Misko the day 
after the phone call between Presidents Trump and Zelensky, and 
what role has he played throughout your committee's 
investigation?''
    There being no objection, the material was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

Hon. Jim Jordan,
Ranking Member,
Committee on Oversight and Reform.
Hon. Devin Nunes,
Ranking Member, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
    Dear Congressman Jordan and Congressman Nunes: I am writing in 
response to the request of Ranking Members Nunes and Jordan to provide 
my first-hand information and resulting perspective on events relevant 
to the House impeachment inquiry of President Trump. It is being 
written in the middle of that inquiry--after most of the depositions 
have been given behind closed doors, but before all the public hearings 
have been held.
    I view this impeachment inquiry as a continuation of a concerted, 
and possibly coordinated, effort to sabotage the Trump administration 
that probably began in earnest the day after the 2016 presidential 
election. The latest evidence of this comes with the reporting of a 
Jan. 30, 2017 tweet (10 days after Trump's inauguration) by one of the 
whistleblower's attorneys, Mark Zaid: ``#coup has started. First of 
many steps. #rebellion. #impeachment will follow ultimately.''
    But even prior to the 2016 election, the FBI's investigation and 
exoneration of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, combined with 
Fusion GPS' solicitation and dissemination of the Steele dossier--and 
the FBI's counterintelligence investigation based on that dossier--laid 
the groundwork for future sabotage. As a result, my first-hand 
knowledge and involvement in this saga began with the revelation that 
former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton kept a private e-mail server.
    I have been chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security 
and Governmental Affairs (HSGAC) since January 2015. In addition to its 
homeland security portfolio, the committee also is charged with general 
oversight of the federal government. Its legislative jurisdiction 
includes federal records. So when the full extent of Clinton's use of a 
private server became apparent in March 2015, HSGAC initiated an 
oversight investigation.
    Although many questions remain unanswered from that scandal, 
investigations resulting from it by a number of committees, reporters 
and agencies have revealed multiple facts and episodes that are similar 
to aspects of the latest effort to find grounds for impeachment. In 
particular, the political bias revealed in the Strzok/Page texts, use 
of the discredited Steele dossier to initiate and sustain the FBI's 
counterintelligence investigation and FISA warrants, and leaks to the 
media that created the false narrative of Trump campaign collusion with 
Russia all fit a pattern and indicate a game plan that I suspect has 
been implemented once again. It is from this viewpoint that I report my 
specific involvement in the events related to Ukraine and the 
impeachment inquiry.
    I also am chairman of the Subcommittee on Europe and Regional 
Security Cooperation of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I have 
made six separate trips to Ukraine starting in April 2011. Most 
recently, I led two separate Senate resolutions calling for a strong 
U.S. and NATO response to Russian military action against Ukraine's 
navy in the Kerch Strait. I traveled to Ukraine to attend president-
elect Volodymyr Zelensky's inauguration held on May 20, and again on 
Sept. 5 with U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy to meet with Zelensky and other 
Ukrainian leaders.
    Following the Orange Revolution, and even more so after the Maidan 
protests, the Revolution of Dignity, and Russia's illegal annexation of 
Crimea and invasion of eastern Ukraine, support for the people of 
Ukraine has been strong within Congress and in both the Obama and Trump 
administrations. There was also universal recognition and concern 
regarding the level of corruption that was endemic throughout Ukraine. 
In 2015, Congress overwhelmingly authorized $300 million of security 
assistance to Ukraine, of which $50 million was to be available only 
for lethal defensive weaponry. The Obama administration never supplied 
the authorized lethal defensive weaponry, but President Trump did.
    Zelensky won a strong mandate--73%--from the Ukrainian public to 
fight corruption. His inauguration date was set on very short notice, 
which made attending it a scheduling challenge for members of Congress 
who wanted to go to show support. As a result, I was the only member of 
Congress joining the executive branch's inaugural delegation led by 
Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Special Envoy Kurt Volker, U.S. Ambassador 
to the European Union Gordon Sondland, and Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, 
representing the National Security Council. I arrived the evening 
before the inauguration and, after attending a country briefing 
provided by U.S. embassy staff the next morning, May 20, went to the 
inauguration, a luncheon following the inauguration, and a delegation 
meeting with Zelensky and his advisers.
    The main purpose of my attendance was to demonstrate and express my 
support and that of the U.S. Congress for Zelensky and the people of 
Ukraine. In addition, the delegation repeatedly stressed the importance 
of fulfilling the election mandate to fight corruption, and also 
discussed the priority of Ukraine obtaining sufficient inventories of 
gas prior to winter.
    Two specific points made during the meetings stand out in my memory 
as being relevant.
    The first occurred during the country briefing. I had just finished 
making the point that supporting Ukraine was essential because it was 
ground zero in our geopolitical competition with Russia. I was 
surprised when Vindman responded to my point. He stated that it was the 
position of the NSC that our relationship with Ukraine should be kept 
separate from our geopolitical competition with Russia. My blunt 
response was, ``How in the world is that even possible?''
    I do not know if Vindman accurately stated the NSC's position, 
whether President Trump shared that viewpoint, or whether Vindman was 
really just expressing his own view. I raise this point because I 
believe that a significant number of bureaucrats and staff members 
within the executive branch have never accepted President Trump as 
legitimate and resent his unorthodox style and his intrusion onto their 
``turf.'' They react by leaking to the press and participating in the 
ongoing effort to sabotage his policies and, if possible, remove him 
from office. It is entirely possible that Vindman fits this profile.
    Quotes from the transcript of Vindman's opening remarks and his 
deposition reinforce this point and deserve to be highlighted. Vindman 
testified that an ``alternative narrative'' pushed by the president's 
personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, was ``inconsistent with the consensus 
views of the'' relevant federal agencies and was ``undermining the 
consensus policy.''
    Vindman's testimony, together with other witnesses' use of similar 
terms such as ``our policy,'' ``stated policy,'' and ``long-standing 
policy'' lend further credence to the point I'm making. Whether you 
agree with President Trump or not, it should be acknowledged that the 
Constitution vests the power of conducting foreign policy with the duly 
elected president. American foreign policy is what the president 
determines it to be, not what the ``consensus'' of unelected foreign 
policy bureaucrats wants it to be. If any bureaucrats disagree with the 
president, they should use their powers of persuasion within their 
legal chain of command to get the president to agree with their 
viewpoint. In the end, if they are unable to carry out the policy of 
the president, they should resign. They should not seek to undermine 
the policy by leaking to people outside their chain of command.
    The other noteworthy recollection involves how Perry conveyed the 
delegation concern over rumors that Zelensky was going to appoint 
Andriy Bohdan, the lawyer for oligarch Igor Kolomoisky, as his chief of 
staff. The delegation viewed Bohdan's rumored appointment to be 
contrary to the goal of fighting corruption and maintaining U.S. 
support. Without naming ``Bohdan, Secretary Perry made U.S. concerns 
very clear in his remarks to Zelensky.
    Shortly thereafter, ignoring U.S. advice, Zelensky did appoint 
Bohdan as his chief of staff. This was not viewed as good news, but I 
gave my advice on how to publicly react in a text to Sondland on May 
22: ``Best case scenario on COS: Right now Zelensky needs someone he 
can trust. I'm not a fan of lawyers, but they do represent all kinds of 
people. Maybe this guy is a patriot. He certainly understands the 
corruption of the oligarchs. Could be the perfect guy to advise 
Zelensky on how to deal with them. Zelensky knows why he got elected 
For now, I think we express our concerns, but give Zelensky the benefit 
of the doubt. Also let him know everyone in the U.S. will be watching 
VERY closely.''
    At the suggestion of Sondland, the delegation (Perry, Volker, 
Sondland and me) proposed a meeting with President Trump in the Oval 
Office. The purpose of the meeting was to brief the president on what 
we learned at the inauguration, and convey our impressions of Zelensky 
and the current political climate in Ukraine. The delegation uniformly 
was impressed with Zelensky, understood the difficult challenges he 
faced, and went into the meeting hoping to obtain President Trump's 
strong support for Zelensky and the people of Ukraine. Our specific 
goals were to obtain a commitment from President Trump to invite 
Zelensky to meet in the Oval Office, to appoint a U.S. ambassador to 
Ukraine who would have strong bipartisan support, and to have President 
Trump publicly voice his support.
    Our Oval Office meeting took place on May 23. The four members of 
the delegation sat lined up in front of President Trump's desk. Because 
we were all directly facing the president, I do not know who else was 
in attendance sitting or standing behind us. I can't speak for the 
others, but I was very surprised by President Trump's reaction to our 
report and requests.
    He expressed strong reservations about supporting Ukraine. He made 
it crystal clear that he viewed Ukraine as a thoroughly corrupt country 
both generally and, specifically, regarding rumored meddling in the 
2016 election. Volker summed up this attitude in his testimony by 
quoting the president as saying, ``They are all corrupt. They are all 
terrible people. . . . I don't want to spend any time with that.'' I do 
not recall President Trump ever explicitly mentioning the names Burisma 
or Biden, but it was obvious he was aware of rumors that corrupt actors 
in Ukraine might have played a part in helping create the false Russia 
collusion narrative.
    Of the four-person delegation, I was the only one who did not work 
for the president. As a result, I was in a better position to push back 
on the president's viewpoint and attempt to persuade him to change it. 
I acknowledged that he was correct regarding endemic corruption. I said 
that we weren't asking him to support corrupt oligarchs and politicians 
but to support the Ukrainian people who had given Zelensky a strong 
mandate to fight corruption. I also made the point that he and Zelensky 
had much in common. Both were complete outsiders who face strong 
resistance from entrenched interests both within and outside 
government. Zelensky would need much help in fulfilling his mandate, 
and America's support was crucial.
    It was obvious that his viewpoint and reservations were strongly 
held, and that we would have a significant sales job ahead of us 
getting him to change his mind. I specifically asked him to keep his 
viewpoint and reservations private and not to express them publicly 
until he had a chance to meet Zelensky. He agreed to do so, but he also 
added that he wanted Zelensky to know exactly how he felt about the 
corruption in Ukraine prior to any future meeting. I used that 
directive in my Sept. 5 meeting with Zelensky in Ukraine.
    One final point regarding the May 23 meeting: I am aware that 
Sondland has testified that President Trump also directed the 
delegation to work with Rudy Giuliani. I have no recollection of the 
president saying that during the meeting. It is entirely possible he 
did, but because I do not work for the president, if made, that comment 
simply did not register with me. I also remember Sondland staying 
behind to talk to the president as the rest of the delegation left the 
Oval Office.
    I continued to meet in my Senate office with representatives from 
Ukraine: on June 13 with members of the Ukrainian Parliament's Foreign 
Affairs Committee; on July 11 with Ukraine's ambassador to the U.S. and 
secretary of Ukraine's National Security and Defense Council, Oleksandr 
Danyliuk; and again on July 31 with Ukraine's ambassador to the U.S., 
Valeriy Chaly. At no time during those meetings did anyone from Ukraine 
raise the issue of the withholding of military aid or express concerns 
regarding pressure being applied by the president or his 
administration.
    During Congress' August recess, my staff worked with the State 
Department and others in the administration to plan a trip to Europe 
during the week of Sept. 2 with Senator Murphy to include Russia, 
Serbia, Kosovo and Ukraine. On or around Aug. 26, we were informed that 
our requests for visas into Russia were denied. On either Aug. 28 or 
29, I became aware of the fact that $250 million of military aid was 
being withheld. This news would obviously impact my trip and 
discussions with Zelensky.
    Sondland had texted me on Aug. 26 remarking on the Russian visa 
denial. I replied on Aug. 30, apologizing for my tardy response and 
requesting a call to discuss Ukraine. We scheduled a call for sometime 
between 12:30 p.m. and 1:30 p.m. that same day. I called Sondland and 
asked what he knew about the hold on military support. I did not 
memorialize the conversation in any way, and my memory of exactly what 
Sondland told me is far from perfect. I was hoping that his testimony 
before the House would help jog my memory, but he seems to have an even 
fuzzier recollection of that call than I do.
    The most salient point of the call involved Sondland describing an 
arrangement where, if Ukraine did something to demonstrate its serious 
intention to fight corruption and possibly help determine what 
involvement operatives in Ukraine might have had during the 2016 U.S. 
presidential campaign, then Trump would release the hold on military 
support.
    I have stated that I winced when that arrangement was described to 
me. I felt U.S. support for Ukraine was essential, particularly with 
Zelensky's new and inexperienced administration facing an aggressive 
Vladimir Putin. I feared any sign of reduced U.S. support could prompt 
Putin to demonstrate even more aggression, and because I was convinced 
Zelensky was sincere in his desire to fight corruption, this was no 
time to be withholding aid for any reason. It was the time to show 
maximum strength and resolve.
    I next put in a call request for National Security Adviser John 
Bolton, and spoke with him on Aug. 31. I believe he greed with my 
position on providing military assistance, and he suggested I speak 
with both the vice president and president. I requested calls with 
both, but was not able to schedule a call with Vice President Pence. 
President Trump called me that same day.
    The purpose of the call was to inform President Trump of my 
upcoming trip to Ukraine and to try to persuade him to authorize me to 
tell Zelensky that the hold would be lifted on military aid. The 
president was not prepared to lift the hold, and he was consistent in 
the reasons he cited. He reminded me how thoroughly corrupt Ukraine was 
and again conveyed his frustration that Europe doesn't do its fair 
share of providing military aid. He specifically cited the sort of 
conversation he would have with Angela Merkel, chancellor of Germany. 
To paraphrase President Trump: ``Ron, I talk to Angela and ask her, 
`Why don't you fund these things,' and she tells me, `Because we know 
you will.' We're schmucks. Ron. We're schmucks.''
    I acknowledged the corruption in Ukraine, and I did not dispute the 
fact that Europe could and should provide more military support. But I 
pointed out that Germany was opposed to providing Ukraine lethal 
defensive weaponry and simply would not do so. As a result, if we 
wanted to deter Russia from further aggression, it was up to the U.S. 
to provide it.
    I had two additional counterarguments. First, I wasn't suggesting 
we support the oligarchs and other corrupt Ukrainians. Our support 
would be for the courageous Ukrainians who had overthrown Putin's 
puppet, Viktor Yanukovich, and delivered a remarkable 73% mandate in 
electing Zelensky to fight corruption. Second, I argued that 
withholding the support looked horrible politically in that it could be 
used to bolster the ``Trump is soft on Russia'' mantra.
    It was only after he reiterated his reasons for not giving me the 
authority to tell Zelensky the support would be released that I asked 
him about whether there was some kind of arrangement where Ukraine 
would take some action and the hold would be lifted. Without 
hesitation, President Trump immediately denied such an arrangement 
existed. As reported in the Wall Street Journal, I quoted the president 
as saying, ``(Expletive deleted)--No way. I would never do that. Who 
told you that?'' I have accurately characterized his reaction as 
adamant, vehement and angry--there was more than one expletive that I 
have deleted.
    Based on his reaction, I felt more than a little guilty even asking 
him the question, much less telling him I heard it from Sondland. He 
seemed even more annoyed by that, and asked me, ``Who is that guy''? I 
interpreted that not as a literal question--the president did know whom 
Sondland was--but rather as a sign that the president did not know him 
well. I replied by saying, ``I thought he was your buddy from the real 
estate business.'' The president replied by saying he barely knew him.
    After discussing Ukraine, we talked about other unrelated matters. 
Finally, the president said he had to go because he had a hurricane to 
deal with. He wrapped up the conversation referring back to my request 
to release the hold on military support for Ukraine by saying something 
like, ``Ron, I understand your position. We're reviewing it now, and 
you'll probably like my final decision.''
    On Tuesday, Sept. 3, I had a short follow up call with Bolton to 
discuss my upcoming trip to Ukraine, Serbia and Kosovo. I do not recall 
discussing anything in particular that relates to the current 
impeachment inquiry on that call.
    We arrived in Kyiv on Sept. 4, joining Taylor and Murphy for a full 
day of meetings on Sept. 5 with embassy staff, members of the new 
Ukrainian administration, and Zelensky, who was accompanied by some of 
his top advisers. We also attended the opening proceedings of the 
Ukrainian High Anti-Corruption Court. The meetings reinforced our 
belief that Zelensky and his team were serious about fulfilling his 
mandate--to paraphrase the way he described it in his speech at the 
High Anti-Corruption Court--to not only fight corruption but to defeat 
it.
    The meeting with Zelensky started with him requesting we dispense 
with the usual diplomatic opening and get right to the issue on 
everyone's mind, the hold being placed on military support.
    He asked if any of us knew the current status. Because I had just 
spoken to President Trump, I fielded his question and conveyed the two 
reasons the president told me for his hold. I explained that I had 
tried to persuade the president to authorize me to announce the hold 
was released but that I was unsuccessful.
    As much as Zelensky was concerned about losing the military aid, he 
was even more concerned about the signal that would send. I shared his 
concern. I suggested that in our public statements we first emphasize 
the universal support that the U.S. Congress has shown--and will 
continue to show--for the Ukrainian people. Second, we should minimize 
the significance of the hold on military aid as simply a timing issue 
coming a few weeks before the end of our federal fiscal year. Even if 
President Trump and the deficit hawks within his administration decided 
not to obligate funding for the current fiscal year, Congress would 
make sure he had no option in the next fiscal year--which then was only 
a few weeks away. I also made the point that Murphy was on the 
Appropriations Committee and could lead the charge on funding.
    Murphy made the additional point that one of the most valuable 
assets Ukraine possesses is bipartisan congressional support. He warned 
Zelensky not to respond to requests from American political actors or 
he would risk losing Ukraine's bipartisan support. I did not comment on 
this issue that Murphy raised.
    Instead, I began discussing a possible meeting with President 
Trump. I viewed a meeting between the two presidents as crucial for 
overcoming President Trump's reservations and securing full U.S. 
support. It was at this point that President Trump's May 23 directive 
came into play.
    I prefaced my comment to Zelensky by saying, ``Let me go out on a 
limb here. Are you or any of your advisers aware of the inaugural 
delegation's May 23 meeting in the Oval Office following your 
inauguration?'' No one admitted they were, so I pressed on. ``The 
reason I bring up that meeting is that I don't want you caught off-
guard if President Trump reacts to you the same way he reacted to the 
delegation's request for support for Ukraine.''
    I told the group that President Trump explicitly told the 
delegation that he wanted to make sure Zelensky knew exactly how he 
felt about Ukraine before any meeting took place. To repeat Volker's 
quote of President Trump: ``They are all corrupt. They are all terrible 
people. . . . I don't want to spend any time with that.'' That was the 
general attitude toward Ukraine that I felt President Trump directed us 
to convey. Since I did not have Volker's quote to use at the time, I 
tried to portray that strongly held attitude and reiterated the reasons 
President Trump consistently gave me for his reservations regarding 
Ukraine: endemic corruption and inadequate European support.
    I also conveyed the counterarguments I used (unsuccessfully) to 
persuade the president to lift his hold: (1) We would be supporting the 
people of Ukraine, not corrupt oligarchs, and (2) withholding military 
support was not politically smart. Although I recognized how this next 
point would be problematic, I also suggested any public statement 
Zelensky could make asking for greater support from Europe would 
probably be viewed favorably by President Trump.
    Finally, I commented on how excellent Zelensky's English was and 
encouraged him to use English as much as possible in a future meeting 
with President Trump. With a smile on his face, he replied, ``But 
Senator Johnson, you don't realize how beautiful my Ukrainian is.'' I 
jokingly conceded the point by saying I was not able to distinguish his 
Ukrainian from his Russian.
    This was a very open, frank, and supportive discussion. There was 
no reason for anyone on either side not to be completely honest or to 
withhold any concerns. At no time during this meeting--or any other 
meeting on this trip--was there any mention by Zelensky or any 
Ukrainian that they were feeling pressure to do anything in return for 
the military aid, not even after Murphy warned them about getting 
involved in the 2020 election--which would have been the perfect time 
to discuss any pressure.
    Following the meeting with Zelensky and his advisers, Murphy and I 
met with the Ukrainian press outside the presidential office building. 
Our primary message was that we were in Kyiv to demonstrate our strong 
bipartisan support for the people of Ukraine. We were very encouraged 
by our meetings with Zelensky and other members of his new government 
in their commitment to fulfill their electoral mandate to fight and 
defeat corruption. When the issue of military support was raised, I 
provided the response I suggested above: I described it as a timing 
issue at the end of a fiscal year and said that, regardless of what 
decision President Trump made on the fiscal year 2019 funding, I was 
confident Congress would restore the funding in fiscal year 2020. In 
other words: Don't mistake a budget issue for a change in America's 
strong support for the people of Ukraine.
    Congress came back into session on Sept. 9. During a vote early in 
the week, I approached one of the co-chairs of the Senate Ukraine 
Caucus, U.S. Sen. Richard Durbin. I briefly described our trip to 
Ukraine and the concerns Zelensky and his advisers had over the hold on 
military support. According to press reports, Senator Durbin stated 
that was the first time he was made aware of the hold. I went on to 
describe how I tried to minimize the impact of that hold by assuring 
Ukrainians that Congress could restore the funding in fiscal year 2020. 
I encouraged Durbin, as I had encouraged Murphy, to use his membership 
on the Senate Appropriations Committee to restore the funding.
    Also according to a press report, leading up to a Sept. 12 defense 
appropriation committee markup, Durbin offered an amendment to restore 
funding. On Sept. 11, the administration announced that the hold had 
been lifted. I think it is important to note the hold was lifted only 
14 days after its existence became publicly known, and 55 days after 
the hold apparently had been placed.
    On Friday, Oct. 4, I saw news reports of text messages that Volker 
had supplied the House of Representatives as part of his testimony. The 
texts discussed a possible press release that Zelensky might issue to 
help persuade President Trump to offer an Oval Office meeting. Up to 
that point, I had publicly disclosed only the first part of my Aug. 31 
phone call with President Trump, where I lobbied him to release the 
military aid and he provided his consistent reasons for not doing so: 
corruption and inadequate European support.
    Earlier in the week, I had given a phone interview with Siobhan 
Hughes of the Wall Street Journal regarding my involvement with 
Ukraine. With the disclosure of the Volker texts, I felt it was 
important to go on the record with the next part of my Aug. 31 call 
with President Trump: his denial. I had not previously disclosed this 
because I could not precisely recall what Sondland had told me on Aug. 
30, and what I had conveyed to President Trump, regarding action 
Ukraine would take before military aid would be released. To the best 
of my recollection, the action described by Sondland on Aug. 30 
involved a demonstration that the new Ukrainian government was serious 
about fighting corruption--something like the appointment of a 
prosecutor general with high integrity.
    I called Hughes Friday morning, Oct. 4, to update my interview. It 
was a relatively lengthy interview, almost 30 minutes, as I attempted 
to put a rather complex set of events into context. Toward the tail end 
of that interview, Hughes said, ``It almost sounds like, the way you 
see it, Gordon was kind of freelancing and he took it upon himself to 
do something that the president hadn't exactly blessed, as you see 
it.'' I replied, ``That's a possibility, but I don't know that. Let's 
face it: The president can't have his fingers in everything. He can't 
be stage-managing everything, so you have members of his administration 
trying to create good policy.''
    To my knowledge, most members of the administration and Congress 
dealing with the issues involving Ukraine disagreed with President 
Trump's attitude and approach toward Ukraine. Many who had the 
opportunity and ability to influence the president attempted to change 
his mind. I see nothing wrong with U.S. officials working with 
Ukrainian officials to demonstrate Ukraine's commitment to reform in 
order to change President Trump's attitude and gain his support.
    Nor is it wrong for administration staff to use their powers of 
persuasion within their chain of command to influence policy. What is 
wrong is for people who work for, and at the pleasure of, the president 
to believe they set U.S. foreign policy instead of the duly elected 
president doing so. It also would be wrong for those individuals to 
step outside their chain of command--or established whistleblower 
procedures--to undermine the president's policy. If those working for 
the president don't feel they can implement the president's policies in 
good conscience, they should follow Gen. James Mattis' example and 
resign. If they choose to do so, they can then take their disagreements 
to the public. That would be the proper and high-integrity course of 
action.
    This impeachment effort has done a great deal of damage to our 
democracy. The release of transcripts of discussions between the 
president of the United States and another world leader sets a terrible 
precedent that will deter and limit candid conversations between the 
president and world leaders from now on. The weakening of executive 
privilege will also limit the extent to which presidential advisers 
will feel comfortable providing ``out of the box'' and other frank 
counsel in the future.
    In my role as chairman of the Senate's primary oversight committee, 
I strongly believe in and support whistleblower protections. But in 
that role, I am also aware that not all whistleblowers are created 
equal. Not every whistleblower has purely altruistic motives. Some have 
personal axes to grind against a superior or co-workers. Others might 
have a political ax to grind.
    The Intelligence Community Inspector General acknowledges the 
whistleblower in this instance exhibits some measure of ``an arguable 
political bias.'' The whistleblower' s selection of attorney Mark Zaid 
lends credence to the ICIG's assessment, given Zaid's tweet that 
mentions coup, rebellion and impeachment only 10 days after Trump's 
inauguration.
    If the whistleblower's intention was to improve and solidify the 
relationship between the U.S. and Ukraine, he or she failed miserably. 
Instead, the result has been to publicize and highlight the president's 
deeply held reservations toward Ukraine that the whistleblower felt 
were so damaging to our relationship with Ukraine and to U.S. national 
security. The dispute over policy was being resolved between the two 
branches of government before the whistleblower complaint was made 
public. All the complaint has accomplished is to fuel the House's 
impeachment desire (which I believe was the real motivation), and 
damage our democracy as described above.
    America faces enormous challenges at home and abroad. My oversight 
efforts have persuaded me there has been a concerted effort, probably 
beginning the day after the November 2016 election, to sabotage and 
undermine President Trump and his administration. President Trump, his 
supporters, and the American public have a legitimate and 
understandable desire to know if wrongdoing occurred directed toward 
influencing the 2016 election or sabotaging Trump's administration. The 
American public also has a right to know if no wrongdoing occurred. The 
sooner we get answers to the many unanswered questions, the sooner we 
can attempt to heal our severely divided nation and turn our attention 
to the many daunting challenges America faces.
            Sincerely,
                                               Ron Johnson,
                                             United States Senator.
                                 ______
                                 

             [From RealClearInvestigations, Jan. 22, 2019]

 Whistleblower Was Overheard in '17 Discussing With Ally How To Remove 
                                 Trump

                            (By Paul Sperry)

    Barely two weeks after Donald Trump took office, Eric Ciaramella--
the CIA analyst whose name was recently linked in a tweet by the 
president and mentioned by lawmakers as the anonymous ``whistleblower'' 
who touched off Trump's impeachment--was overheard in the White House 
discussing with another staffer how to remove the newly elected 
president from office, according to former colleagues.
    Sources told RealClearInvestigations the staffer with whom 
Ciaramella was speaking was Sean Misko. Both were Obama administration 
holdovers working in the Trump White House on foreign policy and 
national security issues. And both expressed anger over Trump's new 
``America First'' foreign policy, a sea change from President Obama's 
approach to international affairs.
    ``Just days after he was sworn in they were already talking about 
trying to get rid of him,'' said a White House colleague who overheard 
their conversation.
    ``They weren't just bent on subverting his agenda,'' the former 
official added. ``They were plotting to actually have him removed from 
office.''
    Misko left the White House last summer to join House impeachment 
manager Adam Schiff's committee, where sources say he offered 
``guidance'' to the whistleblower, who has been officially identified 
only as an intelligence officer in a complaint against Trump filed 
under whistleblower laws. Misko then helped run the impeachment inquiry 
based on that complaint as a top investigator for congressional 
Democrats.
    The probe culminated in Trump's impeachment last month on a party-
line vote in the House of Representatives. Schiff and other House 
Democrats last week delivered the articles of impeachment to the 
Senate, and are now pressing the case for his removal during the trial, 
which began Tuesday.
    The coordination between the official believed to be the 
whistleblower and a key Democratic staffer, details of which are 
disclosed here for the first time, undercuts the narrative that 
impeachment developed spontaneously out of the ``patriotism'' of an 
``apolitical civil servant.''
    Two former co-workers said they overheard Ciaramella and Misko, 
dose friends and Democrats held over from the Obama administration, 
discussing how to ``take out,'' or remove, the new president from 
office within days of Trump's inauguration. These co-workers said the 
president's controversial Ukraine phone call in July 2019 provided the 
pretext they and their Democratic allies had been looking for.
    ``They didn't like his policies,'' another former White House 
official said. ``They had a political vendetta against him from Day 
One.''
    Their efforts were part of a larger pattern of coordination to 
build a case for impeachment, involving Democratic leaders as well as 
anti-Trump figures both inside and outside of government.
    All unnamed sources for this article spoke only on condition that 
they not be further identified or described. Although strong evidence 
points to Ciaramella as the government employee who lodged the 
whistleblower complaint, he has not been officially identified as such. 
As a result, this article makes a distinction between public 
information released about the unnamed whistleblower/CIA analyst and 
specific information about Ciaramella.
    Democrats based their impeachment case on the whistleblower 
complaint, which alleges that President Trump sought to help his re-
election campaign by demanding that Ukraine's leader investigate former 
Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter in exchange for military 
aid. Yet Schiff, who heads the House Intelligence Committee, and other 
Democrats have insisted on keeping the identity of the whistleblower 
secret, citing concern for his safety, while arguing that his testimony 
no longer matters because other witnesses and documents have 
``corroborated'' what he alleged in his complaint about the Ukraine 
call.
    Republicans have fought unsuccessfully to call him as a witness, 
arguing that his motivations and associations are relevant--and that 
the president has the same due-process right to confront his accuser as 
any other American.
    The whistleblower's candor is also being called into question. It 
turns out that the CIA operative failed to report his contacts with 
Schiff's office to the intelligence community's inspector general who 
fielded his whistleblower complaint. He withheld the information both 
in interviews with the inspector general, Michael Atkinson, and in 
writing, according to impeachment committee investigators. The 
whistleblower form he filled out required him to disclose whether he 
had ``contacted other entities''--including ``members of Congress.'' 
But he left that section blank on the disclosure form he signed.
    The investigators say that details about how the whistleblower 
consulted with Schiff's staff and perhaps misled Atkinson about those 
interactions are contained in the transcript of a closed-door briefing 
Atkinson gave to the House Intelligence Committee last October. 
However, Schiff has sealed the transcript from public view. It is the 
only impeachment witness transcript out of 18 that he has not released.
    Schiff has classified the document ``Secret,'' preventing 
Republicans who attended the Atkinson briefing from quoting from it. 
Even impeachment investigators cannot view it outside a highly secured 
room, known as a ``SCIF,'' in the basement of the Capitol. Members must 
first get permission from Schiff, and they are forbidden from bringing 
phones into the SCIF or from taking notes from the document.
    While the identity of the whistleblower remains unconfirmed, at 
least officially, Trump recently retweeted a message naming Ciaramella, 
while Republican Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Louie Gohmert of the House 
Judiciary Committee have publicly demanded that Ciaramella testify 
about his role in the whistleblower complaint.
    During last year's closed-door House depositions of impeachment 
witnesses, Ciaramella's name was invoked in heated discussions about 
the whistleblower, as RealClearInvestigations first reported Oct. 30, 
and has appeared in at least one testimony transcript. Congressional 
Republicans complain Schiff and his staff counsel have redacted his 
name from other documents.
    Lawyers representing the whistleblower have neither confirmed nor 
denied that Ciaramella is their client. In November, after Donald Trump 
Jr. named Ciaramella and cited RCI's story in a series of tweets, 
however, they sent a ``cease and desist'' letter to the White House 
demanding Trump and his ``surrogates'' stop ``attacking'' him. And just 
as the whistleblower complaint was made public in September, 
Ciaramella's social media postings and profiles were scrubbed from the 
Internet.
                        `take out' the president
    An Obama holdover and registered Democrat, Ciaramella in early 2017 
expressed hostility toward the newly elected president during White 
House meetings, his co-workers said in interviews with 
RealClearInvestigations. They added that Ciaramella sought to have 
Trump removed from office long before the filing of the whistleblower 
complaint.
    At the time, the CIA operative worked on loan to the White House as 
a top Ukrainian analyst in the National Security Council, where he had 
previously served as an adviser on Ukraine to Vice President Biden. The 
whistleblower complaint cites Biden, alleging that Trump demanded 
Ukraine's newly elected leader investigate him and his son ``to help 
the president's 2020 reelection bid.''
    Two NSC co-workers told RCI that they overheard Ciaramella and 
Misko--who was also working at the NSC as an analyst--making anti-Trump 
remarks to each other while attending a staff-wide NSC meeting called 
by then-National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, where they sat 
together in the south auditorium of the Eisenhower Executive Office 
Building, part of the White House complex.
    The ``all hands'' meeting, held about two weeks into the new 
administration, was attended by hundreds of NSC employees.
    ``They were popping off about how they were going to remove Trump 
from office. No joke,'' said one ex-colleague, who spoke on the 
condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters.
    A military staffer detailed to the NSC, who was seated directly in 
front of Ciaramella and Misko during the meeting, confirmed hearing 
them talk about toppling Trump during their private conversation, which 
the source said lasted about one minute. The crowd was preparing to get 
up to leave the room at the time.
    ``After Flynn briefed [the staff] about what `America first' 
foreign policy means, Ciaramella turned to Misko and commented, 'We 
need to take him out,''' the staffer recalled. ``And Misko replied, 
`Yeah, we need to do everything we can to take out the president.'''
    Added the military detailee, who spoke on condition of anonymity: 
``By `taking him out,' they meant removing him from office by any means 
necessary. They were triggered by Trump's and Flynn's vision for the 
world. This was the first `all hands' [staff meeting] where they got to 
see Trump's national security team, and they were huffing and puffing 
throughout the briefing any time Flynn said something they didn't like 
about `America First.'''
    He said he also overheard Ciaramella telling Misko, referring to 
Trump, `We can't let him enact this foreign policy.'''
    Alarmed by their conversation, the military staffer immediately 
reported what he heard to his superiors.
    ``It was so shocking that they were so blatant and outspoken about 
their opinion,'' he recalled. ``They weren't shouting it, but they 
didn't seem to feel the need to hide it.''
    The co-workers didn't think much more about the incident.
    ``We just thought they were wacky,'' the first source said. 
``Little did we know.''
    Neither Ciaramella nor Misko could be reached for comment.
    A CIA alumnus, Misko had previously assisted Biden's top national 
security aide Jake Sullivan. Former NSC staffers said Misko was 
Ciaramella's closest and most trusted ally in the Trump White House.
    ``Eric and Sean were very tight and spent nearly two years together 
at the NSC,'' said a former supervisor who requested anonymity. ``Both 
of them were paranoid about Trump.''
    ``They were thick as thieves,'' added the first NSC source. ``They 
sat next to each other and complained about Trump all the time. They 
were buddies. They weren't just colleagues. They were buddies outside 
the White House.''
    The February 2017 incident wasn't the only time the pair exhibited 
open hostility toward the president. During the following months, both 
were accused internally of leaking negative information about Trump to 
the media.
    But Trump's controversial call to the new president of Ukraine this 
past summer--in which he asked the foreign leader for help with 
domestic investigations involving the Obama administration, including 
Biden--gave them the opening they were looking for.
    A mutual ally in the National Security Council who was one of the 
White House officials authorized to listen in on Trump's July 25 
conversation with Ukraine's president leaked it to Ciaramella the next 
day--July 26--according to former NSC co-workers and congressional 
sources. The friend, Ukraine-born Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, held 
Ciaramella's old position at the NSC as director for Ukraine. Although 
Ciaramella had left the White House to return to the CIA in mid-2017, 
the two officials continued to collaborate through interagency 
meetings.
    Vindman leaked what he'd heard to Ciaramella by phone that 
afternoon, the sources said. In their conversation, which lasted a few 
minutes, he described Trump's call as ``crazy,'' and speculated he had 
``committed a criminal act.'' Neither reviewed the transcript of the 
call before the White House released it months later.
    NSC co-workers said that Vindman, like Ciaramella, openly expressed 
his disdain for Trump whose foreign policy was often at odds with the 
recommendations of ``the interagency''--a network of agency working 
groups comprised of intelligence bureaucrats, experts and diplomats who 
regularly meet to craft and coordinate policy positions inside the 
federal government.
    Before he was detailed to the White House, Vindman served in the 
U.S. Army, where he once received a reprimand from a superior officer 
for badmouthing and ridiculing America in front of Russian soldiers his 
unit was training with during a joint 2012 exercise in Germany.
    His commanding officer, Army Lt. Col. Jim Hickman, complained that 
Vindman, then a major, ``was apologetic of American culture, laughed 
about Americans not being educated or worldly and really talked up 
Obama and globalism to the point of [It being] uncomfortable.''
    ``Vindman was a partisan Democrat at least as far back as 2012,'' 
Hickman, now retired, asserted. ``Do not let the uniform fool you. He 
is a political activist in uniform.''
    Attempts to reach Vindman through his lawyer were unsuccessful.
    July 26 was also the day that Schiff hired Misko to head up the 
investigation of Trump, congressional employment records show. Misko, 
in turn, secretly huddled with the whistleblower prior to filing his 
Aug. 12 complaint, according to multiple congressional sources, and 
shared what he told him with Schiff, who initially denied the contacts 
before press accounts revealed them.
    Schiff's office has also denied helping the whistleblower prepare 
his complaint, while rejecting a Republican subpoena for documents 
relating to it. But Capitol Hill veterans and federal whistleblower 
experts are suspicious of that account.
    Fred Fleitz, who fielded a number of whistleblower complaints from 
the intelligence community as a former senior House Intelligence 
Committee staff member, said it was obvious that the CIA analyst had 
received coaching in writing the nine-page whistleblower report.
    ``From my experience, such an extremely polished whistleblowing 
complaint is unheard of,'' Fleitz, also a former CIA analyst, said. 
``He appears to have collaborated in drafting his complaint with 
partisan House Intelligence Committee members and staff.''
    Fleitz, who recently served as chief of staff to former National 
Security Adviser John Bolton, said the complaint appears to have been 
tailored to buttress an impeachment charge of soliciting the 
``interference'' of a foreign government in the election.
    And the whistleblower's unsupported allegation became the 
foundation for Democrats' first article of impeachment against the 
president. It even adopts the language used by the CIA analyst in his 
complaint, which Fleitz said reads more like ``a political document.''
                              outside help
    After providing the outlines of his complaint to Schiff's staff, 
the CIA analyst was referred to whistleblower attorney Andrew Bakaj by 
a mutual friend ``who is an attorney and expert in national security 
law,'' according to the Washington Post, which did not identify the go-
between.
    A former CIA officer, Bakaj had worked with Ciaramella at the spy 
agency. They have even more in common: like the 33-year-old Ciaramella, 
the 37-year-old Bakaj is a Connecticut native who has spent time in 
Ukraine. He's also contributed money to Biden's presidential campaign 
and once worked for former Sen. Hillary Clinton. He's also briefed the 
intelligence panel Schiff chairs.
    Bakaj brought in another whistleblower lawyer, Mark Zaid, to help 
on the case. A Democratic donor and a politically active anti-Trump 
advocate, Zaid was willing to help represent the CIA analyst. On Jan. 
30, 2017, around the same time former colleagues say they overheard 
Ciaramella and Misko conspiring to take Trump out, Zaid tweeted that a 
``coup has started'' and that ``impeachment will follow ultimately.''
    Neither Bakaj nor Zaid responded to requests for an interview.
    It's not clear who the mutual friend and national security attorney 
was whom the analyst turned to for additional help after meeting with 
Schiff's staff. But people familiar with the matter say that former 
Justice Department national security lawyer David Laufman involved 
himself early on in the whistleblower case.
    Also a former CIA officer, Laufman was promoted by the Obama 
administration to run counterintelligence cases, including the high-
profile investigations of Clinton's classified emails and the Trump 
campaign's alleged ties to Russia. Laufman sat in on Clinton's July 
2016 FBI interview. He also signed off on the wiretapping of a Trump 
campaign adviser, which the Department of Justice inspector general 
determined was conducted under false pretenses involving doctored 
emails, suppression of exculpatory evidence, and other malfeasance. 
Laufman's office was implicated in a report detailing the surveillance 
misconduct.
    Laufman could not be reached for comment.
    Laufman and Zaid are old friends who have worked together on legal 
matters in the past. ``I would not hesitate to join forces with him on 
complicated cases,'' Zaid said of Laufman in a recommendation posted on 
his LinkedIn page.
    Laufman recently defended Zaid on Twitter after Trump blasted Zaid 
for advocating a ``coup'' against him. ``These attacks on Mark Zaid's 
patriotism are baseless, irresponsible and dangerous,'' Laufman 
tweeted. ``Mark is an ardent advocate for his clients.''
    After the CIA analyst was coached on how to file a complaint under 
Intelligence Community whistleblower protections, he was steered to 
another Obama holdover--former Justice Department attorney-turned-
inspector general Michael Atkinson, who facilitated the processing of 
his complaint, despite numerous red flags raised by career Justice 
Department lawyers who reviewed it.
    The department's Office of Legal Counsel that the complaint 
involved ``foreign diplomacy,'' not intelligence, contained ``hearsay'' 
evidence based on ``secondhand'' information, and did not meet the 
definition of an ``urgent concern'' that needed to be reported to 
Congress. Still, Atkinson worked closely with Schiff to pressure the 
White House to make the complaint public.
    Fleitz said cloaking the CIA analyst in the whistleblower statute 
provided him cover from public scrutiny. By making him anonymous, he 
was able to hide his background and motives. Filing the complaint with 
the IC inspector general, moreover, gave him added protections against 
reprisals, while letting him disclose classified information. If he had 
filed directly with Congress, it could not have made the complaint 
public due to classified concerns. But a complaint referred by the IG 
to Congress gave it more latitude over what it could make public.
                      omitted contacts with schiff
    The whistleblower complaint was publicly released Sept. 26 after a 
barrage of letters and a subpoena from Schiff, along with a flood of 
leaks to the media.
    However, the whistleblower did not disclose to Atkinson that he had 
briefed Schiff's office about his complaint before filing it with the 
inspector general. He was required on forms to list any other agencies 
he had contacted, including Congress. But he omitted those contacts and 
other material facts from his disclosure. He also appears to have 
misled Atkinson on Aug. 12, when on a separate form he stated: ``I 
reserve the option to exercise my legal right to contact the committees 
directly,'' when he had already contacted Schiff's committee weeks 
prior to making the statement.
    ``The whistleblower made statements to the inspector general under 
the penalty of perjury that were not true or correct,'' said Rep. John 
Ratcliffe, a Republican member of the House Intelligence Committee.
    Ratcliffe said Atkinson appeared unconcerned after the New York 
Times revealed in early October that Schiff's office had privately 
consulted with the CIA analyst before he filed his complaint, 
contradicting Schiff's initial denials. Ratcliffe told 
RealClearlnvestigations that in closed door testimony on Oct. 4, ``I 
asked IG Atkinson about his `investigation' into the contacts between 
Schiff's staff and the person who later became the whistleblower.'' But 
he said Atkinson claimed that he had not investigated them because he 
had only just learned about them in the media.
    On Oct. 8, after more media reports revealed the whistle blower and 
Schiff's staff had concealed their contacts with each other, the 
whistleblower called Atkinson's office to try to explain why he made 
false statements in writing and verbally, transgressions that could be 
punishable with a fine of up to $10,000, imprisonment for up five 
years, or both, according to the federal form he signed under penalty 
of perjury.
    In his clarification to the inspector general, the whistleblower 
acknowledged for the first time reaching out to Schiff's staff before 
filing the complaint, according to an investigative report filed later 
that month by Atkinson.
    ``The whistleblower got caught,'' Ratcliffe said. ``The 
whistleblower made false statements. The whistleblower got caught with 
Chairman Schiff.''
    He says the truth about what happened is documented on pages 53-73 
of the transcript of Atkinson's eight-hour testimony. Except that 
Schiff refuses to release it.
    ``The transcript is classified `Secret' so Schiff can prevent you 
from seeing the answers to my questions,'' Ratcliffe told RCI.
    Atkinson replaced Charles McCullough as the intelligence 
community's IG. McCullough is now a partner in the same law firm for 
which Bakaj and Zaid work. McCullough formerly reported directly to 
Obama's National Intelligence Director, James Clapper, one of Trump's 
biggest critics in the intelligence community and a regular agitator 
for his impeachment on CNN.
                        hidden political agenda?
    Atkinson also repeatedly refused to answer Senate Intelligence 
Committee questions about the political bias of the whistleblower. 
Republican members of the panel called his Sept. 26 testimony 
``evasive.'' Senate investigators say they are seeking all records 
generated from Atkinson's ``preliminary review'' of the whistleblower's 
complaint, including evidence and ``indicia'' of the whistleblower's 
``political bias'' in favor of Biden.
    Republicans point out that Atkinson was the top national security 
lawyer in the Obama Justice Department when it was investigating Trump 
campaign aides and Trump himself in 2016 and 2017. He worked closely 
with Laufman, the department's former counterintelligence section chief 
who's now aligned with the whistleblower's attorneys. Also, Atkinson 
served as senior counsel to Mary McCord, the senior Justice official 
appointed by Obama who helped oversee the FBI's Russia ``collusion'' 
probe, and who personally pressured the White House to fire then 
National Security Adviser Flynn. She and Atkinson worked together on 
the Russia case. Closing the circle tighter, McCord was Laufman's boss 
at Justice.
    As it happens, all three are now involved in the whistleblower case 
or the impeachment process.
    After leaving the department, McCord joined the stable of attorneys 
Democrats recruited last year to help impeach Trump. She is listed as a 
top outside counsel for the House in key legal battles tied to 
impeachment, including trying to convince federal judges to unblock 
White House witnesses and documents.
    ``Michael Atkinson is a key anti-Trump conspirator who played a 
central role in transforming the `whistleblower' complaint into the 
current impeachment proceedings,'' said Bill Marshall, a senior 
investigator for Judicial Watch, the conservative government watchdog 
group that is suing the Justice Department for Atkinson's internal 
communications regarding impeachment.
    Atkinson's office declined comment.
                       another `co-conspirator'?
    During closed-door depositions taken in the impeachment inquiry, 
Ciaramella's confederate Misko was observed handing notes to Schiff's 
lead counsel for the impeachment inquiry, Daniel Goldman--another Obama 
Justice attorney and a major Democratic donor--as he asked questions of 
Trump administration witnesses, officials with direct knowledge of the 
proceedings told RealClear Investigations. Misko also was observed 
sitting on the dais behind Democratic members during last month's 
publicly broadcast joint impeachment committee hearings.
    Another Schiff recruit believed to part of the clandestine 
political operation against Trump is Abby Grace, who also worked 
closely with Ciaramella at the NSC, both before and after Trump was 
elected. During the Obama administration, Grace was an assistant to 
Obama national security aide Ben Rhodes.
    Last February, Schiff recruited this other White House friend of 
the whistleblower to work as an impeachment investigator. Grace is 
listed alongside Sean Misko as senior staffers in the House 
Intelligence Committee's ``The Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry 
Report'' published last month.
    Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert, who served on one of the House 
impeachment panels, singled out Grace and Misko as Ciaramella's ``co-
conspirators'' in a recent House floor speech arguing for their 
testimony.``These people are at the heart of everything about this 
whole Ukrainian hoax,'' Gohmert said. ``We need to be able to talk to 
these people.''
    A Schiff spokesman dismissed Gohmert's allegation.
    ``These allegations about our dedicated and professional staff 
members are patently false and are based off false smears from a 
congressional staffer with a personal vendetta from a previous job,'' 
said Patrick Boland, spokesman for the House Intelligence Committee. 
``It's shocking that members of Congress would repeat them and other 
false conspiracy theories, rather than focusing on the facts of the 
president's misconduct.''
    Boland declined to identify ``the congressional staffer with a 
personal vendetta.''
    Schiff has maintained in open hearings and interviews that he did 
not personally speak with the whistleblower and still does not even 
know his identity, which would mean the intelligence panel's senior 
staff has withheld his name from their chairman for almost six months. 
Still, he insists that he knows that the CIA analyst has ``acted in 
good faith,'' as well as ``appropriately and lawfully.''
    The CIA declined comment. But the agency reportedly has taken 
security measures to protect the analyst, who has continued to work on 
issues relating to Russia and Ukraine and participate in interagency 
meetings.

    Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to 
have a statement I prepared concerning the impeachment trial be 
printed in the Record.
    There being no objection, the material was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

          Senator Richard Blumenthal--Statement for the Record

                 impeachment trial of donald john trump
    The case for impeachment presented by the House managers is 
overwhelming. Donald Trump held taxpayer-funded military aid hostage 
from an ally at war while demanding a personal, political favor. He 
tried to cheat, got caught, and worked hard to cover it up. His actions 
constitute a shocking, corrupt abuse of power and betrayal of his oath 
of office. Just as a sheriff cannot delay responding to calls for help 
until the callers endorse his re-election, the President is not 
entitled to withhold vital military assistance from a foreign ally 
until they announce an investigation to smear his political rival. The 
proof shows precisely the type of corruption that the Framers sought to 
prevent through the Impeachment Clause, including foreign interference 
in our election.
    Two further points are significant. First, the President is guilty 
of the crime of bribery, which is specifically listed in the 
Constitution as a grounds for impeachment.\1\ Second, the President's 
unprecedented campaign to obstruct the impeachment inquiry compels us 
to conclude that the evidence he is hiding would provide further proof 
of his guilt.
I. The President committed the federal crime of bribery
    There is no question--based on the original meaning of the 
Constitution, the elaboration of the impeachment clause in the 
Federalist Papers, historical precedent, and common sense--that the 
President need not violate a provision of any criminal code in order to 
warrant removal from office.\2\ The President's argument that he must 
violate ``established law'' to be impeached would be laughable if its 
implications were not so dangerous.
    But there is no reasonable doubt that the President has violated 
established law. The Constitution specifically states that a President 
who commits bribery should be impeached.\3\ The evidence before us 
establishes that President Trump has committed the crime of bribery as 
it existed at the time of the framers and now. Therefore, even using 
the President's own standard, the Senate has no choice but to convict.
    The evidence shows that the President solicited interference in the 
2020 election for his own benefit by pressuring Ukraine to announce an 
investigation into his political opponents in return for releasing 
nearly $400 million in taxpayer-funded military aid Ukraine desperately 
needed, as well as a meeting with President Zelensky at the White 
House. He sought, indeed demanded, a personal benefit in exchange for 
an official act.
    Section 201 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code criminalizes ``bribery of 
public officials and witnesses.'' A public official is guilty under 
this section when they seek ``anything of value'' in exchange for any 
``official act'' and do so with corrupt intent. The code even specifies 
that punishment for this crime may include disqualification ``from 
holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United 
States.''\4\

     A. The requested investigations constitute ``things of value''

    The investigations that President Trump requested into his 
political enemies and to undermine claims that Russia illegally helped 
him get elected are clearly ``things of value.''\5\ By all accounts, he 
was obsessed with them. According to multiple reports, Trump cared more 
about the investigations than he did about defending Ukraine from 
Russia. Ambassador Gordon Sondland even testified that the President 
``doesn't give a s**t'' about Ukraine and only cares about ``big 
stuff'' like the announcement of the investigations he requested.\6\
    Courts have consistently applied a broad and subjective 
understanding of the phrase ``anything of value.'' All that matters is 
that the bribe had value in the eyes of the official accepting or 
soliciting it. The Second Circuit has determined that ``anything of 
value'' includes stock that, although it had no commercial value at the 
time, had subjective value to the defendant.\7\ Similarly, the Sixth 
Circuit held that loans that a public official would have been 
otherwise unable to receive were ``thing[s] of value.''\8\ The Eighth 
Circuit has similarly emphasized that ``anything of value'' should be 
interpreted ``broadly'' and ``subjectively.''\9\
    Further, the ``thing'' need not be tangible, and it need not be 
immediately available. For example, the Sixth Circuit held that a 
promise of ``future employment'' is a thing of value.\10\ A D.C. 
district court found that travel and entrance to various events that 
Tyson Foods gave to the Agriculture Secretary's girlfriend counted as 
things of value, despite the fact that they were not given directly to 
the Secretary and were not tangible items.\11\ Campaign contributions 
also count as ``things of value,'' even contributions made to Super 
PACs, despite Supreme Court precedent holding that independent 
expenditures do not have sufficient value to candidates to justify 
placing limits on them.\12\ In other contexts, the courts have 
interpreted the phrase ``thing of value'' to encompass a tip about the 
whereabouts of a witness,\13\ information about government 
informants,\14\ and the testimony of a government witness.\15\ The 
courts have roundly rejected the proposition that this phrase ``covers 
only things having commercial value;'' intangibles, including 
information itself, can certainly be a ``thing of value.''\16\ The 
relevant inquiry is not the objective value of the thing offered, but 
``whether the donee placed any value on the intangible gifts.''\17\
    Here, President Trump clearly placed value on the announcement of 
investigations. During the July 25 phone call, Trump stated that it was 
``very important'' that Zelensky open these investigations.\18\ Over 
several months, Trump and Rudy Giuliani had made repeated public 
statements about how important they thought the investigations were. 
Since at least April, 2017, President Trump has been publicly promoting 
the debunked conspiracy theory that a California-based cybersecurity 
company, CrowdStrike, worked with the Democratic National Committee to 
fabricate evidence that Russia interfered in the 2016 election and hide 
the proof of their actions in Ukraine. Rudy Giuliani, the President's 
personal attorney, has been promoting a conspiracy theory about Joe and 
Hunter Biden since at least January, 2019.\19\ Days after Zelensky was 
elected, Trump stated on air that he would be directing Attorney 
General Barr to ``look into'' the CrowdStrike conspiracy theory.\20\ In 
May, 2019, Rudy Giuliani, with the knowledge and consent of President 
Trump and acting on the President's behalf,\21\ planned to travel to 
Ukraine to ask for these investigations, which he said would be ``very, 
very helpful to my client, and may turn out to be helpful to my 
government.''\22\ On July 10, top Ukrainian officials met with Energy 
Secretary Perry, John Bolton, Kurt Volker, and Ambassador Sondland at 
the White House where Sondland made clear that an official White House 
visit with Zelensky was important to the President.\23\
    Further, the electoral value to President Trump of investigations 
that would smear Joe Biden and the DNC while casting doubt on Russian 
interference in the 2016 election is obvious. President Trump was 
elected in a shocking and narrow victory after polls showed him 
trailing his opponent until officials announced that she was under 
investigation.\24\ The announcement of an investigation into his 
political opponents clearly had tremendous value to him personally.
    The President's counsels claim that Trump demanded investigations 
of his political rival as part of a perfectly legitimate anti-
corruption effort. In short, they want the Senate to leave our common 
sense at the door. At least four undisputed facts decisively disprove 
the claim that President Trump's actions were motivated by the public 
interest and not his own.
    First, as one of my colleagues has put it,\25\ it ``strains 
credulity'' to suggest that President Trump was pursuing the public 
interest and not his political benefit when the only corruption 
investigations he could think to demand involved his political 
opponents.\26\ President Trump's counsel have claimed throughout this 
trial that the President believed corruption in Ukraine to be 
widespread. Yet he did not suggest a single investigation or 
programmatic action other than the two investigations of his political 
rivals.
    Second, President Trump did not actually want Ukraine to conduct 
the investigations he only wanted Zelensky to announce them.\27\ If he 
really did want to get to the bottom of a legitimate concern, a public 
announcement of the investigation would not further that interest. Any 
good investigator knows that, if you actually want to get to the truth, 
you do not prematurely tip off the subject of the investigation. 
Indeed, federal prosecutors are instructed to not even ``respond to 
questions about the existence of an ongoing investigation or comment on 
its nature or progress before charges are publicly filed.''\28\ While 
announcing the investigations could only harm any legitimate law 
enforcement objective, it would obviously benefit President Trump's 
political goals.
    Third, President Trump never sought the investigations through 
ordinary, official channels, or if he did seek them the Justice 
Department declined to pursue them. If President Trump wanted bona fide 
investigations, as opposed to politically-motivated announcements, he 
would have charged the Department of Justice with conducting an 
official investigation, and the Department would have sought 
cooperation from the Ukrainian government through the U.S.-Ukraine 
Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT). Legitimate requests made 
pursuant to an MLAT allow DOJ to take testimony, obtain records, locate 
persons, serve documents, transfer persons into U.S. custody, execute 
searches and seizures, freeze assets, and engage in any other lawful 
actions that the state can take.\29\ Trump claims that he just wanted 
to root out criminality and corruption. But he did not ask domestic 
U.S. law enforcement to look into the matter; to date, there is no 
criminal investigation of Hunter Biden. Instead, Trump tried to coerce 
a foreign government to investigate a U.S. citizen without any formal 
coordination with the U.S. Justice Department. In other words, there 
was not a sufficient basis for a bona fide, domestic criminal 
investigation, so Trump had to go elsewhere. The fact that Trump asked 
a foreign government to investigate Hunter Biden is not evidence that 
he cared about corruption; it is evidence that he was engaged in 
corruption.
    In fact, Ukraine ultimately resisted President Trump's requests for 
investigations precisely because the President had failed to rely on 
the usual channels used to prevent political interference with law 
enforcement.\30\ If Trump actually wanted a legitimate investigation, 
and wanted to ensure that DOJ would be privy to relevant information, 
he would have sought formal assistance through the U.S.-Ukraine MLAT. 
DOJ has confirmed that he did no such thing.\31\ Instead, President 
Trump acted through his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, a man who 
made clear that he was duty bound to pursue his boss's personal 
interests and not those of the public.\32\ The only reasonable 
explanation for the President's decision to completely bypass the 
Justice Department is that he knew that his conspiracy theories could 
not withstand scrutiny and he set out to circumvent law enforcement 
officials. They were solely intended to serve Trump's personal, 
political interests.
    Finally, as the American Intelligence Community has unanimously 
concluded,\33\ the CrowdStrike conspiracy is not supported by any 
evidence. It is difficult to fathom how propagating Russian-generated 
propaganda that implicates American public figures and companies is in 
the national interest of the United States. Even if his motives were 
mixed, and he cared peripherally about corruption generally, his 
predominant goal was to smear a political opponent.

B. The release of the hold on military aid and the promised White House 
                   visit constitute ``official acts''

    The two acts the President agreed to perform--releasing the hold on 
military aid and setting up an official White House meeting with 
Zelensky--constitute ``official acts.'' The bribery statute defines 
``official act'' broadly to include ``any decision or action on any 
question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at 
any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public 
official, in such official's official capacity, or in such official's 
place of trust or profit.''\34\ Military assistance and an official 
White House visit were within his control only because of his tenure in 
elective office. In fact, both receiving foreign dignitaries and 
providing foreign assistance are in the President's official, 
constitutional job description.\35\
    Actions authorized by statute, such as the ones President Trump 
took here, are particularly clear examples of official acts.\36\ 
Congress has specifically authorized, and circumscribed, the 
President's ability to award military assistance to foreign countries. 
This process has been codified since the early 1960s, and there is an 
enormous federal apparatus devoted to evaluating the needs of foreign 
nations, how those needs intersect with legitimate U.S. foreign policy 
interests, and how to award foreign aid in line with those 
interests.\37\ Further, when the President placed a hold on the aid, he 
was acting on behalf of the United States, not in his personal 
capacity. It defies reason to argue that the President's decision to 
award, or fail to execute, a foreign aid determination is not an 
``official act'' under the bribery statute.
    Similarly, an official White House meeting is an ``official act'' 
because the President is specifically ``assigned by law''\38\--in both 
the Constitution and numerous statutes--with receiving representatives 
from foreign governments.\39\ Indeed, the authority to receive 
ambassadors and recognize foreign governments is considered so core to 
the office of the President that the Supreme Court has struck down 
statutes that interfere with it.\40\

            C. The President corruptly sought a quid pro quo

    President Trump made an agreement with the specific intent to be 
influenced in his decision whether to lift the hold on the military aid 
and to host a White House meeting. In United States v. Sun-Diamond 
Growers of California, the Supreme Court held that a bribe made or 
solicited ``in return for'' an official act entails an exchange, a quid 
pro quo.\41\ In a seminal case, the D.C. Circuit reasoned that the term 
``corruptly'' means that the official act would not be undertaken (or 
undertaken in a particular way) without the thing of value.\42\
    Department of Justice guidance on the issue, citing the standard 
jury instructions that numerous courts have upheld, indicates that 
``corruptly'' denotes ``nothing more than . . . acting `with bad 
purpose' to achieve some unlawful end.''\43\ The guidance further 
explains that, ordinarily, this ``bad purpose'' is ``a hope or 
expectation of either financial gain or other benefit to one's self, or 
some aid or profit or benefit to another.''\44\ In other words, the 
intent merely to be influenced in the way prohibited by the bribery 
statute itself is sufficient to find that the defendant acted 
``corruptly.''
    Further, the Supreme Court unanimously held in 2016 that the quid 
pro quo demand ``need not be explicit,'' the official ``need not 
specify the means that he will use to perform his end of the bargain,'' 
nor must the official actually intend to follow through for a 
prosecutor to succeed in making her case that the defendant is guilty 
of bribery.\45\ In a Seventh Circuit case, the court made clear that 
the context of a communication can be determinative: evidence of a quid 
pro quo can emerge from ``the often clandestine atmosphere of 
corruption with a simple wink and a nod if the surrounding 
circumstances make it clear that something of value will pass to a 
public official if he takes improper, or withholds proper, 
action.''\46\ While the defendant in that case never made an explicit 
offer and never relayed a specific amount of money, the court 
nonetheless upheld his conviction for bribery.\47\
    Trump's actions clearly qualify as a quid pro quo. Less than a 
month prior to this phone call, President Trump had put a hold on 
hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to Ukraine and had 
previously set in motion, but not committed to, an official White House 
visit with Ukraine's new president, Volodomyr Zelensky. When Trump and 
Zelensky spoke on July 25, Trump set the terms of the conversation by 
making clear that he felt Ukraine owed him for America's generosity. 
And as soon as Zelensky mentioned that Ukraine was interested in 
receiving American anti-tank missiles, the President immediately stated 
that he would like Zelensky to ``do us a favor though,'' and explicitly 
asked Zelensky to investigate the Biden conspiracy theory and alleged 
Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election. As soon as Zelensky 
appeared to agree to open the requested investigations, Trump almost 
immediately assured the Ukrainian President that ``whenever you would 
like to come to the White House, feel free to call.''\48\ Text messages 
sent by Special Envoy Volker indicate that it had also been made clear 
to the Ukrainians prior to the call that the official White House visit 
was also conditioned upon Zelensky complying with Trump's request for 
these investigations.\49\ Gordon Sondland, the American ambassador to 
the EU, testified that the President's proposal to lift the hold in 
exchange for the investigations was as clear as ``two plus two equals 
four.''\50\ Trump's acting Chief of Staff, Mick Mulvaney, confessed 
during a press conference that there was a quid pro quo exchange and 
suggested that the public should just ``get over it.''\51\
    The implication of Trump's message to Zelensky on the July 25 phone 
call is that Trump would not lift the hold or have the White House 
meeting unless Zelensky opened the requested investigations. The 
obvious political value to the President of opening these 
investigations constitutes sufficient grounds for a jury to determine 
that he had a ``bad motive'' in making this request. Trump is guilty of 
quid pro quo bribery.

                 D. Trump's defenses are not persuasive

    Trump attempts to absolve his behavior by arguing that his 
subjective intent is irrelevant to whether he committed an impeachable 
offense, that there is no quid pro quo because Ukraine never announced 
the infamous investigations, and that, even if he did commit a quid pro 
quo, he cannot be impeached because the articles do not accuse him of 
bribery. Even setting aside that these defenses ignore the fact that 
Trump still has not held a White House meeting with Zelensky, these 
arguments are wholly unpersuasive in their own right.

           1. Trump's subjective intent is eminently relevant

    Trump claims that his subjective intent is irrelevant; that he 
cannot be impeached based on the reasons for which he sought the 
investigations.\52\ This argument is specious for at least three 
reasons. First, the two offenses that the Constitution explicitly 
mentions as requiring removal from office--treason and bribery--hinge 
on the subjective reasons that the official acted. If the Commander-in-
Chief orders the military to take certain actions with the purpose of 
benefiting an enemy of the United States, then the President has 
committed treason, even if the President generally has the authority to 
command the armed forces. If the President vetoes a law because someone 
has paid him a large bribe, then he has committed bribery, even if the 
President generally has the authority to veto laws. When we are 
prohibited from scrutinizing the President's reasons for acting, we 
lose the ability to protect our democracy from tyrants and traitors.
    Second, the President maintains that he needs to have violated 
``established law'' in order to be impeached.\53\ Using the President's 
own standard, then, in evaluating whether he violated the federal 
bribery statute, we must evaluate whether he acted with corrupt intent. 
If the President wants to be scrutinized using the standards of the 
federal criminal code, then he must concede that his subjective intent 
is at issue.
    Third, even if Trump had other reasons for releasing the aid, it 
was still a crime for him to even ask for the investigations. Section 
201(c) of Title 18 prohibits public officials from demanding anything 
of value ``for or because of any official act.''\54\ The courts have 
been clear that even if the official act ``might have been done 
without'' the bribe, the defendant is still guilty under section 
201(c).\55\ Even if Trump never actually intended to maintain a hold on 
the aid, even if he decided to release the aid for entirely legitimate 
reasons, the fact that he requested the investigations as a 
``favor''\56\--because of how generous the President was in agreeing to 
conduct a White House visit or lifting the hold on the military aid--
means that the President committed a crime.
    Even if a legislator would have voted for a piece of legislation 
because he thinks it is in the public interest, he still commits 
bribery if he takes a payoff to do it. As the courts have made clear, 
an illegal bribe under this section may take the form of ``a reward [. 
. .] for a past act that has already been taken.''\57\ Thus, the fact 
that the President continued to ask for the investigations after the 
hold was finally released\58\ does not absolve him; it further 
incriminates him.

     2. Trump completed his crime the moment he solicited the bribe

    It is undisputed that the President, either directly or indirectly, 
demanded investigations into Joe Biden and a conspiracy theory 
involving the Democratic National Committee. The President's only 
response is that he cannot be liable because he did not receive what he 
requested. Under federal law, however, a corrupt official need not 
receive the benefit he demands or perform the official acts in 
question; ``it is enough that the official agreed to do so.''\59\ It is 
the solicitation of a private benefit in and of itself that constitutes 
the crime.\60\ All a prosecutor would have to demonstrate is that the 
President made an agreement or offer to exchange official acts for a 
thing of value.
    We know from the memorandum of the July 25 phone call, from Volker 
and Sondland's texts, and from Sondland's testimony that Trump had 
agreed to lift the hold and conduct the White House meeting in exchange 
for the investigations.\61\ We also know that there is additional 
evidence out there that speaks to the President's communications--both 
directly and through his agents--with Ukraine regarding his illegal 
scheme. We know, at the very least, of the existence of diplomatic 
cables from the Ukrainian embassy about the hold on the military 
assistance and communications with the State Department about the 
hold.\62\ The head of the agency that placed the hold on the military 
assistance has refused to respond to a lawful subpoena, under the 
instruction of the White House.\63\ As discussed below, when a party 
fails to produce or obstructs access to relevant evidence, that failure 
``gives rise to an inference that the evidence is unfavorable to 
him.''\64\ In this case, although the evidence already presented proves 
the crime of bribery, the Senate should infer that the evidence that 
the executive branch has hidden about these communications would 
provide further evidence that Trump agreed to this illicit exchange.

3. Senators must convict if they conclude that the President committed 
the crime of bribery, whether or not the term `bribery' appears in the 
                                articles

    The first article of impeachment accuses the President of 
``corruptly solicit[ing]'' the public announcement of investigations 
that were in his ``personal political benefit,'' in exchange for ``two 
official acts.''\65\ In response to questions from Senators, Trump's 
counsel has argued that because the article did not explicitly refer to 
the crime of bribery, Trump was provided inadequate notice. This 
argument is absurd.
    Trump has received plenty of notice that he stands accused of 
bribery. Trump's actions, as described in the article, clearly align 
with the elements of the federal crime of bribery: he solicited a thing 
of value in exchange for official acts and did so with corrupt 
intent.\66\ Further, the House Judiciary Committee report adeptly 
explained why the President is guilty of bribery under the criminal 
code.\67\ Lawmakers have been discussing the President's misdeeds in 
terms of bribery for months now.\68\ His lack of a defense is due not 
to lack of notice but to lack of facts.
    The historical record confirms the common sense notion that the 
articles need not name specific crimes. In 1974, the House Judiciary 
Committee approved three articles of impeachment against President 
Nixon, none of which referenced any provisions of any criminal 
code.\69\ Many of my colleagues were presented with similarly drafted 
articles of impeachment against Judge Porteous in 2010. In that 
instance, the House adopted four articles of impeachment, none of which 
explicitly referenced the criminal code.\70\ The first article 
described conduct that amounts to bribery--claiming that Judge Porteous 
``solicited and accepted things of value'' in exchange for ruling in 
favor of a particular party--but never used the term ``bribe'' or 
mentioned the federal bribery statute.\71\ The Senate unanimously 
convicted Judge Porteous on this article and voted to forever 
disqualify him from holding office.\72\ No one seriously entertained 
the notice argument then, and there is no good reason to do so now. 
This bad faith defense is a red herring, and we must not let it 
distract us from the issue before us: the President's crimes.
    Trump's claim that he cannot be removed for a crime unless the 
crime is specifically mentioned in the articles of impeachment--coupled 
with his claim that there must be proof of a crime--is simply 
untenable. By Trump's flawed logic, if he had been impeached for 
``shooting someone on Fifth Avenue,'' he could not be removed for 
``murder'' unless that word was specifically included in the articles. 
We have not been called to sit in judgment of the House of 
Representatives' diction; we sit in judgment of the President's 
actions--carefully and precisely described in the articles of 
impeachment as a clear-cut case of bribery.

   II. The President's unprecedented campaign to obstruct access to 
 relevant evidence compels us to conclude that the evidence is against 
                                  him

    The House of Representatives has made a very strong case that the 
President's refusal to engage in any way with their investigation is 
unlawful and constitutionally offensive. But make no mistake--this 
conflict is more than a dispute between the branches of government. The 
House of Representatives and a number of Senators have raised the alarm 
bells not for our own sake, but because when the President hides from 
Congress, he hides from the American people. The separation of powers 
does not exist to benefit members of Congress; it exists to curb the 
excesses of enormously powerful government officials.
    Throughout this entire ordeal--from the moment the call transcript 
was improperly placed on a classified server\73\ to the time when Trump 
threatened to unlawfully assert executive privilege over any testimony 
requested by the Senate\74\--the President has sought to keep his 
illegal scheme secret from the very people the scheme was designed to 
manipulate: the American electorate.
    Indeed, the withholding of aid itself was concealed, unlike with 
other similar pauses or suspensions of military assistance.
    The law and historical precedent are clear--when the President 
stifles Congress' investigative authority, whether during an 
impeachment inquiry or when Congress is exercising its broader mandate 
to investigate the executive branch, he has exceeded the bounds of the 
law. Because Trump has flouted congressional inquiry in such a brazen 
and unhinged manner, this violation alone requires us to vote to remove 
him from office.
    Separately, this egregious campaign of obfuscation strengthens the 
case against the President for abuse of power. As a matter of law, when 
a party to a case improperly withholds relevant evidence, courts can 
instruct juries to make an adverse inference--to assume that the 
evidence would be unfavorable to the withholding party. In this case, 
Trump has withheld every single piece of evidence that the House 
requested. The facts before us confirm the underlying logic of the 
adverse inference rule--that when a party hides something, it is 
because they have something to hide. Applying that rule here, the 
already overwhelming evidence against Trump becomes an avalanche.

 A. Trump's obstruction requires us to infer that all the evidence is 
 against him, which only strengthens the case for removal for abuse of 
                                 power

    It is a long-established rule of law that when a party ``has 
relevant evidence within his control which he fails to produce, that 
failure gives rise to an inference that the evidence is unfavorable to 
him.''\75\ Importantly, this rule applies even in the absence of a 
subpoena and, in fact, ``the willingness of a party to defy a subpoena 
in order to suppress the evidence strengthens the force of the 
preexisting inference,'' because in that scenario ``it can hardly be 
doubted he has some good reason for his insistence on 
suppression.''\76\ Indeed, the courts have recognized that the adverse 
inference rule is essential to prevent intransigent parties from 
abusing ``costly and time consuming'' court proceedings to subvert 
their legal duty to produce relevant evidence.\77\ The Supreme Court 
has specifically applied this rule against a party who selectively 
provided weak evidence and failed to allow those persons with the most 
relevant knowledge to testify, noting that ``the production of weak 
evidence when strong is available can lead only to the conclusion that 
the strong would have been adverse.''\78\ As the Court put it, in 
circumstances like this, ``silence then becomes evidence of the most 
convincing character.''\79\
    We know that the Trump administration has relevant evidence that it 
refuses to produce. As an initial matter, the President has failed to 
comply with a single request from the House of Representatives, and, 
following the President's orders, the White House, the office of the 
Vice President, the Office of Management and Budget, the State 
Department, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Energy 
refused to produce a single document in response to 71 specific 
requests issued by the House of Representatives.\80\
    But we also know of specific pieces of evidence that go to the 
heart of the House's case and that Trump is concealing. Mark Sandy 
testified that in August, OMB produced a memorandum recommending that 
the President's hold on the Ukraine military assistance be 
released.\81\ William Taylor testified that on August 29, he sent a 
first person cable to Secretary Pompeo, relaying his concerns about the 
``folly I saw in withholding military aid to Ukraine at a time when 
hostilities were still active in the east and when Russia was watching 
closely to gauge the level of American support for the Ukrainian 
Government.''\82\ Mr. Taylor also testified that he had exchanged 
WhatsApp messages with Ambassadors Volker and Sondland as well as with 
Ukrainian officials. The White House has refused to release any of 
these documents. We therefore must infer that they demonstrate that 
there was no interagency process to review the best use of the funds--
that this rationale was pre-textual.
    The White House maintains that Ukraine was not even aware of the 
hold on the military assistance until after it was reported on 
publicly. But we have testimony to the contrary--testimony that 
includes reference to specific documents that the President is 
withholding. Laura K. Cooper, the American deputy assistant secretary 
of defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia, testified that her staff 
received two emails on July 25th that directly undermine Trump's claim. 
The first, received at 2:31 PM, stated that the Ukrainian embassy was 
asking about the security assistance. The second, received at 4:25 PM, 
stated that the Ukrainian embassy knew that the foreign military 
financing assistance had been held up.\83\ At the behest of President 
Trump, the State Department has not released these emails. Unless and 
until the administration produces these documents and any others 
bearing on when Ukraine first learned about the hold, we should assume 
that they demonstrate that Ukraine knew about the hold when Trump spoke 
to Zelensky on July 25.

B. The evidence that has emerged despite Trump's intransigence has only 
                     bolstered the case against him

    Based on the above analysis alone, the Senate is more than entitled 
to infer that the mountain of evidence that Trump is withholding would 
demonstrate his guilt. But two further points compel us to make such an 
inference. First, Trump confessed on national television to having 
``all the materials'' and bragged about how he had kept them from 
Congress.\84\ We cannot let this gleeful boast stand without inferring 
that the materials in question speak to Trump's guilt.
    Second, as the House managers repeatedly cautioned us would happen, 
the evidence that Trump has been hiding has started to come out. And 
each newly revealed tape or record has been unfavorable to the 
President's case. The assumption that the law compels us to make about 
the contents of these materials--that they demonstrate the President's 
guilt--is confirmed each and every time they come out into the light. 
Most damning has been the leak of a draft of John Bolton's forthcoming 
book, which confirms that the President ``told his national security 
adviser in August that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in 
security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with 
investigations into Democrats including the Bidens,'' as well as 
details about the involvement of various senior cabinet officials in 
Trump's illegal scheme.\85\ And this is only the most recent revelation 
in a rapidly growing series of records that have come to light. On 
January 14, 2020, Lev Parnas, a former associate of Rudy Giuliani, 
released documents which demonstrate both that the President was 
orchestrating a deal to get Zelensky to ``announce that the Biden case 
will be investigated,'' and that Marie Yovanovitch was the subject of 
an illegal intimidation campaign.\86\ On January 25, 2020, a tape from 
April, 2018 was publicly released of a private dinner with top donors 
where Trump is heard yelling: ``Get rid of her! Get her out tomorrow. I 
don't care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. Okay? Do it,'' in 
reference to Ambassador Yovanovitch.\87\ The President is also heard 
specifically asking how long Ukraine would last in a war against Russia 
absent U.S. support--in other words, inquiring how much Ukraine is at 
the mercy of the United States.\88\ Not only does this tape provide 
further evidence of a coordinated campaign against the Ambassador; it 
also undermines ``earlier defenses by the White House that Trump wasn't 
aware of what was taking place in the early phase of the Ukraine 
affair.''\89\ This tape suggests that Trump not only knew about the 
Ukraine affair, but also that ``he may have been directing events'' as 
early as April 2018.\90\
    The steady drip of damning evidence leaking from the President's 
associates, combined with Trump's own public confession to concealing 
relevant evidence, compels us to conclude what the law already 
instructs us to infer: that the mountain of evidence Trump is hiding 
proves his guilt.
Conclusion
    It is clear to me that Trump is guilty of bribery and that his 
campaign to obstruct any investigation into his wrongdoing only 
strengthens the case against him. Trump's actions require us to vote to 
remove him from office. When the Framers included the impeachment power 
in the Constitution, they knew that there would be a presidential 
election every four years--and they also knew that this was an 
insufficient check against a President who abuses the power of his 
office to cheat his way to re-election. Trump's misdeeds are a case 
study in the need for impeachment.
    Throughout the impeachment trial, I have been moved by the grave 
moral purpose that the Senate is charged with pursuing--of sustaining 
America as an idea, of our Constitution as a living document that gives 
substance to our identity as the world's leading democracy. As we sit 
in judgment of a President who has demonstrated nothing but contempt 
for our laws and our values, history sits in judgment of the Senate. By 
failing to remove Trump from office, we will have failed our country.
                                endnotes
    1. U.S. Const. art. II. Sec. 4 (``The President [. . .] shall be 
removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, 
Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors'').
    2. See generally, Jared P. Cole & Todd Garvey, Cong. Res. Serv., 
R44260, Impeachment and Removal (2015); see also Paul Leblanc, 
Democrats Play 1999 Video of Lindsey Graham Talking About Impeachment 
to Bolster Case Against Trump, CNN, Jan. 23, 2020, available at https:/
/www.cnn.com/2020/01/23/politics/impeachment-managers-lindsey-graham-
video/index.html (quoting then-Representative Graham's statement during 
the Clinton impeachment that an impeachable offense ``[d]oesn't even 
have to be a crime. It's just when you start using your office and 
you're acting in a way that hurts people, you have committed a high 
crime''); Steven J. Harper, Why Did Alan Dershowitz Say Yes to Trump?, 
N.Y. Times, Jan. 22, 2020, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/
01/22/opinion/alan-dershowitz-impeachment.html (quoting Alan 
Dershowitz's 1998 comments regarding the Clinton impeachment that 
``[i]t certainly doesn't have to be a crime if you have somebody who 
completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and 
who poses great danger to our liberty. You don't need a technical 
crime. We look at their acts of state. We look at how they conduct the 
foreign policy. We look at whether they try to subvert the 
Constitution'').
    3. U.S. Const. art. II Sec. 4.
    4. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 201(b).
    5. The President does not contest that he is a ``public official,'' 
and the law confirms that it would be foolish to claim otherwise. The 
courts have found that a wide array of officials are subject to the 
bribery statute: from a cook at a federal prison, U.S. v. Baymon, 312 
F. 3d 725, 728 (5th Cir. 2002), to a private in the United States army, 
U.S. v. Kidd, 734 F. 2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 1984), to a housing 
eligibility technician employed by an independent public corporation, 
U.S. v. Hang, 75 F. 3d 1275, 1280 (8th Cir. 1996). It would defy reason 
to argue that a cook at a federal prison is a public official but the 
President of the United States is not.
    6. Tom Porter, Ambassador Sondland Said Trump Doesn't `Give a S--' 
about Ukraine Except When it Benefits Him Personally, Official 
Testifies, Business Insider, Nov. 19, 2019, available at https://
www.businessinsider.com/sondland-said-trump-doesnt-give-a-s-about-
ukraine-official-2019-11. This attitude to Ukraine is amplified by a 
statement made by Secretary of State Pompeo, who has refused to testify 
before the House of Representatives, when he recently asked a NPR 
political reporter whether she thought Americans gave a [expletive] 
about Ukraine. Mary Louise Kelly, Encore: NPR's Full Interview with 
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, NPR, Jan. 25, 2020, available at 
https://www.npr.org/2020/01/25/799470712/encore-nprs-full-interview-
with-secretary-of-state-mike-pompeo.
    7. United States v. Williams, 705. F2d. 603, 602-23 (2d Cir. 1983) 
(``Corruption of office occurs when the officeholder agrees to misuse 
his office in the expectation of gain, whether or not he has correctly 
assessed the worth of the bribe.'').
    8. U.S. v. Gorman, 807 F.2d 1299, 1304-05 (6th Cir. 1986) 
(explaining that ``anything of value'' should be ``broadly construed'' 
with a ``focus . . . on the value which the defendant subjectively 
attaches to the items received'').
    9. U.S. v. Renzi, 769 F.3d 731, 744 (8th Cir. 2014) (citing 
Williams and Gorman in explaining importance of subjective test for 
``anything of value'').
    10. Gorman, 807 F. 2d 1299 at 1299.
    11. Williams, 7 F. Supp. 2d 40 at 52-51.
    12. U.S. v. Menendez, 132 F. Supp. 3d 635 (D.N.J. 2015); see 
Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 558 U.S. 310, 357 (2010) 
(``The absence of prearrangement and coordination of an expenditure 
with the candidate or his agent [. . .] undermines the value of the 
expenditure to the candidate,'' and therefore the government was not 
justified in placing limits on independent expenditures.)(internal 
citations and quotations omitted).
    13. U.S. v. Sheker, 618 F. 2d 607, 609 (9th Cir. 1980);
    14. U.S. v. Girard, 601 F. 2d 69, 70 (2d Cir. 1979).
    15. U.S. v. Zouras, 497 F. 2d 1115, 1121 (7th Cir. 1974).
    16. Sheker, 618 F. 2d at 609.
    17. U.S. v. Williams, D.D.C.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 40, vacated in part 
240 F.3d 35, 345 U.S.App.D.C. 111 (emphasis added).
    18. Memorandum of Telephone Conversation: Telephone Conversation 
with President Zelensky of Ukraine 3 (July 25, 2019).
    19. Ryan Lucas, House Committees Subpoena Rudy Giuliani in 
Impeachment Inquiry, NPR, Oct. 1, 2019, available at https://
www.npr.org/2019/10/01/765986709/house-committees-subpoenae-rudy-
giuliani-in-impeachment-inquiry.
    20. Tamara Keith, Trump, Ukraine and the Path to the Impeachment 
Inquiry: A Timeline, NPR, Oct. 12, 2019, available at https://
www.npr.org/2019/10/12/768935251/trump-ukraine-and-the-path-to-the-
impeachment-inquiry-a-timeline.
    21. Michael Biesecker, Mary Clare Jalonick & Eric Tucker, Giuliani 
Associate Names Trump, Pence, More in Ukraine Plan, Associated Press, 
Jan. 17, 2020, available at https://apnews.com/
708b81d4c77038eb0b751c30f72ff315 (quoting letter from Giuliani 
requesting a meeting with Zelensky ``as personal counsel to President 
Trump and with his knowledge and consent'').
    22. Kenneth P. Vogel, Rudy Giuliani Plans Ukraine Trip to Push for 
Inquiries that Could Help Trump, N.Y. Times, May 9, 2019, available at 
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/us/politics/giuliani-ukraine-
trump.html.
    23. See Keith, Trump, supra n. 23.
    24. Amy Chozick & Patrick Healy, `This Changes Everything': Donald 
Trump Exults as Hillary Clinton's Team Scrambles, N.Y. Times, Oct. 28, 
2016, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/29/us/politics/
donald-trump-hillary-clinton.html.
    25. Benjamin Wood, Mitt Romney Says Everybody Knows It `Is Wrong' 
to Ask a Foreign Government to Probe a Political Rival, Salt Lake 
Tribune, Oct. 11, 2019, available at https://www.sltrib.com/news/
politics/2019/10/10/mitt-romney-says-he-hasnt/. Sen. Romney made this 
statement in regard to Trump's request, made live on national 
television, that China investigate the Bidens. But the logic of the 
Senator's claim applies with equal force to Trump's demand that Ukraine 
investigate the Bidens.
    26.hile CrowdStrike is not actually a Trump political opponent, 
Trump was accusing them of conspiring with the Democratic National 
Committee and did not suggest any illegal conduct on their part 
unrelated to President Trump's political past and future.
    27. Zach Beauchamp, Trump Didn't Want an Investigation into Biden. 
He Wanted a Political Show., Vox, Nov. 20, 2019, available at https://
www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/11/20/20974201/gordon-sondland-
impeachment-hearing-testimony-biden-show-trump.
    28. See United States Attorneys' Manual 1-7.400--Disclosure of 
Information Concerning Ongoing Criminal, Civil, or Administrative 
Investigations, 1997 WL 1944080. Only in special circumstances are U.S. 
attorneys permitted to make public statements about ongoing 
investigations, such as when necessary to ensure public safety.
    29. Treaty of Mutual Legal Assistance, Ukraine-U.S., art. 1 cl.2, 
July 22, 1998, T.I.A.S. No. 12978.
    30. The Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report: Report for the H. 
Perm. Select Comm. On Intelligence Pursuant to H. Res. 660 in 
Consultation with the H. Comm. On Oversight and Reform and the H. Comm. 
On Foreign Affairs at 122, 116th Cong. (2019).
    31. Department of Justice, Statement, Sept. 25, 2019 (``The 
President has not asked the Attorney General to contact Ukraine--on 
this or any other matter. The Attorney General has not communicated 
with Ukraine--on this or any other subject.'')
    32. See Kenneth P. Vogel, Rudy Giuliani Plans Ukraine Trip to Push 
for Inquiries that Could Help Trump, N.Y. Times, May 9, 2019, available 
at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/us/politics/giuliani-ukraine-
trump.html (quoting Giuliani, in response to questions about his travel 
to Ukraine, noting that ``this isn't foreign policy--I'm asking them to 
do an investigation [. . .] because that information will be very, very 
helpful to my client [Donald Trump], and may turn out to be helpful to 
my government.'') (emphasis added).
    33. Miles Parks & Brian Naylor, Trump Did `Nothing Wrong,' His 
Legal Team Says in First Day of Impeachment Defense, NPR, Jan. 25, 
2020, available at https://www.npr.org/2020/01/25/797321065/president-
trumps-legal-team-to-begin-impeachment-defense?utm-source= 
twitter.com&utm-term=nprnews &utm-campaign= npr&utm-medium= social 
(``American intelligence agencies have been unanimous in their 
assessment that it was Russia that interfered in the last presidential 
race'').
    34. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 201(a)(3).
    35. See U.S. Const. art. II Sec. 2 (The President ``shall receive 
ambassadors and other public ministers,''); Zivotofsky ex rel. 
Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 576 U.S. 1, 135 S. Ct. 2076, 2086 (2015)(the 
Reception Clause ``assigns the President means to effect recognition on 
his own initiative'').
    36. Cf. U.S. v. Birdsall, 233 U.S. 223, 231 (1914) ([I]t is 
sufficient that [the act] was governed by a lawful requirement of the 
executive department under whose authority the officer was acting; and 
such requirement need not have been prescribed by a written rule or 
regulation, but might also be found in an established usage which 
constituted the common law of the department.'').
    37. See Marian L. Lawson & Emily M. Morgenstern, Cong. Res. Serv., 
R40213, Foreign Aid: An Introduction to U.S. Programs and Policy 
(2019).
    38. McDonnell v. U.S., 136 S. Ct. 2355, 2373. The meetings that the 
Court considered in McDonnell are not comparable. Nowhere in Virginia's 
constitution or statutes is the governor tasked with arranging 
meetings, hosting parties, or engaging in unofficial conversations with 
other government officials. The Court took issue with a jury 
instruction which stated that an official act need not have been taken 
``pursuant to responsibilities explicitly assigned by law,'' whereas 
the President's actions here clearly are assigned by law.
    39. See U.S. Const. art. II Sec. 2 (The President ``shall receive 
ambassadors and other public ministers''); Zivotofsky, 135 S. Ct. at 
2086 (2015)(the Reception Clause ``assigns the President means to 
effect recognition on his own intiative''); 22 U.S.C. Sec. 2754; 22 
U.S.C. Sec. 2311(a).
    40. See Zivotofsky 135 S. Ct. at 2096.
    41. 526 U.S. 398, 404 (1999).
    42. U.S. v. Brewster, 506 F. 2d 62, 71 (D.C. Cir. 1974). In 
contrast, with a bribe under 201(c), the thing of value need not be a 
reason that the official performed the act at all. See infra 14-15.
    43. Department Of Justice, Criminal Resource Manual, 834. Intent Of 
The Parties, available at https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-
manual-834-intent-parties.
    44. Id.
    45. McDonnell, 136 S. Ct. at 2371.
    46. United States v. Synowiec, 333 F. 3d 786, 789 (7th Cir. 2003).
    47. Id. at 789-90.
    48. Memorandum of Telephone Conversation, supra n. 21 at 5.
    49. Charlie Savage & Josh Williams, Read the Text Messages Between 
U.S. and Ukrainian Officials, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 4, 2019, available at 
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/04/us/politics/ukraine-
text-messages-volker.html.
    50. Lisa Mascare, Mary Clare Jalonick & Eric Tucker, Watch: 
Ambassador Gordon Sondland Testifies Trump Directed Ukraine Quid Pro 
Quo, Associated Press, Nov. 19, 2019, available at https://
www.wgbh.org/news/national-news/2019/11/19/watch-live-eu-ambassador-
gordon-sondland-2-others-testify-on-day-4-of-impeachment-hearings.
    51. Jessica Taylor, `Get Over It': Politics is Part of Foreign 
Policy, Mulvaney Says, NPR, Oct. 17, 2019, available at https://
www.npr.org/2019/10/17/770979659/watch-white-house-holds-now-rare-
press-briefing-amid-impeachment-syria-conflicts.
    52. See Trial Memorandum of President Donald J. Trump at 27-28 
(Jan. 20, 2020) (rebutting ``radical claim that a President can be 
impeached and removed from office solely for doing something he is 
allowed to do, if he did it for the `wrong' subjective reasons [. . .] 
By eliminating any requirement for wrongful conduct, House Democrats 
have tried to make thinking the wrong thoughts an impeachable 
offense'') (emphasis in original).
    53. As discussed supra pp. 1-2, it is eminently clear that the 
President need not have violated ``established law'' in order to have 
committed an impeachable offense.
    54. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 201(c).
    55. Brewster, 506 F. 2d at 72.
    56. Memorandum of Telephone Conversation, supra n. 21 at 3.
    57. Sun-Diamond Growers, 526 U.S. at 404.
    58. See Kevin Breuninger, Trump Says China Should Investigate the 
Bidens, Doubles Down on Ukraine Probe, CNBC, Oct. 3, 2019, available at 
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/03/trump-calls-for-ukraine-china-to-
investigate-the-bidens.html (quoting President Trump, in response to 
question about what he wanted Ukraine to do, stating that ``[i]f they 
were honest about it, they would start a major investigation into the 
Bidens'').
    59. McDonnell v. U.S. 136 S. Ct. 2355, 2371 (2016).
    60. Id. at 2370-71 (2016); see also United States v. Hawkins, 37 F. 
Supp. 3d 964 (N.D. Ill. 2014), aff'd in part, vacated in part on other 
grounds, remanded, 2015 WL 309520 (7th Cir. 2015)(``What is required to 
make the act corrupt is not an intent to take a specific action, but 
the holding out of the performance of the duties of one's office for 
sale.'').
    61. See supra pp. 12-13.
    62. Andrew E. Kramer, Ukraine Knew of Aid Freeze in July, Says Ex-
Top Official in Kyiv, N.Y. Times, Dec. 3, 2019, available at https://
www.nytimes.com/2019/12/03/world/europe/ukraine-impeachment-military-
aid.html; Transcript: Laura Cooper and David Hale's Nov. 20 Testimony 
to House Intelligence Committee, Washington Post, Nov. 20, 2019, 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/11/20/transcript-laura-
cooper-david-hales-nov-testimony-house-intelligence-committee/. Any 
statement to the contrary by Zelensky is not reliable for the simple 
reason that Ukraine's future depends on remaining in Trump's good 
graces. As Catherine Croft, who testified that the Ukrainians knew 
about the hold much earlier than she expected to, stated, the 
Ukrainians did not want the hold publicized because it ``would be a 
really big deal in Ukraine, and an expression of declining U.S. support 
for Ukraine.'' Charlotte Butash, Summary of Catherine Croft's 
Deposition Testimony, Lawfare, Nov. 16, 2019, available at 
lawfareblog.com/summary-catherine-crofts-deposition-testimony.
    63. Peter Baker, Mulvaney Will Defy House Impeachment Subpoena, 
N.Y. Times, Nov. 12, 2019, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/
11/12/us/politics/mulvaney-impeachment-subpoena.html.
    64. Interstate Circuit v. U.S., 306 U.S. 208, 226 (1939); see infra 
Part II.
    65. H. Res. 755, 116th Cong. Sec. 1 (2019).
    66. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 201(b); see supra pp. 2-13.
    67. See Report of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, Impeachment of 
Donald John Trump, President of the United States at 120-26, 116th 
Cong. (2019).
    68. See Patricia Zengerle, Karen Freifeld & Richard Cowan, Pelso 
Says Trump Has Admitted to Bribery as Impeachment Probe Intensifies, 
Reuters, Nov. 14, 2019, available at https://www.reuters.com/article/
us-usa-trump-impeachment/pelosi-says-trump-has-admitted-to-bribery-as-
impeachment-probe-intensifies-idUSKBN1XO1HD; Jessica Taylor, Rep. Adam 
Schiff: Trump's Potentially Impeachable Offenses Include Bribery, NPR, 
Nov. 12, 2019, available at https://www.npr.org/2019/11/12/778380499/
rep-adam-schiff-trumps-potentially-impeachable-offenses-include-bribery 
(explaining that Rep. Schiff believes ``there's a clear argument to be 
made that Trump committed `bribery' and `high crimes and 
misdemeanors'--both explicitly outlined in the Constitution as 
impeachable offenses--when pressuring the Ukrainian government to 
investigate former Vice President Joe Biden's son in exchange for long-
promised military aid''); Sean Collins, A Republican Memo Details the 
Party's Impeachment Inquiry Defenses. They Aren't Very Strong, Vox, 
Nov. 12, 2019, available at https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/
2019/11/12/20961073/trump-impeachment-hearings-republican-testimony-
strategy (quoting Rep. Speier: ``[t]he president broke the law. He went 
on a telephone call with the president of Ukraine and said `I have a 
favor, though,' and then proceeded to ask for an investigation of his 
rival. And this is a very strong case of bribery'').
    69. H. Doc. No. 109-153, Jurisdictional History of the Judiciary 
Committee: The Committee and Impeachment, at 124-27.
    70. See H. Res. 1031, 111th Cong. (2010).
    71. Id. at Sec. 1.
    72. Jennifer Steinhauer, Senate, for Just the 8th Time, Votes to 
Oust a Federal Judge, N.Y. Times, Dec. 8, 2010, available at https://
www.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/us/politics/09judge.html.
    73. Carol D. Leonnig, Tom Hamburger, & Greg Miller, White House 
Lawyer Moved Transcript of Trump Call to Classified Server after 
Ukraine Adviser Raised Alarms, Washington Post, Oct. 30, 2019, 
available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-
lawyer-moved-transcript-of-trump-call-to-classified-server-after-
ukraine-adviser-raised-alarms/2019/10/30/ba0fbdb6-fb4e-11e9-8190-
6be4deb56e01_story.html.
    74. Jennifer Haberkorn, Trump Will Try to Block Bolton Impeachment 
Testimony; Senate to Get Case Next Week, Pelosi Says, L.A. Times, Jan. 
10, 2020, available at https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-01-
10/pelosi-trump-impeachment-case.
    75. International Union, United Auto., Aerospace and Agr. Implement 
Workers of America (UAW) v. N.L.R.B., 459 F. 2d 1329, 1336 (D.C. Cir. 
1972) (noting that ``this rule can be traced as far back as 1722); 
United States v. Roberson, 233 F. 2d 517, 519 (5th Cir. 1956) 
(``Unquestionably the failure of a defendant in a civil case to testify 
or offer other evidence within his ability to produce and which would 
explain or rebut a case made by the other side may, in a proper case, 
be considered as a circumstance against him and may raise a presumption 
that the evidence would not be favorable to his position.'').
    76. International Union, 459 F. 2d at 1338 (emphasis added).
    77. Id. at 1339.
    78. Interstate Circuit, 306 U.S. at 226.
    79. Id.
    80. Sharon Lafontaine, House Managers Asks: Where are the 
Documents, N.Y. Times, Jan. 24, 2020, available at https://
www.nytimes.com/live/2020/impeachment-trial-live-01-24.
    81. Jeff Stein & Josh Dawsey, In New Legal Memo, White House Budget 
Office Defends Withholding Aid to Ukraine, Washington Post, Dec. 12, 
2019, available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-
new-legal-memo-white-house-budget-office-defends-withholding-aid-to-
ukraine/2019/12/11/0caa030e-1b95-11ea-826b-14ef38a0f45f_story.html.
    82. Jeremy Herb & Manu Raju, Top US Diplomat Said John Bolton 
Opposed Call Between Trump and Ukrainian President, CNN, Oct. 22, 2019, 
available at https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/impeachment-
inquiry-10-22-2019/h_a1a8938b60cfd525c6768fd7dc207e6d.
    83. Transcript: Laura Cooper and David Hale's Nov. 20 Testimony to 
House Intelligence Committee, Washington Post, Nov 20, 2019, available 
at https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/11/20/transcript-laura-
cooper-david-hales-nov-testimony-house-intelligence-committee/.
    84. Peter Wade, Trump Brags About Concealing Impeachment Evidence: 
We Have All the Material, They Don't, Rolling Stone, Jan. 22, 2020, 
available at https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-
impeachment-evidence-we-have-all-the-material-they-dont-941140/.
    85. Maggie Haberman & Michael S. Schmidt, Trump Tied Ukraine Aid to 
Inquiries He Sought, Bolton Book Says, N.Y. Times, Jan. 26, 2020, 
available at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/26/us/politics/trump-
bolton-book-ukraine.html.
    86. Greg Sargent, Four Big Takeaways from the Explosive Lev Parnas 
Documents, Washington Post, Jan. 15, 2020, available at https://
www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/15/four-big-takeaways-
explosive-lev-parnas-documents/.
    87. Rosalind S. Helderman, Tom Hamburger & Josh Dawsey, Listen: 
Trump Tells Associates to `Get Rid Of' U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, 
Washington Post, Jan. 25, 2020, available at https://
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/recording-of-trump-calling-for-
yovanovitchs-ouster-appears-to-corroborate-parnass-account/2020/01/24/
77326098-3ed3-11ea-baca-eb7ace0a3455_story.html.
    88. Josh Lederman, Trump Appears on Audio to Demand Yovanovitch's 
Ouster Without Knowing Her Name, NBC News, Jan. 25, 2020, available at 
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-appears-audio-
demand-yovanovitch-s-ouster-without-knowing-her-n1123171.
    89. Philip Ewing, Trump Impeachment Recap: Dems Wrap With 
Exhortation to Act, NPR, Jan. 24, 2020, available at https://
www.npr.org/2020/01/24/799426878/trump-impeachment-recap-dems-wrap-
with-exhortation-to-act.
    90. Id.

    Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, when I was elected to serve in 
the U.S. Senate, I swore an oath to support and defend the 
Constitution of the United States. Every U.S. Senator takes the 
same oath. The Constitution makes clear that no one is above 
the law, not even the President of the United States.
    Over the past 2 weeks, the Senate has heard overwhelming 
evidence showing that the President of the United States, 
Donald J. Trump, abused the power of his office to pressure the 
President of Ukraine to dig up dirt on a political rival to 
help President Trump in the next election. The President then 
executed an unprecedented campaign to cover up his actions, 
including a wholesale obstruction of Congress's effort to 
investigate his abuse of power.
    The Constitution gives the Senate the sole power to conduct 
impeachment trials. A fair trial is one in which Senators are 
allowed to see and hear all of the relevant information needed 
to evaluate the Articles of Impeachment, including relevant 
witnesses and documents. The American people expected and 
deserved a fair trial, but that is not what they got. Instead 
of engaging in a pursuit for the truth, Senate Republicans 
locked arms with the President and refused to subpoena a single 
witness or document. They even refused to allow the testimony 
of the President's former National Security Advisor, John 
Bolton, who possesses direct evidence related to the issues at 
the heart of the trial, even as more evidence continued to come 
to light and as Bolton repeatedly volunteered to share what he 
knows.
    This trial boils down to one word: corruption--the 
corruption of a President who has repeatedly put his interests 
ahead of the interests of the American people and violated the 
Constitution in the process; the corruption of this President's 
political appointees, including individuals like U.S. 
Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, who paid $1 
million for an ambassadorship; the corruption running 
throughout our government that protects and defends the 
interests of the wealthy and powerful to the detriment of 
everyone else.
    Americans have a right to hear and see information that 
further exposes the gravity of the President's actions and the 
unprecedented steps he and his agents took to hide it from the 
American people. But more importantly, Americans deserve to 
know that the President of the United States is using the power 
of his office to work in the Nation's interest, not his own 
personal interest.
    I voted to convict and to remove the President from office 
in order to stand up to the corruption that has permeated this 
administration and that was on full display with President 
Trump's abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. I will 
continue to call out this corruption and fight to make this 
government work not just for the wealthy and well-connected but 
to make it work for everyone.
    Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I swore an oath to defend the 
Constitution both as an officer in the U.S. Navy Reserve and as 
a U.S. Senator.
    At the beginning of the impeachment trial, I swore an oath 
to keep an open mind, listen carefully to the facts, and in the 
end deliver impartial justice.
    After carefully listening to the arguments presented by 
both House managers and the President's lawyers, I believe the 
facts are clear.
    President Trump stands accused by the House of 
Representatives of abusing his power in an attempt to extort a 
foreign government to announce a trumped up investigation into 
a political rival and thereby put his personal interest ahead 
of national security and the public trust.
    The President illegally withheld congressionally approved 
military aid to an ally at war with Russia and conditioned its 
release on Ukraine making an announcement the President could 
use to falsely discredit a likely political opponent.
    When the President's corrupt plan was brought to light, the 
White House engaged in a systematic and unprecedented effort to 
cover up the scheme.
    The President's complete refusal to cooperate with a 
constitutionally authorized investigation is unparalleled in 
American history.
    Despite the extraordinary efforts by the President to cover 
up the facts, the House managers made a convincing case.
    It is clear.
    The President's actions were not an effort to further 
official American foreign policy.
    The President was not working in the public interest.
    What the President did was wrong, unacceptable, and 
impeachable.
    I expected the President's lawyers to offer new eyewitness 
testimony from people with firsthand knowledge and offer new 
documents to defend the President, but that did not happen.
    It became very clear to me that the President's closest 
advisers could not speak to the President's innocence, and his 
lawyers did everything in their power to prevent them from 
testifying under oath.
    Witness testimony is the essence of a fair trial. It is 
what makes us a country committed to the rule of law.
    If you are accused of wrongdoing in America, you have every 
right to call witnesses in your defense, but you also don't 
have the right to stop the prosecution from calling a hostile 
witness or subpoenaing documents.
    No one in this country is above the law--no one--not even 
the President.
    If someone is accused of a crime and they have witnesses 
who could clear them of any wrongdoing, they would want those 
witnesses to testify. In fact, not only would they welcome it, 
they would insist on it.
    All we need to do is use our common sense. The fact that 
the President refuses to have his closest advisers testify 
tells me that he is afraid of what they will say.
    The President's conduct is unacceptable for any official, 
let alone the leader of our country.
    Our Nation's Founders feared unchecked and unlimited power 
by the President. They rebelled against an abusive monarch with 
unlimited power and instead created a republic that distributed 
power across different branches of government.
    They were careful students of history; they knew unchecked 
power would destroy a democratic republic.
    They were especially fearful of an unchecked Executive and 
specifically granted Congress the power of impeachment to check 
a President who thought of themselves as above the law.
    Two years ago, I had the privilege of participating in an 
annual bipartisan Senate tradition reading President George 
Washington's farewell address on the Senate floor.
    In that address, President Washington warned that unchecked 
power, the rise of partisan factions, and foreign influence, if 
left unchecked, would undermine our young Nation and allow for 
the rise of a demagogue.
    He warned that we could become so divided and so entrenched 
in the beliefs of our particular partisan group that ``cunning, 
ambitious and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the 
power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of 
government.''
    I am struck by the contrast of where we are today and where 
our Founders were more than 200 years ago.
    George Washington was the ultimate rock star of his time. 
He was beloved, and when he announced he would leave the 
Presidency and return to Mount Vernon, people begged him to 
stay.
    There was a call to make him a King, and he said no. He 
reminded folks that he had just fought against a monarch so 
that the American people could enjoy the liberties of a free 
people.
    George Washington, a man of integrity and an American hero, 
refused to be anointed King when it was offered to him by his 
adoring countrymen. He chose a republic over a monarchy.
    But tomorrow, by refusing to hold President Trump 
accountable for his abuses, Republicans in the Senate are 
offering him unbridled power without accountability, and he 
will gleefully seize that power.
    And when he does, our Republic will face an existential 
threat.
    A vote against the Articles of Impeachment will set a 
dangerous precedent and will be used by future Presidents to 
act with impunity.
    Given what we know, that the President abused the power of 
his office by attempting to extort a foreign government to 
interfere with an American election, that he willfully 
obstructed justice at every turn, and that his actions run 
counter to our Nation's most cherished and fundamental values, 
it is clear the President betrayed the trust the American 
public placed in him to fully execute his constitutional 
responsibilities.
    This betrayal is by definition a high crime and 
misdemeanor. If it does not rise to the level of impeachment 
and removal, I am not sure what would.
    The Senate has a constitutional responsibility to hold him 
accountable.
    If we do not stand up and defend our democracy during this 
fragile period, we will be allowing this President and future 
Presidents to have unchecked power.
    This is not what our Founders intended. The oath I swore to 
protect and defend the Constitution demands that I vote to 
preserve the future of our Republic. I will faithfully execute 
my oath and vote to hold this President accountable for his 
actions.
    Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I will soon join a majority of 
the Senate in voting down the Articles of Impeachment brought 
against the President by his partisan opponents. The time has 
come to end a spectacle that has elevated the obsessions of 
Washington's political class over the concerns and interests of 
the American people.
    This round of impeachment is just the latest Democratic 
scheme to bring down the President. I say ``this round'' 
because House Democrats have tried to impeach President Trump 
at least four times--first, for being mean to football players; 
then for his transgender military policy; next for his 
immigration policy. And those are just the impeachment 
attempts. Along the way, Democrats also proclaimed that Robert 
Mueller would drive the President from office. Some even 
speculated that the Vice President and the Cabinet would invoke 
the 25th Amendment to seize power from the President--a theory 
that sounds more like resistance fan fiction than reality.
    What is behind this fanaticism? Simply put, the Democrats 
have never accepted that Donald Trump won the 2016 election, 
and they will never forgive him, either.
    It is time for the Democrats to get some perspective. They 
are claiming that we ought to impeach and remove a President 
from office for the first time in our history for briefly 
pausing aid to Ukraine and rescheduling a meeting with the 
Ukrainian President, allegedly in return for a corruption 
inquiry. But the aid was released after a few weeks, and the 
meeting occurred, yet the inquiry did not--even though, I would 
add, it remains justified by the Biden family's obvious, 
glaring conflict of interest in Ukraine.
    Just how badly have the Democrats lost perspective? The 
House managers have argued that we ought to impeach and remove 
the President because his meeting with the Ukrainian President 
happened in New York, not Washington.
    When most Americans think about why a President ought to be 
impeached and removed from office for the first time in our 
history, I suspect that pausing aid to Ukraine for a few weeks 
is pretty far down the list. That is not exactly ``treason, 
bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.'' And that is 
especially true when we are just months away from the election 
that will let Americans make their own choice. Indeed, 
Americans are already voting to select the President's 
Democratic challenger. Why not let the voters decide whether 
the President ought to be removed?
    The Democrats' real answer is that they are afraid they 
will lose again in 2020, so they designed impeachment to hurt 
the President before the election. As one Democratic 
Congressman said last year, ``I'm concerned that if we don't 
impeach this president, he will get reelected.'' Or, as 
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer claimed earlier this month, 
impeachment is a ``win-win'' for Democrats; either it will lead 
to the President's defeat or it will hurt enough Republican 
Senators in tough races to hand Democrats the majority. Or 
maybe both.
    The political purpose of impeachment was clear from the 
manner in which House Democrats conducted their proceedings. If 
impeachment was indeed the high-minded, somber affair that 
Speaker Nancy Pelosi claimed, House Democrats would have taken 
their time to get all the facts from all relevant witnesses. 
Instead, they barreled ahead with a slipshod and secretive 
process, denying the President's due-process rights, gathering 
testimony behind closed doors, leaking their findings 
selectively to the press, and ignoring constitutional concerns 
such as executive privilege.
    The impeachment vote itself contradicted the pretensions of 
House Democrats. Speaker Pelosi said last year that she 
wouldn't support impeachment unless there was something ``so 
compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan'' that it demanded a 
response. Likewise, Congressman Jerry Nadler said that the 
House had to ``persuade enough of the opposition party voters'' 
before it voted to impeach. Democrats failed on both counts. 
Indeed, the only bipartisan aspect of the whole proceeding is 
that both Republicans and Democrats voted against impeaching 
the President. Not a single Republican voted for either Article 
of Impeachment in the House, resulting in the first party-line 
impeachment of a President in our Nation's history.
    So instead of doing their work, House Democrats simply 
impeached the President and declared their job complete. Yet 
after piously declaring the urgency of this impeachment, they 
waited a month to send the articles over to the Senate. Maybe 
they had to wait for the gold-encrusted souvenir pens to arrive 
for Speaker Pelosi's ``signing ceremony.''
    And once in the Senate, the political theater continued. 
The House Democrats repeatedly asserted a bizarre logical 
fallacy: Their case was both ``overwhelming'' and in need of 
more evidence. Yet we heard from 17 witnesses--all hand-
selected by the House Democrats--and received more than 28,000 
pages of documents. The House could have pursued more witnesses 
during its impeachment; yet it instead chose to rush ahead 
rather than subpoena those witnesses or litigate issues in 
Federal court. In fact, when one of the House's potential 
witnesses asked a Federal court to rule on the issue, the House 
withdrew its subpoena and asked to dismiss the case. The House 
Democrats complain that the courts would have taken too long. 
Yet they expected the Senate to delay our work to finish 
theirs. And in a final, remarkable stunt, Congressman Adam 
Schiff suggested that we depose witnesses--only his, of course, 
not the President's--with Chief Justice Roberts ruling on all 
questions of evidence and privilege, dragging him into this 
political spectacle.
    But the curtain will soon come down on this political 
theater. The Senate will perform the role intended for us by 
the Founders, of providing the ``cool and deliberate sense of 
the community,'' as it says in Federalist 63, over and against 
an inflamed and transient House majority. Were we to do 
otherwise, were the Senate to acquiesce to the House, this 
process might have dragged on for many weeks, even for months, 
shutting down the normal legislative business of Congress even 
longer than it already has.
    Even worse, by legitimizing the House's flawed, partisan 
impeachment, we would be setting a grave precedent for the 
future. Just consider how many times we heard about the 
impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson during this 
trial. The Founders didn't intend impeachment as a tool to 
check the Executive over policy disagreements or out of 
political spite. And the House has never before used 
impeachment in this way, not when the Democrats claimed that 
President George W. Bush misled the country into the Iraq war 
or when President Barack Obama broke the law by releasing 
terrorists from Guantanamo Bay in return for the release of an 
American deserter, Bowe Bergdahl. Indeed, the Republican House 
did not impeach President Obama for, yes, withholding aid from 
Ukraine for 3 full years.
    No House in the future should lead the country down this 
path again. By refusing to do this House's dirty work, the 
Senate is stopping this dangerous precedent and preserving the 
Founders' understanding that Congress ought to restrain the 
executive through the many checks and balances still at our 
disposal. More fundamentally, we are preserving the most 
important check of all--an election. It is time to teach that 
lesson to this House and to all future Houses, of both parties.
    Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff have failed, but the American 
people lost. Now it is time to get back to doing the people's 
business.
    Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about 
the impeachment of Donald J. Trump.
    The Democratic House managers, who are prosecuting the case 
against the President, emphasized that history is watching. 
That is true. Every action taken by the House and the Senate 
during this impeachment sets a precedent for our country and 
our institutions of government, whether good or bad.
    For that reason, it is our job as Senators to look at the 
entire record of this proceeding--from what happened in the 
House to final arguments made here in the Senate. It is also 
our duty to look at the whole picture, the flawed process in 
the House, the purely partisan nature of the Articles of 
Impeachment, the President's actions that led to his 
impeachment, and the impact of all of this on our 
constitutional norms.
    Most importantly, we must weigh the impact on our Nation 
and on the legitimacy of our institutions of government, if the 
Senate were to agree with the House managers' demands to 
overturn the 2016 election and remove the President from the 
2020 ballot. This has never happened in our country's 243-year 
history.
    It is also our job as Senators during an impeachment trial 
to be guided by ``a deep responsibility to future times.'' This 
is a quote from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, two 
centuries ago, but it couldn't be more relevant today. With 
this grave constitutional responsibility in mind and 
considering the important factors listed above, I will vote to 
acquit the President on both charges brought against him.
    It may surprise some, but if you listened to all the 
witnesses in this trial and you examine the sweep of American 
history, one strong bipartisan point of consensus has emerged: 
Purely partisan impeachments are not in the country's best 
interest. In fact, they are a danger which the Framers of the 
Constitution clearly feared.
    Alexander Hamilton's warning from Federalist No. 65 bears 
repeating: ``In many cases [impeachment] will connect itself 
with the pre-existing factions, and will inlist all their 
animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side 
or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the 
greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the 
comparative strength of parties, than by the real 
demonstrations of innocence or guilt . . . Yet it ought not to 
be forgotten that the demon of faction will, at certain 
seasons, extend his sceptre over all numerous bodies of men.''
    The reason for this ``greatest danger'' is obvious: the 
weaponization of impeachment as a regular tool of partisan 
warfare will incapacitate our government, undermine the 
legitimacy of our institutions, and tear the country apart. 
Until this impeachment, our country's representatives largely 
understood this. During the Clinton impeachment--Democrats, 
including Minority Leader Schumer and House Managers Lofgren 
and Nadler, argued that a purely partisan impeachment would be 
``divisive,'' ``lack the legitimacy of a national consensus,'' 
and ``call into question the very legitimacy of our political 
institutions.''
    Less than a year ago, Speaker Pelosi said: ``Impeachment is 
so divisive to the country that unless there's something so 
compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we 
should go down that path because it divides the country.''
    Yet here we are. Against the weight of bipartisan consensus 
and the wisdom of the Framers, the House still took this 
dramatic and consequential step, the first purely partisan 
impeachment in U.S. history. Only Democrats in the House voted 
to impeach the President, while a bipartisan group of House 
members opposed.
    This was done through rushed House proceedings that lacked 
the most basic due process procedures afforded Presidents 
Clinton and Nixon during their impeachment investigations. A 
significant portion of the House proceedings last fall took 
place in secret, where the President was not afforded counsel, 
the ability to call his own witnesses, or cross-examine those 
of the House Democrats. Certain testimonies from these secret 
hearings were then selectively leaked to a pro-impeachment 
press. This happened in America. In my view, it sounds like 
something more worthy of the Soviet Union, not the world's 
greatest constitutional republic.
    Yet here we are. A new precedent has been set in the House. 
When asked several times if these precedents and the partisan 
nature of this impeachment should concern us, the House 
managers dodged the questions, and my Senate colleagues, who in 
1999 were so strongly and correctly and vocally against the 
dangers of purely partisan impeachments, have all gone silent.
    Perhaps it is too late. Perhaps the genie is now out of the 
bottle. Perhaps the danger that Hamilton so astutely predicted 
232 years ago is upon us for good. I hope not. No one thinks 
that partisan impeachments every few years would be good for 
our great Nation.
    The Senate does not have to validate this House precedent, 
and a Senate focused on ``deep responsibility to future times'' 
shouldn't do so.
    In addition to unleashing the danger of purely partisan 
impeachments, the House's impeachment action and their 
arguments before the Senate, if ratified, have the potential to 
undermine other critical constitutional norms, such as the 
separation of powers and the independence of our judiciary.
    These traditions exist to implement the will of the people 
we represent and to protect their liberty. And yet so much of 
what has already been done in the House and what has now been 
argued in the Senate has little or no precedent in U.S. 
history, thereby threatening many of the constitutional 
safeguards that have served our country so well for over two 
centuries.
    Take, for example, the debate we recently had on whether to 
have the Senate seek additional evidence for this impeachment 
trial. The House managers claim that, by not doing so, we are 
undermining a ``fair trial'' in the Senate. The irony of such a 
claim should not be lost on the American people.
    Throughout this trial, and in their briefs, the House 
managers have claimed dozens of times that they have 
``overwhelming evidence'' on the current record to impeach the 
President, thereby undermining their own rationale for more 
evidence.
    And in terms of fairness, it is well documented that the 
Democratic leadership in the House just conducted the most 
rushed, partisan, and fundamentally unfair House impeachment 
proceedings in U.S. history.
    A Senate vote to pursue additional evidence and witnesses 
would have turned the article I constitutional impeachment 
responsibilities of the House and Senate on their heads. It 
would have required the Senate to do the House's impeachment 
investigatory work, even when the House affirmatively declined 
to seek additional evidence last fall, such as subpoenaing 
Ambassador John Bolton, because of Speaker Pelosi's artificial 
deadline to impeach the President by Christmas.
    A vote by the Senate to pursue additional evidence that the 
House consciously chose not to obtain would incentivize less 
thorough and more frequent partisan impeachments in the future, 
a danger that should concern us all.
    Another example of the House's attempt to erode long-
standing constitutional norms is found in its second Article of 
Impeachment, obstruction of Congress. This article claims that 
the President committed an impeachable offence by resisting 
House subpoenas for witnesses and documents, even though the 
House didn't attempt to negotiate, accommodate, or litigate the 
President's asserted defenses, such as executive privilege and 
immunity, to provide such evidence.
    These defenses have been utilized by administrations, 
Democrat and Republican, for decades and go to the heart of the 
separation of powers within the article I and article II 
branches of the Federal Government and even implicate a 
defendant's right to vigorously defend oneself in court. 
Indeed, the Supreme Court acknowledged in United States v. 
Nixon that the President has the right to assert executive 
privilege.
    Nevertheless, the House managers argued that the mere 
assertion of these constitutional rights is an impeachable 
offense, in essence claiming the unilateral power to define the 
limits and scope of executive privilege, while simultaneously 
usurping that power from the courts, where it has existed for 
centuries.
    Indeed, the House managers even argued that merely 
asserting these defenses is evidence of guilt itself. This is a 
dangerous argument that demonstrates a lack of understanding of 
basic constitutional norms. As U.S. Supreme Court Justice 
Brandeis stated in his famous dissent in Myers v. United 
States, ``The doctrine of the separation of powers was adopted 
by the convention of 1787 not to promote efficiency but to 
preclude the exercise of arbitrary power. The purpose was not 
to avoid friction, but, by means of the inevitable friction 
incident to the distribution of the governmental powers among 
three departments, to save the people from autocracy.'' If 
allowed to stand by the Senate, the implications of these House 
precedents for our Nation and the individual liberties of the 
people we represent are difficult to discern, but would be 
profound and likely very negative.
    Similarly concerning were the attempts, both subtle and not 
so subtle, to inject Chief Justice Roberts of the U.S. Supreme 
Court into this trial. The smooth siren song of House Manager 
Schiff, casually inviting the Senate and Chief Justice into a 
constitutional labyrinth for which there may have been no exit, 
was a recurring theme of this trial.
    ``We have a perfectly good judge here,'' Schiff said over 
and over again, ``whom you all trust and have confidence in.'' 
Let him quickly decide all the weighty legal and constitutional 
issues before the Senate, the relevance of witnesses, claims of 
immunity and executive privilege, what House Manager Nadler 
described on day 1 of the trial as ``executive privilege, and 
other nonsense.''
    Moreover, the Chief Justice could do this all within a 
week, Schiff told us. It all seemed so simple, rational, and 
efficient. But our Constitution doesn't work this way. The 
Chief Justice, in an impeachment of the President, sits as the 
Presiding Officer over the Senate, not as an article III judge. 
And while the Senate can delegate certain trial powers to him, 
it cannot delegate matters, such as a President's claims of 
executive privilege, over which the Senate itself does not have 
constitutional authority.
    The quick and efficient fix Schiff was tempting the Senate 
with might have ended up as a form of constitutional 
demolition. And as the trial proceeded, it became apparent that 
it was more than just claims of efficiency behind the 
invitation to draw the Chief Justice fully into the trial.
    There was something else afoot, a subtle and not so subtle 
attempt by some to attack the credibility and independence of 
the Chief Justice and the Court he leads. The junior Senator 
from Massachusetts' question for the House managers, which drew 
an audible gasp from those watching in the Senate after the 
Chief Justice read it, made this clear, when she asked about 
``the loss of legitimacy of the Chief Justice, the Supreme 
Court, and the Constitution,'' so too did Minority Leader 
Schumer's parliamentary inquiry about the precedent from the 
impeachment of President Johnson 150 years ago, on the role of 
the Chief Justice in breaking ties on 50-50 votes in the Senate 
during Presidential impeachments. Chief Justice Roberts' 
cogent, historically accurate, and constitutionally-based 
answer to this inquiry will set an important precedent on this 
impeachment issue for generations to come.
    Perhaps it is all a coincidence, but as these attempts to 
diminish the Chief Justice's credibility by more fully dragging 
him into this impeachment trial were ongoing, much more harsh 
political ads directly attacking him in this regard were being 
launched across the country. Members of the Senate noticed, and 
we were not impressed.
    The independence of the Federal judiciary as established in 
our Constitution is a gift to our Nation that has taken 
centuries to develop. The overreach of the House managers and 
certain Democratic Senators seeking to undermine this essential 
constitutional norm was a disappointing and even dangerous 
aspect of this impeachment trial.
    When historians someday write about this divisive period of 
American history, they would do well to focus on these subtle 
and not so subtle attacks on the Chief Justice's credibility--
and by extension the credibility of the Supreme Court--for it 
was clearly one of the important reasons why the Senate voted 
last week, 51 to 49, to no longer prolong the trial phase of 
this impeachment.
    The impeachment articles do not charge the President with a 
crime. Although there was much debate in the trial on whether 
this is required, it is undisputed that in all previous 
presidential impeachments--Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton--the 
President was charged with having violated a criminal statute. 
And there was little dispute that these charges were accurate. 
Lowering the bar to non-criminal offenses has set a new 
precedent. However, whether a crime is required is still 
debatable. Instead, the House impeachment charged the President 
with an abuse of power based on speculative interpretation of 
his intent.
    So what about the President's actions that were the primary 
focus of this impeachment trial and the basis of the House's 
first Article of Impeachment claim that he abused his power? 
The House managers argued that the President abused his power 
by taking actions that on their face appeared valid--
withholding aid to a foreign country and investigating 
corruption--but were motivated by ``corrupt intent.''
    One significant problem with this argument is that it is 
vague and hinges on deciphering the President's intent and 
motives, a difficult feat because it is subjective and could 
be--and was indeed in this case--defined by a partisan House. 
Further, the House managers argue essentially that there could 
be no legitimate national interest in pursuing investigations 
into interference of the U.S. 2016 elections by Ukraine and 
corruption involving Burisma.
    I believe all Presidents have the right to investigate 
interference in U.S. elections and credible claims of 
corruption and conflicts of interest, particularly in countries 
where America sends significant amounts of foreign aid, like 
Ukraine, and where corruption is endemic, like Ukraine.
    Were the President's actions perfect? No. For example, 
despite having the authority to investigate corruption in 
Ukraine and with Burisma, I believe he should have requested 
such an investigation through more official and robust 
channels, such as pursuing cooperation through the U.S. Mutual 
Legal Assistance Treaty with Ukraine, with the Department of 
Justice in the lead. I also believe that the role of Mr. 
Giuliani has caused confusion and may have undermined the Trump 
administration's broader foreign policy goals with regard to 
Ukraine.
    But none of this even remotely rises to the level of an 
offense that merits removing the President from office. It is 
difficult to imagine a situation requiring a higher burden of 
proof. The radical and dangerous step that the House Democrats 
are proposing seems to have been lost in all of the noise.
    What they are asking the Senate to do is not just overturn 
the results of the 2016 election--nullifying the votes of 
millions of Americans--but to remove the President from the 
2020 ballot, even as primary voting has begun across the 
country.
    Such a step, if ever realized, would do infinitely more 
damage to the legitimacy of our constitutional republic and 
political system than any mistake or error of judgment 
President Trump may have made.
    An impeachment trial is supposed to be the last resort to 
protect the American people against the highest crimes that 
undermine and threaten the foundations of our Republic, not to 
get rid of a President because a faction of one political party 
disagrees with the way he governs. That is what elections are 
for.
    I trust the Alaskan and American people, not House 
Democrats, with the monumental decision of choosing who should 
lead our Nation.
    And soon, they will decide, again, who should lead our 
Nation. In churches, libraries, and school cafeterias, the 
people all across the country will vote for who they want to 
represent them.
    And I am convinced that the American people will make their 
choices wisely.
    Let me conclude by saying a few words about where we should 
go from here.
    Right before this impeachment trial began, I was at an 
event in Wasilla, AK, where many of Alaska's military veterans 
attended. A proud veteran approached me with a simple but 
fervent request. ``Senator Sullivan,'' he said, ``Protect our 
Constitution.''
    So many of us, including me, have heard similar pleas over 
the past few months from the people we represent, but there was 
something about the way he said it, something in his eyes that 
truly got my attention. I realized that something was fear. 
That man, a brave Alaskan who had served in the military to 
protect our constitutional freedoms, was afraid that the 
country he knows and he loves was at risk. And I have to admit 
that I have had similar fears these past weeks.
    But I look around me, on this floor, and I continue to see 
hope for our Nation.
    I see my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--my 
friends--who are willing to work with me on so many issues to 
find solutions sorely needed for the country.
    And back home, I see my fellow Alaskans, some of them 
fearful, but also so hungry to do their part to help heal the 
divides.
    We should end this chapter, and we should take our cues 
from them, the people whose spirit and character guides this 
great Nation. They want us to protect our Constitution. They 
need us to work together to do that and address America's 
challenges.
    It is time to get back to the work Alaskans want the 
Congress to focus on: growing our economy, improving our 
infrastructure, rebuilding our military, cleaning up our 
oceans, lowering healthcare costs and drug prices, opening 
markets for our fishermen, and taking care of our most 
vulnerable in society like survivors of sexual assault and 
domestic violence and those struggling with addiction.
    That is what I am committed to do.
    Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, the decision I make today 
is not an easy one, nor should it be.
    I have approached this serious task with an open and 
impartial mind, as my trial oath required. I have studied the 
facts and the evidence of the case before me.
    I have been an attorney for over two decades, and I was the 
attorney general of Nevada for 8 years. And I keep coming back 
to what I learned in the courtroom. The law is a technical 
field, but it is also based on common sense.
    You don't have to study the law for years to know that 
stealing and cheating are wrong. It is one of the first things 
we learn in our formative years.
    And you don't have to be a law school professor to realize 
that a President should not be using the job the American 
people gave him to benefit himself personally.
    Abraham Lincoln reminded us that our Nation was founded on 
the essential idea of government ``of the people, by the 
people, for the people.''
    As I sat on the Senate floor thinking about President 
Lincoln and listening to the arguments in President Trump's 
impeachment trial, I thought of the awesome responsibility our 
Founding Fathers entrusted to each Senator.
    I also thought about all of the Nevadans I represent--those 
who voted for President Trump and those who did not. For those 
who did, I put myself in their shoes and considered how I would 
respond if the President were from my political party.
    The removal of a sitting President through impeachment is 
an extraordinary remedy. It rarely occurs, and no Senator 
should rush into it.
    Yet impeachment is a key part of our constitutional order. 
When our Founding Fathers designed the Office of the 
Presidency, the Framers of the Constitution had just gotten rid 
of a King, and they didn't want another one.
    They were afraid that the President might use his extensive 
powers for his own benefit.
    To prevent this, the Framers provided for impeachment by 
the House and trial by the Senate for ``treason, bribery, or 
other high crimes and misdemeanors.''
    They didn't have to do things this way. They could have 
left it up to the courts to hold the trial of a President 
accused of wrongdoing.
    But they wanted to make sure each branch of government 
could be a check on the other, which would bring balance to our 
system of government.
    And the Framers were specifically concerned with the idea 
of an all-powerful Executive who might abuse his power and 
invite foreign interference in our elections.
    This concern is reflected in the Articles of Impeachment 
laid out by the House managers.
    Putting aside the biases I heard coming from both political 
parties, I focused on getting to the truth of the case--like 
any trial attorney.
    The truth in any case that I have been involved with starts 
with the facts.
    For 2 weeks I listened to the arguments presented by both 
sides, took notes, posed questions, and identified the facts 
that were supported and substantiated and those that were not.
    With a heavy heart and great sadness, I became convinced by 
the evidence that President Trump intentionally withheld 
security assistance and a coveted White House meeting to 
pressure Ukraine into helping him politically, even though 
Ukraine was defending itself from Russia.
    This wasn't an action ``of the people, by the people, for 
the people.''
    President Trump used the immense power of the U.S. 
Government not for the people but, rather, for himself.
    We know these facts from President Trump's own words in a 
phone call to Ukrainian President Zelensky in July and in 
statements to the press in October.
    We also know it through the testimony of 17 American 
officials--many of them appointed by the President himself.
    Those officials indicated that over the spring and summer 
of 2019, through both his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and 
through American diplomats, President Trump asked Ukraine to 
publicly announce investigations that would influence the 2020 
elections in his favor.
    We also know through testimony provided during the House 
investigation that President Trump tried to pressure Ukraine to 
announce those investigations, first by conditioning a visit by 
President Zelensky to the White House on them and later by 
denying $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine.
    Some of my colleagues don't dispute these facts.
    President Trump's actions interfere with the fundamental 
tenets of our Constitution. Citizens do not get to govern 
themselves if the officials who get elected seek their own 
benefit to the detriment of the public good.
    The Framers knew this. They were very aware that officials 
could leverage their office to benefit themselves.
    In Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton explained why we 
had the impeachment power in the first place: it was to respond 
to ``those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public 
men, or in other words, from the abuse or violation of some 
public trust.''
    With the undisputed facts condemning the President, I 
listened to the President's counsel argue that the Articles of 
Impeachment were defective because abuse of power and 
obstruction of Congress are not crimes.
    However, many constitutional scholars soundly refuted this 
argument, and precedent supports them. The Impeachment Articles 
in President Nixon's case included abuse of power and 
obstruction of Congress.
    During this impeachment investigation, the President 
blocked all members of his administration from testifying in 
response to congressional committee requests and withheld all 
documents.
    This action is absolutely unprecedented in American 
history. Even Presidents Nixon and Clinton allowed staff to 
testify to Congress during impeachment investigations and 
provided some documents.
    The executive branch has no blanket claim to secrecy. It 
works for the American people, as do Members of Congress.
    In the Senate, the President's counsel argued that the 
House investigators should have fought this wholesale 
obstruction in court. Yet at the same time, in a court down the 
street, other administration lawyers contended that the courts 
should stay out of disputes between Congress and the President.
    The President's counsel also argued that the American 
people should decide in the next election whether to remove 
President Trump for his actions. But if this were the standard, 
then the impeachment clause could only ever be utilized in the 
second term of a Presidency, when no upcoming election would 
preserve the country.
    Most importantly, isn't the impeachment clause pointless if 
a President can abuse his power in office and then completely 
refuse to comply with a House impeachment investigation and a 
Senate trial in order to delay until the next election?
    The Framers themselves actually argued about whether 
Americans could rely on elections to get rid of bad Presidents. 
They decided that if they didn't put the impeachment power into 
the Constitution, a corrupt President would be willing to do 
anything to get himself reelected.
    James Madison said that without impeachment, a corrupt 
President ``might be fatal to the Republic.''
    And through my oath of office as a Senator, I swore to 
protect not just Nevadans but also our great Republic.
    Our country, unfortunately, has never been more divided 
along party lines. It played out in the House impeachment 
investigation and in the Senate trial. The Senate rules for the 
trial were not written by all of the Senators with bipartisan 
input. Instead, they were written behind closed doors by one 
man in coordination with the President. In so doing, the Senate 
has abdicated its powerful check on the executive branch.
    Without this important check, I am concerned about what the 
President will do next to put our Republic in jeopardy.
    We have seen that President Trump is willing to violate our 
Constitution in order to get himself reelected. He has 
disrespected norms and worked to divide our country for his own 
political gain. He has undermined our standing in the world and 
put awesome pressure on foreign leaders to benefit himself, 
rather than to advance the interests of our country.
    I have also learned from this trial that the President is 
willing to take any action, including cheating in the next 
election, to serve his personal interest.
    No act in our country is more sacred and solemn for 
democracy than voting, and nothing in our system of government 
is more vital to the continued health of our democracy than its 
elections. No American should stand for foreign election 
interference, much less invite it.
    American elections are for Americans.
    That is why I cannot condone this President's actions by 
acquitting him.
    Finding the President guilty of abuse of power and 
obstruction of Congress marks a sad day for our country and not 
something I do with a light heart.
    But I was sent to Congress not just to fight for all 
Nevadans but also to fight for our children and their future. 
To leave them with a country that still believes in right and 
wrong, that exposes corruption in government and holds it 
accountable, that stands up to tyranny at home and abroad.
    In my view, President Trump has fallen far, far short of 
those lofty ideals and of the demands of our Constitution.
    That requires the rest of us, regardless of party, creed, 
or ethnicity, to work together all the more urgently to defend 
our democracy, our elections, and our national security.
    I have faith in Americans because I have seen time and time 
again in Nevada our ability to come together and work with one 
another for our common good.
    America is more than just one person, and like President 
Lincoln's, my faith will always lie with the people.
    Ms. ROSEN. Mr. President, I didn't come to the Senate 
expecting to sit as a juror in an impeachment trial. I have 
participated in this trial with an open mind, determined to 
evaluate the President's actions outside of any partisan lens, 
and with a focus on my constitutional obligations. I listened 
to the arguments, took detailed notes, asked questions, and 
heard both sides answer questions from my colleagues. After 
thorough consideration, based on the evidence presented, sadly, 
I find I have no choice but to vote to remove the President 
from office.
    The first Article of Impeachment charges the President with 
abuse of power, specifically alleging that the President used 
the powers of his public office to obtain an improper political 
benefit. I can now conclude the evidence shows that this is 
exactly what the President did when he withheld critically 
important security assistance from Ukraine in order to persuade 
the Ukrainian Government to investigate his political rival. I 
understand that foreign policy involves negotiations, 
leveraging advantages, and using all the powers at our disposal 
to advance U.S. national security goals. But this was 
different. The President sent his personal attorney, whose 
obligation is to protect the personal interests of the 
President, not the United States, to meet and negotiate with 
foreign government officials from Ukraine to get damaging 
information about the President's rivals, culminating in the 
July 25 phone call between the U.S. and Ukrainian Presidents, 
during which the President made clear his intent to withhold 
aid until a political favor was completed. In doing so, the 
President put U.S. national security and a key alliance against 
Russian aggression at risk, all so he could benefit politically 
from the potential fallout from an investigation into a 
possible opponent.
    While I would like to hear more from witnesses and see the 
documents the administration is withholding, the evidence 
presented is compelling and not in doubt. The President 
withheld military aid in order to coerce an ally to help him 
politically. This is no mere policy disagreement; this is about 
whether the President negotiates with foreign governments on 
behalf of the United States or on his own behalf. No elected 
official, regardless of party, should use public office to 
advance his or her personal interests, particularly to the 
detriment of U.S. national security, and in the case of the 
President of the United States, such conduct is particularly 
dangerous. As elected officials, we have no more important 
responsibility than ensuring our national security, and that 
includes protecting the Nation from future threats. The 
President's conduct here sets a dangerous precedent that must 
not be repeated in the future and requires a firm response by 
the representatives of the people. After hearing evidence that 
the President held up congressionally approved military 
assistance to an ally fighting Russia in order to exact 
concessions from Ukraine that benefited him personally, we 
cannot trust the President to place national security over his 
own interests. It is therefore with sadness that I conclude 
that the President must be removed from office under article I, 
and I will vote to convict him of abuse of power.
    With respect to the second Article of Impeachment charging 
obstruction of Congress, the President's behavior suggests that 
he believes he is above the law. Certainly, there may be 
documents and testimony that are subject to executive privilege 
or are confidential for some other reason. But here, the 
President directed every agency, office, and employee in the 
executive branch not to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry 
conducted by the U.S. House of Representatives. As a Member of 
Congress, I take my oversight role seriously. It is how we 
ensure transparency in government, so the people of Nevada can 
know how their tax dollars are spent and whether their elected 
officials are acting legally, ethically, and in their best 
interests. The President's refusal to negotiate in good faith 
with the House investigators over documents and testimony and 
instead to impede any investigation into his official conduct 
can only be characterized as blatant obstruction.
    More importantly, it suggests that he will continue to 
operate outside the law, and if he believes he can ignore 
lawful subpoenas from Congress, it will be impossible to hold 
him accountable. For these reasons, I will vote to convict the 
President of obstruction of Congress, as delineated in article 
II.
    Impeachment is a grave constitutional remedy, not a 
partisan exercise. To fulfill my constitutional role as a 
juror, I asked myself how I would view the evidence if it were 
any President accused of this conduct. Based on the facts and 
arguments presented, I conclude that no President of the United 
States, regardless of party, can trade congressionally approved 
and legally mandated military assistance for personal political 
favors. No one is above the law, not this President or the next 
President. Having exercised my constitutional duty, I will 
continue what I have been doing over the course of this trial 
and have done since I first came to Congress, to look past 
partisanship and develop commonsense, bipartisan solutions that 
help hard-working families in Nevada and across the country.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 10, 2020]

                   Statement of Senator John Barrasso

    Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today 
following Senate acquittal in the impeachment trial of 
President Trump.
    After a 2-week trial, the U.S. Senate has delivered 
impartial justice. Make no mistake: Senate acquittal is the 
final judgment, forever clearing President Trump.
    The House clearly made serious mistakes. Never before has a 
President been impeached with no underlying crime, no defense 
counsel, and not a single Republican vote. It was purely 
partisan and totally political.
    The House overstepped its authority. The Senate, however, 
according to the Constitution, has the final word. The Senate 
followed the law. The Senate held a fair trial. We used the 
bipartisan Clinton trial format. These rules ensured both sides 
full and equal time.
    Let's not forget: In the House, the President's rights were 
ignored. He had no voice, no due process, no defense. The 
Senate allowed the President to defend himself, and his defense 
team presented a fact-based case. White House lawyers detailed 
the President's legitimate, long-held concerns over Ukraine 
corruption. The President's legal team made a strong case 
against the House impeachment articles.
    House managers, meanwhile, failed to prove their case. 
Rather than focus on facts, they appeared to be playing to the 
cameras. Incredibly, House managers attacked the Senate jury, 
accusing Republicans of ``corruption'' and ``cover-up.'' House 
managers played for time, repeating speeches, demanding more 
witnesses we didn't need. In reality, it was a weak case. There 
were no offenses that rose to the Constitution's requirement of 
``Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.''
    The House process was one-sided from the start. For 
political purposes, Speaker Pelosi rushed the impeachment vote 
by Christmas, claiming urgency. Then her sense of urgency 
disappeared. She proceeded to delay the Senate trial for 4 
weeks. The Speaker waited 33 days to send us the Articles of 
Impeachment. This begs the question: Why delay the removal of a 
President the Democrats in the House claim is ``dangerous''?
    Still, the Speaker insisted this spectacle was ``solemn,'' 
even prayerful. Then came her strangely irreverent signing 
ceremony. Nothing says solemn like souvenir signing pens.
    The bottom line is: Partisan impeachment is poison--
poison--for our democracy. Senate acquittal is the antidote. 
Impeachment has hurt and divided this country. It has also 
delayed important work on behalf of the American people. 
Congress needs to now come together and move forward.
    Look at the incredible results we are already seeing under 
this President. Thanks to tax and regulatory relief, our 
economy is booming. American workers are winning.
    We are seeing record job growth: 7 million new jobs, 
500,000 new manufacturing jobs, and 50-year-low unemployment. 
Middle-class and blue-collar wages are rising. Household wealth 
is soaring. Consumer confidence is at record highs. Add to that 
the President's America-first trade deals. The U.S.-Mexico-
Canada deal, deals with China, Japan, they are a boon for our 
farmers and for our workers. What is more, we have unleashed 
American energy. The U.S. is now No. 1 in oil and in natural 
gas. We no longer need Middle East oil. We have also confirmed 
187 highly qualified Federal judges. Above all, we are keeping 
the country safe and secure. President Trump has completely 
rebuilt our military.
    Yet partisan impeachment has blocked progress. Congress has 
learned its lesson: Impeachment, if it is to ever happen again, 
must be bipartisan, fair, and rare. Senate acquittal is the 
final judgment.
    Now, we are back to work for the American people. We are 
looking forward to the important work ahead, to continuing our 
progress on priorities like lowering prescription drug costs, 
securing our border, and fixing our aging roads and bridges.
    The 2020 Presidential election is fast approaching. In 
fact, voting has already occurred in Iowa. It is time for the 
American people to decide who serves as President. It is time 
for Congress to get back to work. Thank you.
    Ms. McSALLY. Mr. President, on Wednesday, I voted against 
convicting President Trump of the two Articles of Impeachment. 
The Senate has spent the last 3 weeks in a Presidential 
impeachment trial for only the third time in our Nation's 244-
year history. Adam Schiff and House Democrats demanded that the 
Senate overturn the results of the 2016 Presidential election, 
remove President Trump from office, and take him off the 2020 
ballot. These outcomes would be deeply disruptive to the 
functioning of our government, would further divide our Nation, 
and would prevent the American people from deciding who their 
President should be at the ballot box. The American people 
collectively are better fit to judge Donald Trump's Presidency 
as a whole than the partisan politicians in Washington who 
brought forth this impeachment. Despite the celebrations by 
Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats, this is a grave and serious 
matter with implications far beyond this President, this 
Congress, and this generation.
    During the trial, I have remained committed to my oath to 
administer impartial justice with the same seriousness as my 
oath to protect the Constitution that I put my life on the line 
for in uniform. I listened carefully to the presentations by 
both the House managers and the President's counsel. I 
researched the law, reviewed historical precedents, and asked 
questions. I discussed the evidence and the issues with 
colleagues, and I came to my own conclusion.
    The text, history, and purpose of the Constitution support 
acquittal. Our founding document gives the House the sole power 
of impeachment and the Senate the sole power to try all 
impeachments. Further, it requires a two-thirds vote to convict 
and remove any President. The Founding Fathers were concerned 
that impeachment would be frequently used as a partisan 
political weapon. Because of this concern, they deliberated 
whether to include Presidential impeachment at all. Then, they 
considered the scope of the offenses subject to the grievous, 
divisive, and disruptive punishment of decapitating one branch 
of our government. At the constitutional convention, the 
Founders rejected vague, standardless terms like 
``malpractice,'' ``neglect of duty,'' and 
``maladministration.'' James Madison, the father of our 
Constitution, objected that vague terms would be ``equivalent 
to a tenure during the pleasure of the Senate.'' Madison's view 
prevailed, and the Framers settled on ``treason, bribery, or 
other high crimes and misdemeanors'' to minimize the risk of 
partisan abuse of impeachment.
    Madison and the other Founders intended impeachment to be 
an extremely disruptive last resort to save the Republic. What 
our constitutional text and tradition teach us is that no 
President should be impeached and removed from office without 
the support of both parties and the American people. The reason 
that President Andrew Johnson avoided conviction in his trial 
was that a mixed group of both Democrats and Republicans voted 
to find the President not guilty. Richard Nixon's impeachment 
inquiry vote passed the House 410 to 4. Senator Chuck Schumer 
and Speaker Nancy Pelosi used to agree. ``I expect history will 
show that we've lowered the bar on impeachment so much, we've 
broken the seal on this extreme penalty so cavalierly--that it 
will be used as a routine tool to fight political battles,'' 
Schumer said in 1998. ``My fear is that when a Republican wins 
the White House, Democrats will demand payback.'' Likewise, 
Speaker Pelosi stated last March: ``Impeachment is so divisive 
to the country that unless there's something so compelling and 
overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down 
that path because it divides the country.'' Before a few months 
ago, the consensus, articulated well by Senator Schumer and 
Speaker Pelosi, was that a partisan impeachment is not a proper 
impeachment.
    The first Article of Impeachment for ``abuse of power'' 
does not warrant removal from office and the ballot. The 
President is not perfect, and the way in which he evidently 
attempted to address his legitimate concerns about corruption 
involving the Bidens was inappropriate. But even if all that 
the House Democrats allege in fact occurred, even if John 
Bolton supports their allegations in his book, even if other 
negative information comes out in the future, this does not 
rise anywhere near the level of throwing the President out of 
office or off the ballot for the first time in American 
history. Abuse of power is a vague offense that the House 
managers have failed to define with precision, but even 
accepting all the House managers' facts as true, the alleged 
conduct does not justify conviction.
    The second Article of Impeachment for ``obstruction of 
Congress'' is frivolous and dangerous for the separation of 
powers that is foundational to our Republic. Presidential 
clashes with Congress are not just routine but are baked into 
our constitutional DNA. The separation of powers painstakingly 
negotiated by our Founders is working--and that is a positive 
thing. The Framers designed tension between the coequal 
executive and legislative branches of our government. Congress 
often wants access to everyone and everything in the executive 
branch. The executive branch, in contrast, has legitimate 
grounds to prevent certain advisors or documents from being 
hauled before Congress. This article, if legitimized, would 
cede unprecedented power to one Chamber and would permit the 
House to remove a President from office any time that it does 
not get what it wants from the President, exactly as James 
Madison feared.
    Not only do the two articles fail, but I also cannot in 
good conscience vote to convict because every step of this 
slapdash impeachment process has been characterized by a lack 
of fundamental fairness. I am troubled by the speed and 
cheerful eagerness with which the House Democrats railroaded 
through their investigation and vote on the articles. Unlike 
the Nixon and Clinton impeachments, the investigation into the 
alleged wrongdoing was hastily conducted and sloppily executed. 
The House Democrats made it clear that their objective was to 
impeach the President by Christmas, and they trampled over 
fairness and well-established legal processes on the way. After 
initially failing to vote to authorize the inquiry, they went 
from a vote authorizing an inquiry to impeaching the President 
in just 48 days.
    What is more, the House Intelligence Committee failed to 
afford the President with procedural rights. The House should 
have voted to authorize the impeachment before investigating 
and should have attempted the usual accommodation process to 
resolve the tensions with the executive branch. The 
fundamentals of due process also include the right to have 
counsel present during interviews with investigators, the right 
to cross-examine witnesses, the right to call your own 
witnesses, and the right to submit evidence. Here, House 
Democrats called only their preferred witnesses, and they 
denied President Trump's counsel the opportunity to be present 
for examinations. The Democrats conducting the investigation 
also failed to subpoena individuals whom they now claim are key 
witnesses. If Adam Schiff genuinely wanted to hear from John 
Bolton, he should have subpoenaed him, should have allowed the 
President to assert immunity, and should have gone to the 
courts to sort out the competing claims. But that wouldn't have 
fit the House Democrats' rushed timeline or narrative.
    Once the process was handed over to the House Judiciary 
Committee, House Democrats had a single hearing with law 
professors on December 4 before announcing on December 5 that 
they were committed to drafting Articles of Impeachment. The 
committee approved the articles on December 13. To put this in 
perspective, this meant that the relevant committee spent 1 
week drafting the articles before Speaker Pelosi spent 4 weeks 
sitting on the articles. And on the Senate side, I am likewise 
concerned that Adam Schiff, House Democrats, and Chuck Schumer 
demanded that the Senate do the House's job and clean up the 
House's shoddy work. Democrats have insisted that the Senate 
subpoena witnesses that the House refused to call and that the 
Senate shut itself down for weeks or months to allow for an 
investigation that the House should have conducted before 
proceeding to a final impeachment vote. The House Democrats 
showed testimony of 13 witnesses during the trial and submitted 
28,000 pages of documents. Having repeatedly stated that their 
evidence was overwhelming, they then claimed that they needed 
more witnesses and documents to make their case. You can't have 
it both ways.
    I am particularly troubled that in the Senate, the House 
managers sought to have the Senate address issues of executive 
privilege in a way that it has never done before. Executive 
privilege is a right--asserted by all Presidents of different 
parties for decades--to prevent close advisers from divulging 
confidential communications. But now, for the first time in our 
Nation's history, the Democrats sought to have the Senate 
displace the judiciary and resolve, by majority vote, highly 
complicated questions on executive privilege--a task that would 
raise substantial constitutional and institutional questions.
    Even more disturbing was the House and Senate Democrats' 
casual attempt to drag the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court 
into this process. With a straight face, Adam Schiff repeatedly 
called for the Chief Justice to be the decisionmaker on serious 
and complex issues, as if attempting to remove a President and 
adjust the relationship between the House and the Senate 
forever weren't enough. On top of this, Democrats tried to 
bring the third branch of government into this partisan 
political exercise with no concern for the seismic implications 
for our Republic.
    Although my vote against convicting President Trump lies 
with the failure of House Democrats to prove impeachable 
conduct, I would be remiss if I did not emphasize one crucial 
fact: The historical record is clear that President Obama was 
weak on Russia and trivialized the geopolitical threat posed by 
Putin. In 2009, Obama's Secretary of State presented the 
Russian Foreign Minister with a ``reset'' button, grinning 
alongside him in a photo opportunity. That year, President 
Obama, at Russia's request, cancelled plans to build a missile 
defense system in Eastern Europe. In 2011, an open microphone 
caught Obama telling Russian President Medvedev that he would 
``have more flexibility'' with easing pressure on Russia--
``particularly with missile defense''--after the Presidential 
election. During the 2012 election, President Obama mocked his 
opponent for expressing geopolitical concern about Russia. 
``The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy 
back,'' Obama said. Two years later, Russia annexed Crimea and 
then invaded eastern Ukraine. Obama refused to provide lethal 
aid to Ukraine to defend itself and his policies toward Russia 
were a national security disaster.
    In contrast, President Trump has placed unprecedented 
sanctions on Russia and provided lethal weapons like the 
Javelin anti-tank missile to Ukraine to defend itself. Several 
of the House managers who attempted to remove President Trump 
for a minor delay in security-assistance funding, which was 
separate from the Javelin missile purchases, voted against 
providing lethal aid to Ukraine in multiple defense 
authorization and funding bills. Should we have impeached Obama 
for not providing lethal aid to Ukraine? No. It was bad policy 
and weak compared to what Trump has done but not impeachable.
    This Presidential impeachment is historic for dangerous 
reasons. It is the first partisan House impeachment with 
bipartisan opposition. It is the first to deny procedural 
fairness protections to the President during the House inquiry. 
It is disturbing because this entire matter should have been 
handled via the normal oversight processes available to 
Congress with subpoena disputes resolved in the courts.
    With all the above in mind, I conclude that the President 
did not engage in conduct rising to the level of treason, 
bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Democrats have 
been trying to impeach President Trump repeatedly since he was 
elected. They filed eight impeachment resolutions for 
everything from undermining the freedom of the press to using 
insulting language.
    Our country has a Presidential election in 9 months, with 
the first votes in Iowa already completed. The American people 
deserve to be represented by the President they elected. They 
also deserve to choose who is the President for the next 4 
years. While I have concerns about the upcoming 9 months, I am 
likewise concerned about the next 90 years. Looking at the 
process that unfolded in the House and the constitutional 
contortionism that the Democrats displayed in the Senate, it 
would be a dangerous precedent to normalize how House Democrats 
have carried out this process. If rewarded, this precedent 
would trivialize impeachment, distort the relationship between 
the two Chambers, and forever alter the relationship among the 
three branches. In the future, any House controlled by the 
opposite party of the President could trample on due process, 
ram through an unfair impeachment for vague accusations, and 
demand that the Senate shut down its legislative work to 
investigate on behalf of the House. No future House of 
Representatives run by Democrats or Republicans should take 
this path.
    I have heard it said repeatedly throughout this trial that 
Benjamin Franklin left Americans ``a Republic--if you can keep 
it.'' I vote to keep it.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 12, 2020]

                Statement of Senator Charles E. Schumer

    Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, in voting to acquit President 
Trump of an abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, Senate 
Republicans sought to justify their vote by claiming that the 
President had ``learned his lesson.'' The implication was that 
the ordeal of impeachment and its permanent stain on his 
reputation that can never be erased would chasten President 
Trump's future behavior--a toddler scolded into compliance.
    The explanation, frankly, looked like an excuse. It was 
unconvincing the moment it was uttered. No serious person 
believes President Trump has learned any lesson. He doesn't 
learn any lessons. He does just what he wants and what suits 
his ego at the moment. Observers of the President would 
question whether he is even capable of learning a lesson, and, 
unsurprisingly, the flimsy rationalization by some Senate 
Republicans, desperate to have an excuse because they were so 
afraid of doing the right thing, was disproven within a matter 
of days.
    President Trump was acquitted by Senate Republicans last 
Wednesday. On Friday, he began dismissing members of his 
administration who testified in the impeachment inquiry, 
including the patriot LTC Alexander Vindman and Ambassador 
Gordon Sondland, a clear and obvious act of retaliation--very 
simply, that is all it was--against witnesses who told the 
truth under oath.
    President Trump hates the truth, time and time again, 
because he knows he lies, and when other people tell the truth, 
he hates it, so he fired them. The President even fired the 
brother of Lieutenant Colonel Vindman for the crime of being 
related to someone the President wanted out. How vindictive, 
how petty, how nasty, and yet there are rumors now that the 
President might dismiss the inspector general of the 
intelligence community, the official who received the 
whistleblower report. These are patriots all. President Trump 
can't stand patriots because they stand for country, not for 
what he wants.
    Yesterday, once again and typically, the White House 
reportedly decided to withdraw the nomination of Elaine 
McCusker, who was in line to serve as the Pentagon Comptroller 
and Chief Financial Officer. Why did he dismiss her--a longtime 
serving, very capable woman? Because over the summer, Ms. 
McCusker advised--merely advised--members of the administration 
about the legal ramifications of denying assistance to Ukraine. 
Her crime, in the eyes of President Trump and his so many 
acolytes--henchmen--in the administration, was attempting to 
follow the law. How dare she try to follow the law. How dare 
she even voice this is what the law is in this kind of 
administration.
    Of course, yesterday, after career prosecutors recommended 
that Roger Stone be sentenced to 7 to 9 years in Federal prison 
for witness tampering and lying abjectly to Congress, the 
President tweeted that his former confidant was being treated 
extremely unfair. It appears the Attorney General of the United 
States and other political appointees of the Justice Department 
intervened to countermand the sentencing recommendation. As a 
result, in an unprecedented but brave, courageous, and 
patriotic move, four career prosecutors working on the Roger 
Stone case--all four of them--withdrew from the case or 
resigned from the Justice Department.
    When asked about the clear impropriety of intervening in a 
Federal case, the President said he has an ``absolute right'' 
to order the Justice Department to do whatever he wants. This 
morning, the President congratulated the Attorney General, 
amazingly enough, for taking charge of the case.
    The President ran against the swamp in Washington, a place 
where the game is rigged by the powerful to benefit them 
personally. I ask my fellow Americans: What is more swampy, 
what is more fetid, and what is more stinking than the most 
powerful person in the country literally changing the rules to 
benefit a crony guilty of breaking the law?
    As a result, I have formally requested that the inspector 
general of the Justice Department investigate this matter 
immediately. This morning, I call on Judiciary Committee 
Chairman Graham to convene an emergency hearing of the 
Judiciary Committee to do the same--to conduct oversight and 
hold hearings. That is the job of the Judiciary Committee, no 
matter who is President and whether the President is from your 
party or not. Something egregious like this demands that the 
inspector general investigate and demands that the chairman of 
the Judiciary Committee hold a hearing now.
    The President is claiming that rigging the rules is 
perfectly legitimate. He claims an absolute right to order the 
Justice Department to do anything he wants. The President has, 
as his Attorney General, an enabler--and that is a kind word--
who actually supports this view. Does anyone think it is out of 
the question that President Trump might order the FBI to 
investigate Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, or anyone else without 
any evidence to support such an arbitrary violation of 
individual rights? Oh, I know, some far-right conspiratorial 
writer, who has no credibility, who just makes things up, 
writes it, FOX News puts it on, Sean Hannity or someone talks 
about it, and then the President says ``investigate.'' That is 
third-world behavior, not American behavior. That kind of 
behavior defiles that great flag that is standing above us. 
This is not ordinary stuff. I have never seen it before with 
any President--Democratic, Republican, liberal or conservative.
    Does any serious person believe the President's abuse would 
be limited to the Justice Department? Does any serious person 
think that Trump might not order the Justice Department to 
treat his friends, associates, and family members differently 
than it treats ordinary citizens and that Attorney General Barr 
would just carry out these orders?
    Of course, none of this is out of the question. The 
President asserted his absolute right to do whatever he wants 
yesterday. We are witnessing a crisis in the rule of law in 
America, unlike one we have ever seen before. It is a crisis of 
President Trump's making, but it was enabled and emboldened by 
every Senate Republican who was too afraid to stand up to him 
and say the simple word ``no'' when the vast majority of them 
knew that was the right thing to do.
    Republicans thought the President would learn his lesson. 
It turned out that the lesson he learned was not that he went 
too far and not that he needed to rein it in. The lesson the 
President learned was that the Republican Party will not hold 
him accountable, no matter how egregious his behavior--not now, 
not ever.
    Senate Republicans voted to excuse President Trump's abuses 
of power. They voted to abdicate the constitutional authority 
of Congress to check on an overreaching Executive. Senate 
Republicans now own this crisis, and they are responsible for 
every new abuse of power President Trump commits. John Adams 
famously described our grand Republic that he helped create as 
a government of laws, not of men. Our Founding Fathers' 
foremost concern, of course, was to escape the tyranny of a 
government of men--more specifically, a King. That is why the 
Founders created a republic in America. That is why the 
patriots died for the freedom we are now blessed with.
    Yet, after almost 2\1/2\ centuries of experience in self-
government as a republic, we are, once again, faced with a very 
serious and looming question: Do we want a government of laws 
or of men? Do we want to be governed by the laws of the United 
States or by the whims of one man?
    I don't think my Republican colleagues fully appreciated 
what they were unleashing when they voted in the impeachment 
trial to excuse the President's conduct--although, maybe they 
did. They were just afraid, fearful, shaking in their boots 
because Trump might take vengeance out on them as he did on 
Senators Flake and Corker. They voted to acquit the President 
after he used his immense power to pressure a foreign leader to 
announce an investigation to smear a rival.
    What we have seen in the hours and days since that fateful 
acquittal vote last Wednesday is so disturbing. In a parade of 
horribles, this is one of the most horrible things President 
Trump has done. In a parade of horribles, this is one of the 
most feeble and servile actions of Republicans, just no one 
saying a peep about it. We are seeing the behavior of a man who 
has contempt for the rule of law beginning to try out the new 
unrestrained power conferred on him by 52, 53--well, 52 
Republican Senators, 1 brave one.
    Left to his own devices, President Trump would turn America 
into a banana republic with a dictator who can do whatever he 
wants, and the Justice Department is the President's personal 
law firm, not a defender of the rule of law. It is a sad day in 
America--a sad day.
    The Founding Fathers created something brand new, a 
republic, because they were afraid of monarchy. The Senate 
Republicans aided and abetted President Trump to get much 
closer to that monarchy than we have been in a long time. 
Senate Republicans have created something very close to a 
monarchy, if they can keep it.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 12, 2020]

                   Statement of Senator Sherrod Brown

    Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South 
Dakota.
    At the conclusion of President Trump's impeachment trial, I 
heard some of my Republican colleagues, most of whom I consider 
my friends, say that the President would be chastened by 
impeachment. Some of you told me you knew what he did was 
wrong. A number of Republicans told me they admit that he lies 
a lot. They would acknowledge extorting an ally for help in the 
2020 Presidential campaign wasn't bad enough to rise to the 
level of warranting removal from office--even though Richard 
Nixon never did that; even though, just on the face of it, 
thinking of soliciting a bribe from a foreign country to help 
you in your reelection as President of the United States is 
worse than untoward.
    But you told me--many of you on the Republican side--that 
holding the trial was enough to check his bad behavior. You 
said things like this--and these are quotes, but I will not 
mention who they were because they were private conversations. 
You said: ``I think he has learned he has to be maybe a little 
more judicious and careful.''
    Some of you said these publicly too. A reporter asked 
another of you whether Trump might see acquittal as a license 
to do it again, and you responded: I don't think so.
    One of my colleagues said: ``I think he knows now that, if 
he is trying to do certain things . . . he needs to go through 
the proper channels.''
    Another colleague said: ``The President has been impeached. 
That's a pretty big lesson. . . . I believe that he will be 
more cautious in the future.''
    Well, the President learned a pretty big lesson. The lesson 
he learned--because everybody, every single person, from the 
majority leader down the hall to every Republican sitting at 
this desk and this desk and this desk--every Republican except 
for Mitt Romney voted to acquit. Every single Republican voted 
to acquit, so the lesson is he can do whatever he wants; he can 
abuse his office because he will never, ever be held 
accountable.
    One Republican had the courage to stand up and do it. Every 
other Republican sitting at these desks said to the President 
of the United States: Yeah, it is OK. You have learned your 
lesson. Yeah, your lesson is that you can do whatever you want 
and this body will never, ever hold you accountable.
    So do you know what? And I thank the Presiding Officer, by 
the way. Do you know what? The President went on what we call a 
PR tour--a personal retribution tour--starting at the prayer 
breakfast--the prayer breakfast--the next day when he attacked 
and he attacked and he attacked all kinds of people, continuing 
through to his speech in the East Room where many of my 
colleagues were in the audience clapping for the President when 
the President made these attacks on people.
    They say he will never do it again; even if we vote to 
acquit, he will never do it again. But then they clap for him 
when he starts his personal retribution tour.
    He removed Colonel Vindman, a patriot, a Purple Heart 
recipient who spent his life serving our country. He was an 
immigrant. He left the Soviet Union. He wanted freedom. He 
served in our country's military.
    The President, when he attacked Colonel Vindman, mocked his 
accent. He grew up speaking Ukrainian, and his English was damn 
near perfect when I have listened to him, but he had a bit of a 
Ukrainian accent. He mocked his accent. And then he suggested 
he could be subject to military prosecution.
    He removed Ambassador Sondland, who was a Trump appointee, 
after he testified to the quid pro quo.
    Yesterday, President Trump continued this PR tour--his 
personal retribution tour--interfering at the Department of 
Justice. I am not a lawyer. I know the Presiding Officer is. 
Most of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are. But they 
know a President doesn't interfere with the Department of 
Justice. As part of his personal retribution tour, he is 
interfering there. He is strong-arming appointees to overrule 
the decision of career prosecutors.
    Do you know what? These career prosecutors withdrew in 
protest. One of them resigned from the Department--more on that 
later.
    Late last night, when the country's eyes were on the 
primary in New Hampshire, the President of the United States 
was on part of this retribution tour, and my colleagues had 
said: Oh, no, he has learned from impeachment. Well, he hasn't. 
He has learned he can get away with stuff. He yanked his own 
Treasury nominee, who was working on terrorist financing and 
financial crimes, former U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu, who had 
worked as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia and had 
worked on, among other things, oversight of prosecutions from 
Special Counsel Mueller's investigations. The Treasury 
Department has offered zero explanation. I am going to get a 
chance in a few minutes to ask the Treasury Secretary, coming 
in front of my committee, why they are withdrawing her 
nomination 48 hours before her confirmation hearing.
    We can take a guess at why President Trump pulled down her 
nomination. She oversaw the U.S. attorneys prosecuting 
President Trump's criminal associates, his political 
operatives, like Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, and Roger Stone.
    This is so obvious. There were people out there who 
displeased the President. One of them was doing his public 
duty. He is career military and had fled the Soviet Union. He 
was speaking under oath about what the President had done 
because he knew it was wrong to solicit a bribe from a foreign 
country. Another was a lawyer that oversaw the prosecution of 
some of the President's political operatives and political 
hacks--criminals, as it turned out. They oversaw the 
prosecution. The President is attacking them. The President is 
using his power to attack him.
    My colleagues--who sit at this desk and this desk and this 
desk and this desk on the Senate floor--think it is OK to 
acquit him and then tell me that he is going to quit acting the 
way he acts.
    No sentient human being, including the Presiding Officer, 
would possibly think that way. Ms. Liu was scheduled to testify 
under oath before members of both parties at our hearing in the 
Banking Committee tomorrow morning. We need answers as to what 
she would have said. Were there discussions and decisions she 
was part of as U.S. attorney involving the President's 
associates that he didn't like? Was he afraid more would come 
out about the actions of some of the President's associates, 
the criminal actions? Was she aware of efforts by the President 
and his political appointees to interfere in the operation of 
our justice system? We need a swift and thorough DOJ inspector 
general investigation of these prosecutorial decisions.
    With every passing day, we don't see a humbled President. 
We see a President unleashed. Again, he didn't learn a lesson 
from impeachment. Actually, he learned a lesson from his 
acquittal. The lesson he learned is that he can do whatever he 
wants. He is a President unleashed. He is bent on turning the 
arms of a government that is supposed to serve the American 
people into his own personal vengeance operation--his own 
personal vengeance operation.
    I implore my colleagues: We can't let that stand.
    The Department of Justice is supposed to be impartial and 
immune from political influence, but it has become no more than 
a personal weapon, or it is becoming--it is not there yet, but 
it started to be--a personal weapon the President can unleash 
on his political enemies.
    As I said, I am not a lawyer, but I know enough to know the 
Department of Justice and the executive branch are not there to 
serve the President of the United States. The Department of 
Justice and the executive branch are there to serve the same 
people we do--the people of Ohio, the people of the Presiding 
Officer's State of Utah, the people of Maine, Iowa, Tennessee, 
and every State across this country. No one--no one--should be 
above the law.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 13, 2020]

                  Statement of Senator Mitch McConnell

    Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, now on an entirely different 
matter, it has been 1 week since the Senate concluded the third 
Presidential trial in American history.
    Things move quickly in Washington, as always, so it is 
natural that our focus is now shifting to the many policy 
subjects where we have more work to do for families all across 
our country.
    But when the Senate acts, we do not only address the 
particular issue before us; we create lasting precedent. This 
is especially true during something as grave and uncommon as an 
impeachment trial. Just as citizens, scholars, and Senators 
ourselves studied the past precedents of 1868 and 1999, so will 
future generations examine what unfolded over the past few 
months.
    So before we adjourn for the upcoming State work period and 
leave impeachment fully in the rearview mirror, I wanted to 
speak about it one more time--not about the particulars that 
have been so exhaustively discussed and debated but the deeper 
questions, to record some final observations for the future.
    The Senate did its job. We protected the long-term future 
of our Republic. We kept the temporary fires of factionalism 
from burning through to the bedrock of our institutions. We 
acted as Madison wished--as an ``impediment'' against 
``improper acts.'' The Framers' firewall held the line.
    But in this case, all is not well that ends well. We cannot 
forget the abuses that fueled this process. We cannot make 
light of the dangerous new precedents set by President Trump's 
opponents in their zeal to impeach at all costs. We need to 
remember what happened so we can avoid it ever happening again.
    As we know, the leftwing drive to impeach President Trump 
predated--predated--any phone call to Ukraine--and, in fact, 
his inauguration. This isn't a Republican talking point; it is 
what was reported by outlets like POLITICO and the Washington 
Post. House Democrats barely tried to hide that they began with 
a guilty verdict and were simply shopping for a suitable crime.
    So, unfortunately, it was predictable that the House 
majority would use the serious process of impeachment as a 
platform to politically attack the President. It was less 
predictable that they would also attack our Nation's core 
institutions themselves. But that is what happened.
    First, the House Democrats chose to degrade their body's 
own precedents. The majority sprinted through a slapdash 
investigation to meet arbitrary political deadlines. They 
trivialized the role of the House Judiciary Committee, the body 
traditionally charged with conducting impeachment inquiries. 
They sidelined their own Republican minority colleagues and the 
President's counsel to precedent-breaking degrees.
    All of this was very regrettable, but from a purely 
practical perspective, breaking the House's own china was 
Speaker Pelosi's prerogative. What was truly outrageous is what 
came next--a rolling attack on the other institutions outside 
the House.
    To begin with, the recklessly broad Articles of Impeachment 
were an attack not just on one President but on the Office of 
the Presidency itself.
    Their first article criticized the alleged motivation 
behind a Presidential action but failed to frame their 
complaint as definable ``high Crimes [or] Misdemeanors.'' This 
House set out into unchartered constitutional waters by passing 
the first-ever Presidential impeachment that did not allege any 
violations of criminal statutes.
    Clearly, they owed the Senate and the country a clear 
limiting principle to explain why removal on these grounds 
would be different from the malleable and subjective 
``maladministration'' standard, which the Framers rejected as a 
ground for impeachment. But they offered no such thing.
    And their second article sought to criminalize the normal 
and routine exercise of executive privileges that Presidents of 
both parties have rightly invoked throughout our history. This 
was, in effect, criminalizing the separation of powers 
themselves.
    So the House articles would have sharply diminished the 
Presidency in our constitutional structure. To extract a pound 
of flesh from one particular President, House Democrats were 
willing to attack the office itself.
    But it did not stop with the House and the Presidency. Next 
in the crosshairs came the Senate.
    The very night the House passed the articles, the Speaker 
began an unprecedented effort to reach outside her own Chamber 
and dictate the contours of the Senate trial to Senators. The 
bizarre stunt of withholding the articles achieved, of course, 
nothing, but the irony was enormous.
    The House had just spent weeks jealously guarding their 
``sole power'' of impeachment and criticizing other branches 
for perceived interference. Indeed, this reasoning was the 
entire basis for their second Article of Impeachment, but their 
first act out of the gate was to try to bust constitutional 
guardrails and meddle in the Senate.
    When that stunt went nowhere and the trial began, House 
Democrats brought their war on institutions over to this 
Chamber. From the very first evening, it was clear the House 
managers would not even try to persuade a supermajority of 
Senators but simply sought to degrade and smear the Senate 
itself before the Nation. Senators were called ``treacherous'' 
for not structuring our proceedings to the managers' liking.
    Finally, when the trial neared its end and it became clear 
that bullying the Senate would not substitute for persuading 
it, the campaign against institutions took aim at yet another 
independent branch--the Supreme Court--in particular, the Chief 
Justice of the United States.
    A far-left pressure group produced ads impugning him for 
presiding neutrally--neutrally--and not seizing control of the 
Senate. One Democratic Senator running for President made the 
Chief Justice read a pointless question gainsaying his own 
``legitimacy.''
    So, in summary, the opponents of this President were 
willing to throw mud at the House, the Presidency, the Senate, 
and the Supreme Court--all for the sake of short-term partisan 
politics.
    The irony would be rich if it were less sad. For years, 
this President's opponents have sought to cloak their rage in 
the high-minded trappings of institutionalism. The President's 
opponents profess great concern for the norms and traditions of 
our government. But when it really counted--when the rubber met 
the road--that talk proved cheap. It was they who proved 
willing to degrade public confidence in our government. It was 
they who indulged political bloodlust at the expense of our 
institutions: reckless--reckless--insinuations that our 2016 
election was not legitimate; further insinuations--right here 
on the floor--that if the American people reelect this 
President in 2020, the result will be presumptively 
illegitimate as well; bizarre statements from the Speaker of 
the House that she may simply deny reality and refuse to accept 
the Senate's verdict as final.
    There has been much discussion about the foreign 
adversaries who seek to reduce the American people's faith in 
our democracy and cause chaos and division in our country--
rightly so--but we must also demand that our own political 
leaders exercise some self-restraint and not do the work of our 
adversaries for them.
    The critics of our Constitution often say that because our 
Framers could not have imagined modern conditions, their work 
is outmoded. We hear that the First Amendment or the Second 
Amendment or the separation of powers must be changed to suit 
the times.
    But the geniuses who founded this Nation were actually very 
prescient. Case in point: The reckless partisan crusade of 
recent weeks is something they predicted more than two 
centuries ago. Hamilton predicted ``the demon of faction will, 
at certain seasons, extend his scepter'' over the House of 
Representatives. He predicted that partisan anger could produce 
``an intemperate or designing majority in the House of 
Representatives,'' capable of destroying the separation of 
powers if left unchecked.
    The Framers predicted overheated House majorities might 
lash out at their peer institutions and display ``strong 
symptoms of impatience and disgust at the least sign of 
opposition from any other quarter; as if the exercise of . . . 
rights, by either the executive or judiciary, were a breach of 
their privilege and an outrage to their dignity.'' They knew 
the popular legislature might be ``disposed to exert an 
imperious control over the other departments.''
    They predicted all of this. They predicted it all.
    So they did something about it. They set up a firewall. 
They built the Senate.
    This body performed admirably these past weeks. We did 
precisely the job we were made for.
    We did precisely the job we were made for, but impeachment 
should never have come to the Senate like this. This most 
serious constitutional tool should never have been used so 
lightly--as a political weapon of first resort, as a tool to 
lash out at the basic bedrock of our institutions because one 
side did not get their way.
    It should never have happened, and it should never happen 
again.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 25, 2020]

                  Statement of Senator James Lankford

    Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, the country is deeply 
divided on multiple issues right now. The impeachment trial is 
both a symptom of our times and another example of our 
division. At the beginning of our Nation, we did not have an 
impeachment inquiry of a President for almost 100 years with 
the partisan impeachment of Andrew Johnson. After more than 100 
years, another impeachment inquiry was conducted when the House 
began a formal impeachment inquiry into President Nixon in an 
overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 410-4. Within a period of 
weeks, President Nixon resigned before he was formally 
impeached. Then, just over two decades later, President Clinton 
was impeached by the House, on another mostly partisan vote 
leading to a partisan acquittal in the Senate.
    This season of our history has been referred to as the Age 
of Investigations and the Age of Impeachment. We have had 
multiple special counsels since 1974 over multiple topics. This 
is more than just oversight; it has been a unique time in 
American history when the politics of the moment have driven 
rapid calls for investigation and impeachment. Over the past 3 
years, the House of Representatives has voted four times to 
open an impeachment inquiry: once in 2017, once in 2018, and 
twice in 2019. Only the second vote in 2019 actually passed and 
began a formal inquiry.
    The Mueller investigation that consumed most of 2018 and 
2019 answered many questions about Russian attacks on our 
voting systems--although no votes were changed--but it was also 
a $32 million investigation that took more than 2 years of 
America's attention. For the last 4 months the country has been 
consumed with impeachment hearings and investigations. The 
first rumors of issues with Ukraine arose August 28 when 
POLITICO published a story about U.S. foreign aid being slow-
walked for Ukraine, and then on September 18 when the 
Washington Post published a story about a whistleblower report 
that claimed President Trump pressured an unnamed foreign head 
of state to do an investigation for his campaign.
    Within days of the Washington Post story on September 24, 
Speaker Pelosi announced that the House would begin hearings to 
impeach the President, which led to the formal House vote to 
open the impeachment inquiry on October 31 and then a vote to 
impeach the President on December 18. But after the partisan 
vote to impeach the President, Speaker Pelosi held the Articles 
of Impeachment for a month before turning them over to the 
Senate, which began the formal trial of the President of the 
United States on January 16, 2020. After hearing hours of 
arguments from both House managers and the President's legal 
defense team and Senators asking 180 questions to both sides, 
the trial concluded February 5, 2020.
    There are key dates to know:
    April 21, 2019, President Zelensky is elected President of 
Ukraine.
    May 21, President Zelensky sworn in. After the ceremony, 
President Zelensky abolishes Parliament and calls for quick 
snap elections on July 21.
    July 21, Ukrainian Parliamentary elections. President 
Zelensky's party wins a huge majority.
    July 25, President Trump calls President Zelensky to 
congratulate him and his party.
    August 12, An unnamed whistleblower working in the U.S. 
intelligence community filed a complaint that he had heard from 
others that the President of the United States had tried to 
pressure President Zelensky of Ukraine to investigate former 
Vice President Joe Biden on an official phone call July 25, 
2019.
    August 26, the Inspector General for the Intelligence 
Community declares the whistleblower report ``an urgent 
matter'' and asks for its release within 7 days. The Justice 
Department looks over the report and notes that although it was 
written by a person in the intelligence community, it is not 
related to intelligence matters, so it does not fall within the 
Inspector General's jurisdiction and it is forwarded on to the 
Department of Justice for review.
    August 28, POLITICO publishes a story that the annual 
military aid for Ukraine is currently being slow-walked.
    September 9, the Inspector General contacts the House 
Intelligence Committee to let them know that he has not been 
able to release the whistleblower report to their committee.
    September 13, the House Intelligence Committee subpoenas 
the whistleblower report.
    September 18, the Washington Post prints a story with 
``unnamed sources'' that there is a whistleblower report about 
the President talking with a foreign leader about a campaign 
matter.
    September 24, the House began an informal impeachment 
inquiry after Speaker Pelosi announced it at a press conference 
in the U.S. Capitol.
    September 25, President Trump released the official 
unredacted ``read out'' of the phone call with President 
Zelensky from July 25.
    September 26, the whistleblower report is declassified and 
released publicly.
    October 31, the House formally votes along party lines for 
an impeachment inquiry.
    December 18, the House votes to impeach the President with 
two articles--abuse of Power and obstruction of congress
    January 15, Speaker Pelosi releases the Articles of 
Impeachment to the Senate.
    January 16, Senate trial on impeachment begins.
    February 5, Senate trial concludes with acquittal on both 
articles.
    Ukraine became independent in 1991 when it broke away from 
the Soviet Union, but the Ukrainians have faced constant 
pressure from Russia ever since. In 2014 Ukraine forced out its 
pro-Russia President, and Moscow retaliated by taking over 
Crimea--and stealing the Ukrainian Navy--then rolling tanks 
into eastern Ukraine and taking all of eastern Ukraine by 
force. Russian and Ukrainian troops continue to fight every day 
in eastern Ukraine.
    The people of Ukraine face an aggressive Russia on the east 
and pervasive Soviet era corruption throughout the government 
and the business community. President Trump met the previous 
President of Ukraine in 2017 to talk about other countries 
helping Ukraine with greater military support funds and to ask 
how Ukraine could address corruption on a wider scale. The two 
Presidents also spoke about lethal aid--allowing the Ukrainians 
to buy sniper rifles, anti-tank Javelin missiles, and other 
lethal supplies--to help them fight the invading Russians. The 
United States also started sending a couple hundred American 
troops to train Ukrainian soldiers in the far west of Ukraine.
    On April 21, 2019, President Zelensky was overwhelmingly 
elected as the new President of Ukraine. He was a sitcom actor/
comedian who had no political experience but was well known for 
his television show in which he played the part of a 
corruption-fighting teacher who was elected as President of 
Ukraine. His television popularity helped him win the election, 
but when he was sworn in on May 21, he was relatively unknown 
to most of the world.
    On the same day as his inauguration, May 21, President 
Zelensky abolished Parliament and called for snap elections to 
put his party in power. With a new President in place and 
parliamentary elections in Ukraine coming, starting in June of 
2019, the President ordered foreign aid to Ukraine to be held 
until the end of the fiscal year, but agencies were informed 
that they should do all the preliminary work needed before the 
aid was sent, so it would be ready to release at a moment's 
notice. The leadership in Ukraine was not notified that there 
was a hold on their foreign aid.
    The new Parliament was elected on July 21, and President 
Zelensky's party won by a landslide. By mid-August, the new 
Parliament was working on anti-corruption efforts and trying to 
establish a high court on corruption, which they put in place 
September 5, 2019. There was a tremendous amount of uncertainty 
in the early days of the new administration, but by mid-August 
there was clear evidence of actual change in a country that 
desperately needed a new direction from its corrupt past.
    On July 25, when President Trump called President Zelensky, 
the President congratulated President Zelensky for the big win 
in Parliament and talked about ``burden-sharing''--other 
nations also paying their share of support for Ukraine. The two 
Presidents talked about their disapproval of the previous 
mbassadors to each other's countries. But instead of following 
all the staff preparation notes written by Lieutenant Colonel 
Vindman, the National Security Council staffer assigned to 
Ukraine, and just talking about ``corruption'' in general, the 
President brought up a question about Ukraine and the 2016 
election interference, which I will note below. President 
Zelensky also brought up to President Trump that his staff was 
planning to meet with Rudy Giuliani, President Trump's personal 
attorney, in the coming days, which led to a conversation about 
Joe Biden and the firing of the previous prosecutor in Ukraine.
    After the call, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman contacted an 
attorney at the National Security Council to express his 
``policy concerns'' about the call. It is interesting to note 
that Lieutenant Colonel Vindman's boss, Tim Morrison, was also 
on the call, but he did not see any problems or concerns with 
the call according to his own testimony in the House 
impeachment inquiry. Within a month, a whistleblower filed a 
report about the call, saying he heard about the call 
secondhand and was concerned about the implications of a 
conversation about elections on a head-of-state call. To keep 
the July 25th call in context with other news, the day before 
it took place July 24 Robert Mueller had testified before 
Congress as the last official act to close down the 2\1/2\ year 
Mueller investigation and clear the President and his campaign 
team of any further accusation of election interference.
    During the impeachment trial in the Senate, the House 
managers repeated over and over that the President was planning 
to cheat ``again'' on the next election, but the final 
conclusion of the Mueller report was that ``ultimately, the 
investigation did not establish that the (Trump) Campaign 
coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its 
election-interference activities.''
    This is especially notable because for years a rumor 
circulated that Ukraine was part of the 2016 election 
interference and that someone in Ukraine was hiding the 
Democratic National Committee, DNC, server that was hacked by 
the Russians in 2016. As the conspiracy theory goes, it was 
actually the Ukrainians who hacked the DNC, not the Russians. 
This is the ``Crowdstrike'' theory that President Trump asked 
President Zelensky to help solve during the call.
    Agencies of the U.S. intelligence community have stated 
over and over that they did not believe that Ukraine was 
involved in the Russian election interference from 2016. I 
personally agree with the intelligence community assessment but 
Rudy Giuliani and multiple others around President Trump 
believed there was a secret plan in 2016 to hurt President 
Trump's election from Ukraine. This accusation was amplified by 
bits of truth, including that the Ukrainian Ambassador to the 
United States wrote an editorial in support of Hillary Clinton 
in 2016 right before the election, and several other Ukrainian 
officials publicly spoke out against Candidate Trump in 2016.
    There is nothing illegal about a foreign nation speaking 
out for or against a Presidential candidate, whether Hillary 
Clinton or Donald Trump in 2016 or anyone else in the future. 
It may not be wise to take sides before an election, but it is 
not illegal. Just because some Ukrainian officials took sides 
does not mean that the whole Ukrainian Government worked on a 
cyber attack on our elections. But since this rumor had 
persisted, and it was a new administration now in Ukraine, 
President Trump asked President Zelensky to help clear up the 
facts if he could. That is certainly not illegal or improper, 
and it is certainly not something that could help the President 
in the 2020 election, especially since the 2016 Russian 
election accusation had just been closed the day before.
    The 2016 ``Crowdstrike'' theory is the issue that President 
Trump asked President Zelensky to ``do us a favor'' about, not 
the Bidens or Burisma. During the July 25 call after the 
question about ``Crowdstrike,'' President Zelensky mentioned to 
President Trump that one of his advisers would be meeting with 
Rudy Giuliani soon. Then, President Trump affirmed that meeting 
and encouraged them to talk about the Biden investigation and 
the firing of the Ukrainian prosecutor.
    That may seem out of the blue, but in Washington, D.C., 
that week, the city was buzzing about a Washington Post article 
that had been written 3 days before July 22, 2019--detailing 
Hunter Biden's giant salary--$83,000 per month--for doing 
essentially nothing for a corrupt Ukrainian natural gas company 
and how it undercut Vice President Biden's message on 
corruption.
    It is important to get the context of that week to 
understand the context of the phone call that day. I have no 
doubt that the story was just as big of news in Kiev, Ukraine, 
as it was in Washington, D.C., that week. President Trump's 
personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, had been in and out of 
Ukraine since November 2018, meeting with government officials 
and trying to find out more about the ``Crowdstrike'' theory or 
any other Ukrainian connection to the 2016 election. During 
that time, Rudy Giuliani met several former prosecutors from 
Ukraine who blamed their departure on Vice President Biden. It 
is clear that Rudy Giuliani was working to gain information 
about both of these issues in his capacity as President Trump's 
private attorney.
    It is not criminal for Rudy Giuliani to work on opposition 
research for a Presidential campaign or to work on behalf of 
his client to clear his name from any issues related to the 
2016 campaign, which he had done since November 2018. Some have 
stated that since this was ``foreign information,'' it is 
illegal. That is absolutely not true. In fact, Hillary Clinton 
and the Democratic National Committee in 2016 paid a British 
citizen, Christopher Steele, to work his contacts in Russia to 
create the now debunked ``Steele Dossier,'' which the FBI used 
to open its investigation into President Trump, leading 
directly to the appointment of Special Counsel Mueller. That 
dossier was opposition research done in Russia by a British 
citizen, paid for by the Clinton campaign team. Their 
opposition research was not illegal, but the use and abuse of 
that document by the FBI to start an investigation was 
certainly inappropriate and is most likely illegal. But the FBI 
warrant issue is still being investigated by the ongoing Durham 
probe.
    During the July 25, 2019, call, President Zelensky brought 
up the issue of Rudy Giuliani, and President Trump replied to 
his statement. You can argue that President Trump should not 
have discussed the issue with President Zelensky when he 
brought it up, but it is certainly not illegal or impeachable 
to talk about it, especially when there are serious questions 
about Hunter Biden's work with Burisma. That is not a 
conservative conspiracy theory; the issue of Hunter Biden's 
employment in Ukraine was a problem for years at the State 
Department. It had been raised to Vice President Biden when he 
was still in office. Every State Department official 
interviewed for the Trump impeachment investigation noted that 
at best it was a clear conflict of interest, and it was the 
center of a huge story on corruption in the Washington Post on 
July 22, 2019. It had the appearance of high-level corruption 
by using a well-placed family member on the board of a known 
corrupt gas company in Ukraine to shelter it from prosecutors. 
Hunter Biden had only resigned from the Burisma board a few 
months before the July 25 phone call, just prior to when his 
dad announced his run for the Presidency in 2019.
    After the July 25 phone call, Attorney General Barr did not 
have any followup meetings or calls with Ukrainian officials. 
Rudy Giuliani did have additional conversations with Ukrainian 
officials, which are legal to do since he is a private attorney 
representing the President.

 Text of July 25, 2019 Phone Call Between Presidents Trump and Zelensky

    The President: Congratulations on a great victory. We all watched 
from the United States and you did a terrific job. The way you came 
from behind, somebody who wasn't given much of a chance, and you ended 
up winning easily. It's a fantastic achievement. Congratulations.
    President Zelensky: You are absolutely right Mr. President. We did 
win big and we worked hard for this. We worked a lot but I would like 
to confess to you that I had an opportunity to learn from you. We used 
quite a few of your skills and knowledge and were able to use it as an 
example for our elections and yes it is true that these were unique 
elections. We were in a unique situation that we were able to achieve a 
unique success. I'm able to tell you the following; the first time you 
called me to congratulate me when I won my presidential election, and 
the second time you are now calling me when my party won the 
parliamentary election. I think I should run more often so you can call 
me more often and we can talk over the phone more often.
    The President: (laughter) That's a very good idea. I think your 
country is very happy about that.
    President Zelensky: Well yes, to tell you the truth, we are trying 
to work hard because we wanted to drain the swamp here in our country. 
We brought in many many new people. Not the old politicians, not the 
typical politicians, because we want to have a new format and a new 
type of government. You are a great teacher for us and in that.
    The President: Well it is very nice of you to say that. I will say 
that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of 
time. Much more than the European countries are doing and they should 
be helping you more than they are. Germany does almost nothing for you. 
All they do is talk and I think it's something that you should really 
ask them about. When I was speaking to Angela Merkel she talks Ukraine, 
but she doesn't do anything. A lot of the European countries are the 
same way so I think it's something you want to look at but the United 
States has been very very good to Ukraine. I wouldn't say that it's 
reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good 
but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine.
    President Zelensky: Yes you are absolutely right. Not only 100%, 
but actually 1000% and I can tell you the following; I did talk to 
Angela Merkel and I did meet with her I also met and talked with Macron 
and I told them that they are not doing quite as much as they need to 
be doing on the issues with the sanctions. They are not enforcing the 
sanctions. They are not working as much as they should work for 
Ukraine. It turns out that even though logically, the European Union 
should be our biggest partner but technically the United States is a 
much bigger partner than the European Union and I'm very grateful to 
you for that because the United States is doing quite a lot for 
Ukraine. Much more than the European Union especially when we are 
talking about sanctions against the Russian Federation. I would also 
like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are 
ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are 
almost. ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense 
purposes.
    The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our 
country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I 
would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with 
Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike. I guess you have one of your wealthy 
people . . . The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of 
things that went on, the whole situation. I think you're surrounding 
yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the 
Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to 
the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with 
a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent 
performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever 
you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible.
    President Zelensky: Yes it is very important for me and everything 
that you just mentioned earlier. For me as a President, it is very 
important and we are open for any future cooperation. We are ready to 
open a new page on cooperation in relations between the United States 
and Ukraine. For that purpose, I just recalled our ambassador from 
United States and he will be replaced by a very competent and very 
experienced ambassador who will work hard on making sure that our two 
nations are getting closer. I would also like and hope to see him 
having your trust and your confidence and have personal relations with 
you so we can cooperate even more so. I will personally tell you that 
one of my assistants spoke with Mr. Giuliani just recently and we are 
hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine 
and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine. I just wanted to assure you 
once again that you have nobody but friends around us. I will make sure 
that I surround myself with the best and most experienced people. I 
also wanted to tell you that we are friends. We are great friends and 
you Mr. President have friends in our country so we can continue our 
strategic partnership. I also plan to surround myself with great people 
and in addition to that investigation, I guarantee as the President of 
Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly. 
That I can assure you.
    The President: Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was 
very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair. A lot of 
people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good 
prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani 
is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great 
mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you 
along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening 
and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be 
great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad 
news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news 
so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, There's a lot of 
talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of 
people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the 
Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he 
stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it . . . It sounds 
horrible to me.
    President Zelensky: I wanted to tell you about the prosecutor. 
First of all, I understand and I'm knowledgeable about the situation. 
Since we have won the absolute majority in our Parliament, the next 
prosecutor general will be 100% my person, my candidate, who will be 
approved, by the parliament and will start as a new prosecutor in 
September. He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the 
company that you mentioned in this issue. The issue of the 
investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to 
restore the honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the 
investigation of the case. On top of that, I would kindly ask you if 
you have any additional information that you can provide to us, it 
would be very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we 
administer justice in our country with regard to the Ambassador to the 
United States from Ukraine as far as I recall her name was Ivanovich. 
It was great that you were the first one who told me that she was a bad 
ambassador because I agree with you 100%. Her attitude towards me was 
far from the best as she admired the previous President and she was on 
his side. She would not accept me as a new President well enough.
    The President: Well, she's going to go through some things. I will 
have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney 
General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it. I'm sure you 
will figure it out. I heard the prosecutor was treated very badly and 
he was a very fair prosecutor so good luck with everything. Your 
economy is going to get better and better I predict. You have a lot of 
assets. It's a great country. I have many Ukrainian friends, they're 
incredible people.
    President Zelensky: I would like to tell you that I also have quite 
a few Ukrainian friends that live in the United States. Actually last 
time I traveled to the United States, I stayed in New York near Central 
Park and I stayed at the Trump Tower. I will talk to them and I hope to 
see them again in the future. I also wanted to thank you for your 
invitation to visit the United States, specifically Washington DC. On 
the other hand, I also want to ensure you that we will be very serious 
about the case and will work on the investigation. As to the economy, 
there is much potential for our two countries and one of the issues 
that is very important for Ukraine is energy independence. I believe we 
can be very successful and cooperating on energy independence with 
United States. We are already working on cooperation. We are buying 
American oil but I am very hopeful for a future meeting. We will have 
more time and more opportunities to discuss these opportunities and get 
to know each other better. I would like to thank you very much for your 
support.
    The President: Good. Well, thank you very much and I appreciate 
that. I will tell Rudy and Attorney General Barr to call. Thank you. 
Whenever you would like to come to the White House, feel free to call. 
Give us a date and we'll work that out. I look forward to seeing you. 
President Zelensky: Thank you very much. I would be very happy to come 
and would be happy to meet with you personally and get to know you 
better. I am looking forward to our meeting and I also would like to 
invite you to visit Ukraine and come to the city of Kyiv which is a 
beautiful city. We have a beautiful country which would welcome you. On 
the other hand, I believe that on September 1 we will be in Poland and 
we can meet in Poland hopefully. After that, it might be a very good 
idea for you to travel to Ukraine. We can either take my plane and go 
to Ukraine or we can take your plane, which is probably much better 
than mine.
    The President: Okay, we can work that out. I look forward to seeing 
you in Washington and maybe in Poland because I think we are going to 
be there at that time. President Zelensky: Thank you very much Mr. 
President.
    The President: Congratulations on a fantastic job you've done. The 
whole world was watching. I'm not sure it was so much of an upset but 
congratulations.
    President Zelensky: Thank you Mr. President bye-bye.

    Based on a whistleblower report about the July 25 call, the 
House Intelligence Committee subpoenaed the report on September 
13 and started its impeachment inquiry on September 24.
    In the Senate impeachment trial, House managers stated 
their belief that the President had carried out a ``scheme to 
cheat in the 2020 election'' by withholding financial aid to 
Ukraine and withholding a White House meeting with the new 
President of Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine announcing it 
would investigate Joe Biden, Burisma, and 2016 election 
interference.
    Let's discuss the facts of both.
                          white house meeting
    There is no question that President Trump had offered a 
White House meeting to President Zelensky three times: once in 
May on a phone call after President Zelensky won his election, 
once in June in a letter, and finally in the July 25 call after 
President Zelensky's party won the parliamentary elections. But 
Tim Morrison--State Department official called as a witness by 
the House--also testified that they were working on heads-of-
state meetings with 12 other heads of state during that same 
time period. Many nations were trying to line up meetings in 
the White House during the summer of 2019.
    During the July 25 call, President Zelensky offered to 
instead move their meeting from a White House meeting to a 
face-to-face meeting in Warsaw, Poland, when they would both be 
there on September 1, 2019. The Presidents agreed, and planning 
began on the meeting in August. By August 22, the meeting 
planning was in full swing, as noted by emails in the House 
hearing's evidence. However, Hurricane Dorian slammed into the 
United States in the hours leading up to the September 1 
meeting, causing a last-minute shift to the Vice President 
traveling to Poland so the President could stay in the United 
States to monitor hurricane relief.
    We know that Vice President Pence met face-to-face with 
President Zelensky, and they spoke about other nations paying 
their fair share to help Ukraine and the issue of corruption 
across Ukraine. We know from the preparation materials and the 
meeting notes themselves that during the meeting the Vice 
President did not bring up or discuss the issue of Burisma, Joe 
Biden, or any other campaign conversation with President 
Zelensky.
    The White House found the next available time when 
President Trump and President Zelensky would both be in the 
same place at the same time to set up a face-to-face meeting: 
September 25 at the U.N. Assembly in New York. That meeting was 
set up, and it took place as scheduled.
    In the Senate impeachment trial, the House managers 
maintained that only a White House meeting was sufficient and 
that it was being withheld, but the facts show that President 
Zelensky himself floated the idea of a meeting in Poland and 
that the meeting was not barred or withheld.
    In the early months of President Zelensky's term, there was 
a great deal of concern about him, his staff, and his plans 
because he was an unknown political figure. Until more was 
known about him, it was entirely appropriate to show caution in 
coordinating a meeting, but once his nationwide anti-corruption 
efforts began in August, it was clear that face-to-face 
meetings were planned and carried out.
    There was no withholding of a face-to-face meeting with 
President Trump and President Zelensky. There cannot be a quid 
pro quo if the meeting was not withheld from Ukrainian 
officials.
    The House managers claimed that there was a secret plot to 
``extort'' or ``bribe'' the leadership of Ukraine to 
investigate Hunter Biden in exchange for around $400 million of 
U.S. aid. The aid was State Department and foreign military aid 
that had been provided for the past 4 years, since Ukraine had 
been in a war with Russia.
    After the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014 and its 
occupation of Crimea and the Donbas region in eastern Ukraine, 
the United States started sending aid to help the Ukrainian 
Government. Congress allowed lethal and non-lethal aid to 
support Ukraine, but during the previous administration, only 
non-lethal aid was sent. Under President Trump's 
administration, it was determined that the United States would 
give the leadership of Ukraine lethal aid to help them fight 
off Russian tanks, which was President Zelensky's reference to 
``javelins'' in the July 25 phone call and his gratitude to 
President Trump for allowing those tank killing rockets to flow 
to Ukraine.
    To be clear, the theory of funds being withheld from 
Ukraine in exchange for an investigation does not originate 
from the July 25 call read-out. There is nothing in the text of 
the call that threatens the withholding of funds in exchange 
for an investigation.
    The theory originates from the fact that aid was held back 
by the Office of Management and Budget, headed by the 
President's Acting Chief of Staff, Mick Mulvaney, and the 
``presumption'' of U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, 
Gordon Sondland, that the aid must have been held because of 
the President's desire to get the Biden investigation done, 
since the President's attorney, Rudy Giuliani, was working to 
find out more about the Biden investigation.
    Ambassador Sondland told multiple people about his theory, 
but when he finally called President Trump and asked him 
directly about it, the President responded that he did not have 
any quid pro quo; he just wanted the President of Ukraine to do 
what he ran on and ``do the right thing.'' Obviously, people 
who assume the worst about President Trump take this as a 
secret message that there actually was a quid pro quo, but the 
most important fact is that Ambassador Sondland did not read it 
that way after his call with the President. Ambassador Sondland 
believed that the President was serious. Unfortunately, the 
White House counsel was never allowed to cross examine 
Ambassador Sondland during the House investigation to get the 
facts about who he talked to and why he came to believe for a 
while that there was an effort to push for investigations in 
exchange for money.
    During the Senate trial, I listened closely to the facts 
surrounding the withholding of aid money to Ukraine. This was 
by far the most serious charge against the President. Two key 
questions had to be answered for me: Why was the aid held, and 
why was the aid released? There was no question the aid was 
held for a of couple months. The question was why?
    Statements from the House witnesses during the House 
impeachment inquiry answered the two key questions: The aid was 
held because there was a legitimate concern about the new 
President of Ukraine and his administration in the early days 
of his Presidency and the aid was released on time when the new 
Ukrainian Parliament starting passing anti-corruption laws in 
August and after Vice President Pence sat down face to face 
with President Zelensky on September 1 in Poland to discuss 
their progress on corruption.
    We should not lose track of what was happening in Ukraine 
in 2019. A new President was elected who was a TV actor with no 
political experience and no record on how he would handle 
Russia or the issue of widespread national corruption in 
Ukraine. He ran on a platform of anti-corruption at all levels, 
but no one knew how he would govern. His campaign was funded by 
a Ukrainian oligarch who owned a major media outlet, and one of 
his first advisers was the former attorney for that oligarch.
    I personally spoke to many of the State Department 
officials in Ukraine in May of 2019 and heard their concerns 
about the new government. Then, newly elected President 
Zelensky used his power to dissolve their Parliament the day he 
was sworn in and called for ``snap elections'' in which the 
vast majority of the newly elected leaders were from his newly 
formed party. To our State Department and the White House, this 
was either a really a good sign or a really bad sign. Either 
Ukraine was about to take a major change for the better with 
new leadership, or this new young leader was about to assume 
real centralized power. No one knew for certain in May, June, 
and July of 2019. Within a few weeks in August, the new 
Parliament got to work passing anti-corruption laws and making 
significant changes in their accountability and for the 
country. This was a very good sign.
    When Vice President Pence met face to face with President 
Zelensky September 1, both sides had confidence the country was 
taking a new direction. On September 10 Vice President Pence 
and Senator Rob Portman met with President Trump to tell him 
about the progress that had been made, and both advised lifting 
the hold on aid. The aid was lifted the next day, September 11. 
No investigation into Hunter Biden or Burisma was ever done by 
Ukraine, and no part of the U.S. Department of Justice was ever 
involved in any investigation of Hunter Biden or Burisma.
    Although the aid was frozen in June, there was no public 
announcement of the hold, as explained by the White House 
counsel, to keep this from becoming a public issue while the 
White House monitored the progress and status of the transition 
in Ukraine.
    On August 27, POLITICO published an article that noted that 
the foreign aid had been held by the United States. This caused 
President Zelensky's office to reach out to the State 
Department and ask why. During the House impeachment 
proceedings, four of the House witnesses--Ambassador Voelker, 
Ambassador Sondland, Ambassador Taylor, and Tim Morrison--all 
testified that the Ukrainian leadership learned about the 
temporary hold in aid after the POLITICO article was published.
    The issue of the hold was also the first question from 
President Zelensky to Vice President Pence when they met on 
September 1 in Poland. The idea that the leadership in Ukraine 
had pressure placed on them to do an investigation fails the 
most essential test. Did the leadership of Ukraine even know 
that the aid was being held? The answer from multiple American 
and Ukrainian leaders was no, they did not know there was a 
hold on the aid from the White House. You cannot have pressure 
to act on an investigation if they did not even know the aid 
was being held.
    It is interesting to note, when I researched the records of 
past foreign aid payment dates and times to Ukraine, I found 
the 2019 aid was in line with the date the 2016, 2017, and 2018 
aid was sent. The vast majority of the military aid to Ukraine 
was obligated in August or September for the past 4 years. 
Although the aid was ready to go out the door a couple months 
earlier in 2019, it was certainly not late, based on the record 
of the previous 3 years. In fact, the State Department aid was 
obligated September 30 in 2019, but it was obligated September 
28 in 2018. As quoted by the Ukrainian Minister of Defense, 
``The aid was held such a short time, we did not even notice.''
    During the 2 days of question-and-answer time, I asked a 
specific question related to this issue because I felt it was 
important to get the context of the aid, since there had been 
so much made of the issue during the trial. Here is the full 
text of my question to the White House counsel:

    House Managers have described any delay in military aid and state 
department funds to Ukraine in 2019 as a cause to believe there was a 
secret scheme or quid pro quo by the President. In 2019, 86% of the DOD 
funds were obligated to Ukraine in September, but in 2018, 67% of the 
funds were obligated in September and in 2017, 73% of the funds were 
obligated in September. In the State Department, the funds were 
obligated September 30 in 2019, but they were obligated September 28 in 
2018. Each year, the vast majority of the funds were obligated in the 
final month or days of the fiscal year. Question: Was there a national 
security risk to Ukraine or the United States from the funds going out 
late in September in the two previous years? Did it weaken our 
relationship with Ukraine because the vast majority of our aid was 
released in September each of the last three years?

    In response to my question, White House counsel detailed 
the fact that military aid from the United States was not for 
immediate use. It was designed to help the Ukrainian military 
buy materials for the next year, so it was common for the aid 
to be obligated at the end of the fiscal year--September 30--
and it was also common for some money to be left unobligated 
and carried over into the next fiscal year, as it was in 2019.
    While it is easy to create an intricate story on the hold 
placed on foreign aid to Ukraine, it is also clear that 
President Trump has temporarily held foreign aid from multiple 
countries over the past 2 years, including: Afghanistan, 
Pakistan, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, Lebanon, and 
others. There is no question that a President can withhold aid 
for a short period of time, but it must be released by 
September 30, the end of the fiscal year, which it was in this 
instance.
    Article I, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution grants the 
U.S. House of Representatives ``the sole power of 
impeachment,'' while article I, section 3 states that ``the 
Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.''
    The Constitution is clear that the House does not control 
the Senate process and the Senate does not control the House 
process; however, during the impeachment trial of President 
Trump, the House tried repeatedly to dictate to the Senate how 
it should conduct its trial.
    The ``sole power to try'' means laying out rules for the 
trial, including when and if to call additional witnesses or 
request more documents.
    In addition to laying out roles and responsibilities for 
impeachment, our Constitution also provides basic rights for 
the accused. The Fifth Amendment ensures due process. However, 
the receipt of due process is not contingent upon waiving 
another right, like immunity or executive privilege. But that 
is exactly what the House tried to force President Trump to do.
    The President is not above the law, but neither is the 
House of Representatives. If there was a question as to the 
scope and proper use of the President's right to assert 
immunity or executive privilege regarding conversations he had 
with his closest advisers, that question is proper for a court 
to determine, not Congress, and surely not the House on its own 
accord. To put this in constitutional terms, the legislative 
branch cannot prevent the executive branch from having access 
to the judicial branch. The House wanted to move quickly and 
prevent the President from ever going to court to resolve any 
issue. That has never been done for a good reason, the 
separation of powers. In previous legal battles with the 
President, it has taken months to resolve critical issues, like 
Bush v. Gore in 2000 or even in the Clinton impeachment trial, 
when the House took 2 months to resolve an issue with witnesses 
in court. It does not have to drag on for years.
    The House also wanted the Chief Justice of the United 
States to ``rule on'' any issue quickly instead of allowing the 
President to go through the courts. This would have created a 
new judicial executive branch by putting all the judicial power 
of the nation in one person, not in the judicial branch, as is 
stated in the Constitution. It would have also ignored the text 
of the Constitution where it notes that the Chief Justice 
``presides'' in the court of impeachment, not ``decides.'' The 
sole power of impeachment is in the Senate, not the Senate plus 
the one Justice. The Chief Justice keeps the trial moving 
along, based on the rules of the trial, but he or she is not a 
decider of fact; that is reserved to the Senate. The House 
managers wanted to ignore that part of the Constitution to move 
the trial faster for expedience. We cannot ignore the 
Constitution or create bad precedent, no matter which party is 
being tried for impeachment.
    Further, the Sixth Amendment guarantees that the accused 
has the ability to both confront the witnesses against him and 
to have the assistance of counsel. The majority of the 
impeachment inquiry in the House was done without a meaningful 
opportunity for the President to participate, and 
administration witnesses were denied the ability to have 
counsel present for depositions.
    The Constitution lays out a clear separation of powers but 
importantly also provides a system of checks and balances. For 
something as important as impeachment, it is imperative that 
the process be one that is squarely within the bounds of the 
Constitution and is one that the American people can trust. 
Unfortunately, the process undertaken by the House to impeach 
President Trump falls wildly short of the standards put in 
place by our Founders.
    Article II, section 4 of the Constitution states that ``the 
President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United 
States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and 
conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and 
misdemeanors.''
    During the trial of President Trump, there was a lot of 
conversation about what constitutes a ``high crime'' or 
``misdemeanor.'' Notably, the House did not charge the 
President with any crimes; rather, the House chose to impeach 
the President for ``abuse of power'' and ``obstruction of 
Congress.''
    The House theoretically could have chosen to file Articles 
of Impeachment for crimes such as bribery, extortion, 
solicitation of interference in an election, or violations of 
the Impoundments Clause Act. For any of these crimes, the House 
would have had to prove specific elements of each. Since they 
couldn't prove any of those crimes, they chose to charge the 
President with abuse of power. As was noted in the trial, 40 
Presidents have faced accusation of abuse of power, going back 
as far as George Washington.
    The abuse of power charge for President Trump was based on 
allegations that he improperly withheld aid to Ukraine and 
conditioned a meeting with President Zelensky at the White 
House in exchange for an investigation into former Vice 
President Biden and his son Hunter. Over the course of the last 
4 months, we heard the term ``quid pro quo'' used over and over 
again, but the facts do not show criminal quid pro quo. As 
previously mentioned, President Zelensky asked to meet with 
President Trump in Poland, and that meeting was set up. 
Further, while the aid to Ukraine was delayed, it wasn't 
delayed more than it had been the previous 2 years, and the aid 
was released without an investigation--or even an announcement 
of one--into the Biden's.
    The second Article of Impeachment, obstruction of Congress, 
had an even weaker constitutional foundation. The investigation 
was announced September 24 did not officially begin until 
October 31. The impeachment vote in the House was December 18. 
This very short time table and the accusation that the 
President refused to follow the law, honor the courts, and that 
he acted like a ``King'' did not meet even the most basic 
constitutional standards for justice.
    For example, during the Mueller investigation, the 
President's team fully cooperated with the investigation that 
included over 2,000 subpoenas and 500 witnesses, including the 
President's Chief of Staff, multiple Cabinet officials, and 
many lower level officials who were all made available. It was 
clear throughout the investigation that the President did not 
like or agree with the Mueller investigation, but he also fully 
cooperated with every subpoena, each witness, and every 
document. In fact, they released over a million pages of 
documents to the Mueller team.
    President Trump also made his disagreement with the courts 
very clear on issues like the census, whether travel 
restrictions can be put in place to ensure national security, 
or whether particular funds can be used to secure our southern 
border. But each time the President lost in court, his 
administration complied with orders from the judiciary. That is 
how our system of government is supposed to work.
    When disagreements happen between the legislative branch 
and the judicial branch, they usually lead to resolution, not 
impeachment. The Fast and Furious investigation, which lasted 
more than 3 years in the Obama administration, led to a vote in 
the House to hold then-Attorney General Eric Holder in 
contempt, but it never led to an impeachment inquiry, even 
though there was a clear and consistent refusal to cooperate 
with Congress or turn over key documents for 3 years.
    In this case, the accusation that President Trump ignored 
subpoenas or refused to follow the law is not correct. The 
President's team made it very clear that they would cooperate 
during the impeachment inquiry with properly authorized and 
issued subpoenas, but the House refused to issue subpoenas that 
were consistent with the law to seek resolution for documents 
and witnesses. The House was focused on speed, not legal 
process.
    The House, in a rush to impeachment last fall, issued 
multiple subpoenas for documents and testimony before the House 
had given authority to the committees to issue subpoenas for an 
impeachment inquiry, which happened October 31. Since there was 
no authority to issue the subpoenas, they were not duly 
authorized. The House also demanded testimony from the 
President's inner circle without working through the legal 
questions, and the House demanded executive agency witnesses 
appear without allowing them to bring agency counsel with them. 
All of those issues created very real legal and constitutional 
problems. Agency individuals have always been allowed to have 
legal counsel with them when they are deposed, except this 
time.
    As a Member of Congress, I cannot demand the President turn 
over documents or give testimony in any fashion that I would 
prefer just because I have oversight responsibilities. In the 
same way, the President or other executive branch officials 
cannot demand I turn over my notes or provide my staff for 
testimony without going through the courts and gaining a legal 
subpoena. Congress has vigorously and rightfully protected its 
rights from unwarranted investigations from any President and 
Presidents have done the same. But in all cases, the law must 
be followed and the proper process must be pursued to get the 
information in a legal way.
    From the very first moments of the Senate trial, the House 
managers fought for additional witnesses and documents from the 
President. Their argument and justification for the second 
Article of Impeachment centered on the White House's refusal to 
turn over documents and make every witness available without 
going through the normal legal process.
    Per the resolution adopted by the Senate, the House record 
was part of the trial record. The Senate had the testimony of 
the witnesses the House chose to question as part of the 
overall information of the trial. The House already had 28,000 
pages of documents that were part of the evidence they 
submitted to the Senate, although, the House managers admitted 
during the Senate impeachment trial that they still have not 
released all of the documents and witness testimony that they 
had gathered in their investigation to the White House counsel 
or to the Senate. We do not fully know why the House held back 
some of its witness testimony and released others.
    The House witness testimony was used extensively in the 
Senate trial.
    These are the witnesses who testified live or via video in 
the House and Senate Impeachment: David Holmes, Political 
Counselor, U.S. Embassy Ukraine, State Department; Dr. Fiona 
Hill, White House Advisor, National Security Council; David 
Hale, Under Secretary for Political Affairs, State Department; 
Laura Cooper, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense; Gordon 
Sondland, U.S. Ambassador to the European Union; Tim Morison, 
Former White House Adviser; Kurt Voelker, Former Special Envoy 
for Ukraine; LTC Alexander Vindman, National Security Council; 
Jennifer Williams, aide to the Vice President; Marie 
Yovanovitch, Former Ambassador to Ukraine; George Kent, Deputy 
Assistant Secretary of State; Bill Taylor, Former U.S. 
Ambassador to Ukraine.
    The House managers repeated over and over that additional 
witnesses would only take a week to depose, which is a clearly 
false statement. New witnesses took longer than a week to 
depose in the House inquiry; clearly it would take just as long 
or longer in a Senate trial. The remaining ``wish list'' of 
witnesses all had clear issues that needed to be resolved in 
the courts, which would take a couple of months to resolve, 
which is why the House managers did not push for their 
testimony in the House impeachment process. They valued speed 
more than legal process.
    House managers repeatedly stated that witnesses only took a 
week to depose in the Clinton Senate impeachment trial, but 
they know that during the Clinton Senate trial, all three 
called witnesses previously deposed in the House inquiry or in 
the grand jury investigation, and all issues of executive 
privilege had already been decided through the courts. There 
were no new witnesses in the Senate trial of President Clinton. 
Also, the Clinton White House had already had the opportunity 
to cross-examine witnesses or the investigators in the Clinton 
impeachment inquiry. This time, the Trump White House had been 
denied that right. So, if new witnesses would be added for the 
Senate trial, the White House should have the right to also 
cross-examine the previous House witnesses they had been denied 
the right to cross examine in the past. This would all take 
much longer than a week, and the House managers knew that.
    During the Clinton impeachment trial in the Senate, there 
were no additional documents requested, only previously deposed 
witnesses. The House managers did not go through the legal 
process to get documents, like the Mueller investigation had 
done, so all of the new document requests from the House 
managers would take at least 3 to 5 weeks to complete, once a 
legal subpoena is delivered. It takes time to search all 
databases, review the documents for classified materials, 
determine any legal issues, and release them to the 
investigation. Once the documents are turned over, both legal 
teams need time to review the documents. Again, the House 
managers knew these facts, but they continued to repeat over 
and over that it would only take a week to get all the 
documents.
    The first question for the Senate trial was, do we have 
enough evidence and testimony to answer the questions the House 
presented in their Articles of Impeachment? If the answer is 
yes, then we do not need additional witnesses or documents. If 
the answer is no, then we do need additional information. There 
were many leaks and newspaper stories during the trial designed 
to push the Senate to vote to ask for more testimony, but that 
did not change the primary question. We already knew from 
evidence that there was no quid pro quo, no Ukrainian 
investigations, and no withholding of a public meeting with 
President Trump.
    The New York Times story on January 26 and again on January 
31 are clear examples of an attempt to bring doubt on the 
information and witness testimony. Both stories stated that 
someone had read the pending John Bolton book manuscript and 
that in the book, Bolton stated that President Trump had talked 
about investigations in exchange for aid funding for Ukraine. 
The New York Times also wrote that the book would state that 
Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and White House Counsel Pat 
Cipollone were also a part of the scheme. I looked at both 
stories closely and noticed that the reporters had not read the 
manuscripts or quoted the manuscripts; they were reports from 
someone who stated that they had read the manuscripts. Both 
stories took significant liberties to describe the intent in 
the manuscripts, but the reporter had apparently also not 
spoken to John Bolton.
    On January 23, 2020, the National Security Council lawyers 
sent a letter to the legal team handling the book publishing 
for John Bolton to inform him that the manuscript contained 
some classified information and it would need have some edits 
before publication in March. Then, on January 26, the New York 
Times published a story that someone had leaked some of the 
details of the book, but they had not released the actual 
manuscript. While I am interested in seeing the actual 
manuscript, I am also very aware that this selective leak was 
designed by the New York Times and whoever leaked the 
information to influence the ongoing trial.
    It was clear from the earliest days of the trial that the 
House had a clear political strategy as well as a courtroom 
strategy. During the trial. I had the responsibility to hear 
the facts but also to separate the politics from the facts. 
Politically, it was best for the House to move as quickly as 
possible through impeachment so that vulnerable Democratic 
Members could vote for impeachment and then move quickly to 
other topics. But since the Presidential election is in full 
swing, it was politically better for Democrats to make the 
Senate trial move as slow as possible to hurt the President 
during the campaign. That explains why the House did not take 
the time to formally request documents or testimony from many 
individuals; they needed to move fast and try to force the 
Senate to move slowly. It also explained why the House passed 
impeachment on a party line vote, then held the Articles of 
Impeachment for a month before delivering them to the Senate to 
start the trial. The House managers said repeatedly that the 
evidence was clear and that they had proved their case, but if 
that was true, why would the Senate need to call additional 
witnesses? I think the reason is that the witness process was 
about delay, more than facts.
    The facts do not support the accusation in the Trump 
impeachment, and it certainly did not need to come to this 
moment of national division. While it was clear that the House 
managers wanted to drag the trial on for months in the Senate, 
through the primary election season, their case consisted of 
hypothetical story lines and ``presumptions'' more than facts 
that warrant the removal of a President. This does not meet 
what Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 65 described as the ``due 
weight'' for the arguments.
    But impeachment has certainly created the division in our 
society that Alexander Hamilton predicted. Over 200 years ago 
he wrote, ``The prosecution [of impeachments], will seldom fail 
to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide 
it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the 
accused.'' This has been an incredibly divisive season in our 
Nation. It is not about one person; it is about all of us. We 
individually choose how we handle disagreements with family, 
friends, and people on the other side of particular issues. Our 
government represents us, so it is up to us to model for our 
government how to handle disagreements.
    We are now past impeachment, and it is time to work on the 
issues that matter most to the American people. As we move 
forward, every American should speak out on the issues that are 
important to them and the voices that speak for their point of 
view. But we should remember that we have much more in common 
than we have that divides us. It is my hope that our Nation 
does not go through a season like this again for a very long 
time and that we can move past this age of impeachment to an 
age of oversight and accountability.
    I appreciate all the engagement with our office during the 
impeachment proceedings. We had thousands of calls and emails 
over the past month. We had hundreds of thousands of views on 
the nightly Facebook Live updates each day during the trial. 
While not every Oklahoman agrees with every decision I make on 
behalf of our State, I am grateful most choose to be respectful 
in expressing their points of view. At the end of the day, we 
are Oklahomans. We may not all agree on each issue, but we can 
be respectful of each other in our disagreement.
    I am honored to serve our State and Nation. We have many 
important issues to address in the coming days I pray we can 
work on them together for the future of our State and Nation.
    Mr. TILLIS. Madam President, during the impeachment trial, 
this Chamber considered the evidence and heard the arguments 
presented by the House managers and White House counsel. During 
the 12 days of the impeachment trial, the Senate heard from the 
House managers for nearly 22 hours, and we heard from the White 
House counsel for nearly 12 hours. This was followed by 180 
questions asked and answered over 2 days, concluding with 
closing arguments by the House managers and White House 
counsel.
    Ultimately, there were two questions the Senate had to 
answer when considering the Articles of Impeachment.
    The first question, for the near-term, is should the 
President be removed from office?
    The second question, for the long-term health of our 
Nation, is whether we should allow the impeachment process to 
be weaponized and used by a majority in the House to settle 
partisan political scores?
    My answers to both questions are a resounding no.
    That is why I voted against both Articles of Impeachment.
    While my Democratic colleagues operated under the 
presumption of guilt, even if one is to assume the worst, the 
reality is the allegations against President Trump were neither 
criminal nor impeachable. They did not come close to meeting 
the standard of treason, bribery, or high crimes or 
misdemeanors set by our Founding Fathers.
    It is remarkable to read the Federalist Papers and 
appreciate their clairvoyance. Federalist 65, written by 
Alexander Hamilton, was frequently quoted throughout these 
proceedings, and for good reason. Hamilton's warnings to this 
body of using impeachment as a partisan device were borne out. 
Hamilton wrote that impeachment:

    [W]ill seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, 
and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the 
accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing 
factions . . . and in such cases there will always be the greatest 
danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative 
strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or 
guilt.

    By placing the impeachment power within the House and 
Senate, Hamilton acknowledged that power may wind up in the 
hands of ``the leaders or tools of the most cunning or the most 
numerous faction,'' which may ``hardly be expected to possess 
the requisite neutrality towards those whose conduct may be the 
subject of scrutiny.'' It is because of this remarkable power 
that Hamilton argued the Senate had been granted the power to 
try impeachments because the Senate is more likely to preserve 
``the necessary impartiality between the INDIVIDUAL accused, 
and the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, HIS ACCUSERS?''
    It is important to note that the Speaker of the House 
previously warned about the dangers of a politically motivated 
impeachment effort, stating in March 2019 that ``impeachment is 
so divisive to the country that unless there's something so 
compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we 
should go down that path, because it divides the country.''
    History has proven that warning to be true. One only needs 
to compare the dramatically different outcomes between the 
Nixon impeachment inquiry, which resulted in resignation, and 
the Clinton impeachment process, which resulted in acquittal.
    The Speaker's warning rings as true today as it did when 
she said it nearly 1 year ago. Unfortunately, the House 
majority ignored this warning, electing to lead a distinctly 
partisan process from beginning to end, based on a political 
timeline.
    It began when the House majority refused to provide the 
President with basic due process rights for 71 of the 78 days 
of the formal House impeachment inquiry. The House majority 
also refused to provide proper rights to the minority, whose 
requests for an equal number of witnesses was denied.
    It is no wonder why House Resolution 660, which permitted 
an impeachment inquiry, and House Resolution 755, the Articles 
of Impeachment against President Trump, failed to receive a 
single vote from the minority. In fact, the only thing that was 
bipartisan was the opposition to the articles.
    The House majority presented a weak and completely partisan 
case for impeachment to the Senate. This is why the House 
managers attempted to convince the Senate to endorse its 
particular views of separation of powers, essentially asking 
the Senate to do the House's job where it failed: to make a 
compelling case for the President's removal.
    This is yet another area Hamilton addressed. In Federalist 
66, Hamilton outlined the differing roles and responsibilities 
between the House and Senate on impeachment, casting the House 
as the accusers and the Senate as the judges:

    The division of them between the two branches of the legislature, 
assigning to one the right of accusing, to the other the right of 
judging, avoids the inconvenience of making the same persons both 
accusers and judges; and guards against the danger of persecution, from 
the prevalency of a factious spirit in either of those branches. As the 
concurrence of two thirds of the Senate will be requisite to a 
condemnation, the security to innocence, from this additional 
circumstance, will be as complete as itself can desire.

    By dividing the power to accuse and the power to judge, the 
Founding Founders further recognized the procedural nature of 
this process. Appropriate procedure would serve to protect the 
Executive from the designs of a partisan faction in the House 
and would ensure that removal was not just desirable, but truly 
necessary.
    In this instance, removal was absolutely unnecessary, even 
if it was desirable to the whims of some in the House majority 
since the day the President was inaugurated in 2017.
    This addresses the answer to the second question I posed on 
whether the Senate will allow the impeachment process to become 
the new normal.
    It would create a dangerous precedent in which the House 
actively seeks opportunities to open impeachment inquires to 
politically weaken and potentially remove the President of the 
opposing party.
    Impeachment is the most powerful tool the Founding Fathers 
gave to us to defend against Executive misconduct, but it 
should never be abused. It should never be used to settle 
political scores, and it should never be used as an effort to 
deny the American people the right to decide the President's 
fate at the ballot box.
    To transform impeachment into a partisan political weapon 
is to diminish and undermine its critical constitutional role.
    Despite the factions which formed during this impeachment 
trial, I remain optimistic about the direction of our Nation. 
For all the bitter partisan emotions this impeachment process 
has enflamed, this Congress now has the opportunity to move on 
and focus on forging consensus to conduct the business of the 
American people. Congress has recently demonstrated this 
ability--enacting historic criminal justice reform, agreeing on 
reforms to improve the delivery of healthcare to our brave 
veterans, and approving a fair and free trade deal with 
America's two largest economic partners, producing a win for 
American workers and consumers.
    I hope, when the record is written of this impeachment, 
that history will say that the Senate ultimately retained the 
high bar which must be met to remove a President, that the 
Senate rejected the temptation to normalize the impeachment 
process for partisan political gain, and that Congress turned 
the page following the President's acquittal to prioritize the 
needs of the American people and, in turn, solve the most 
pressing challenges facing our great Nation.
                                ------                                


           [From the Congressional Record, February 27, 2020]

                     Statement of Senator Jack Reed

    Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have my 
opinion memorandum in the impeachment trial of President Donald 
John Trump printed in the Record.
    There being no objection, the material was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

    Opinion Memorandum of United States Senator John F. Reed in the 
            Impeachment Trial of President Donald John Trump

                              i. findings
    Based on the evidence in the record, the arguments of the House 
Impeachment Managers, and the arguments of the President's Counsel, I 
conclude as follows: The President has violated his constitutional oath 
to ``take care that the laws be faithfully executed'' and placed his 
personal and political interests above the interests of the United 
States. The House Impeachment Managers have proven that the President's 
abuse of power and congressional obstruction amount to the 
constitutional standard of ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' for which 
the sole remedy is conviction and removal from office.
                       ii. statement of the facts
    On December 18, 2019, the United States House of Representatives 
passed H. Res. 755,\1\ ``Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the 
United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.'' H. Res. 755 contains 
two Articles of Impeachment. The first Article declares that the 
President abused his power by soliciting foreign interference to help 
his bid for reelection in the 2020 United States presidential election 
and conditioning United States government acts of significant value on 
the foreign power's cooperation. The second Article declares that the 
President obstructed Congress by directing the categorical, 
indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas for witness testimony and 
documents deemed vital to the House Impeachment inquiry.
    Pursuant to Article I, Section 3 of the United States Constitution, 
the United States Senate convened as a Court of Impeachment on January 
16, 2020, and each Senator took an oath to ``do impartial justice 
according to the Constitution and laws.''\2\ Alexander Hamilton spoke 
about the Senate's role in an Impeachment trial in Federalist Paper No. 
65, when he wrote, ``What other body would be likely to feel confidence 
enough in its own situation, to preserve unawed and uninfluenced the 
necessary impartiality between an individual accused and the 
representatives of the people, his accusers?''\3\
    The obligation of the Senate is to accord the President, as the 
accused, the right to conduct his defense fairly, while respecting the 
House's exclusive constitutional prerogative to bring Articles of 
Impeachment. At the core of the Senate's task is the fundamental 
understanding that our system of laws recognizes the rights of 
defendants and the responsibilities of the prosecution to prove its 
case. Such a basic tenet of our law and our experience as a free people 
does not evaporate in the rarified atmosphere of a Court of 
Impeachment, simply because the accused is the President and the 
accuser is the House of Representatives.
            iii. the constitutional grounds for impeachment
    ``The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all 
Impeachments.''\4\ With these few words, the Framers of the 
Constitution entrusted the Senate with the most awesome power within a 
democratic society: whether to remove an impeached President from 
office.
A. High Crimes and Misdemeanors
    The Constitution states, ``The President, Vice President and all 
civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on 
Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high 
Crimes and Misdemeanors.''\5\
    ``Treason'' and ``Bribery'' are foundational impeachable offenses. 
No more heinous example of an offense against the constitutional order 
exists than betrayal of the nation to an enemy or betrayal of duty for 
personal enrichment. A President commits treason when he levies war 
against the United States or gives comfort or aid to its enemies.\6\ As 
the House Judiciary Committee explains, a President engages in 
impeachable bribery when he ``offers, solicits, or accepts something of 
personal value to influence his own official actions.''\7\
    In interpreting ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors,'' we must not only 
look to the Federalist Papers and the records of the Constitutional 
Convention, but also to the contemporary and foundational writings on 
Impeachment available to the Framers.
    Sir William Blackstone, whose influential Commentaries on the Laws 
of England were published from 1765-1770, discussed a classification of 
crimes he termed ``public wrongs, or crimes and misdemeanors'' that he 
defined as breaches of the public duty that an individual owed to their 
entire community.\8\ Blackstone viewed treason, murder, and robbery as 
``public wrongs'' not only because they cause injury to individuals but 
also because they ``strike at the very being of society.''\9\
    Richard Wooddeson, a legal scholar who began giving lectures on 
English law in 1777, defined impeachable offenses as misdeeds that fail 
to clearly fall under the jurisdiction of ordinary tribunals. These 
wrongs were ``abuse[s] of high offices of trust'' that damaged the 
commonwealth.\10\
    Much the same as Blackstone and Wooddeson, Alexander Hamilton 
included the dual components of abuse of public trust and national harm 
in his definition of impeachable crimes and misdemeanors. In Federalist 
Paper No. 65, Hamilton defined an impeachable offense as ``those 
offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other 
words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a 
nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as 
they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society 
itself.''\11\
B. The Constitutional Debates
    Adding impressive support to these consistent views of the meaning 
of the constitutional term, ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors,'' is the 
history of the deliberations at the Constitutional Convention.
    The convention delegates considered limiting Impeachment to treason 
and bribery. However, they concluded that these enumerated offenses 
alone could not anticipate every manner of profound misconduct that a 
future President might engage in.\12\ George Mason, a delegate from 
Virginia, declared that ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' would be an 
apt way to further capture ``great and dangerous offences'' or 
``[a]ttempts to subvert the Constitution.''\13\
    This wording would also set the necessarily high threshold for 
Impeachment that would be proportional to the severe punishment of 
removing an elected official and disqualification from holding future 
public office.
    Further insight is provided by James Iredell, a delegate to the 
North Carolina Convention that ratified the Constitution, who later 
served as a Justice of the United States Supreme Court. During the 
Convention debates, Iredell stated:
    The power of impeachment is given by this Constitution, to bring 
great offenders to punishment . . . This power is lodged in those who 
represent the great body of the people, because the occasion for its 
exercise will arise from acts of great injury to the community, and the 
objects of it may be such as cannot be easily reached by an ordinary 
tribunal.\14\
    Iredell's understanding sustains the view that an impeachable 
offense must cause ``great injury to the community.'' Private 
wrongdoing, without a significant, adverse effect upon the nation, 
cannot constitute an impeachable offense. James Wilson, a delegate to 
the Federal Constitutional Convention and, like Iredell, later a 
Supreme Court Justice, wrote that Impeachments are ``proceedings of a 
political nature . . . confined to political characters, to political 
crimes and misdemeanors, and to political punishments.''\15\
    Later commentators expressed similar views. In 1833, Justice Joseph 
Story quoted favorably from the scholarship of William Rawle, who 
concluded that the ``legitimate causes of impeachment . . . can have 
reference only to public character, and official duty . . . In general, 
those offenses, which may be committed equally by a private person, as 
a public officer, are not the subject of impeachment.''\16\
    This line of reasoning is buttressed by the careful and thoughtful 
work of the House of Representatives during the Watergate proceedings. 
The Democratic staff of the House Judiciary Committee concluded that, 
``Because impeachment of a President is a grave step for the nation, it 
is to be predicated only upon conduct seriously incompatible with 
either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the 
proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential 
office.''\17\
    The deliberations at the Constitutional Convention also demonstrate 
a conscious movement to narrow the terminology as a means of raising 
the threshold for the Impeachment process to require an offense against 
the State.
    Early in the debate on the issue of presidential Impeachment in 
July of 1787, it was suggested that Impeachment and removal could be 
founded on a showing of ``malpractice,'' ``neglect of duty,'' or 
``corruption.''\18\ By September of 1787, the issue of presidential 
Impeachment had been referred to the Committee of Eleven, which was 
created to resolve the most contentious issues. The Committee of Eleven 
considered whether the grounds for Impeachment should be ``treason or 
bribery.''\19\ This was significantly more restricted than the 
amorphous standard of ``malpractice,'' too restricted, in fact, for 
some delegates. George Mason objected and suggested that 
``maladministration'' be added to ``treason and bribery.''\20\ This 
suggestion was opposed by Madison as being ``equivalent to a tenure 
during pleasure of the Senate.''\21\ Mason responded by further 
refining his suggestion and offered the term ``other high crimes and 
misdemeanors against the State.''\22\ The Mason language was a clear 
reference to the English legal history of Impeachment. Mason's proposal 
explicitly narrowed these offenses to those ``against the State.'' The 
Convention itself further clarified the standard by replacing ``State'' 
with the ``United States.''\23\
    At the conclusion of the substantive deliberations on the 
constitutional standard of Impeachment, it was obvious that only 
serious offenses against the governmental system would justify 
Impeachment and subsequent removal from office. However, the final 
stylistic touches to the Constitution were applied by the Committee of 
Style. This Committee had no authority to alter the meaning of the 
carefully debated language, but could only impose a stylistic 
consistency through, among other things, the elimination of redundancy. 
In its zeal to streamline the text, the words ``against the United 
States'' were eliminated as unnecessary to the meaning of the 
passage.\24\
    The weight of both authoritative commentary and the history of the 
Constitutional Convention combines to provide convincing proof that the 
Impeachment process was reserved for serious breaches of the 
constitutional order that threaten the country in a direct and 
immediate manner.
C. An Impeachable Offense is Not Limited to Criminal Liability or A 
        Defined Offense
    In the case before us, the President's Counsel wholly reject a 
longstanding understanding of Impeachment, by arguing that abuse of 
power is not an impeachable offense and by positing that ``the Framers 
restricted impeachment to specific offenses against `already known and 
established law.'''\25\
    This assertion is clearly wrong. Article I, Section 3 of the United 
States Constitution provides that ``Judgment in Cases of Impeachment 
shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and 
disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit 
under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be 
liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, 
according to Law.''\26\ As Delegate James Wilson wrote, ``impeachments, 
and offenses and offenders impeachable ``[do not come] within the 
sphere of ordinary jurisprudence. They are founded on different 
principles, are governed by different maxims, and are directed to 
different objects: for this reason, the trial and punishment of an 
offense on an impeachment, is no bar to a trial and punishment of the 
same offence at common law.''\27\ The independence of the Impeachment 
process from the prosecution of crimes underscores the function of 
Impeachment as a means to remove a President from office, not only 
because of criminal behavior, but because the President poses a threat 
to the constitutional order. Criminal behavior is not irrelevant to an 
Impeachment, but it only becomes decisive if that behavior imperils the 
balance of powers established in the Constitution.
    The assertion that an impeachable offense must be predicated on a 
criminal act goes against the well-established consensus of the legal 
community. For example, the argument by President's Counsel is undercut 
by the President's current Attorney General, William Barr. Mr. Barr 
wrote in a 2018 memo to the Department of Justice (DOJ) when he was 
still in private practice, that the President ``is answerable for any 
abuses of discretion and is ultimately subject to the judgment of 
Congress through the impeachment process [which] means that the 
president is not the judge in his own cause.''\28\ As Mr. Barr makes 
clear, Impeachment does not need to be based on a crime.
    Furthermore, the assertion that an impeachable offense must involve 
the violation of an ``already known or established'' law, even if not 
criminal, is not supported by the constitutional record. In advocating 
for the inclusion of Impeachment at the Constitutional Convention, 
James Madison made the case that the country must be protected against 
any number of abuses that a President could engage in and which might 
cause permanent damage to the country. Madison wrote that:
    [It was] indispensable that some provision should be made for 
defending the Community [against] the incapacity, negligence or perfidy 
of the chief Magistrate. The limitation of the period of his service, 
was not a sufficient security . . . He might pervert his administration 
into a scheme of peculation or oppression. He might betray his trust to 
foreign powers.\29\
    Confining Impeachment to criminal or even codified offenses goes 
against the mainstream consensus on the meaning of ``high Crimes and 
Misdemeanors'' and would fail to capture the universe of harms to the 
constitutional order in which a President could engage.
D. Impeachment as a Remedy for Corrupting Foreign Influence
    The Founders were also gravely concerned about the dangers of 
foreign influence corrupting our elections and interfering with the 
rule of law.\30\ The United States was then a fledging union that had 
just gained independence from Britain, with help from the French during 
the American Revolution. As such, the Founders rightly feared that 
foreign governments might try to exploit American politics in order to 
further their own interests. During the Constitutional Convention, 
Elbridge Gerry, a delegate from Massachusetts, warned that ``[f]oreign 
powers will intermeddle in our affairs, and spare no expence to 
influence them.''\31\
    The Founders were also acutely aware of the potential for public 
officials to betray their office to a foreign power, if the temptation 
were strong enough. Hamilton conceded in Federalist Paper No. 22 that 
``[o]ne of the weak sides of republics, among their numerous 
advantages, is that they afford too easy an inlet to foreign 
corruption.''\32\ In Hamilton's view, when ordinary men are elevated by 
their fellow citizens to high office, they ``may find compensations for 
betraying their trust, which to any but minds animated and guided by 
superior virtue, may appear to exceed the proportion of interest they 
have in the common stock, and to over-balance the obligations of duty. 
Hence it is that history furnishes us with so many mortifying examples 
of the prevalency of foreign corruption in republican 
governments.''\33\
E. Conclusion
    Authoritative commentary on, together with the structure of, the 
Constitution makes it clear that the term, ``other high Crimes and 
Misdemeanors,'' encompasses conduct that involves the President in the 
impermissible exercise of the powers of his office to upset the 
constitutional order. Moreover, since the essence of Impeachment is 
removal from office, rather than punishment for offenses, there is a 
strong inference that the improper conduct must represent a continuing 
threat to the American people and the Constitution. It must be an 
episode that either cannot be dealt with in the Courts or that raises 
generalized concerns about the continued service of the President, as 
is the case presented here.
                         iv. standard of proof
    In an Impeachment trial, each Senator has the obligation to 
establish the burden of proof he or she deems proper.\34\ The Founding 
Fathers believed maximum discretion was critical for Senators 
confronting the gravest of constitutional choices.\35\ Differentiating 
Impeachment from criminal trials, Alexander Hamilton argued, in 
Federalist Paper No. 65, that Impeachments ``can never be tied down by 
such strict rules . . . as in common cases serve to limit the 
discretion of courts in favor of personal security.''\36\ In this 
regard, Hamilton further distinguished Impeachment proceedings from a 
criminal trial by stressing that an impeached official would be subject 
to the established rules of criminal prosecution after Impeachment.\37\
    During the Clinton Impeachment trial, I believed, as I do now, that 
the House Impeachment Managers bear the burden of proving their 
case.\38\ In that trial, the House Impeachment Managers asserted that 
the Senators should reach a conclusion utilizing a beyond a reasonable 
doubt standard before voting to convict the President. The House 
Impeachment Managers, explicitly stated, ``none of us, would argue . . 
. that the President should be removed from office unless you conclude 
he committed the crimes that he is alleged to have committed.''\39\ I 
chose that standard of proof during that trial.\40\ As I stated then, 
``[h]ad the charges of th[at] case involved threats to our 
constitutional order not readily characterized by criminal charges, I 
would have been forced to further parse an exact standard. However, for 
all practical purposes, the Managers have themselves established the 
burden of proof in [the Clinton Impeachment] case.''\41\
    As the charges in this case against President Trump cut to the core 
of our constitutional order, I believe that I am now required to offer 
further analysis on which standard of proof to apply.
    While the House Impeachment Managers in the current trial did not 
provide a single standard of proof required for conviction and removal, 
it was clear that the bar they set was quite high, which is 
appropriate. However, what exact constitutional standard should be used 
remains debatable. Practical concerns related to utilizing the 
Impeachment power should be considered when determining the standard of 
proof required. Too low of a standard may lead to removal, even if 
significant doubts exist. A ``. . . high `criminal' standard of proof 
could mean, in practice, that a man could remain president whom every 
member of the Senate believed to be guilty of corruption, just because 
his guilt was not shown `beyond a reasonable doubt.'''\42\
    When uncertain about the standard of proof to apply, it is worth 
reviewing the writings of eminent scholars. In doing so, I have found a 
closer approximation to what the standard should be in many Impeachment 
trials as compared to those used in general legal practice: 
```[o]verwhelming preponderance of the evidence' . . .''\43\ Yet, I 
believe that the severity of removing a President of the United States 
warrants an even higher bar. As such, a definition slightly modified, 
but modeled on that proposed standard, is more applicable: 
overwhelmingly clear and convincing evidence.
    This standard more closely comports with historical analysis of the 
Founders' desire to separate criminal law and Impeachment, and the 
arguments made by scholars, while reflecting the serious constitutional 
harms alleged in the Articles of Impeachment before the Senate. 
Further, after review of substantive differences between the Articles 
of Impeachment that allege President Trump's dire and ongoing threat to 
our constitutional order and the Articles of Impeachment levied against 
President Clinton--which could be more readily applied by analogy to 
criminal law--a different standard is clearly warranted. In a future 
case, if Articles of Impeachment contain a set of facts or allegations 
not contemplated in either the Clinton Impeachment trial or in this 
case, I will likely have to revisit this analysis.
    The Articles, embodied in H. Res. 755, accuse the President of 
abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. After reading the materials 
and hearing the arguments presented at trial, I conclude that the 
evidence presented at trial was more than compelling. Indeed, it was 
overwhelmingly clear and convincing. Having concluded that the charges 
of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress rise to the level of 
``high Crimes and Misdemeanors,'' an analysis of the specific charges 
is necessary.
                      v. article i: abuse of power
    Article I of House Resolution 755 provides that, in the conduct of 
his office, the President abused his presidential powers, in violation 
of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully 
executed, through a scheme, or course of conduct, to solicit 
interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 U.S. 
presidential election for personal political gain. The scheme included 
President Trump soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly 
announce investigations that would influence the 2020 U.S. presidential 
election to his advantage and the disadvantage of a potential political 
opponent in that election. Article I provides further that President 
Trump, for corrupt purposes, used the powers of the Office in a manner 
that injured the vital national interests of the United States by 
harming the integrity of the democratic process and compromising U.S. 
national security. As I will further explain, the conduct described in 
Article I amounts to an abuse of power and shows that President Trump 
remains an ongoing threat to the national interest if allowed to remain 
in office.
A. Abuse of Power Is an Impeachable Offense
    A cardinal American principle that emerged during the drafting of 
the Constitution is that no one is above the law. As discussed in the 
previous section, this principle was a chief subject of debate at the 
Constitutional Convention. The Framers understood that power corrupts 
and they would need to build guardrails to protect the public good from 
a would-be authoritarian. The Framers were reacting to the overreach of 
King George III.
    Yet, the President's Counsel argue that Impeachment is not an 
appropriate remedy for abuse of power, arguing that the Framers were 
not concerned about violations of the public trust. The President's 
Counsel instead argue that the Framers were primarily concerned about 
an Executive that would be beholden to a heavy-handed legislature. 
Indeed, during the debates at the Constitutional Convention, this fear 
was raised by opponents of Impeachment. Rufus King, a delegate from 
Massachusetts, said ``[impeachment by Congress] would be destructive of 
his independence and of the principles of the Constitution. He relied 
on the vigor of the Executive as a great security for the public 
liberties.''\44\ Clearly, King's arguments did not carry the day.
    In drafting the Constitution, the Framers had carefully calibrated 
the powers between Congress and the Executive. Ultimately, they decided 
that they could not leave the nation without any recourse against a 
President who would be in a unique and potent position to engage in any 
number of abusive acts. Without a mechanism to keep an out-of-control 
President in check, there was little binding him to the law. Hamilton 
underscored the importance of the Impeachment process for holding the 
President liable by drawing a contrast with the British monarchy, for 
whom ``there is no constitutional tribunal to which he is 
amenable.''\45\
    George Mason, a delegate from Virginia, underscores abuse of power 
as one of the key reasons for the need for presidential Impeachment, 
asking ``Shall any man be above Justice? Above all shall that man be 
above it, who can commit the most extensive injustice?''\46\ Edmund 
Randolph, another delegate from Virginia, concurred, noting that 
``[t]he Executive will have great opportunitys of abusing his 
power[,]'' and in such instances ``[g]uilt wherever found ought to be 
punished.''\47\
    The Framers debate on these matters was prescient, as public 
officials have, in fact, been found to have committed impeachable 
offenses including abuse of power. Most well-known, President Nixon 
resigned after the House Judiciary Committee (hereinafter known as 
``Judiciary Committee'') found he had abused his powers on multiple 
occasions.\48\ Three district judges were also impeached during the 
20th century for abusing their power. In impeaching these judges, the 
House used ``abuse of power'' to describe misconduct ranging from the 
unlawful use of contempt of court, to the ordering of a jury to find a 
defendant guilty, to the improper appointing of an associate to an 
official position.\49\
    In stark contrast to the positions of the Framers, the President's 
Counsel argue that a President who does something to benefit himself in 
a reelection, if he thinks it is in the nation's interest, has not 
committed an impeachable offense. This is not a credible argument 
because under this view, the President would have free reign to solicit 
foreign interference, unlawfully withhold security assistance, use his 
powers to target his political opponents and engage in a whole host of 
corrupt conduct that might help him get reelected. This rings all too 
familiar of President Nixon when he said ``Well, when the president 
does it that means that it is not illegal.''\50\

                   A.1. Definition of Abuse of Power

    Black's Law Dictionary defines ``abuse of power'' as including 
``The misuse or improper exercise of one's authority; esp., the 
exercise of a statutorily or otherwise duly conferred authority in a 
way that is tortious, unlawful or outside its proper scope.''\51\
    In its Impeachment inquiry of President Richard Nixon, the 
Judiciary Committee found the President repeatedly abused his power 
while in office.\52\ Among its findings, the Judiciary Committee 
determined that President Nixon unlawfully directed or authorized 
federal agencies, including the Internal Revenue Service and the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation, to investigate and surveil American 
citizens, and used the resulting information for his own political 
purposes.\53\ The Judiciary Committee further found that Nixon then 
interfered with investigations into these and other actions to conceal 
his misconduct, and stressed that Nixon's actions in all of these 
instances ``served no valid national policy objective.''\54\
    The Judiciary Committee concluded that the ``conduct of Richard M. 
Nixon has constituted a repeated and continuing abuse of the powers of 
the presidency in disregard of the fundamental principle of the rule of 
law in our system of government. This abuse of the powers of the 
President was carried out by Richard M. Nixon, acting personally and 
through his subordinates, for his own political advantage, not for any 
legitimate governmental purpose and without due consideration for the 
national good.''\55\
    In the current Impeachment of President Trump, the Judiciary 
Committee has defined abuse of power as occurring ``when a President 
exercises the powers of his office to obtain an improper personal 
benefit while injuring and ignoring the national interest.''\56\
    From these sources, I have concluded that an abuse of power by a 
sitting President has the following three elements:
    1) The use of official governmental power;
    2) For personal or some other corrupt purpose;
    3) Without due consideration for the national interest.
    President Trump's conduct in soliciting foreign interference in the 
2020 presidential election meets each of these elements of the charge 
of abuse of power. Moreover, the defenses put forth by the President's 
Counsel are substantively deficient when viewed in the context of the 
corrupt scheme conducted by President Trump through his personal 
attorney, Rudy Giuliani, starting in late 2018.
B. The Corrupt Scheme
    President Trump engaged in a corrupt scheme to solicit foreign 
interference in the 2020 presidential election to tarnish his political 
rivals and bolster public perceptions of the legitimacy of his 2016 
electoral victory. The corrupt scheme served to benefit the President 
in a personal, political manner, and was contrary to the national 
interest. President Trump repeatedly misused the powers of the 
presidency to increase pressure on Ukraine to further the corrupt 
scheme, including withholding a White House meeting and U.S. military 
assistance that the Ukrainians desperately need to counter Russia. This 
scheme continued even after a whistleblower exposed the President's 
efforts and even following the launch of the Impeachment inquiry by the 
House.
    The scheme directed by the President comprised two separate 
efforts--both aimed to damage his political rivals and benefit his 
reelection prospects. The first effort was to get the Ukrainian 
government to announce an investigation into baseless accusations 
propagated by a Russian disinformation campaign,\57\ that Ukraine 
interfered in the 2016 election to benefit President Trump's political 
rival, Hillary Clinton (hereinafter referred to as the ``2016 campaign 
theory''). The 2016 campaign theory comprised numerous unfounded 
allegations including that Ukraine colluded with the Democrats to 
influence the 2016 election and that the cybersecurity company 
Crowdstrike, falsely alleged to be owned by a Ukrainian oligarch, 
investigated the hack of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) 
computer infrastructure, and covered up evidence of Ukrainian 
culpability in the cyber-attack by hiding the servers from the FBI 
inside Ukraine.\58\
    President Trump's fixation on the 2016 campaign theory appears to 
have been intended to change public perceptions of President Trump's 
connection to Russia, in the wake of the Intelligence Community 
assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to support then 
candidate Trump,\59\ and the Special Counsel's mandate including to 
review ``any links or coordination between the Russian government and 
individuals associated with the Trump campaign.''\60\ The Special 
Counsel noted ``several [of President Trump's] advisors recalled that 
the President . . . viewed stories about his Russian connections, the 
Russian investigations and the Intelligence Community assessment of 
Russian interference as a threat to the legitimacy of his electoral 
victory.''\61\ Further, in the spring of 2019, the Special Counsel 
affirmed the assessments of the Intelligence Community and concluded 
that while there was no direct conspiracy or coordination between the 
Kremlin and the Trump campaign, ``. . . the Russian government 
perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure 
that outcome, and that the campaign expected it would benefit 
electorally from information stolen and released through Russian 
efforts . . .''\62\ In directing this effort of the scheme, the 
President was attempting to rewrite history by having a foreign power 
make statements to validate his allegations that it was Ukraine 
colluding with the Democrats rather than Russia interfering to benefit 
then candidate Trump and exonerate himself of any wrongdoing or ties to 
Russia.
    In addition, the 2016 campaign theory sought to implicate the 
President's political rival in 2016, former Secretary of State Hillary 
Clinton. As Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent testified, the 
President ``wanted nothing less than President [Zelensky] to go to [a] 
microphone and say investigations, Biden, and Clinton.'' He confirmed 
that ``shorthand'' for Clinton ``was 2016.''\63\
    The scheme also comprised a second effort to get the Ukrainian 
government to announce an investigation into unfounded corruption 
allegations against former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter 
Biden (hereinafter referred to as ``Biden/Burisma theory''). The 
allegations associated with this theory surround Vice President Biden's 
successful pressuring of Ukrainian President Poroshenko to remove 
Ukrainian Prosecutor General Victor Shokin in 2016, who purportedly was 
investigating a Ukrainian energy company, Burisma, on whose board 
Hunter Biden served.\64\ Vice President Biden is a potential 
presidential challenger to President Trump in the 2020 Presidential 
election and was viewed as a frontrunner during the spring and summer 
of 2019 when President Trump directed such efforts to further the 
scheme. The President needed to undercut Vice President Biden as a 
candidate to enhance his chances of reelection.\65\
    Successfully pressuring the Ukrainian government to announce 
investigations into the 2016 campaign and Biden/Burisma theories was 
likely to garner the President several political benefits including 
help with his reelection efforts. As the House Impeachment Managers 
state in their trial memo:
    Although these theories were groundless, President Trump sought a 
public announcement by Ukraine of investigations into them [2016/the 
Bidens] in order to help his 2020 reelection campaign. An announcement 
of a Ukrainian investigation into one of his key political rivals would 
be enormously valuable to President Trump in his efforts to win 
reelection in 2020--just as the FBI's investigation into Hillary 
Clinton's emails had helped him in 2016. And an investigation 
suggesting that President Trump did not benefit from Russian 
interference in the 2016 election would give him a basis to assert--
falsely--that he was the victim, rather than the beneficiary, of 
foreign meddling in the last election. Ukraine's announcement of that 
investigation would bolster the perceived legitimacy of his Presidency 
and, therefore, his political standing going into the 2020 race.\66\
    President Trump needed to obfuscate what was known and proven about 
Russian involvement on his behalf in the 2016 election to bolster the 
credibility of claims of Ukrainian Government involvement in the 2016 
election and corruption allegations against Vice President Biden ahead 
of the 2020 election. By soliciting investigations into the 2016 
campaign and Biden/Burisma theories, he sought to accomplish both of 
those goals.
    Throughout this scheme, which began in late 2018, President Trump 
employed Mr. Giuliani as his principal agent,\67\ and enlisted several 
U.S. government officials to assist with efforts to compel Ukrainian 
officials to launch investigations into these baseless theories.
    Mr. Giuliani involved associates in this scheme, including Lev 
Parnas and Igor Fruman, both of whom have been indicted in the Southern 
District of New York for conspiracy to violate election laws.\68\ Mr. 
Parnas and Mr. Fruman leveraged their Ukrainian connections to 
facilitate contacts between Mr. Giuliani and then Ukrainian Prosecutor 
General Yuriy Lutsenko and his predecessor Victor Shokin to advance the 
scheme. Both Mr. Lutsenko\69\ and Mr. Shokin\70\ were removed from 
their positions under a cloud of corruption.
    The corrupt Ukrainian Prosecutors General Lutsenko and Shokin were 
among Mr. Giuliani's sources for the unfounded allegations in support 
of the 2016 campaign and Biden/Burisma theories. During a January 2019 
call via Skype,\71\ Mr. Shokin asserted he had overseen the 
investigation into Burisma.\72\ Mr. Shokin alleged that Vice President 
Biden forced his resignation to stop further investigation into Burisma 
and cover up wrongdoing.\73\ He made additional allegations including 
that he had wanted to come to the United States to share information 
regarding corruption at the Embassy, and that U.S. Ambassador to 
Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch denied him a U.S. visa because she was close 
to Vice President Biden.\74\ Mr. Shokin later provided an affidavit 
espousing allegations against Vice President Biden, which explicitly 
stated that his sworn statement was made at the behest of a pro-Putin 
Ukrainian oligarch.\75\
    Also, in January 2019, Mr. Giuliani met in New York with Yuriy 
Lutsenko, who was then the Ukrainian Prosecutor General. During these 
initial conversations with Mr. Giuliani, Mr. Lutsenko made multiple 
allegations that Ukrainian government officials interfered in the 2016 
election to help Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. He also made 
allegations about corrupt practices at Burisma and raised the 
possibility that there could have been improper payments to Hunter 
Biden. In addition, Mr. Lutsenko made false allegations against U.S. 
Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch.''\76\
    Using these unfounded allegations, Mr. Giuliani launched a 
disinformation campaign on traditional and social media. In the spring 
of 2019, Mr. Giuliani and his associates worked with columnist John 
Solomon, who wrote a series of articles in The Hill, amplifying the 
false allegations of Mr. Lutsenko and Mr. Shokin.\77\ Through these 
columns and a related interview, Mr. Lutsenko announced he was opening 
investigations into aspects of both the 2016 campaign and Biden/Burisma 
theories.\78\ The President,\79\ his son Donald Trump Jr.,\80\ and Mr. 
Giuliani\81\ amplified the false allegations by retweeting the 
articles. President Trump\82\ and Mr. Giuliani\83\ also repeated the 
false allegations contained in The Hill articles during press 
interviews.
    In furtherance of the corrupt scheme, President Trump directed the 
removal of Ambassador Yovanovitch. As laid out in the Statement of 
Material Facts by the House Impeachment Managers, ``the removal of 
Ambassador Yovanovitch was the culmination of a months-long smear 
campaign waged by the President's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and 
other allies of the President. The President also helped amplify the 
smear campaign.''\84\ Ambassador Yovanovitch testified she was told her 
removal from post was not for cause.\85\ Mr. Giuliani later admitted he 
``believed that [he] needed Ambassador Yovanovitch out of the way'' 
because ``[s]he was going to make the investigations difficult for 
everybody.''\86\ Documents obtained by the House Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence further confirm that the Ambassador's firing 
was part of the effort to further the corrupt scheme. A text message 
from Ukrainian Prosecutor General Lutsenko warned Giuliani associate 
Lev Parnas that if they didn't fire Ambassador Yovanovitch, ``you are 
bringing into question all my allegations including about ``B.''\87\ 
Mr. Parnas confirmed in a press interview that the ``B'' referred to 
Hunter Biden.\88\
    As previously discussed, both the 2016 campaign and Biden/Burisma 
theories are unfounded. The 2016 campaign theory is an active Russian 
disinformation campaign.\89\ On December 9, 2019, FBI Director 
Christopher Wray stated, ``We have no information that indicates that 
Ukraine interfered with the 2016 presidential election.''\90\
    Further, the President's own national security officials have 
rejected the claim that the Ukrainian government systematically 
interfered in the 2016 election, including refuting the theory that 
Ukraine was behind the hack of the DNC servers.\91\ Trump Homeland 
Security adviser Tom Bossert stressed, ``[t]he DNC server and that 
conspiracy theory has got to go, they have to stop with that, it cannot 
continue to be repeated . . . in our discourse.''\92\
    With regards to the Biden/Burisma theory, no proof of any 
wrongdoing has been made to support this claim.\93\ No evidence has 
been presented showing Vice President Biden specifically discussed 
Burisma with then President Poroshenko in relation to the removal of 
the corrupt Prosecutor General. Furthermore, U.S. diplomats, such as 
Former Special Envoy to Ukraine Ambassador Kurt Volker defended Vice 
President Biden's actions. In his closed interview with the House 
Committees, Volker stated, ``There is clear evidence that Vice 
President Biden did indeed weigh in with the President of Ukraine to 
have Shokin fired but the motivations for that are entirely different 
from those contained in that allegation.''\94\ Vice President Biden, 
acting as the point person for Ukraine policy in the Obama 
Administration, was representing the interests of the United States and 
the international community,\95\ promoting increased transparency, 
corruption reform, and the rule of law.\96\ Vice President Biden's 
public statements from the time reflect such efforts, focusing on 
combatting corruption and institutional reform rather than specific 
companies, such as Burisma.\97\
    The President's Counsel made misleading assertions that U.S. 
Government officials warned the Vice President of the appearance of 
wrongdoing in an attempt to convince him to take corrective action. One 
person they cited was Amos Hochstein, a diplomat who served in the 
Obama Administration.\98\ Mr. Hochstein did raise the matter with the 
Vice President but did not recommend that Hunter Biden resign from the 
board of Burisma.\99\
    By mid-May 2019, Mr. Lutsenko publicly recanted previous 
allegations he made to Mr. Giuliani, including admitting that he had no 
evidence of wrongdoing by Vice President Biden or Hunter Biden.\100\ 
Ambassador Volker explained Mr. Lutsenko's motivations for making these 
baseless accusations, ``My opinion of Prosecutor General Lutsenko was 
that he was acting in a self-serving manner, frankly making things up, 
in order to appear important to the United States, because he wanted to 
save his job.''\101\
    At no point during the trial did the President's Counsel dispute 
the facts surrounding the scheme. The record is clear that the 
President directed the corrupt scheme to solicit investigations into 
the 2016 campaign and Biden/Burisma theories for his personal political 
gain.
C. President Trump's Misuse of his Office to Advance the Corrupt Scheme
    President Trump used the powers of his office to advance the 
corrupt scheme through multiple efforts, violating the public trust and 
placing his own personal political interests above the interests of the 
nation. In doing so, the President abused the power of his office.
C.1. President Trump Solicited Ukrainian President Zelensky to Open 
        Investigations into the 2016 Campaign and Biden/Burisma 
        Theories
    President Trump abused the powers of his office in order to advance 
the corrupt scheme by attempting to leverage the Ukrainian desire for 
an Oval Office meeting and U.S. security assistance as a quid pro quo 
for Ukrainian investigations into his political opponents that would 
benefit his reelection in 2020. Starting in May 2019, President Trump 
directed a sustained campaign to solicit newly-elected Ukrainian 
President Zelensky to undertake investigations into the 2016 campaign 
and Biden/Burisma theories.

     C.1.a. President Trump conditioned an Oval Office meeting on 
    investigations into the 2016 campaign and Biden/Burisma theories

    President Trump's misuse of his official powers, with regard to 
this matter, began shortly after Volodymyr Zelensky won the Ukrainian 
presidential election on April 21, 2019. In early May, Mr. Giuliani 
announced that he planned to travel to Ukraine to meet with President-
elect Zelensky ``to urge him to pursue inquiries'' into ``the origin of 
the Special Counsel's investigation into Russia's interference in the 
2016 election'' and Hunter Biden's ``involvement'' in Burisma.\102\ Mr. 
Giuliani admitted that he was not conducting ``foreign policy'' but 
rather ``meddling in an investigation,''\103\ and that President Trump 
was aware of his activities.\104\
    In trying to arrange a meeting with President Zelensky, Mr. 
Giuliani was acting in a private capacity, not as a public official or 
to advance official U.S. policy. On May 10, 2019, Mr. Giuliani wrote to 
then President-Elect Zelensky, to request a meeting in his capacity as 
``personal counsel to President Trump and with his knowledge and 
consent.''\105\ Mr. Giuliani made clear in the letter he was 
representing Donald Trump as a private citizen, not as President of the 
United States. While the letter did not state the purpose of the 
requested meeting, Mr. Giuliani stated publicly on the same day that he 
intended to tell President Zelensky to pursue investigations into the 
2016 campaign and Biden/Burisma theories.\106\ Then on May 11th, Mr. 
Giuliani abruptly cancelled his trip to Ukraine, declaring that 
President-Elect Zelensky had surrounded himself with ``enemies of the 
President'' (referring to President Trump).\107\
    President Trump intertwined Mr. Giuliani's private mission and the 
activities of public officials when he directed U.S. officials to aid 
his personal attorney in advancing this scheme. At a May 23rd meeting 
in the Oval Office, President Trump was briefed by Ambassador Paul 
Volker, Ambassador Gordon Sondland, and Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, 
who would subsequently describe themselves as the ``Three Amigos,'' 
(hereinafter referred to as the ``Three Amigos'') on their recent trip 
to attend the inauguration of President Zelensky.\108\ Witness 
testimony indicates that despite their positive assessments about 
President Zelensky, President Trump was unconvinced, and replied that 
the Ukrainians tried to ``take me down'' in 2016, referring to the 
debunked 2016 campaign theory.\109\ The President resisted the 
recommendation of the Three Amigos to invite President Zelensky to the 
White House, and instead repeatedly directed these three officials to 
``talk to Rudy.''\110\ Ambassador Sondland testified that he understood 
this to refer to Mr. Giuliani and that ``if we did not talk to Rudy, 
nothing would move forward on Ukraine.''\111\ Ambassador Sondland 
further explained that they chose to follow the President's direction 
to communicate with Mr. Giuliani, not because they liked it, but 
because ``it was the only constructive path open to us.''\112\
    The Three Amigos frequently operated outside regular diplomatic 
channels between the United States and Ukraine, but their activities 
were not a secret to the President's national security officials. 
Ambassador Bill Taylor, Charge d'affaires at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, 
described in his testimony how, while he operated in the regular 
channel of U.S. policymaking regarding Ukraine, beginning on May 23rd 
there emerged ``an irregular, informal channel,'' consisting of Special 
Envoy Volker, Ambassador Sondland, Secretary Perry, and Mr. 
Giuliani.\113\ As Ambassador Sondland testified, ``everyone was in the 
loop,''\114\ further clarifying that President Trump, Secretary Pompeo, 
Mr. Giuliani, and Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney were kept 
informed of the activities undertaken by the Three Amigos. Fiona Hill, 
National Security Council Director for European and Russian Affairs, 
concluded that Ambassador Sondland was correct that he was keeping the 
relevant officials informed of his activities because he was ``involved 
in a domestic political errand'' while she and other government 
officials were conducting U.S. national security foreign policy, and 
``those two things had just diverged.''\115\
    The purpose of these two channels diverged as well: while the 
career diplomats were engaged in promoting U.S. national security 
interests in supporting Ukraine in its fight against Russian 
aggression, the irregular channel was engaged in pursuing a quid pro 
quo to secure Ukrainian investigations into the 2016 campaign and the 
Biden/Burisma theories for the benefit of the President's 2020 
reelection. At the direction of the President, as conveyed through Mr. 
Giuliani and Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, the Three 
Amigos pursued a quid pro quo--the offer of a politically valuable Oval 
Office meeting with President Trump in exchange for President Zelensky 
announcing the desired investigations. Ambassador Sondland testified 
``Mr. Giuliani's requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White 
House visit for President Zelensky.''\116\
    The evidence shows that by early July, the message was conveyed to 
Ukrainian officials that investigations were a prerequisite for their 
desired White House meeting. Ambassador Volker testified that when the 
Oval Office meeting was not scheduled by late June, he ``came to 
believe that the President's long-held negative view toward Ukraine was 
causing hesitation in actually scheduling the meeting.''\117\ At a 
bilateral meeting in Toronto in early July, Ambassador Volker testified 
that he told alerted President Zelensky that he couldn't get a date 
scheduled for the White House meeting. Ambassador Volker relayed to 
President Zelensky, ``I think we have a problem here, and that problem 
being the negative feed of information from Mr. Giuliani.''\118\ 
Ambassador Volker further testified that during the Toronto meeting, he 
specifically mentioned investigations into ``2016'' election and 
``Burisma'' with President Zelensky.\119\ Soon after this warning, 
President Zelensky's close aide Andriy Yermak asked to be connected 
with Mr. Giuliani.\120\
    The President's conditions for securing a White House meeting were 
communicated an additional time, during a July 10, 2019, bilateral 
meeting led by then National Security Adviser John Bolton and then 
Ukrainian National Security Adviser Oleksandr Danylyuk. During the 
meeting, the Ukrainian delegation raised their desire to have a White 
House meeting.\121\ NSC official Hill testified that Ambassador 
Sondland, who was in attendance at the meeting, responded to the 
Ukrainian request by stating, ``We have an agreement that there will be 
a meeting, if specific investigations are put under way.''\122\ NSC 
official Lt. Col. Vindman testified that during that afternoon's 
meetings with the Ukrainian delegation, Ambassador Sondland 
``emphasized the importance of Ukraine delivering the investigations 
into 2016 elections, the Bidens and Burisma.''\123\ Later, Ambassador 
Sondland told Dr. Hill that there was agreement with Mr. Mulvaney that 
there would be a White House meeting with President Zelensky ``in 
return for investigations.''\124\ According to Dr. Hill, Ambassador 
Bolton was so alarmed that he told her to inform the lawyers about what 
happened in the meeting, adding that he was not be part of ``whatever 
drug deal that Mulvaney and Sondland are cooking up.''\125\

          C.1.b. President Trump withheld military assistance

    President Trump also used the powers of his office to order, 
through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the withholding of 
congressionally appropriated security assistance to Ukraine. The 
evidence shows that the President fixated on a June 19, 2019 article in 
the Washington Examiner announcing the release of Ukraine security 
assistance as an additional leverage point to further the corrupt 
scheme.\126\ By no later than July 12, 2019,\127\ President Trump 
ordered a hold on $391 million in security assistance for Ukraine, 
consisting of $250 million in Department of Defense Ukraine Security 
Assistance Initiative (USAI) funding and $141 million in State 
Department Foreign Military Financing (FMF). At an interagency meeting 
on July 18, 2019, a week before the Trump-Zelensky phone call, OMB 
officials instructed relevant U.S. government departments and agencies 
to withhold obligation of the Ukraine security assistance at the 
direction of the President.\128\ According to multiple witnesses, OMB 
did not provide a reason for the President's hold on the Ukraine 
aid.\129\ OMB maintained this hold on Ukraine security assistance 
through September 11th, when OMB lifted the hold, again without 
providing a rationale for the change of course.\130\
    The President's Counsel claim that the President's hold on security 
assistance was because of a policy difference, but that claim is not 
supported by the evidence. The manner in which the White House placed 
the hold on security assistance for Ukraine differed significantly from 
the process in which holds of assistance to other countries based on 
policy considerations had previously occurred. As the House Impeachment 
Managers stated, ``What the President did is not the same as routine 
withholding of foreign aid to ensure that it aligns with the 
President's policy priorities or to adjust with geopolitical 
developments.''\131\ The President began asking about the hold based on 
the announcement of the release of funds, after the Department of 
Defense had certified that the Ukrainian government made progress on 
corruption reform, showing that the hold was not placed due to policy 
considerations. Further, no geopolitical circumstances had changed in 
that timeframe to warrant the placing of a hold on security assistance 
funds to Ukraine.
    In addition, despite substantial evidence that U.S. government 
officials were deeply concerned about conflicts with the Impoundment 
Control Act (ICA), there was no notification of the delay to Congress 
as required by this law, belying the idea that the President harbored 
legitimate concerns about policy.\132\ Congress has an established 
bipartisan record of robust support for Ukraine. Since 2014, the United 
States has provided more than $3.5 billion in foreign assistance to 
Ukraine: $1.96 billion in military and other security assistance and 
$1.6 billion in political aid to Ukraine, all illustrating a policy 
that support to Ukraine furthers U.S. national security interests.\133\ 
Interagency conversations while the hold was in place reflected 
concerns that withholding the funds would in fact violate the ICA,\134\ 
yet there were no plans to notify Congress or rescind the funds as 
required by under the ICA. Further, when OMB official Mike Duffey 
directed Acting DOD Comptroller Elaine McCusker to formally hold the 
assistance for Ukraine, he added, ``Given the sensitive nature of the 
request, I appreciate your keeping that information closely held to 
those who need to know to execute the direction.''\135\ The secrecy 
maintained by Administration officials regarding the hold on this 
security assistance differs significantly from past practice and 
supports the inference that they were aware that the hold was contrary 
to U.S. policy and that they had no legitimate policy justification for 
a change in U.S. policy.
    In withholding the security assistance for Ukraine, the President 
violated his duty to faithfully execute the laws. Congress enacted the 
ICA in 1974 as one of many responses to the abuses of President Nixon 
in order to require the President to obligate funds appropriated by 
Congress, unless Congress otherwise authorizes the withholding.\136\ 
The ICA provides the President with narrowly circumscribed authority to 
withhold, or ``impound,'' appropriated funds only in limited, specified 
circumstances, and included a requirement to inform Congress. At no 
point did the Trump Administration either assert that it was impounding 
the Ukraine security assistance or inform Congress of any deferral or 
rescission of funds. In reviewing the OMB's withholding of funds 
appropriated to the Department of Defense for Ukraine security 
assistance, the Government Accountability Office concluded that OMB 
violated the ICA.\137\

C.1.c. President Trump conditioned a White House meeting and Ukrainian 
                 security assistance on investigations

    The House Impeachment Managers' record demonstrates overwhelmingly 
that President Trump conditioned both a White House meeting and nearly 
$400 million in U.S. security assistance for Ukraine on a commitment by 
President Zelensky to conduct investigations for the personal political 
benefit of Donald Trump. The President's scheme to secure corrupt 
investigations to benefit his reelection efforts converged with his 
official duties during a July 25, 2019, phone call with President 
Zelensky. The President's actions during that phone call, understood in 
the context of the broader corrupt scheme, are compelling evidence that 
the President solicited foreign interference in U.S. elections.
    The President's own words during the July 25th call, as summarized 
in a memorandum of telephone conversation released by the White House, 
demonstrate the President's demand for a quid pro quo.\138\ Far from 
showing the ``perfect call'' that President Trump claims,\139\ the 
memorandum of the telephone conversation makes clear that the President 
solicited politically-motivated investigations from President Zelensky 
in exchange for a White House meeting and U.S. military aid. When the 
Ukrainian President indicated he would be seeking additional U.S. 
military arms that Ukraine desperately needed for its conflict with 
Russia, President Trump responded by requesting that President Zelensky 
do him ``a favor though.''\140\ The memorandum of the telephone 
conversation makes clear that the favor President Trump sought as a 
condition for future military aid was the two investigations into the 
2016 campaign and the Biden/Burisma theories. President Trump went on 
to espouse many of the allegations associated with the debunked 2016 
campaign theory, including ``Crowdstrike,'' and ``one of your wealthy 
people,'' falsely insinuating that a Ukrainian oligarch owned the 
cybersecurity firm that investigated the DNC hack.\141\ He then alleged 
that Ukraine has the server and added, ``. . . They say a lot of it 
started in Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you 
do it. . .''\142\ Later in the phone call, President Trump mentioned 
``the other thing'' he wanted investigated, declaring that there was 
``a lot of talk about'' Vice President ``Biden's son,'' and that Vice 
President ``Biden stopped the prosecution.''\143\ President Trump told 
President Zelensky, ``A lot of people want to find out about that, so 
whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great.''\144\ In 
addition, it must be noted President Trump specifically urged President 
Zelensky to call Mr. Giuliani, as well as Attorney General Barr,\145\ 
regarding investigations into the 2016 campaign and Biden/Burisma 
theories.\146\ Given all of the steps taken by Mr. Giuliani leading up 
to the call, including his letter to President Zelensky and public 
statements urging President Zelensky to undertake investigations into 
the 2016 campaign and Biden/Burisma theories, it is clear that 
President Trump was signaling that he wanted these investigations.
    The President's Counsel disputed the notion that there was a quid 
pro quo by claiming that President Zelensky was not aware of an 
arrangement and he felt no pressure during the July 25th phone call. 
However, evidence shows that the President's surrogates prepped 
President Zelensky ahead of the call to say that he would conduct 
investigations into the 2016 campaign and Biden/Burisma theories in 
order to get a White House meeting. Ambassadors Volker and Sondland had 
multiple exchanges with President Zelensky and his aide Mr. Yermak 
ahead of the call. Ambassador Volker, after having breakfast with Mr. 
Giuliani, told Ambassador Taylor and Ambassador Sondland via text, 
``Most important is for Zelensky to say that he will help with 
investigation.''\147\ That same day, Ambassador Sondland directed 
President Zelensky to tell President Trump, he would ``run a fully 
transparent investigation and turn over every stone,''\148\ which he 
indicated in testimony referred to the ``Burisma and the 2016'' 
investigations.\149\ The morning of the July 25th call, Ambassador 
Sondland spoke to President Trump and then alerted Ambassador Volker to 
contact him.\150\ Approximately a half hour later, Ambassador Volker 
texted Zelensky aide Mr. Yermak, ``Heard from White House--assuming 
President Z[elensky] convinces Trump he will investigate/ `get to the 
bottom of what happened' in 2016, we will nail down a date for a visit 
in Washington.''\151\
    The memorandum of the telephone conversation shows that President 
Zelensky understood the messages that he was told to convey during the 
call and followed those instructions. During the call, President 
Zelensky said to President Trump, ``I also wanted to thank you for your 
invitation to visit the United States, specifically Washington D.C. On 
the other hand, I also want to ensure you that we will be very serious 
about the case and will work on the investigation.''\152\ Lt. Col. 
Vindman testified that aspects of the call, including President 
Zelensky bringing up Burisma, suggested that he was ``prepped'' for 
this call.\153\ President Zelensky knew what ``favor'' President Trump 
was asking for as a condition for receiving the White House meeting.

C.1.d. The actions of Administration officials following the July 25th 
phone call demonstrate that the President conditioned U.S. military aid 
to Ukraine and the White House meeting on President Zelensky announcing 
  the investigations into the 2016 campaign and Biden/Burisma theories

    The President's Counsel allege that there is no evidence that the 
President conditioned U.S. military aid for Ukraine or the White House 
meeting on a commitment by President Zelensky to announce 
investigations into the 2016 campaign and Biden/Burisma theories. The 
President's Counsel assert that any claims that President Trump made 
any such linkage, particularly relating to the military assistance, are 
unsupported and based on second or third-hand sources and speculation. 
They claim that no one with first-hand knowledge of the President's 
thinking came forward and testified that he conditioned the delivery of 
these official acts for Ukraine on the investigations. These claims are 
both disingenuous and wrong.\154\
    Furthermore, the actions of Administration officials after the July 
25th phone call make clear President Trump's request was a quid pro 
quo. Approximately 90 minutes after the call, OMB official Mike Duffey 
directed Acting DoD Comptroller McCusker to formally hold the 
Department of Defense security assistance for Ukraine.\155\
    In addition, conversations on July 26, 2019, detail that President 
Trump appeared solely focused on whether efforts to pressure President 
Zelensky to initiate the investigations had been successful. On July 
26th, the day after the phone call between Presidents Trump and 
Zelensky, Ambassador Sondland called President Trump from Kyiv. 
According to testimony from David Holmes, Counselor for Political 
Affairs at the U.S. Embassy who overheard the phone call, President 
Trump asked Ambassador Sondland, ``So he's going to do the 
investigation?'' referring to the 2016 campaign and Burisma/Biden 
theories.\156\ Holmes also testified that he asked Ambassador Sondland 
that same day if President Trump cared about Ukraine. Sondland 
responded that President ``Trump only cared about `big stuff' that 
benefits the President, like the `Biden investigation' that Mr. 
Giuliani was pushing.''\157\
    Most telling, President Trump's Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney 
publicly admitted at a press conference on October 17th that 
withholding the security assistance for Ukraine provided leverage to 
convince Ukraine to investigate the source of the hack of the DNC 
servers in 2016, an aspect of the 2016 campaign theory.\158\ Mr. 
Mulvaney confirmed that President Trump ``[a]bsolutely'' raised 
``corruption related to the DNC server'' and added that was part of 
``why we held up the money.''\159\ When a reporter pointed out that he 
had just described a quid pro quo, Mr. Mulvaney stated, ``We do that 
all the time with foreign policy'' and told everyone to ``Get over it. 
There's going to be political influence in foreign policy.''\160\
    Despite the assertions of the President's counsel, evidence 
indicates that the Zelensky Administration knew that there was a 
problem with the security assistance well before the hold was reported 
publicly on August 28, 2019.\161\ The same afternoon of the July 25th 
phone call, Department of Defense officials learned that diplomats at 
the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington had made multiple overtures to the 
Pentagon and the State Department ``asking about security 
assistance.''\162\ Separately, during that same time frame, two 
different officials at the Ukrainian Embassy contacted Ambassador 
Volker's special assistant, Catherine Croft, to ask her in confidence 
about the hold.\163\ In early August 2019, the Ukrainians reportedly 
made further inquiries about the security assistance funds.\164\ The 
message sent back was that the holdup was not bureaucratic in nature, 
and that to address it they were advised to reach out to Mick 
Mulvaney.\165\ NSC official Lt. Col. Vindman testified that by mid-
August 2019, he had also received inquiries about the hold on the 
security assistance from an official at the Ukrainian Embassy.\166\
    Evidence and reporting regarding the President's interactions with 
then National Security Adviser John Bolton further confirms that the 
President held security assistance in order to further the corrupt 
scheme. On August 16, 2019, Ambassador Bolton reportedly made a 
personal appeal to President Trump to release the security assistance 
for Ukraine and was ``rebuffed.''\167\ NSC official Tim Morrison 
affirmed this account in his testimony. Mr. Morrison testified that 
Ambassador Bolton said President Trump, ``wasn't ready'' to release the 
aid.\168\ According to news reports that emerged during the Impeachment 
trial, an account from Ambassador Bolton's forthcoming book reportedly 
makes this link even more explicit.
    Ambassador Bolton stated during the August meeting, President Trump 
``appeared focused on the theories Mr. Giuliani had shared with him, 
replying to Mr. Bolton's question that he preferred sending no 
assistance to Ukraine until officials turned over all materials they 
had about the Russia investigation that related to Mr. Biden and 
supporters of Mrs. Clinton in Ukraine.''\169\
    The record also shows that after the July 25th Trump-Zelensky phone 
call, President Trump directed a campaign to increase the pressure in 
furtherance of the scheme. Starting in early August, Ambassadors Volker 
and Sondland, in coordination with Mr. Giuliani, attempted to get 
President Zelensky to publicly announce investigations into the 2016 
campaign and Biden/Burisma theories.\170\ Ambassadors Volker and 
Sondland worked in conjunction with President Zelensky's aide Mr. 
Yermak to generate an acceptable statement.\171\ After the initial 
Ukrainian draft of the statement contained only a general commitment 
from President Zelensky to fight corruption, Ambassadors Volker and 
Sondland consulted Mr. Giuliani who responded that if the statement 
``doesn't say Burisma and 2016, it's not credible.''\172\ Ambassador 
Volker then revised President Zelensky's draft statement to include 
specific references to ``Burisma'' and ``the 2016 U.S. 
elections.''\173\ No statement was ever released by President Zelensky, 
and Ambassador Volker testified that it was because the Ukrainians 
realized that making such a statement was tantamount to a quid pro 
quo.\174\
    Furthermore, witness testimony shows that as the hold on the 
security assistance continued through the late summer, U.S. government 
officials realized the connection between the hold and the President's 
desire for Ukrainian announcements of investigations into President 
Trump's political rivals. By early September, Ambassador Taylor said 
his ``clear understanding'' was that President Trump would withhold 
security assistance until President Zelensky ``committed to pursue the 
investigations.''\175\ Ambassador Taylor further testified that his 
contemporaneous notes reflect that President Trump wanted President 
Zelensky ``in a box by making [a] public statement about ordering such 
investigations.''\176\ Ambassador Sondland explained to Ambassador 
Taylor that ``everything'' (the Oval Office meeting and security 
assistance) ``was dependent on the Ukrainian government announcing the 
political investigations.''\177\ Ambassador Taylor responded to 
Ambassador Sondland that he thought it was ``crazy to withhold security 
assistance for help with a political campaign.''\178\ Foreign Service 
Officer David Holmes testified that his ``clear impression'' around the 
same time was that ``the security assistance hold was likely intended 
by the President either to express dissatisfaction with the Ukrainians 
who had not yet agreed to the Burisma/Biden investigations, or as an 
effort to increase the pressure on them to do so.''\179\
    Once the hold on the security assistance was reported in the press 
in late August 2019, the conditions for releasing the assistance were 
soon overtly communicated to President Zelensky. President Trump's 
surrogates informed President Zelensky and his aides that the security 
assistance was held up as a result of President Zelensky's 
unwillingness to announce the investigations into President Trump's 
political rivals. These directions came from the President.\180\ 
Ambassador Sondland testified that he had passed a message directly to 
President Zelensky's aide Mr. Yermak on September 1, 2019, that, ``I 
believed that the resumption of U.S. aid would not likely occur until 
Ukraine took some kind of action on the public statement that we had 
been discussing for weeks.''\181\ Affirming this account, Ambassador 
Taylor testified that Ambassador Sondland told him he had warned 
President Zelensky and Mr. Yermak that, ``although this was not a quid 
pro quo, if President Zelensky did not clear things up in public, we 
would be at a stalemate.''\182\ President Zelensky apparently 
understood the message because arrangements were made for the Ukrainian 
President to go on CNN to announce the investigations.\183\
    The President's Counsel argue that there could not have been a quid 
pro quo because the Ukrainians ultimately got the funding without 
making the commitment to conduct the investigations. Essentially, they 
argue ``no harm, no foul.'' However, the President's solicitation of 
the politically-motivated investigations in exchange for official acts 
is in and of itself an abuse of his office and the public trust. 
Further, President Trump released the hold on the security assistance 
only after a whistleblower's complaint had been provided to Congress 
and three House committees had initiated an investigation into the 
hold. On August 12, 2019, a whistleblower filed a complaint with the 
Intelligence Community's Inspector General, which stated multiple U.S. 
government officials had told him or her information indicating that 
the ``President of the United States is using the power of his office 
to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. 
election.''\184\ The complaint cited the July 25th call between 
Presidents Trump and Zelensky, the placing of the call on a codeword 
server, and other circumstances surrounding the call including the role 
of Mr. Giuliani.\185\ The President was reportedly briefed by White 
House Counsel on the existence of a whistleblower complaint in late 
August.\186\ On September 9, 2019, the whistleblower complaint was 
referred to Congress.\187\ On the same day, the House Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence, the House Committee on Oversight and 
Government Reform, and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs opened an 
inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the hold.\188\ The President 
subsequently lifted the hold on September 11, 2019.\189\
    Moreover, the corrupt scheme did not end even after the House 
Committees began the Impeachment Inquiry. Mr. Giuliani, at the 
direction of the President, has continued to travel to Ukraine to 
generate compromising material on President Trump's political 
opponents,\190\ raising the possibility of future attempts by President 
Trump to pressure foreign leaders to interfere in the 2020 election.
    Consistent with the first element delineated for abuse of power, 
the evidence clearly shows that President Trump misused his office to 
advance a corrupt scheme.
    The fact that President Trump's actions involve the misuse of the 
office of the presidency distinguishes the current proceedings from the 
circumstances in the 1999 Clinton Impeachment trial. Based on the 
historical record, the constitutional standard I applied in the Clinton 
proceedings was that ``private wrongdoing, without a significant 
adverse effect upon the nation, cannot constitute an impeachable 
offense.''\191\ On that basis, I concluded that ``Citizens may well 
lack confidence in the ability of President Clinton to be honest about 
his personal life, this is not however a threat to our 
government.''\192\ The circumstances regarding President Trump can be 
distinguished both on the grounds that his actions involved the misuse 
of his public office, not private wrongdoing, and because the nature of 
President Trump's abuse of power is an ongoing threat to our systems of 
government and our constitutional order.
D. The President's Solicitation of Investigations by Ukraine into the 
        2016 Campaign and Biden/Burisma Theories Was for his Personal 
        or Other Corrupt Purpose
    The second element of the offense of abuse of power, as previously 
delineated, is the use of official governmental power for personal or 
some other corrupt purpose. The President's Counsel have argued that 
the President had legitimate policy reasons for withholding the Ukraine 
security assistance or the White House meeting. Specifically, the 
President's Counsel asserted that President Trump had longstanding 
concerns about corruption and burden-sharing by European allies in 
support of Ukraine. Upon careful review of the record, these assertions 
simply do not square with the facts. While there is some basis for the 
assertion that President Trump cared about these issues, they were not 
the basis for the withholding of Ukraine security assistance.
    Evidence shows that President Trump's solicitation alarmed 
Administration officials who listened in to the July 25th call, and 
their concerns did not stem from policy differences. NSC official Lt. 
Col. Vindman testified that he was ``concerned'' about the call and 
``did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government 
investigate a U.S. citizen.''\193\ Vice Presidential aide Jennifer 
Williams, who also listened to the July 25th call, testified she found 
it, ``unusual because, in contrast to other Presidential calls I had 
observed, it involved discussion of what appeared to be a domestic 
political matter.''\194\ Ms. Williams was informed of the security 
assistance hold on July 3rd and stated that the call ``shed some light 
on possible other motivations behind a security assistance hold.''\195\ 
Lt. Col. Vindman and NSC official Tim Morrison were sufficiently 
concerned that they separately reported the contents of the call to NSC 
lawyers, Mr. Eisenberg and Mr. Ellis.\196\ The President's lawyers, in 
turn, took steps to restrict access to the rough transcript of the call 
by placing it on a highly-restricted classified server.\197\
    Furthermore, the President's Counsel's claim that security 
assistance for Ukraine was withheld over concerns about corruption is 
unfounded. On May 23, 2019, the Department of Defense certified to 
Congress that Ukraine had made progress on defense reform and anti-
corruption measures. Congress required this certification under the 
National Defense Authorization Act in order to allow USAI funding to be 
provided beyond the first 50 percent of amounts authorized and 
appropriated for Ukraine military aid.\198\ Furthermore, support for 
providing security assistance to Ukraine was unanimous among relevant 
agencies of the United States government. Deputy Assistant Secretary of 
Defense Laura Cooper testified that there was a consensus within the 
interagency that corruption was not a legitimate reason for the 
hold.\199\ Ambassador Taylor affirmed Ms. Cooper's recollection that no 
agencies raised policy-related concerns as reason for the hold on 
security assistance testifying, ``At every meeting, the unanimous 
conclusion was that the security assistance should be reassumed, the 
hold lifted. At one point the Defense Department was asked to perform 
an analysis of the effectiveness of the assistance. Within a day, the 
Defense Department came back with the determination that the assistance 
was effective and should be resumed.''\200\
    Nor does the evidence support the claim that President Trump, 
himself, had concerns about institutional corruption that would lead 
him to withhold military assistance for Ukraine. There is no evidence 
that President Trump in his interactions with his Ukrainian 
counterpart, raised concerns about corruption. Indeed, corruption was 
not raised by President Trump during the two calls he had with 
President Zelensky,\201\ despite that issue being included in his 
talking points prepared by NSC staff for both calls.\202\ Further 
evidence that President Trump was not interested in institutional 
corruption in Ukraine came from Mr. Morrison, who listened to the July 
25th call, and testified that President Trump did not make a ``full-
throated endorsement of the Ukraine reform agenda that I was hoping to 
hear.''\203\
    Further, communications by U.S. diplomats to President Zelensky or 
other Ukrainian officials do not indicate that President Trump held 
Ukrainian security assistance due to concern about corruption in 
Ukraine. As discussed earlier, Ambassador Volker and Ambassador 
Sondland had multiple contacts with President Zelensky and his close 
aide Mr. Yermak ahead of the July 25th call. No evidence shows that 
President Zelensky was advised to outline steps he was taking to 
address corruption on the call.\204\ Similarly, previously discussed 
diplomatic efforts in August focused on securing a public commitment by 
President Zelensky to investigate the 2016 campaign and Biden/Burisma 
theories specifically, and a commitment to pursue corruption generally 
was deemed insufficient to meet President Trump's request.\205\
    The evidence also does not indicate that President Trump used 
official auspices to undertake a corruption investigation in 
furtherance of official U.S. government policy. If the President was 
interested in pursuing a particular corruption investigation with the 
Government of Ukraine, he could have done so through established 
diplomatic channels. The President could have directed his Attorney 
General to make an official request of Ukraine to initiate 
investigations into corruption under the existing Mutual Legal 
Assistance Treaty (MLAT) with Ukraine.\206\ In this instance, President 
Trump did not take such action. Rather, in the July 25th call, 
President Trump asked President Zelensky to work with both his personal 
attorney, Mr. Giuliani, and Attorney General Barr to pursue 
investigations into his political rivals.\207\ Further, supporting the 
idea that the President did not ask for any official investigations, 
the DOJ has denied knowledge of any such investigations, declaring that 
``the President has not asked the Attorney General to contact Ukraine--
on this [the July 25th call] or any other matter.''\208\ Additionally, 
Mr. Yermak asked Ambassador Volker to make any official request for 
investigations through formal channels,\209\ but there is no evidence 
that the DOJ or officials at the US Embassy Kyiv followed up on that 
suggestion.\210\ That the President did not go through regular inter-
governmental channels supports the conclusion that his interest in 
Ukrainian investigations was for his personal political benefit and not 
legitimate policy considerations.
    In addition, there is no evidence to support the claim that 
President Trump withheld Ukrainian military assistance out of concerns 
about European burden sharing. While President Trump may be skeptical 
about European contributions to mutual defense, European nations 
contribute significantly more foreign aid overall to Ukraine than the 
United States. The EU is the single largest contributor of foreign 
assistance to Ukraine, having provided =15 billion since 2014 versus 
$1.96 billion in security assistance that the United States has 
provided over that same time period.\211\
    The rationale that the President withheld security assistance 
because he was concerned with Europe paying more to support Ukraine was 
not raised until well after the hold was placed on U.S. security 
assistance for Ukraine. Witness testimony indicates that the President 
began making inquiries about the aid on June 19, 2019,\212\ and that 
all security assistance for Ukraine had been put on hold by July 12, 
2019.\213\ OMB official Mark Sandy testified that when the hold was 
ordered no explicit reason was provided.\214\ Mr. Sandy further 
testified that it wasn't until September, after the hold became public, 
that a concern was expressed about European burden sharing.\215\
    Nor is there evidence that the Trump Administration made any 
efforts publicly or privately to get additional contributions from 
Europe while the aid was on hold. Mr. Sandy testified that he was not 
aware of any other countries committing to provide more financial 
assistance to Ukraine prior to the lifting of the hold on September 
11th.\216\
    Moreover, as the GAO decision makes clear, the President does not 
have the authority to withhold funding that Congress has appropriated 
for a specific purpose. The GAO determined ``the law does not permit 
the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that 
Congress has enacted into law. OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, 
which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). The 
withholding was not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that 
OMB violated the ICA.''\217\
    The OMB continued to implement the President's hold on the Ukraine 
security assistance despite repeated warnings starting in early August 
from Department of Defense (DOD) officials that further delays risked 
violating the ICA.\218\ The OMB-directed hold on the apportionment of 
funds continued even after DOD warned that it could no longer guarantee 
that the Department would be able to obligate the funds before the end 
of the fiscal year, a clear violation of the ICA.\219\ Ultimately, DOD 
failed to execute $35 million of the $250 million obligated for USAI 
before the end of the fiscal year.\220\
    The President's Counsel have failed to produce credible evidence to 
support the contention that the President withheld security assistance 
and an Oval Office meeting from Ukraine for legitimate policy reasons. 
Instead, an adverse inference can be drawn that the President had no 
legitimate policy basis for his actions. Further, the House Impeachment 
Managers have established that the President acted for his own personal 
benefit, specifically to advance the ongoing corrupt scheme to solicit 
foreign interference in the 2020 presidential election.
E. The President's Solicitation of Investigations into the 2016 
        Campaign and Biden/Burisma Theories was Without Due 
        Consideration of U.S. National Interests
    The final element of the offense of abuse of power, as previously 
delineated, is that the use of official power, for personal or some 
other corrupt purpose, is made without due consideration for the 
national interest. The evidence presented at the Senate trial makes 
clear that in using the powers of his office to withhold valuable U.S. 
security assistance and an Oval Office visit for the newly-elected 
Ukrainian President to advance a corrupt scheme to solicit foreign 
interference for his personal benefit, President Trump harmed the 
national interest of the United States. President Trump's efforts to 
leverage two official acts to advance a scheme to solicit foreign 
interference in the 2020 election is contrary to the national interests 
of the United States in a number of ways.
    First and foremost, President Trump's misuse of the powers of his 
office threatened the heart of the constitutional order itself, 
potentially undermining our democratic process. By pressuring Ukraine 
to engage in election interference through the promotion of two 
unfounded theories, President Trump's conduct posed an urgent danger to 
the integrity of our constitutional system. If the history of the 2016 
election can be rewritten at the President's direction to cast doubt on 
Russia's interference, it invites Russia and other adversaries to 
interfere again in the future knowing that there will be no 
consequences. Similarly, it risks distorting the integrity of our 
electoral process if the President can leverage the power of the 
presidency to pressure foreign countries to commit their government 
resources to dig up ``dirt'' on his political opponents in order to 
benefit his reelection.
    Second, President Trump's corrupt scheme threatened U.S. national 
security objectives by advancing a Russian disinformation narrative 
that it was Ukraine, and not Russia, that interfered in the 2016 
presidential campaign. The Intelligence Community unanimously assessed 
that ``Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign 
in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election.''\221\ That assessment 
of the Intelligence Community was affirmed by the bipartisan Senate 
Select Committee on Intelligence,\222\ and the Special Counsel's 
investigation.\223\
    The perpetuation and promotion of a Russian disinformation 
operation undermines U.S. efforts to protect our electoral institutions 
from Russian interference and to build the resilience of the American 
people against foreign interference. Former NSC official Dr. Fiona Hill 
underscored the importance of countering this Russian information 
warfare campaign when she testified before the House Intelligence 
Committee on November 21, 2019. She assessed:
    The impacts of the successful 2016 Russian campaign remains evident 
today. Our nation is being torn apart. Truth is questioned. Our highly 
professional expert career Foreign Service is being undermined. U.S. 
support for Ukraine which continues to face armed Russian aggression is 
being politicized. The Russian Government's goal is to weaken our 
country, to diminish America's global role, and to neutralize a 
perceived U.S. threat to Russian interests. President Putin and the 
Russian security services aim to counter U.S. foreign policy objectives 
in Europe including in Ukraine, where Moscow wishes to reassert 
political and economic dominance.\224\
    Third, the President's withholding of nearly $400 million in U.S. 
security assistance to Ukraine undermined U.S. national security 
objectives in the strategic competition with Russia, a central pillar 
of the Administration's own National Defense Strategy. NSC official Tim 
Morrison stressed that ``Ukraine is on the front lines of a strategic 
competition between the West and Vladimir Putin's revanchist 
Russia.''\225\ He added, ``The United States aids Ukraine and her 
people so they can fight Russia over there, and we don't have to fight 
Russia here.''\226\ Ambassador Taylor also testified on the importance 
of supporting Ukraine for U.S. national security interests. He 
stressed, ``One of our national security goals is to resolve conflicts 
in Europe'' and our aid to Ukraine is ``in support of a broader 
strategic approach to Europe . . .,'' and is ``to support Ukraine when 
it negotiates with the Russians.''\227\
    Ambassador Taylor and other witnesses were particularly alarmed by 
the withholding of the security assistance because of its potential 
impact on Ukraine at a critical time in its conflict with Russia. As 
Ambassador Taylor testified, ``It's one thing to try to leverage a 
meeting in the White House. It's another thing, I thought, to leverage 
security assistance to a country at war, dependent on both the security 
assistance and the demonstration of support. It was much more 
alarming.''\228\ Ambassador Taylor further underscored the harm from 
withholding vital aid for Ukraine: ``Security assistance was so 
important for Ukraine as well as our national interests, to withhold 
that assistance for no good reason other than help with a political 
campaign made no sense. It was counterproductive to all of what we had 
been trying to do. It was illogical. It could not be explained. It was 
crazy.''\229\
    President Trump's actions also threatened to undermine one of 
Ukraine's greatest assets in its conflict with Russia, the bipartisan 
nature of support for Ukraine in the U.S. Congress. Ambassador Taylor 
advised President Zelensky's close aide Yermak, of the ``high strategic 
value of a bipartisan support for Ukraine and the importance of not 
getting involved in other country's elections.''\230\ Ambassador Volker 
also emphasized the importance of the bipartisan support in Congress 
for U.S. policy toward Ukraine.\231\
    Finally, the President's efforts to secure investigations into the 
2016 campaign and Biden/Burisma theories undermined U.S. policy 
promoting the rule of law and fighting corruption, which included 
discouraging partner governments from launching politically-motivated 
investigations into domestic rivals. Deputy Assistant Secretary George 
Kent, former Deputy Chief of Mission in Ukraine, testified to the 
official U.S. policies in place in countries like Ukraine and Georgia, 
stating that ``having the President of the United States effectively 
ask for a political investigation of his opponent would run directly 
contrary'' to these efforts.\232\ As Chairman Schiff restated on 
December 18, 2019:
    On September 14 in Ukraine, when Ambassador Volker sat down with 
Andriy Yermak, the top adviser to Zelensky, and he did what he should 
do. He supported the rule of law, and he said: You, Andriy Yermak, 
should not investigate the last President, President Poroshenko, for 
political reasons. You should not engage in political investigations. 
And do you know what Yermak said: ``Oh, you mean like what you want us 
to do with the Bidens and the Clintons?\233\
    Based on the above analysis, I find that there is overwhelmingly 
clear and convincing evidence that elements of abuse of power have been 
met and that President Trump is guilty on the first Article of 
Impeachment.
                vi. article ii: obstruction of congress
    Article II of House Resolution 755 provides that, in the conduct of 
his office, the President directed the unprecedented and categorical 
indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued pursuant to the House's 
``sole Power of Impeachment.''\234\ Article I provides further provides 
that President Trump's ordering the White House and other Executive 
Branch agencies and Executive Branch officials to defy House subpoenas 
sought ``to seize and control the power of impeachment . . . a vital 
constitutional safeguard vested solely in the House of 
Representatives.''\235\ I will first explain how historical and case 
precedent proves that obstruction of Congress is an impeachable 
offense. Next, I will explain how, through his indiscriminate order, 
President Trump sought to vitiate and in fact, did undermine, the 
lawful authority of Congress. Finally, I will explain how each of the 
arguments that the President's Counsel put forward during the 
Impeachment Trial to justify the President's obstruction do not amount 
to a lawful cause or excuse.
A. Obstruction of Congress Is An Impeachable Offense
    When any one branch of government seeks to obstruct an essential 
function of another branch, it threatens a central feature of our 
republic: the separation of powers.\236\ In the case where a President 
seeks to derogate the authority of another branch, it can also 
undermine the President's constitutional obligation to ``take Care that 
the Laws be faithfully executed.''\237\
    President Trump continues to thwart Congress' oversight and 
investigative powers, which are essential constitutional functions of 
the Legislative Branch. In McGrain v. Daugherty, the Supreme Court 
firmly established that such inquiry power is ``an essential and 
appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function'' and included the 
ability to seek and enforce demands for information.\238\
    The need to comply with subpoena-backed requests for information, 
including in an Impeachment, has been explicitly stated. In Kilbourn v. 
Thompson, the Supreme Court held that, ``Where the question of such 
impeachment is before either [the House or Senate] acting in its 
appropriate sphere on that subject [of impeachment], we see no reason 
to doubt the right to compel the attendance of witnesses, and their 
answer to proper questions, in the same manner and by the use of the 
same means that courts of justice can in like cases.''\239\
    Part of Congress' broad oversight authority is the power to hold 
sitting presidents accountable for grave misconduct and abuses of 
public trust through Impeachment. Indeed, Article I, Section 2, Clause 
5 of the U.S. Constitution gives the House of Representatives ``the 
sole Power of Impeachment.''\240\ However, an Impeachment inquiry can 
only be discharged through the cooperation of the governmental branch 
being investigated; only this branch can provide documents and witness 
testimony related to its own conduct. By refusing to provide any 
information, President Trump is trying to stop Congress from gathering 
relevant information and render the Impeachment process toothless.\241\ 
As John Quincy Adams noted, it would make a ``mockery'' of the 
Constitution's Impeachment power for Congress to have the power to 
impeach but ``not the power to obtain the evidence and proofs on which 
their impeachment was based.''\242\
    The Judiciary Committee also confirmed that subverting the 
constitutionally vested powers of the Legislative Branch can be an 
impeachable offense, when it previously approved Articles of 
Impeachment charging President Richard Nixon with the failure to comply 
with duly authorized congressional subpoenas. The Judiciary Committee 
explained that:
    In refusing to produce these papers and things, Richard M. Nixon, 
substituting his judgment as to what materials were necessary for the 
inquiry, interposed the powers of the Presidency against the lawful 
subpoenas of the House of Representatives, thereby assuming to himself 
functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of 
impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of 
Representatives.\243\
    Based on the above historical and case precedent, I conclude that 
obstruction of Congress can be an impeachable offense. I also conclude 
that a sitting President commits obstruction of Congress by:
    1) Contravening the lawful authority of the Legislative Branch;
    2) By imposing the powers of the presidency;
    3) Without lawful cause or excuse.
B. The House of Representatives Exercised Its Lawful Authority in the 
        Impeachment Inquiry
    As explained in Section V, Subsection A of this Memorandum, 
Congress has broad power to conduct oversight and issue demands for 
information, and is vested with the sole power to conduct Impeachment.
    In this case, the House of Representatives was using both its 
lawful investigative and Impeachment authorities, when it issued lawful 
subpoenas leading up to and after the adoption of House Resolution 660 
on October 31, 2019, which formalized the ongoing investigations into 
whether sufficient grounds existed for the House of Representatives to 
impeach President Donald John Trump.\244\
    On September 9, 2019, the House Committees on Intelligence, Foreign 
Affairs, and Oversight and Reform (hereinafter ``Investigating 
Committees'') first announced that they would be starting an 
investigation into reports that President Trump and his associates 
might have been seeking assistance from the Ukrainian government in his 
bid for reelection.\245\ As part of this inquiry, the Investigating 
Committees requested that the White House provide documents related to 
the President's July 25th call with the Ukrainian President.\246\
    Speaker Nancy Pelosi subsequently announced on September 24, 2019 
that the House would be commencing ``an official Impeachment 
inquiry.''\247\ The Investigating Committees then subpoenaed documents 
and witness testimony from the White House,\248\ the Department of 
State,\249\ the Department of Defense,\250\ the Office of Management 
and Budget,\251\ the Department of Energy,\252\ and Rudy Giuliani.\253\
    Once H.Res. 660 was approved by the House on October 31st, the 
subpoenas issued as part of the ongoing investigations leading up to 
the adoption of H.Res. 660 remained in full force.\254\ In addition, 
the House Intelligence Committee issued new subpoenas for witness 
testimony to officials at the National Security Council,\255\ White 
House,\256\ Office of Management and Budget,\257\ and the Office of the 
Vice President.\258\
    As such, I conclude that there is overwhelmingly clear and 
convincing evidence that the House used its lawful authority in 
conducting its Impeachment inquiry.
C. President Trump Used the Powers of the Presidency to Subvert the 
        Powers of Congress
    President Trump used the vast powers of his office to prevent the 
House of Representatives from exercising its oversight authority and 
sole power of Impeachment. The President did so by ordering the entire 
Executive Branch not to cooperate with the House Impeachment inquiry. 
White House Counsel Pat Cipollone sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi and 
the Investigating Committees on October 8, 2019, declaring that 
``President Trump cannot permit his Administration to participate in 
this partisan inquiry under these circumstances.''\259\ It is notable 
that, even before sending the October 8th letter, President Trump had 
made his intentions clear to obstruct any and all oversight by 
Congress, proclaiming, ``We're fighting all the subpoenas.''\260\ 
President Trump further asserted, ``As the President of the United 
States, I have an absolute right, perhaps even a duty, to investigate, 
or have investigated, CORRUPTION, and that would include asking, or 
suggesting, other Countries help us out!''\261\
    The President's sweeping directive on October 8th had the 
foreseeable effect of obstructing, and in fact, did materially thwart, 
the House Impeachment inquiry. Following President Trump's categorical 
order, the Department of State,\262\ the Office of Management and 
Budget,\263\ the Department of Energy,\264\ and the Department of 
Defense\265\ failed to produce a single document in response to 
requests or demands for records in their possession. To date, the only 
documents the Executive Branch has released are summaries of President 
Trump's phone calls with President Zelensky on April 21, 2019\266\ and 
July 25, 2019.\267\ Even these documents are not complete. The 
President claimed the July 25th call is, ``an exact word for word 
transcript of the conversation.''\268\ However, witness testimony from 
the House Impeachment inquiry shows that there were key omissions. NSC 
official Lt. Col. Vindman, who listened to the calls, testified that 
edits that he provided to the draft July 25th document based on his 
notes were not included in the transcript that was released. Lt. Col. 
Vindman's edits included a reference to Burisma and President Trump 
telling President Zelensky that there are recordings of Vice President 
Biden.\269\
    Additionally, as a result of the October 8th directive, multiple 
Trump Administration officials have defied congressional subpoenas and 
refused to testify in the Impeachment proceedings.\270\ Overwhelming 
evidence of the President's abuse of power has come to light, despite 
the President's obstructionist efforts, largely because key 
Administration officials risked their jobs and careers to comply with 
subpoenas and requests issued by the House. Even in those cases, agency 
leadership worked to ensure that these officials would only be able to 
give limited testimony. In particular, the Department of State,\271\ 
the Department of Defense,\272\ and the Department of Energy\273\ 
prevented Executive Branch employees who did participate as witnesses 
from accessing documents that they identified as directly relevant to 
the Impeachment inquiry--including their phone records, emails, notes, 
and memoranda. As a result, these witnesses were denied the opportunity 
to have documents that could have helped them give more specific 
testimony, and some had to rely on their own notes and 
recollections.\274\
    President Trump personally sought, through intimidation or 
influence, to impede the testimony of officials that cooperated with 
the House Impeachment inquiry. He specifically sought to interfere with 
the testimonies of Ambassador Gordon Sondland,\275\ Ambassador William 
Taylor,\276\ Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch,\277\ Lt. Col. Alexander 
Vindman,\278\ and Jennifer Williams.\279\
    There is indeed overwhelmingly clear and convincing evidence that 
President Trump used the powers of his office to prevent the House from 
exercising its constitutionally granted authority to conduct oversight 
related to the Impeachment inquiry.
D. President Trump Obstructed the Impeachment Inquiry Without Lawful 
        Cause or Excuse
    Whether President Trump obstructed Congress turns on whether there 
is evidence that he had legal cause or excuse for his total non-
cooperation with the Impeachment inquiry. I will address how each of 
the arguments that the President's Counsel have made in attempting to 
justify the President's stonewalling do not provide sufficient legal 
excuse for his conduct.

                D.1. Validity of Congressional Subpoenas

    The President's Counsel argue that subpoenas related to the 
Impeachment proceeding are invalid, if they were issued before the 
House voted to approve H.Res. 660 formalizing the Impeachment inquiry 
on October 31, 2019. In the President's trial brief, Counsel states 
that ``It was entirely proper for Administration officials to decline 
to comply with subpoenas issued pursuant to a purported `impeachment 
inquiry' before the House of Representatives had authorized any such 
inquiry. No House committee can issue subpoenas pursuant to the House's 
Impeachment power without authorization from the House itself.''\280\ 
Relying on the argument that subpoenas issued prior to the passage of 
H.Res. 660 were invalid, the White House, Department of State, and the 
Department of Defense instructed current and former employees not to 
testify before the Investigating Committees in the Impeachment 
proceedings.\281\
    The President's Counsel's argument broadly fails because it goes 
against well-established case law recognizing Congress' power to 
conduct investigations\282\ and issues subpoenas,\283\ even when it is 
not engaged in an Impeachment. Furthermore, the standing rules of the 
House authorize a committee or subcommittee, with certain limitations, 
to issue subpoenas ``[f]or the purpose of carrying out any of its 
functions and duties.''\284\
    Therefore, the relevant question on the validity of the House 
subpoenas does not turn on whether they were issued before or after 
H.Res. 660, as the President's Counsel argue. Rather, it should center 
on whether they were issued as part of a lawful congressional 
investigation.\285\ In this case, the subpoenas at issue involved the 
legitimate purpose of investigating whether President Trump and his 
associates sought assistance from the Ukrainian government to influence 
the 2020 election. As a result, there is convincing evidence that the 
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the House Foreign 
Affairs Committee, and the House Committee on Oversight and Reform had 
valid investigative and subpoena authority, even before the passage of 
H.Res. 660.
    Even if the argument made by the President's Counsel was 
legitimate, the Trump Administration failed to abide by its rule. 
Following the President's Counsel's own logic, the President would have 
to recognize the validity of and comply with subpoenas issued after the 
Impeachment inquiry was formalized on October 31, 2019. Yet, the 
President did not permit officials from OMB and the National Security 
Council to testify even though they were subpoenaed after H.Res. 660 
passed the House.\286\

                      D.2. Assertions of Privilege

    To the extent that the President has legitimate executive privilege 
claims, he failed to properly assert them or to go through the proper 
accommodation process to keep information confidential.

             D.2.a. Presidential privilege is not absolute

    The President's Counsel have stood by the October 8th letter from 
Mr. Cipollone to Speaker Pelosi declaring that the President and his 
Administration would not participate in the Impeachment inquiry.\287\ 
President Trump himself has articulated his expansive view of his 
powers saying, ``Honestly, we have all the material . . . They don't 
have the material.''\288\
    However, in United States v. Nixon, the Supreme Court flatly 
rejected this kind of unlimited assertion of executive power. The Court 
held that ``neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need 
for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can 
sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity 
from judicial process under all circumstances.''\289\ Instead, the 
Court found that, in an inter-branch dispute, when a claim of 
presidential privilege is based merely on the grounds of a generalized 
interest in confidentiality, ``the generalized assertion of privilege 
must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence.''\290\
    A related D.C. Circuit Court case, Senate Select Committee on 
Presidential Campaign Activities v. Nixon, affirmed that presidential 
privilege is not absolute and could be overcome by a ``strong showing 
of need by another institution of government.''\291\ The Court in this 
case articulated the following test in making its decision: Congress in 
using its investigative powers may override presidential privilege when 
it makes the requisite showing of need that ``the subpoenaed evidence 
is demonstrably critical to the responsible fulfillment of the 
Committee's function,'' such as a legitimate oversight or legislative 
purpose.\292\
    In this case, Mr. Cipollone's October 8th letter makes clear the 
President intended to exercise privileges over the whole of the 
Executive Branch, regardless of whether an agency was involved in 
foreign policy or national security policy.\293\ In contrast, the 
Investigating Committees overwhelmingly demonstrated a particularized 
interest in obtaining information to ascertain whether the President 
used the powers of his office to solicit foreign interference on his 
behalf in the 2020 election. In addition, it would be hard to think of 
a setting where congressional need for information is greater than 
during an Impeachment, which is the Constitution's most potent way to 
hold the President accountable for his misconduct.\294\
    The President's Counsel further assert that senior advisors to the 
President do not have to comply with congressional subpoenas because 
they have ``absolute immunity.'' This doctrine of absolute immunity has 
also been rejected by the D.C. District Court in House Judiciary 
Committee v. Miers\295\ and House Judiciary Committee v. McGahn.\296\

               D.2.b. Accommodation of legislative branch

    Moreover, even if President Trump did have a legitimate need to 
keep information confidential, each branch of government is required to 
accommodate the legitimate needs of the others to maintain the 
separation of powers. If President Trump had a valid need to keep 
confidential some of the information that the House requested, the 
agencies and offices involved could have entered into good-faith 
negotiations with the House to resolve their conflicting needs. The 
Courts have suggested that the Framers intended dynamic compromise as 
the most effective way to solve disputes between the branches and that 
view has been affirmed by the longstanding historical practice of the 
branches.\297\ In United States v. AT&T, the D.C. Circuit Court held 
that ``Under this view, the coordinate branches do not exist in an 
exclusively adversary relationship to one another when a conflict in 
authority arises. Rather, each branch should take cognizance of an 
implicit constitutional mandate to seek optimal accommodation through a 
realistic evaluation of the needs of the conflicting branches in the 
particular fact situation.''\298\
    It is this accommodation process that is the norm, not a wholesale 
refusal by one branch to another. ``Cooperation dominates most 
congressional requests for information, with the executive turning over 
the requested information as a matter of routine.''\299\ A complete 
breakdown in these procedures is a rarity as ``information access 
disputes are typically worked out through one of several intermediate 
options'' such as the Executive Branch agency providing redacted 
documents or requiring Congress to keep the requested information 
confidential.\300\ A memorandum written by the Office of Legal Counsel 
(OLC) during the administration of President George H. W. Bush explains 
that ``[I]f further negotiation is unavailing, it is necessary to 
consider asking the President to assert executive privilege.''\301\ 
Traditionally, Executive Branch agency branch officials then present 
their case for the assertion of executive privilege to the President 
and the agency asks Congress to hold its request in abeyance, pending 
the President's decision.\302\
    The President's Counsel claim that the Executive Branch was willing 
to enter into an accommodation process with the House.\303\ However, 
whereas the presumption in an inter-branch dispute is cooperation, the 
White House's default position has been total refusal of the House's 
requests for information. To this day, the Trump Administration has not 
turned over a single responsive document or worked to make a single 
witness available for questioning by Congress. The Administration has 
not sought an intermediate option to make information available to 
Congress. Nor has the Executive Branch ever formally invoked executive 
privilege or asked Congress to hold its requests in abeyance pending 
the President's decision to assert executive privilege.

                   D.2.c. Obstruction in Senate trial

    President Trump's obstruction of Congress and his failure to 
resolve disputes with the Legislative Branch in good faith continued 
into the Senate trial, as his Administration continued to withhold the 
information that was subpoenaed during the House inquiry. The 
President's Counsel even went so far as to instruct the Senate that it 
could not consider the evidence the House did obtain saying that ``The 
Senate may not rely on a corrupted factual record derived from 
constitutionally deficient proceedings to support a conviction of the 
President of the United States.''\304\
    In addition, as the Senate Impeachment proceedings were underway, 
new and material evidence of President Trump's misconduct continued to 
come out. Lev Parnas, the associate of Rudy Giuliani, asserted that 
President Trump was fully aware of efforts to dig up ``dirt'' on his 
political rival, as were Vice President Mike Pence, Attorney General 
William Barr, and former Energy Secretary Rick Perry.\305\ According to 
news reports, it also has come to light that President Trump directed 
John Bolton, his then-national security adviser, to help with his 
pressure campaign against the Ukrainian government.\306\ Both Bolton 
and Parnas made it clear during the Impeachment trial that they were 
willing to testify before the Senate.\307\ Yet, President Trump sought 
to discredit both witnesses\308\ and even threatened to assert 
executive privilege to prevent John Bolton from coming to testify and 
cooperating in the Impeachment trial.\309\

          D.3. Purported Defectiveness of Impeachment Inquiry

    The President's Counsel argue that the subpoenas issued by the 
House are invalid not only because of when they were issued. They argue 
that the Impeachment inquiry itself is defective and unauthorized and 
therefore any compliance is unnecessary.
    The President's Counsel argue that ``the House has never undertaken 
the solemn responsibility of a presidential impeachment inquiry without 
first authorizing a particular committee to begin the inquiry'' and 
``[t]hat has also been the House's nearly unbroken practice for every 
judicial impeachment for two hundred years.''\310\
    As explained in Section V, Subsection D.1 of this Memorandum, 
Congress' power to conduct investigations and issue subpoenas, even 
when not as part of an Impeachment, has been repeatedly and firmly 
settled by the Courts. Therefore, even if one accepts that the 
Impeachment investigation was invalid unless authorized by the House, 
it does nothing to diminish the power of the committees at hand to 
engage in an oversight investigation. Nor does it diminish the duty to 
comply with subpoenas that were issued under this oversight authority.
    The President's Counsel is contradicted by the cases of President 
Johnson and Nixon, where a committee of jurisdiction started taking 
steps toward Impeachment before the full House took any action. In the 
Johnson Impeachment, the Judiciary Committee considered Articles of 
Impeachment before reporting them out for a vote by the House.\311\ In 
the case of President Nixon, the Judiciary Committee employed a Special 
Counsel to assist in the inquiry, before the House explicitly 
authorized the Committee's investigation to determine whether the House 
should impeach.\312\
    What's more, the President's Counsel's position appears to be that 
the House must authorize an Impeachment before it has gathered enough 
evidence to warrant one, and also that a congressional investigation 
which begins to produce evidence of grounds for Impeachment loses its 
investigative authority until the House votes to formalize the 
Impeachment inquiry. These arguments defy both logic and past 
precedent.
    Here, I am also persuaded by the House Impeachment Managers' 
argument that the Constitution grants the ``sole Power of Impeachment'' 
to the House of Representatives. In addition, the Constitution says 
that, ``[t]he Senate shall have the sole Power to try all 
Impeachments.''\313\ Nowhere does the Constitution empower the 
President to unilaterally decide that an Impeachment is illegitimate. I 
conclude that investigations leading up to H.Res. 660 and the formal 
inquiry that continued afterward were duly authorized.

                        D.4. Further Litigation

    The President's Counsel argue that its categorical and 
comprehensive defiance cannot be deemed to be obstruction of Congress 
because the House has not sought judicial review of the subpoenas 
issued as part of the Impeachment inquiry.
    This argument is unconvincing given that the involvement of the 
Courts in information access disputes between the Legislative and 
Executive Branches has been rare, at least with respect to conflicts 
over House subpoenas. As the Congressional Research Service explains:
    The traditional preference for political rather than judicial 
solutions seems supported by the fact that neither Congress nor the 
President appears to have turned to the courts to resolve an 
investigative dispute until the 1970s . . . The courts themselves have 
also generally sought to avoid adjudicating investigative disputes 
between the executive and legislative branches, instead encouraging 
settlement of their differences through a political resolution. 
Consistent with that approach, lower federal courts have suggested that 
judicial intervention in investigative disputes ``should be delayed 
until all possibilities for settlement have been exhausted.'' . . . [In 
addition] some evidence suggests that both the House and the courts 
have viewed judicial involvement in an impeachment inquiry as 
inappropriate or in excess of the judiciary's power.\314\
    Moreover, the argument of the President's Counsel is ineffective in 
the context of the dilatory tactics the Trump Administration has been 
using in other pending cases where the House also has subpoenaed 
documents. In particular, the Administration has used arguments which, 
if taken together, seem to assert the President cannot be held 
accountable by either the Judicial or Legislative Branch. These stall 
tactics were highlighted in a case currently pending in the D.C. 
Circuit Court, Committee on the Judiciary v. McGahn. In this case, the 
House Judiciary Committee is trying to enforce a subpoena against 
former White House Counsel, Don McGahn. The D.C. District Court ruled 
against the DOJ, which claimed that McGahn had absolute immunity from 
congressional subpoenas for his testimony. In its decision, the Judge 
compares the DOJ's inconsistent arguments in the McGahn case with a 
series of cases regarding congressional subpoenas for the President's 
tax returns. The Judge points out that the:
    DOJ stood silent with respect to the jurisdictional question, as 
President Trump (in his personal capacity) has invoked the authority of 
the federal courts, on more than one occasion, seeking resolution of a 
dispute over the enforceability of a legislative subpoena concerning 
his tax returns. A lawsuit that asserts that a legislative subpoena 
should be quashed as unlawful is merely the flip side of a lawsuit that 
argues that a legislative subpoena should be enforced. And it is either 
DOJ's position that the federal courts have jurisdiction to review such 
subpoena-enforcement claims or that they do not. By arguing vigorously 
here that the federal courts have no subject-matter jurisdiction to 
entertain the Judiciary Committee's subpoena-enforcement action, yet 
taking no position on the jurisdictional basis for the President's 
maintenance of lawsuits to prevent Congress from accessing his personal 
records by legislative subpoena, DOJ implicitly suggests that (much 
like absolute testimonial immunity) the subject-matter jurisdiction of 
the federal courts is properly invoked only at the pleasure of the 
President.\315\
    The Judge in the McGahn case also noted that the DOJ made 
conflicting arguments in the House's lawsuit seeking grand jury 
evidence that contributed to former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's 
report. The Judge goes on to write:
    During oral argument, when one of the panelists asked DOJ about the 
district court's subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain the House's 
legal action, DOJ Counsel remarked that, while the Executive branch was 
``not advancing that argument[,]'' it believed that DOJ ``certainly has 
both standing and jurisdiction'' to seek review of the district court's 
injunction . . . But if DOJ's position is that the federal courts have 
the authority to entertain a legal claim concerning the House's 
contested request for allegedly privileged grand jury materials, how 
can it be heard to argue, nearly simultaneously, that the instant Court 
has no jurisdiction to entertain a legal claim concerning the 
enforceability of a House committee's subpoena compelling the testimony 
of senior-level presidential aides?\316\
    Further litigation is also problematic because, unlike Presidents 
Nixon and Clinton who were in their second terms, President Trump's 
misconduct is immediately preceding and, in anticipation of, the 
upcoming presidential election. The crux of President Trump's scheme 
was to corruptly use the vast powers of his presidency to invite 
foreign interference into the 2020 election in order to benefit himself 
politically. Allowing President Trump to delay this Impeachment through 
litigation would enable him to keep relevant documents and witnesses 
from coming out until after the 2020 election. It could also embolden 
him to engage in additional unfettered misconduct aimed at increasing 
his chances of getting reelected.
    This threat to the integrity of our elections is exactly the kind 
of misconduct that the Framers were worried about. In George Mason's 
view, a risk of election fraud ``furnished a peculiar reason in favor 
of impeachments[.]''\317\ Another exchange between two delegates, 
William Richardson Davie and James Wilson, highlights the importance of 
safeguarding against a corrupt president that would cheat to get 
reelected. Davie stated, ```[i]f he be not impeachable whilst in 
office, he will spare no efforts or means whatever to get himself 
reelected.' [Davie] considered this as an essential security for the 
good behaviour of the Executive.''\318\ Wilson concurred with Davie 
``in the necessity of making the Executive impeachable while in 
office.''\319\

                            D.5. Due Process

    The President's Counsel assert that the Impeachment inquiry is 
defective because of a lack of due process protections for President 
Trump. Specifically, in Mr. Cipollone's October 8th letter, he asserts 
that the President was entitled to due process rights during the 
House's Impeachment inquiry, which he was not afforded, including ``the 
right to see all evidence, to present evidence, to call witnesses, to 
have Counsel present at all hearings, to cross-examine all witnesses, 
to make objections . . . and to respond to evidence and 
testimony.''\320\
    Procedural due process--meaning the legal procedures to be used in 
a proceeding--is rooted in basic constitutional principles of 
fundamental fairness. Determining due process of the law ``require[s] . 
. . that state action, whether through one agency or another, shall be 
consistent with the fundamental principles of liberty and justice which 
lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions and not 
infrequently are designated as `law of the land.'''\321\
    In evaluating whether President Trump was afforded protections that 
are consistent with the ``fundamental principles of liberty and 
justice,'' the analysis should center on whether he was given rights 
customarily given to presidents in previous Impeachments.
    During the Clinton Impeachment inquiry, the President's Counsel was 
invited to attend all Judiciary Committee executive sessions and open 
hearings, was allowed to cross-examine witnesses, object to pieces of 
evidence, suggest that the Committee review additional evidence, and 
respond to evidence used by the Committee.\322\ During the Nixon 
Impeachment inquiry, the President's Counsel was not invited to 
participate in the Judiciary Committee's proceedings until months after 
the inquiry's authorizing resolution was passed.\323\ Once invited, 
Nixon's counsel was allowed to attend the initial presentation of 
evidence and respond to it in later proceedings, attend later hearings 
with witnesses, submit requests to call witnesses, cross-examine 
witnesses that were called, and object to pieces of evidence.\324\
    The House's Impeachment inquiry into President Trump afforded the 
President rights that were consistent with these precedents from prior 
presidential Impeachments. The President's Counsel was given the 
opportunity to participate in the House Judiciary Committee's 
proceedings during the impeachment inquiry. This included the right to 
attend every Judiciary Committee hearing; request additional witnesses 
during these hearings; present evidence orally or in writing; have the 
President's Counsel cross-examine witnesses; and raise objections 
during Judiciary Committee hearings.\325\ In a November 29th letter to 
the President, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Nadler inquired which 
of these privileges the President's Counsel wished to exercise.\326\ In 
his December 6th response, Mr. Cipollone chose not to exercise any of 
these rights and claimed the Impeachment inquiry violated due process 
rights.\327\
    After reviewing this comparison, I conclude President Trump has 
been afforded as least as much due process protection as Presidents 
Nixon and Clinton, and therefore standards of fundamental fairness 
requisite for due process have been met in the current Impeachment 
proceeding.
    Based on the above analysis, I find that there is overwhelmingly 
clear and convincing evidence that President Trump obstructed the House 
Impeachment inquiry without lawful cause or excuse and that President 
Trump is guilty on the second Article of Impeachment.
                    vii. lack of evidentiary record
A. Senate's Role in Lack of Witnesses and Documents
    As I have explained, the House of Representatives, as part of its 
Impeachment inquiry, subpoenaed documents and witnesses from multiple 
Executive Branch agencies. To date, the Administration has produced 
zero responsive documents. In fact, the Administration has engaged in a 
coordinated and systematic effort to deny relevant evidence and 
testimony to the House of Representatives in defiance of lawful 
Congressional subpoenas.\328\
    Fortunately, patriotic and law-abiding federal employees and former 
officials complied with lawful subpoenas and appeared at depositions or 
public hearings. As described previously, testimony provided by 
witnesses is probative of the President's guilt on both Articles of 
Impeachment.
    Once the Articles of Impeachment were received by the Senate, the 
Senate had the opportunity to utilize its own oversight and Impeachment 
authority pursuant to Article I of the Constitution to gather relevant 
documents and testimony. However, in this Impeachment trial, unlike 
previous ones conducted by the Senate, whether of Presidents or other 
officials, no witnesses were allowed.\329\
    My Republican colleagues voted against holding a fair trial. For 
example, Leader McConnell initially sought to have a set of rules 
governing this Impeachment trial that would not have included a 
provision to automatically adopt the House's evidence.\330\ He also 
sought to have twenty-four hours of opening arguments over two days to 
speed up the trial.\331\ My Republican colleagues relented on these 
points, allowing the House Impeachment Managers and the President's 
Counsel to each have twenty-four hours of argument over three 
days.\332\ The Republican-authored resolution ultimately did not 
guarantee witnesses, only providing for a vote on whether witnesses 
could be heard at the end of arguments and the question period.\333\ 
From the get-go, my Republican colleagues were reluctant to have 
evidence and arguments put in front of the American people for 
judgment.
    My Democratic colleagues offered eleven amendments in an effort to 
ensure a fair trial.\334\ The amendments, if adopted, would have 
permitted Senators and the American people to see relevant evidence and 
hear from witnesses. These amendments were defeated--almost entirely 
along party lines.\335\
    After the question and answer portion of the Impeachment trial, the 
Senate voted on amendments offered by my Democratic colleagues that 
would have provided for witnesses and documents.\336\ These amendments 
were again defeated, largely along partisan lines.\337\ It is crucial 
to note, that this second series of votes was taken after reports that 
Ambassador Bolton's draft manuscript contained evidence relevant and 
central to the allegations in the Articles of Impeachment. Through the 
end of the trial, the vast majority of my Republican colleagues did not 
want to hear from Ambassador Bolton, other relevant witnesses, or see 
documents that would likely reveal evidence damaging to the President.
    Further, Leader McConnell compared his approach in this trial to 
that of the Impeachment Trial of President Clinton, when Senators voted 
on whether to hear witnesses at the end of arguments.\338\ Leader 
McConnell's assertion is disingenuous considering that the Clinton 
Impeachment trial occurred after a lengthy and comprehensive 
investigation led by the then independent Counsel, Kenneth Starr, which 
included tens of thousands of pages of evidence and recorded testimony. 
During the Clinton Impeachment trial, witnesses had also previously 
testified in grand jury proceedings.\339\ There were no surprises as to 
what witnesses would say. President Trump's Impeachment Trial 
represents a stark departure from what occurred during the Clinton 
Impeachment Trial and indeed, sets a damaging and devastating 
precedent.
 viii. conclusion: removal of president trump is the sole appropriate 
                                 remedy
    Conviction and removal of a President from office is a high 
standard, and one that should only be arrived at when there are no 
other remedies available. As I laid out during the 1999 Impeachment 
trial of President Clinton, ``the independence of the Impeachment 
process from the prosecution of crimes underscores the function of 
Impeachment as a means to remove a President from office, not because 
of criminal behavior, but because the President poses a threat to the 
Constitutional order.''\340\ Furthermore, during the Clinton 
Impeachment proceedings, I concluded that the President's improper 
conduct must represent a continuing threat to the American people.\341\ 
In the current case, I have concluded that allowing President Trump to 
remain in office would pose such a continuing threat to our electoral 
system and the Constitution.
A. Subversion of the Constitutional Order and an Unaccountable 
        President
    The President's Counsel have argued that even if President Trump 
abused the power of his office to withhold U.S. military assistance to 
an ally, in order to pressure that country to conduct investigations 
for his personal and political benefit, doing so would not be an 
impeachable offense. According to the President's Counsel, ``If a 
President does something which he believes will help him get elected--
in the public interest--that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that 
results in impeachment.''\342\ It is on this basis that the President's 
Counsel further argue that, even if the President did in fact condition 
security assistance for Ukraine on politically-motivated 
investigations, it would not be an impeachable offense.\343\ That 
argument violates the fundamental principle of our constitutional 
system that no one is above the law.
    Furthermore, President Trump has shown that he will block any 
congressional check on his misuse of office by ignoring subpoenas as he 
pleases, without asserting a lawful cause. At the same time, Trump 
Administration lawyers have been arguing in various court cases that 
the Judiciary has no role in enforcing the very subpoenas from Congress 
that the Administration is resisting.
    President Trump's defiance of both Congress and the Courts on 
subpoenas threatens to nullify the constitutional authority of both the 
House and Senate, not merely to check the personal excesses of any 
given president, but also to oversee the entire Executive Branch. It 
validates and encourages the President's strategy of large-scale 
obstruction of congressional inquiries. It emboldens the President to 
defy investigations into his misconduct and strengthens the President's 
determination to resist additional congressional oversight.
    The result of permitting the Executive Branch to wholly disregard 
Congressional requests for information is not only to neuter the 
Impeachment power, but more profoundly, impact Congress as a 
fundamental check on executive mismanagement, abuse, corruption, and 
overreach embodied in the power of congressional oversight.
B. Ongoing Harm to the Constitutional Order
    An additional basis for seeking the removal of a President from 
office is that his conduct poses continuing harm to the constitutional 
order. President Trump's solicitation of foreign election interference, 
based on the perpetuation and amplification of baseless and unfounded 
theories that harm his political opponents, serves to damage the 
fundamental institutions of our democracy.
    President Trump's behavior was not a one-time indiscretion, but 
rather part of a pattern of behavior to invite foreign influence into 
our elections which thereby undermines the constitutional order and 
harms the integrity of our democracy. In 2016, then-candidate Trump 
called on Russia to hack the emails of his political rival, Secretary 
Clinton.\344\ He also promoted hacked emails from Secretary Clinton's 
campaign that were stolen by Russian Military Intelligence units, in 
order to benefit himself politically in the 2016 election.\345\ In June 
2019, President Trump publicly announced that he would take information 
on his political rival from a foreign government.\346\ Moreover, he 
pressured Ukraine to announce investigations into his political 
opponents to benefit his 2020 campaign. Indeed, even after the House 
began its Impeachment inquiry and he was confronted by allegations of 
soliciting foreign interference, President Trump doubled down by asking 
China also to investigate the Bidens.\347\ In addition, as stated 
earlier, his personal attorney, Mr. Giuliani as recently as December 
2019, was working to gather disinformation on political opponents.\348\
    The President has in no way taken responsibility for these actions 
or shown that he understands the consequences of his behavior and its 
harm to the Constitution. After the Impeachment trial in 1999, 
President Clinton apologized to the nation and acted contrite. In 
contrast, President Trump has not, in any way, admitted wrongdoing and 
clings to the fiction that his call with President Zelensky was 
``perfect.''\349\ This lack of remorse, combined with his past and 
present actions, leaves open the possibility that President Trump will 
repeat such offenses in the future.
C. Elections Cannot be the Sole Remedy
    It has been argued that Impeachment and removal of the President is 
not the appropriate remedy when the country is roughly ten months away 
from an election. The President's Counsel argue that any judgment 
regarding the President's actions should be left to the American people 
when they go to the polls in November 2020. However, by soliciting 
foreign interference in the coming election, President Trump's actions 
threaten the viability of our elections and the very foundation of our 
constitutional order to serve as a check on the President's conduct.
    The Founders were acutely aware of the dangers of foreign election 
interference. As Alexander Hamilton said in Federalist Paper Number 68, 
``[t]he desire [of] foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our 
Counsels'' was one of ``the most deadly adversaries of republican 
government.''\350\ The Founders knew this risk was inevitable in an 
election setting. In a letter to John Adams, Thomas Jefferson wrote 
``You are apprehensive of foreign Interference, Intrigue, Influence. So 
am I--But, as often as Elections happen, the danger of foreign 
Influence recurs.''\351\
    I reject the notion, put forward by the President's Counsel, that a 
President who believes his reelection is in the best interest of the 
country cannot be impeached for abusing his power to tilt the next 
election in his favor. The Impeachment clause cannot be read to provide 
a carte blanche for the President to engage in illegal acts\352\ that 
directly undermine the operation of our free and fair electoral system. 
The remedy for a President attempting to corrupt the next election 
cannot be allowing the President to corrupt that election. Even a well-
intentioned autocrat is still an autocrat and not a President subject 
to the Constitution. If accepted as true, these views would pave the 
way for the type of autocratic government that the Founders feared and 
fought to leave behind.
    For elections to express the will of the electorate, they must be 
free and fair. Elections must be legitimate, and the public must have 
confidence in them. Even the perception that our elections are tainted 
would lead voters to question whether their vote matters. That is why 
one of our jobs as lawmakers is to ensure the integrity of the 
electoral process. We work to ensure that every vote cast is fairly and 
accurately counted. We work to ensure that external forces, foreign or 
otherwise, cannot sway or pre-determine the outcome of the election. 
The United States government should not be playing a role in advancing 
the goals of foreign powers that seek to use our institutions to 
further their own interests.
    Acquitting President Trump would undermine the integrity of our 
elections and clear the way for Russia or other countries to repeat in 
2020, and beyond, the kind of election interference that the 
Intelligence Community unanimously assessed occurred in the 2016 
election. Through acquittal, the Senate will give its blessing for 
President Trump to use any means at his disposal to sway the next 
election in his favor, with no consequences. President Trump has 
already demonstrated unequivocally that he has no compunction about 
violating the law, obstructing congressional oversight, and putting our 
nation and allies at risk. The difference now will be that President 
Trump will know that the Senate will give him cover for his future 
abuses of office. The ongoing threat to the constitutional order must 
be remedied, and therefore removal of the President is the only logical 
finding in this case.
                                endnotes
    1. H.R. Res. 755, 116th Cong. (2019).
    2. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 3, cl. 6; 166 Cong. Rec. 10, S268 
(daily ed. Jan. 16, 2020).
    3. The Federalist No. 65, at 441 (Alexander Hamilton) (Jacob E. 
Cooke ed., 1961) (emphasis in original).
    4. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 3, cl. 6.
    5. U.S. Const. art. II, Sec. 4.
    6. U.S. Const. art III, Sec. 3, cl. 1.
    7. Staff of H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 116th Cong., Rep. on 
Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment 14 (Comm. Print 
2019).
    8. 2 Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 
2152 (William Carey Jones ed., 1976).
    9. Id. at 2153.
    10. Charles Doyle, Cong. Research Serv., 98-882, Impeachment 
Grounds: A Collection of Selected Materials 4 (1998).
    11. The Federalist No. 65, supra note 3, at 439 (emphasis in 
original).
    12. 2 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 550 (Max 
Farrand ed., 1911).
    13. Id.
    14. 4 The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption 
of the Federal Constitution 113 (Jonathon Elliot ed., 2nd ed. 1861).
    15. Michael J. Gerhardt, The Federal Impeachment Process: A 
Constitutional and Historical Analysis 21 (3rd ed. The University of 
Chicago Press 2019) (1996).
    16. 2 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitutions 799 at 269-70 
quoting William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States 
at 213 (2d ed. 1829).
    17. Staff of H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 93rd Cong., Rep. on 
Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment 27 (Comm. Print 
1974).
    18. 2 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, supra note 12, 
at 64-65.
    19. Id. at 550
    20. Id.
    21. Id.
    22. Id.
    23. Id. at 551.
    24. Id. at 600.
    25. Trial Memorandum of President Donald J. Trump, In Proceedings 
Before the United States Senate 1 (Jan. 20, 2020).
    26. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 3, cl. 7.
    27. 1 The Collected Works of James Wilson 736 (Kermit L. Hall and 
Mark David Hall eds., 2007).
    28. Memorandum from William Barr, Attorney General, Department of 
Justice, to Rod Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General, Department of 
Justice, and Steve Engel, Assistant Attorney General, Department of 
Justice 12 (June 8, 2018) (on file with the New York Times) (emphasis 
in original).
    29. 2 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, supra note 12, 
at 65-66.
    30. The Federalist No. 68, at 458-459 (Alexander Hamilton) (Jacob 
E. Cooke ed., 1961); 1 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 
319 (Max Farrand, ed., 1911); 2 The Records of the Federal Convention 
of 1787, supra note 12, at 271-272.
    31. 2 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, supra note 12, 
at 268.
    32. The Federalist No. 22, at 142 (Alexander Hamilton) (Jacob E. 
Cooke ed., 1961).
    33. Id.
    34. Charles L. Black, Jr. & Philip Bobbit, Impeachment: A Handbook, 
New Edition 17 (2018).
    35. The Federalist No. 65, supra note 3, at 441; Laurence Tribe & 
Joshua Matz, To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment 127 (2018).
    36. The Federalist No. 65, supra note 3, at 441.
    37. Id. at 442.
    38. Opinion Memorandum of United States Senator John F. Reed, Trial 
of President William Jefferson Clinton 1 (Feb. 14, 1999).
    39. 145 Cong. Rec. 6, S260 (daily ed. Jan. 15, 1999) (statement of 
Mr. Manager McCollum).
    40. Opinion Memorandum of U.S. Senator John F. Reed, supra note 38, 
at 6.
    41. Id.
    42. Black & Bobbitt, supra note 34.
    43. Id. (Black's analysis is cited by several other scholars as 
persuasive; See e.g., Laurence Tribe and Joshua Matz, To End a 
Presidency: The Power of Impeachment 137 (2018).
    44. 2 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, supra note 12, 
at 67.
    45. The Federalist No. 69, at 463 (Alexander Hamilton) (Jacob E. 
Cooke ed., 1961).
    46. 2 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, supra note 12, 
at 65.
    47. Id. at 67.
    48. H.R. Rep. No. 93-1305, at 139 (1974).
    49. S. Doc. No. 58-133, at 5 (1905); S. Doc. No. 69-101, at 1 
(1926); S. Doc. No. 72-215, at 2 (1933). These judges were district 
judges Charles Swayne of Florida, George English of Illinois, and 
Harold Louderback of California.
    50. James M. Naughton, Nixon Says a President Can Order Illegal 
Actions Against Dissidents, Special to N.Y. Times, May 19, 1977, 
available at https://www.nytimes.com/1977/05/19/archives/nixon-says-a-
president-can-order-illegal-actions-against-dissidents.html.
    51. Black's Law Dictionary 13 (11th ed. 2019).
    52. H.R. Rep. No. 93-1305, at 139 (1974).
    53. Id. at 3, 139-40.
    54. Id. at 4, 139, 140.
    55. Id. at 180.
    56. H.R. Rep. No. 116-346, at 5 (2019).
    57. Impeachment Inquiry: Fiona Hill and David Holmes Before the H. 
Perm. Select Comm. on Intelligence, 116th Cong. 40 (2019) (statement of 
Dr. Fiona Hill). (On November 21, 2019, NSC senior adviser Fiona Hill 
described the theory of Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election as 
``a fictional narrative that is being perpetrated and propagated by the 
Russian security services themselves.'')
    58. Scott Shane, How a Fringe Theory About Ukraine Took Root in the 
White House, N.Y. Times, Oct. 3, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/
03/us/politics/trump-ukraine-conspiracy.html.
    59. Office of the Director of National Intelligence, National 
Intelligence Council, Assessing Russian Activities in Recent US 
Elections ii (2017). (The Intelligence Community unanimously concluded 
on January 6, 2017, that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to 
``undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate 
Secretary Clinton and her electability and potential Presidency.'' The 
Intelligence Community further assessed that ``Putin and the Russian 
Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.'')
    60. 1 Robert S. Mueller, III, Report On The Investigation Into 
Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election 1-2 (Mar., 
2019). (The Special Counsel's investigation into Russian interference 
in the 2016 concluded that ``. . . the Russian government perceived it 
would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that 
outcome, and that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally 
from information stolen and released through Russian efforts . . .'')
    61. 2 Robert S. Mueller, III, Report On The Investigation Into 
Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election 23 (Mar., 2019).
    62. 1 Mueller, supra note 60, at 1.
    63. Interview of: George Kent Before the H. Perm. Select Comm. On 
Intelligence, Joint with the Comm. on Oversight and Reform and the 
Comm. on Foreign Affairs, 116th Cong. 268 and 275 (2019).
    64. Interview of: Kurt Volker Before the H. Perm. Select Comm. On 
Intelligence, Joint with the Comm. on Oversight and Reform and the 
Comm. on Foreign Affairs, 116th Cong. 37 (2019). (As part of Biden's 
role as the lead on Ukraine policy for the Obama Administration, he 
called for institutional reform in the justice sector, including the 
firing of then Prosecutor General Victor Shokin. The Obama 
administration had urged his resignation because he was not actively 
investigating serious cases of corruption, and threatened to withhold 
$1 billion in loan guarantees. The call for Shokin to resign was the 
unanimous position of the United States and the West. Multiple 
witnesses testified that Vice President Biden was acting in accordance 
with bipartisan US policy towards Ukraine. For example, Ambassador 
Volker stated: ``When Vice President Biden made those representations . 
. . he was representing U.S. policy at the time.''); Impeachment 
Inquiry: Ambassador Kurt Volker and Timothy Morrison Before the H. 
Perm. Select Comm. on Intelligence, 116th Cong. 20 (2019) (statement of 
Amb. Volker). (Ambassador Volker testified at his public hearing, 
``it's not credible to me that former Vice President Biden would have 
been influenced in any way by financial or personal motives in carrying 
out his duties as Vice President.''); Daryna Krasnolutska, Kateryna 
Choursina and Stephanie Baker, Ukraine Prosecutor Says No Evidence of 
Wrongdoing by Bidens, Bloomberg, May 16, 2019, https://
www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-16/ukraine-prosecutor-says-no-
evidence-of-wrongdoing-by-bidens. (Allegations of wrong doing by Hunter 
Biden have also been found to be without merit including by then 
Prosecutor General Lutsenko who stated in mid-May 2019, that he had 
found no evidence of wrongdoing by Hunter Biden, recanting his previous 
allegations.)
    65. See e.g. Arlette Saenz, Joe Biden Announces He is Running for 
President in 2020, CNN, Apr. 25, 2019, https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/25/
politics/joe-biden-2020-president/index.html. (Vice President Biden 
declared his candidacy for president on April 25, 2019, following 
months of speculation about whether he would run and being cast by the 
press as a formidable rival to President Trump.)
    66. Trial Memorandum of the United States House of Representatives, 
In the Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump 3 (Jan. 18, 
2020).
    67. Kenneth P. Vogel, Rudy Giuliani Plans Ukraine Trip to Push for 
Inquires that Could Help Trump, N.Y. Times, May 9, 2019, https://
www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/us/politics/giuliani-ukraine-trump.html. 
(According to Mr. Giuliani, the President was fully witting of the Mr. 
Giuliani's activities to further the scheme. Mr. Giuliani told the New 
York Times that the President, ``basically knows what I'm doing, sure, 
as his lawyer,'' and, ``[m]y only client is the president of the United 
States. He's the one I have an obligation to report to, tell him what 
happened.'')
    68. See generally Karen Freifeld & Aram Roston, Exclusive: Trump 
Lawyer Giuliani was Paid $500,000 to Consult on Indicted Associate's 
Firm, Reuters, Oct. 14, 2019, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-
trump-whistleblower-giuliani-excl/exclusive-trump-lawyer-giuliani-was-
paid-500000-to-consult-on-indicted-associates-firm-idUSKBN1WU07Z; 
Rosalind S. Helderman, Josh Dawsey, Paul Sonne and Tom Hamburger, How 
Two Soviet-Born Emigres Made it into Elite Trump Circles--and the 
Center of the Impeachment Storm, Washington Post, Oct. 12, 2019, 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-two-soviet-born-emigres-
made-it-into-elite-trump-circles-and-the-center-of-the-impeachment-
storm/2019/10/12/9a3c03be-ec53-11e9-85c0-85a098e47b37_story.html; 
Kenneth P. Vogel, Ben Protess and Sarah Maslin Nir, Behind the Deal 
that put Giuliani Together with a Dirt-Hunting Partner, N.Y. Times, 
Nov. 6, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/06/us/politics/ukraine-
giuliani-charles-gucciardo.html; United States of America v. Lev 
Parnas, Igor Fruman, David Correia, And Andrey Kukushkin, Defendants. 
No. 19 CRIM 725 (S.D.N.Y filed October 9, 2019). (In the spring of 
2018, Soviet born businessmen Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman had multiple 
contacts with President Trump and his associates. Mr. Parnas and Mr. 
Fruman donated $325,000 to the pro-Trump Super Pac America First Action 
through an LLC. Through those contacts, they forged a relationship with 
Trump personal attorney Rudy Giuliani. In August, 2018, Mr. Parnas and 
Mr. Fruman hired Giuliani for $500,000 to provide legal advice for 
their company ``Fraud Guarantee.'' Press reports indicate that Fraud 
Guarantee appears to have no customers. On October 10, 2019 a federal 
indictment from the Southern District of New York charged Mr. Parnas 
and Mr. Fruman with funneling illegal campaign contributions from 
foreign donors to U.S. government officials and political action 
committees.)
    69. See Kim Hjelmgaard, Ukraine Opens Case Against Former 
Prosecutor Yuriy Lutsenko, USA Today, Oct. 1, 2019, https://
www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/10/01/ukraine-opens-case-
against-ex-prosecutor-yuriy-lutsenko/3828779002/. (Mr. Lutsenko was 
fired in late August 2019 by newly-elected President Zelensky. In 
October 2019, Ukraine's State Bureau of investigations (SBI) opened 
criminal proceedings against Mr. Lutsenko over possible abuse of power 
charges, stemming from illegal gambling operations.)
    70. See Christopher Miller, Why was Ukraine''s Top Prosecutor 
Fired? The Issue at the Heart of the Dispute Gripping Washington, Radio 
Free Europe, Sep. 24, 2019, https://www.rferl.org/a/why-was-ukraine-
top-prosecutor-fired-viktor-shokin/30181445.html. (Mr. Shokin had 
served as the Prosecutor General during the Poroshenko administration 
from February 2015-March 2016. In the fall of 2015, the Obama 
Administration grew concerned that Mr. Shokin, despite promises to 
increase anti-corruption investigations, had not followed through, 
including on promises to investigate corruption allegations against the 
Ukrainian energy company Burisma. In March 2016, Vice President Biden 
called for Mr. Shokin to be fired and told Ukrainian authorities that 
the United States would withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees if he 
was not relieved of his position. The U.S. position that Mr. Shokin 
should be removed and replaced with a prosecutor general that was 
dedicated to institutional reforms was coordinated with European allies 
and partners and held popular support inside Ukraine. On March 29, 
2016, the Ukrainian Rada (parliament) voted overwhelmingly in approval 
of President Poroshenko's decision to fire Mr. Shokin); Interview of: 
George Kent, supra note 63, at 45. (Regarding Mr. Shokin, Deputy 
Assistant Secretary Kent, a leading authority on rule of law and anti-
corruption efforts, assessed in his deposition, ``There was a broad-
based consensus that he [Shokin] was a typical Ukraine prosecutor who 
lived a lifestyle far in excess of his government salary, who never 
prosecuted anybody known for having committed a crime, and having 
covered up crimes that were known to have been committed.'')
    71. Interview of: George Kent, supra note 63, at 47. (The Skype 
call between Mr. Shokin and Mr. Giuliani occurred after Mr. Shokin was 
denied a visa to travel to the United States, based on his record of 
corrupt dealings. Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent testified that 
the State Department objected to the visa because Mr. Shokin was ``very 
well and very unfavorably known to us. And we felt, under no 
circumstances, should a visa be issued to someone who knowingly 
subverted and wasted U.S. taxpayer money.'' Mr. Kent further testified 
that White House aide Robert Blair called to follow up on why Shokin 
was denied a visa.); Deposition of: Marie ``Masha'' Yovanovitch, Before 
the H. Perm. Select Comm. On Intelligence, Joint with the Comm. on 
Oversight and Reform and the Comm. on Foreign Affairs, 116th Cong. 264-
265 (2019). (Ambassador Yovanovitch stated at her closed-door 
interview, ``The embassy had received a visa application for a tourist 
visa from Mr. Shokin, the previous prosecutor general. And he said that 
he was coming to visit his children, who live in the United States . . 
. The consular folks . . . got the application, recognized the name, 
and believed he was ineligible for a visa, based on his . . . corrupt 
activities . . . so I alerted Washington to this, that this had 
happened. And the next thing we knew, Mayor Giuliani was calling the 
White House as well as the Assistant Secretary of Consular Affairs, 
saying that I was blocking the visa for Mr. Shokin, and that Mr. Shokin 
was coming to meet him to provide information about corruption at the 
embassy, including my corruption.'')
    72. Notes from Interview with Mr. Shokin, Rudolph Giuliani (Jan. 
23, 2019) (on file with the State Department).
    73. Id.
    74.  Id.
    75. See Stephanie Baker & Irina Reznik, To Win Giuliani's Help, 
Oligarch's Allies Pursued Biden Dirt, Bloomberg, Oct. 18, 2019, https:/
/www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-18/to-win-giuliani-s-help-
oligarch-s-allies-pursued-biden-dirt. (In early September 2019, Shokin 
swore in an affidavit that Vice President Biden pressured the 
Poroshenko administration to fire him to protect Hunter Biden. He 
further testified that he was forced out because he was leading ``a 
wide ranging corruption probe'' of Burisma and that he was ``forced to 
leave office, under direct and intense pressure from Joe Biden and the 
U.S. Administration.'' At the beginning of the affidavit, Shokin wrote 
that he was making the statement at the request of lawyers acting for 
pro-Putin Ukrainian oligarch Dmitry Firtash, who has a history of 
acting as a Russian agent and in July 2019, retained the pro-Trump 
legal team Victoria Toensing and Joe DiGenova, who have been working in 
coordination with Giuliani to further the corrupt scheme. As part of 
his legal representation, Mr. Firtash retained Giuliani associate Lev 
Parnas to be his translator. Furthermore, court filings indicate that 
Mr. Firtash wired Mr. Parnas's wife a million dollars through an 
intermediary. It must be further noted that Mr. Giuliani referenced 
that Ms. Toensing would accompany him to the meeting he requested with 
then President- elect Zelensky in mid-May. While the letter did not 
state the purpose of the requested meeting, Mr. Giuliani stated 
publicly that he intended to tell President Zelensky to pursue the 
investigation.); See also Letter from Rudolph Giuliani to Volodymyr 
Zelensky, President-Elect, Ukraine (May 10, 2019) (on file with H. 
Perm. Select Comm. On Intelligence); Christian Berthelsen, Giuliani 
Ally Got $1 Million from Ukrainian Oligarch's Lawyer, Bloomberg, Dec. 
17, 2019, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-17/firtash-
lawyer-was-source-of-1-million-to-parnas-giuliani-ally.
    76.Andy Heil & Christopher Miller, U.S. Rejects Ukraine Top 
Prosecutor's `Don't Prosecute' Accusation, Radio Free Europe, Mar. 21, 
2019, https://www.rferl.org/a/us-rejects-top-ukrainian-prosecutors-
dont-prosecute-accusation/29834853.html. (On March 21, a State 
Department spokesperson responded: ``The allegations by the Ukrainian 
prosecutor-general are not true and intended to tarnish the reputation 
of Ambassador Yovanovitch.'')
    77.Staff of H. Perm. Select Comm. on Intelligence, 116th Cong., 
Rep. on The Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry 44 (Comm. Print 2019). 
(The House Committees who led the impeachment investigation, 
``uncovered evidence of close ties and frequent contacts between Mr. 
Solomon and Mr. Parnas, who was assisting Mr. Giuliani in connection 
with his representation of the President.''); Adam Entous, The 
Ukrainian Prosecutor Behind Trump's Impeachment, The New Yorker, Dec. 
16, 2019, https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/12/23/the-ukrainian-
prosecutor-behind-trumps-impeachment. (In December 2019, Giuliani 
affirmed coordination with Hill columnist John Solomon: ``I said, `John 
[Solomon], let's make this as prominent as possible . . . I'll go on 
TV. You go on TV. You do columns.''')
    78.See John Solomon, As Russia Collusion Fades, Ukrainian Plot to 
Help Clinton Emerges, The Hill, Mar. 20, 2019, https://thehill.com/
opinion/campaign/435029-as-russia-collusion-fades-ukrainian-plot-to-
help-clinton-emerges; John Solomon, US Embassy Pressed Ukraine to Drop 
Probe of George Soros Group During the 2016 election, The Hill, Mar. 
26, 2019, https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/435906-us-embassy-
pressed-ukraine-to-drop-probe-of-george-soros-group-during-2016; John 
Solomon, Joe Biden''s 2020 Ukrainian Nightmare: A Closed Probe is 
Revived, The Hill, Apr. 1, 2019, https://thehill.com/opinion/white-
house/436816-joe-bidens-2020-ukrainian-nightmare-a-closed-probe-is-
revived; John Solomon, Ukrainian to U.S. Prosecutors: Why Don't You 
Want Our Evidence on Democrats?, The Hill, Apr. 7, 2019, https://
thehill.com/opinion/white-house/437719-ukrainian-to-us-prosecutors-why-
dont-you-want-our-evidence-on-democrats; (John Solomon wrote the above 
columns based on the disinformation that Mr. Giuliani gathered from Mr. 
Shokin, Mr. Lutsenko and others.)
    79. See Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter (Mar. 20, 2019, 
10:40 PM), https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/
1108559080204001280. (For instance, President Trump promoted a link to 
Solomon's column from March 20, 2019).
    80. See Donald Trump, Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr), Twitter (Apr. 2, 2019, 
7:52 AM), https://twitter.com/donaldjtrumpjr/status/
1113046659456528385. (Donald Trump Jr. retweeted Solomon's April 1 
column on April 2, 2019.)
    81. See Rudy Giuliani (@RudyGiuliani), Twitter (Mar. 22, 2019, 
11:38 AM), https://twitter.com/RudyGiuliani/status/1109117167176466432. 
(On March 22, Mr. Giuliani tweeted an allegation from the article: 
``Hillary, Kerry, and Biden people colluding with Ukrainian operatives 
to make money and affect 2016 election.'')
    82. Interview by Sean Hannity with Donald Trump, President, United 
States (Apr. 25, 2019). (Mr. Hannity asked the President if the people 
of the United States needed to see the evidence Ukraine has with 
regards to Ukraine colluding with Hillary Clinton's campaign. President 
Trump responded, ``. . . I think we do.'' He went on to claim that 
that, ``People have been saying . . . the concept of Ukraine, they have 
been talking about it actually for a long time . . .'')
    83. Interview by Howard Kurtz with Rudolph Giuliani (Apr. 7, 2019). 
(For instance, on April 7, 2019, Mr. Giuliani stated on Fox News, ``I 
got information about three or four months ago that a lot of the 
explanations for how this whole phony investigation started will be in 
the Ukraine, that there were a group of people in the Ukraine that were 
working to help Hillary Clinton and were colluding really . . . And 
then all of a sudden, they revealed the story about Burisma and Biden's 
son . . . [Vice President Biden] bragged about pressuring Ukraine's 
president to firing [sic] a top prosecutor who was being criticized on 
a whole bunch of areas but was conducting an investigation of this gas 
company which Hunter Biden served as a director . . .'')
    84. Trial Memorandum of the United States House of Representatives, 
supra note 66, at SMF 4.
    85. Deposition of: Marie ``Masha'' Yovanovitch, Before the H. Perm. 
Select Comm. On Intelligence, Joint with the Comm. on Oversight and 
Reform and the Comm. on Foreign Affairs, 116th Cong. 131 (2019). 
(Ambassador Yovanovitch testified that Deputy Secretary of State John 
Sullivan informed her that ``the President had lost confidence, and I 
would need to depart my post . . . And he said, you've done nothing 
wrong. And he said that he had to speak to ambassadors who had been 
recalled for cause before and this was not that.'')
    86. Adam Entous, The Ukrainian Prosecutor Behind Trump's 
Impeachment, The New Yorker, Dec. 16, 2019, https://www.newyorker.com/
magazine/2019/12/23/the-ukrainian-prosecutor-behind-trumps-impeachment.
    87. Text Message from Yuriy Lutsenko, Prosecutor General, Ukraine, 
to Lev Parnas (Mar. 22, 2019) (on file with H. Perm. Select Comm. on 
Intelligence).
    88. Interview by Rachel Maddow with Lev Parnas (Jan. 16, 2020).
    89. Impeachment Inquiry: Fiona Hill and David Holmes, supra note 
57, at 40; Vladimir Putin, President, Russia, Remarks in Joint News 
Conference with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban (Feb. 2, 2017). 
(Russian President Vladimir Putin publicly accused Ukraine of 
interfering to support Secretary Clinton in 2016. On February 2, 2017 
Putin stated: ``As we all know, during the presidential campaign in the 
United States, the Ukrainian government adopted a-unilateral position 
in favor of one candidate. More than that, certain oligarchs, certainly 
with the approval of the political leadership, funded . . . this female 
candidate.'')
    90. Luke Barr & Alexander Mallin, FBI Director Pushes Back on 
Debunked Conspiracy Theory About 2016 Election Interference, ABC News, 
Dec. 9, 2019, https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fbi-director-pushes-back-
debunked-conspiracy-theory-2016/story?id=67609244.
    91. Chris Grancescani, President Trump's Former National Security 
Advisor `Deeply Disturbed' by Ukraine Scandal: `Whole World is 
Watching', ABC News, Sept. 29, 2019, https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/
president-trumps-national-security-advisor-deeply-disturbed-ukraine/
story?id=65925477. (Mr. Tom Bossert, President Trump's former Homeland 
Security Adviser stated in a Press interview that the Crowdstrike 
allegations are, ``completely debunked.'' Mr. Bossert further stated, 
``The United States government reached its conclusion on attributing to 
Russia the DNC hack in 2016 before it even communicated it to the FBI, 
before it ever knocked on the door at the DNC. So a server inside the 
DNC was not relevant to our determination to the attribution. It was 
made up front and beforehand.'')
    92. Allan Smith, `Enough': Trump's Ex-Homeland Security Adviser 
`Disturbed,' `Frustrated' by Ukraine Allegations, Says President Must 
Let 2016 Go, NBC News, Sept. 29, 2019, https://www.nbcnews.com/
politics/donald-trump/enough-trump-s-former-homeland-security-adviser-
disturbed-ukraine-allegations-n1060051.
    93. See 166 Cong. Rec. 17, S596-98 (daily ed. Jan. 27, 2020) 
(Statement of Ms. Counsel Bondi); See generally Adam Entous, Will 
Hunter Biden Jeopardize his Father's Campaign?, New Yorker, Jul. 1, 
2019, https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/07/08/will-hunter-biden-
jeopardize-his-fathers-campaign; Michael Kranish & David L. Stern, As 
Vice President, Biden Said Ukraine Should Increase Gas Production. Then 
His Son Got a Job at a Ukrainian Gas Company., Washington Post, Jul. 
22, 2019, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-vice-president-
biden-said-ukraine-should-increase-gas-production-then-his-son-got-a-
job-with-a-ukrainian-gas-company/2019/07/21/f599f42c-86dd-11e9-98c1-
e945ae5db8fb_story.html; Lucien Bruggeman, Biden Sought to Avoid a 
Conflict of Interest Before the 2008 Campaign: Court Records, ABC News, 
Oct. 8, 2019, https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/joe-bidens-effort-dodge-
sons-conflict-interest-backfired/story?id=66371399; Glen Kessler, GOP 
Tries to Connect Dots on Biden and Ukraine, but Comes Up Short, 
Washington Post, Dec. 4, 2019, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/
2019/12/04/gop-tries-connect-dots-biden-ukraine-comes-up-short/. (The 
President's Counsel made assertions of the appearance of conflict of 
interest, but did not produce evidence that Hunter Biden broke the laws 
of the United States or Ukraine or that Vice President Biden acted 
corruptly in calling for the removal of then Prosecutor General Victor 
Shokin. Multiple media outlets have also undertaken investigations into 
the allegations regarding Vice President Biden and Hunter Biden, and 
produced no evidence of wrongdoing.)
    94. Interview of: Kurt Volker Before the H. Perm. Select Comm. On 
Intelligence, Joint with the Comm. on Oversight and Reform and the 
Comm. on Foreign Affairs, 116th Cong. 36-37 (2019).
    95. Alan Cullison, Bidens in Ukraine: An Explainer, Wall Street 
Journal, Sept. 22, 2019, https://www.wsj.com/articles/bidens-
anticorruption-effort-in-ukraine-overlapped-with-sons-work-in-country-
11569189782. (For example, Ukraine expert Anders Aslund from the 
Atlantic Council recalls, ``Everyone in the Western community wanted 
Shokin sacked. The whole G-7, the IMF, the EBRD, everybody was united 
that Shokin must go, and the spokesman for this effort was Joe 
Biden.'')
    96. Geoffrey Pyatt, then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Remarks at the 
Odesa Financial Forum in Odesa, Ukraine (Sept. 24, 2015). (In the fall 
of 2015, the Obama Administration grew concerned that Shokin, despite 
promises to increase anti-corruption investigations, had not followed 
through with enacting forms. For example, on September 24, 2015, then 
US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt stated publicly that Shokin's 
office ``not only did not support investigations into corruption, but 
rather undermined prosecutors working on legitimate corruption cases.'' 
Ambassador Pyatt specifically brought up Burisma as an example of an 
investigation that had languished under Shokin's tenure as Prosecutor 
General.)
    97. See Joe Biden, then-Vice President, United States, Remarks to 
the Ukrainian Rada in Kyiv, Ukraine (Dec. 9, 2015). (On December 9, 
2015, Vice President Biden stated in front of the Ukrainian Parliament 
(Rada): ``. . . you cannot name me a single democracy in the world 
where the cancer of corruption is prevalent. You cannot name me one. 
They are thoroughly inconsistent. And it's not enough to set up a new 
anti-corruption bureau and establish a special prosecutor fighting 
corruption. The Office of the General Prosecutor desperately needs 
reform. The judiciary should be overhauled. The energy sector needs to 
be competitive, ruled by market principles--not sweetheart deals.'')
    98. 166 Cong. Rec. 20, S727 (daily ed. Jan. 30, 2020) (statement of 
Mr. Counsel Philbin).
    99. Entous, supra note 86.
    100. See UNIAN, Ukrainian Prosecutor General Lutsenko Admits U.S. 
Ambassador Didn't Give Him a Do Not Prosecute List, Apr. 18, 2019, 
https://www.unian.info/politics/10520715-ukraine-prosecutor-general-
lutsenko-admits-u-s-ambassador-didn-t-give-him-a-do-not-prosecute-
list.html; Daryna Krasnolutska, Kateryna Choursina and Stephanie Baker, 
Ukraine Prosecutor Says No Evidence of Wrongdoing by Bidens, Bloomberg, 
May 16, 2019, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-16/
ukraine-prosecutor-says-no-evidence-of-wrongdoing-by-bidens; Michael 
Birnbaum, David L. Stern and Natalie Gryvnyak, Former Ukraine 
Prosecutor Says Hunter Biden `Did Not Violate Anything', Washington 
Post, Sept. 26, 2019, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/
former-ukraine-prosecutor-says-hunter-biden-did-not-violate-anything/
2019/09/26/48801f66-e068-11e9-be7f-4cc85017c36f_story.html; Andrew E. 
Kramer, Andrew Higgins and Michael Schwirtz, The Ukrainian Ex-
Prosecutor Behind the Impeachment Furor, N.Y. Times, Oct. 5, 2019, 
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/05/world/europe/ukraine-prosecutor-
trump.html. (On April 21, 2019, Mr. Lutsenko admitted that the claim he 
made about U.S. ambassador Yovanovitch was false. In May 2019, Mr. 
Lutsenko said there was no evidence of wronging by Vice President Biden 
or his son. In September 2019, Mr. Lutsenko said that Hunter Biden did 
not violate Ukrainian laws. In October 2019, Mr. Lutsenko told the New 
York Times, ``I understood very well what would interest them . . . I 
have 23 years in politics. I knew. I am a political animal.'')
    101. Interview of: Kurt Volker, supra note 94, at 354.
    102. Vogel, supra note, 67.
    103. Id.
    104. Id. (Mr. Giuliani said, ``He basically knows what I am doing, 
sure, as his lawyer.'')
    105. Letter from Rudolph Giuliani to Arsen Avakov, Minister of 
Internal Affairs, Ukraine (May 10, 2019) (on file with H. Perm. Select 
Comm. on Intelligence). (The letter was provided to the House Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence and was made public on January 14, 
2020. In the letter, Mr. Giuliani wrote, ``I will be accompanied by my 
colleague Victoria Toensing, a distinguished American attorney who is 
very familiar with this matter.''); Jo Becker, Walt Bogdanich, Maggie 
Haberman, and Ben Protess, Why Giuliani Singled out 2 Ukrainian 
Oligarchs to Help Look for Dirt, N.Y. Times, Nov. 25, 2019, https://
www.nytimes.com/2019/11/25/us/giuliani-ukraine-oligarchs.html; (As 
noted prior, Victoria Toensing, along with her Partner Joe DiGenova, 
were retained by pro-Putin Ukrainian oligarch Dmitry Firtash in July 
2019. Facing extradition related to a bribery charge in Chicago in 
2014, Mr. Firtash was convinced by Mr. Giuliani and his associates to 
get new legal representation to better ingratiate himself with the 
leadership at the Department of Justice under the Trump Administration. 
Mr. Firtash told the New York Times that Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman told 
him: ``We may help you, we are offering you good lawyers in D.C. who 
might represent you and deliver this message to the U.S. DOJ.'' Mr. 
Firtash said that his contract to Ms. Toensing and Mr. DiGenova was 
$300,000 per month. Mr. Parnas's lawyer told the New York Times, ``Per 
Mr. Giuliani's instructions, Mr. Parnas told Mr. Firtash that Ms. 
Toensing and Mr. DiGenova were interested in collecting information on 
the Bidens.'')
    106. See Eliana Johnson, Darren Samuelsohn, Andrew Restuccia, and 
Daniel Lippman, Trump: Discussing a Biden Probe with Barr Would Be 
`Appropriate', Politico, May 10, 2019, https://www.politico.com/story/
2019/05/10/trump-biden-ukraine-barr-1317601.
    107. Charles Creitz, Giuliani Cancels Ukraine Trip, Says He'd Be 
``Walking into a Group of People that are Enemies of the US,'', Fox 
News, May 11, 2019, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/giuliani-i-am-not-
going-to-ukraine-because-id-be-walking-into-a-group-of-people-that-are-
enemies-of-the-us.
    108. Interview of: Kurt Volker, supra note 94, at 305; Impeachment 
Inquiry: Ambassador Gordon Sondland Before the H. Perm. Select Comm. on 
Intelligence, 116th Cong. 8, 21 (2019) (statement of Amb. Sondland).
    109. Interview of: Kurt Volker, supra note 94, at 31. Interview of: 
Ambassador Gordon Sondland Before the H. Perm. Select Comm. On 
Intelligence, Joint with the Comm. on Oversight and Reform and the 
Comm. on Foreign Affairs, 116th Cong. 90 (2019).
    110. Interview of: Ambassador Gordon Sondland Before the H. Perm. 
Select Comm. On Intelligence, Joint with the Comm. on Oversight and 
Reform and the Comm. on Foreign Affairs, 116th Cong. 91-92 (2019).
    111. Id. at 71.
    112. Id. at 22.
    113. Deposition of: William B. Taylor Before the H. Perm. Select 
Comm. On Intelligence, Joint with the Comm. on Oversight and Reform and 
the Comm. on Foreign Affairs, 116th Cong. 23 (2019) (statement of Amb. 
Taylor).
    114. Impeachment Inquiry: Ambassador Gordon Sondland Before the H. 
Perm. Select Comm. on Intelligence, 116th Cong. 27 (2019) (statement of 
Amb. Sondland).
    115. Impeachment Inquiry: Fiona Hill and David Holmes, supra note 
57, at 92.
    116. Impeachment Inquiry: Ambassador Gordon Sondland, supra note 
114, at 18.
    117. Impeachment Inquiry: Ambassador Kurt Volker and Timothy 
Morrison Before the H. Perm. Select Comm. on Intelligence, 116th Cong. 
18 (2019) (statement of Mr. Morrison).
    118. Id. at 41.
    119. Id. at 94.
    120. Id. at 19.
    121. Impeachment Inquiry: Fiona Hill and David Holmes, supra note 
57, at 65-66.
    122. Id. at 66.
    123. Impeachment Inquiry: Ms. Jennifer Williams and Lieutenant 
Colonel Alexander Vindman Before the H. Perm. Select Comm. on 
Intelligence, 116th Cong. 19 (2019).
    124. Impeachment Inquiry: Fiona Hill and David Holmes, supra note 
57, at 66.
    125. Id. at 67.
    126. See Releases Under FOIA, Just Security (Dec. 20, 2019) (on 
file at https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6590667/CPI-v-DoD-
Dec-20-2019-Release.pdf). (Released emails show that the OMB official 
Mike Duffey sent Acting Comptroller Elaine McCusker a copy of the 
Washington Examiner article on June 19, 2019 and said the President 
``has asked about this funding release.''); Eric Lipton, Maggie 
Haberman and Mark Mazzetti, Behind the Ukraine Aid Freeze: 84 Days of 
Conflict and Confusion, N.Y. Times, Dec. 29, 2019, https://
www.nytimes.com/2019/12/29/us/politics/trump-ukraine-military-
aid.html?wpisrc=nl_powerup&wpmm=1. (The New York Times reported that 
OMB Officials learned President Trump had ``a problem with the aid'' on 
June 19, 2019. The report further indicates: ``Typical of the Trump 
White House, the inquiry was not born of a rigorous policy process. 
Aides speculated that someone had shown Mr. Trump a news article about 
the Ukraine assistance and he demanded to know more . . . [Acting OMB 
Director Russell] Vought and his team took to Google, and came upon a 
piece in the conservative Washington Examiner saying that the Pentagon 
would pay for weapons and other military equipment for Ukraine, 
bringing American security aid to the country to $1.5 billion since 
2014.'')
    127. Deposition of: Mark Sandy Before the H. Perm. Select Comm. On 
Intelligence, Joint with the Comm. on Oversight and Reform and the 
Comm. on Foreign Affairs, 116th Cong. 39 (2019). (OMB official Mark 
Sandy testified that he received an email on July 12, 2019, forwarded 
from White House aide Robert Blair, which stated that the President had 
directed a hold on Ukraine security assistance.); Deposition of: 
Jennifer Williams Before the H. Perm. Select Comm. On Intelligence, 
Joint with the Comm. on Oversight and Reform and the Comm. on Foreign 
Affairs, 116th Cong. 55 (2019). (Vice Presidential aide, Jennifer 
Williams testified that she learned of a hold on State Department 
security assistance funds (FMF) on July 3, 2019.)
    128. Impeachment Inquiry: Fiona Hill and David Holmes, supra note 
57, at 26. (Multiple witnesses testified to this announcement occurring 
at the July 18 interagency meeting on Ukraine, including Political 
Counselor to US Embassy in Ukraine, David Holmes.).
    129. Impeachment Inquiry: Ambassador William B. Taylor and Mr. 
George Kent Before the H. Perm. Select Comm. on Intelligence, 116th 
Cong. 35 (2019). (For instance, Ambassador Taylor testified the 
directive had come from the President to the Chief of Staff to OMB, 
``but could not say why.'')
    130. Impeachment Inquiry: Ms. Jennifer Williams and Lieutenant 
Colonel Alexander Vindman, supra note 123, at 14-15. (For instance, 
Vice Presidential aide Williams testified that from when she first 
learned about the hold on July 3, 2019, until it was lifted on 
September 11, 2019, she never came to understand why President Trump 
ordered the hold.); Deposition of: Lieutenant Colonel Alexander S. 
Vindman Before the H. Perm. Select Comm. on Intelligence, Joint with 
the Comm. on Oversight and Reform and the Comm. on Foreign Affairs, 
116th Cong. 306 (2019). (Similarly, NSC official Lt. Col Vindman 
testified, none of the ``facts on the ground'' changed before the 
President lifted the hold.)
    131. 166 Cong. Rec. 19, S688 (daily ed. Jan. 29, 2020) (statement 
of Mr. Manager Crow).
    132. Deposition of: Mark Sandy Before the H. Perm. Select Comm. on 
Intelligence, Joint with the Comm. on Oversight and Reform and the 
Comm. on Foreign Affairs, 116th Cong. 51 (2019). (For instance, OMB 
official Mark Sandy testified that he conferred with other officials 
such as Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary (Comptroller) Elaine 
McCusker, ``[t]he nature of the communication was that--how could we 
institute a temporary hold consistent with the Impoundment Control 
Act.''); Deposition of: Laura Katherine Cooper Before the H. Perm. 
Select Comm. on Intelligence, Joint with the Comm. on Oversight and 
Reform and the Comm. on Foreign Affairs, 116th Cong. 47 (2019). (Deputy 
Assistant Secretary of Defense Laura Cooper testified that at an 
interagency meeting soon after learning that the hold was implemented 
for Ukraine security assistance the ``deputies began to raise concerns 
about how this [the hold] could be done a legal fashion . . .'')
    133. Corey Welt, Cong. Research Serv., R45008, Ukraine: Background 
Conflict with Russia and U.S. Policy 30 (2019).
    134. Deposition of: Laura Katherine Cooper Before the H. Perm. 
Select Comm. on Intelligence, Joint with the Comm. on Oversight and 
Reform and the Comm. on Foreign Affairs, 116th Cong. 47 (2019). (Deputy 
Assistant Secretary of Defense Cooper further explained that the 
conversation, ``reflected a sense that there was not an understanding 
of how this [the hold] could legally play out,'' and that ``there was 
not an available [legal] mechanism to simply not spend money'' 
authorized, appropriated and notified to Congress for Ukraine.)
    135. See Just Security FOIA Releases, supra note 126.
    136. See S. Rep. No. 93-688, at 75 (1987). (The legislative history 
indicates that the purpose of the ICA was to ensure that ``the practice 
of reserving funds does not become a vehicle for furthering 
Administration policies and priorities at the expense of those decided 
by Congress.'')
    137. U.S. Govt. Accountability Office, Legal Decision Regarding 
Office of Management and Budget--Withholding of Ukraine Security 
Assistance, File B-3311564, 1 (Jan. 16, 2020).
    138. Memorandum from The White House of President Trump's Telephone 
Conversation with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine (July 25, 2019).
    139. Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter (Jan. 16, 2020, 
3:39 PM), https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/
1217909231946477575?s=20 (President Trump has repeatedly claimed that 
his call with President Zelensky on July 25 was perfect. For example, 
on January 16, 2020 President Trump tweeted, ``I JUST GOT IMPEACHED FOR 
MAKING A PERFECT PHONE CALL!'')
    140. Memorandum from The White House of President Trump's Telephone 
Conversation with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine 3 (July 25, 2019).
    141. Id.
    142. Id.
    143. Id. at 4.
    144. Id. at 4, 5. (The President referenced Attorney General Barr 
several times during his phone call with President Zelensky.)
    145. See Katie Benner, Justice Dept.'s Dismissal of Ukraine Call 
Raises New Questions About Barr, N.Y. Times, Sept. 25, 2019, https://
www.nytimes.com/2019/09/25/us/politics/william-barr-trump-ukraine.html. 
(As noted in the article, after the memorandum of telephone 
conversation from July 25th became public, the Justice Department 
spokesperson stated, ``Mr. Trump has not asked Mr. Barr to contact 
Ukraine for any reason, Mr. Barr has not communicated with Ukraine on 
any topic and Mr. Barr has not spoken with Mr. Giuliani about the 
president's phone call ``or anything related to Ukraine.'')
    146. See Mark Mazzetti & Katie Benner, Trump Pressed Australian 
Leader to Help Barr Investigate Mueller Inquiry's Origins, N.Y. Times, 
Sept. 30, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/us/politics/trump-
australia-barr-mueller.html. Kim Sengupta, ``It's Like Nothing We Have 
Come Across Before'': UK Intelligence Officials Shaken By Trump 
Administration's Requests For Help With Counter-Impeachment Inquiry, 
The Independent, Nov. 1, 2019, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/
world/americas/us-politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry-latest-russia-
mueller-ukraine-zelensky-a9181641.html. Katie Benner & Adam Goldman, 
Justice Dept. is Said to Open Criminal Inquiry Into Its Own Russia 
Investigation, N.Y. Times, Oct. 24, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/
10/24/us/politics/john-durham-criminal-investigation.html. (Despite 
denials that the Attorney General had no knowledge of the topics 
discussed on the call, the Attorney General opened a Department of 
Justice investigation in April 2019, into the origins of the 
counterintelligence investigation against the Trump campaign in 2016. 
Aspects of this investigation involved contacting foreign leaders and 
asking that their governments investigate aspects of their involvement 
in that investigation. For example, at the Attorney General's request, 
the President asked the governments of Australia and the United Kingdom 
to assist with the investigation including looking at the role that 
their intelligence and law enforcement agencies played. The New York 
Times further reported that Attorney General Barr ``is closely managing 
the investigation even traveling to Italy to seek help from foreign 
officials there . . . Mr. Barr has also contacted government officials 
in Britain and Australia about their roles in the early stages of the 
Russia investigation.).); Interview by Rachel Maddow supra note 88. 
(Additionally, Giuliani associate Lev Parnas stated publicly that 
Attorney General Barr, ``had to know everything'' and was ``basically 
on the team.'')
    147. Text Message from Kurt Volker, U.S. Ambassador to NATO and 
Special Envoy to Ukraine, to Gordon Sondland, U.S. Ambassador to EU, 
and William B. Taylor, Charge d'affaires at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv 
(July 19, 2019) (on file with H. Perm. Select Comm. on Intelligence).
    148. Impeachment Inquiry: Ambassador Gordon Sondland, supra note 
114, at 27.
    149. Id. at 94-95.
    150. Id. at 52-55.; Text Message from Gordon Sondland, U.S. 
Ambassador to EU, to Kurt Volker, U.S. Ambassador to NATO and Special 
Envoy to Ukraine (July 25, 2019) (on file with H. Perm. Select Comm. on 
Intelligence).
    151. Text Message from Kurt Volker, U.S. Ambassador to NATO and 
Special Envoy to Ukraine, to Gordon Sondland, U.S. Ambassador to EU, 
and William B. Taylor, Charge d'affaires at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv 
(July 19, 2019) (on file with H. Perm. Select Comm. on Intelligence); 
Text Message from Gordon Sondland, U.S. Ambassador to EU, to Kurt 
Volker, U.S. Ambassador to NATO and Special Envoy to Ukraine (July 25, 
2019) (on file with H. Perm. Select Comm. on Intelligence). (Text 
messages between Ambassadors Sondland and Volker affirm that the 
message that Ambassador Volker passed to Mr. Yermak was passed by 
Ambassador Volker in coordination with Ambassador Sondland. On July 25, 
just prior to the phone call between Presidents Trump and Zelensky, 
Ambassador Sondland texted to Ambassador Volker: ``call me.'' 
Ambassador Volker replied, ``Had a great lunch w[ith] Yermak and then 
passed your message to him . . . think everything is in place.'')
    152. Memorandum from The White House of President Trump's Telephone 
Conversation with President Zelensky of Ukraine 5 (July 25, 2019).
    153. Impeachment Inquiry: Ms. Jennifer Williams and Lieutenant 
Colonel Alexander Vindman, supra note 123, at 31.
    154. 166 Cong. Rec. 19, S647 (daily ed. Jan. 29, 2020) (statement 
of Mr. Counsel Philbin). (For example, the President's counsel falsely 
claimed that the House Impeachment Managers didn't try to obtain first 
hand witnesses while they were making their case in the House. The 
President's Counsel argued, ``They didn't even subpoena John Bolton. 
They didn't even try to get his testimony. To insist now that this body 
will become the investigative body--that this body will have to do all 
of the discovery--then, this institution will be effectively paralyzed 
for months on end because it will have to sit as a Court of Impeachment 
while now discovery will be done. It would be Ambassador Bolton, and if 
there are going to be witnesses, in order for there to be, as they 
said, a fair trial, fair adjudication, then, the President would have 
to have his opportunity to call his witnesses, and there would be 
depositions. This would drag on for months. Then that will be the new 
precedent.'' As the House Impeachment Managers argued, these assertions 
do not actually represent the facts, ``We asked John Bolton to testify 
in the House, and he refused. We asked his deputy, Dr. Kupperman, to 
testify, and he refused. Fortunately, we asked their deputy, Dr. Fiona 
Hill, to testify, and she did. We asked her deputy, Colonel Vindman, to 
testify, and he did. We did seek the testimony of John Bolton as well 
as Dr. Kupperman, and they refused. When we subpoenaed Dr. Kupperman, 
he sued us. He took us to court. When we raised a subpoena with John 
Bolton's counsel, the same counsel for Dr. Kupperman, the answer was, 
`. . .  you serve us with a subpoena, and we will sue you, too.'' We 
knew, based on the McGahn litigation, it would take months, if not 
years, to force John Bolton to come and testify.'')
    155. Just Security FOIA Releases, supra note 126, at 40.
    156. Impeachment Inquiry: Fiona Hill and David Holmes supra note 
57, at 29.
    157. Id. at 29-30.
    158. Mick Mulvaney, Acting Chief of Staff, The White House, at 
Press Briefing by Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney (Oct. 17, 2019).
    159. Id.
    160. Id.
    161. Caitlin Emma & Connor O'Brien, Trump Holds Up Ukraine Military 
Aid Meant to Confront Russia, Politico, Aug. 28, 2019, https://
www.politico.com/story/2019/08/28/trump-ukraine-military-aid-russia-
1689531.
    162. Impeachment Inquiry: Ms. Laura Cooper and Mr. David Hale 
Before the H. Perm. Select Comm. on Intelligence, 116th Cong. 14 (2019) 
(statement of Ms. Cooper).
    163. Deposition of: Catherine Croft Before the H. Perm. Select 
Comm. on Intelligence, Joint with the Comm. on Oversight and Reform and 
the Comm. on Foreign Affairs, 116th Cong. 86-87, 101 (2019). (Croft, a 
career foreign service officer, further testified that she was 
surprised at the effectiveness of their ``diplomatic tradecraft,'' 
noting that they ``found out very early on'' that the United States was 
withholding critical security assistance to Ukraine.)
    164. Andrew E. Kramer & Kenneth P. Vogel, Ukraine Knew of Aid 
Freeze by Early August, Undermining Trump Defense, N.Y. Times, Oct. 23, 
2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/23/us/politics/ukraine-aid-
freeze-impeachment.html.
    165. Id.
    166. Deposition of: Lieutenant Colonel Alexander S. Vindman Before 
the H. Perm. Select Comm. on Intelligence, Joint with the Comm. on 
Oversight and Reform and the Comm. on Foreign Affairs, 116th Cong. 314 
(2019).
    167. Eric Lipton, Maggie Haberman and Mark Mazzetti, Behind the 
Ukraine Aid Freeze: 84 Days of Conflict and Confusion, N.Y. Times, Dec. 
29, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/29/us/politics/trump-ukraine-
military-aid.html?wpisrc=nl_powerup&wpmm=1.
    168. Deposition of: Tim Morrison Before the H. Perm. Select Comm. 
on Intelligence, Joint with the Comm. on Oversight and Reform and the 
Comm. on Foreign Affairs, 116th Cong. 268 (2019).
    169. Maggie Haberman & Michael S. Schmidt, Trump Tied Ukraine Aid 
to Inquiries He Sought, Bolton Book Says, N.Y. Times, Jan. 26, 2020, 
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/26/us/politics/trump-bolton-book-
ukraine.html.
    170. Text Messages from Gordon Sondland, U.S. Ambassador to EU, to 
Kurt Volker, U.S. Ambassador to NATO and Special Envoy to Ukraine (Aug. 
9, 2019) (on file with H. Perm. Select Comm. on Intelligence). (The 
effort began with a text message from Ambassador Sondland to Ambassador 
Volker stating, ``I think POTUS really wants the deliverable.); See 
Interview of: Kurt Volker, supra note 94, at 71-72.
    171. Interview of: Kurt Volker, supra note 94, at 71.
    172. Interview of: Kurt Volker, supra note 94, at 113.
    173. Text Messages from Kurt Volker, U.S. Ambassador to NATO and 
Special Envoy to Ukraine, to Gordon Sondland, U.S. Ambassador to EU, 
and Andriy Yermak, Aide to Ukrainian President Zelensky (Aug. 13, 2019) 
(on file with H. Perm. Select Comm. on Intelligence); Interview of: 
Kurt Volker, supra note 94, at 71, 73.
    174. Interview of: Kurt Volker, supra note 94, at 188-189; See 
generally Text Message from Gordon Sondland, U.S. Ambassador to EU, to 
Kurt Volker, U.S. Ambassador to NATO and Special Envoy to Ukraine (Aug. 
9, 2019) (on file with H. Perm. Select Comm. on Intelligence); Text 
Messages from Kurt Volker, U.S. Ambassador to NATO and Special Envoy to 
Ukraine, to Andriy Yermak, Aide to Ukrainian President Zelensky (Aug. 
10-12, 2019) (on file with H. Perm. Select Comm. on Intelligence); 
(Ambassador Volker testified in his closed interview regarding the 
process on the draft statement: ``Rudy discussed, Rudy Giuliani and 
Gordon [Sondland] and I, what it is they are looking for. And I shared 
that with Andriy [Yermak]. And then Andriy came back to me and said: We 
don't think it's a good idea. So that was obviously before Andriy came 
back and said: We don't want to do that.'' Ambassador Volker further 
elaborated: ``So the Ukrainians were saying that just coming out of the 
blue and making a statement didn't make any sense to them. If they're 
invited to come to the White House on a specific date for President 
Zelensky's visit, then it would make sense for President Zelensky to 
come out and say something, and it would be a much broader statement 
about a reboot of U.S.-Ukraine relations, not just on we're 
investigating these things [2016/Burisma].'')
    175. Deposition of: William B. Taylor, supra note 113, at 190.
    176. Id. at 36.
    177. Id.
    178. Id. at 39-40.
    179. Deposition of: David A. Holmes Before the H. Perm. Select 
Comm. on Intelligence, Joint with the Comm. on Oversight and Reform and 
the Comm. on Foreign Affairs, 116th Cong. 28 (2019).
    180. Deposition of: William B. Taylor, supra note 113, at 39. (For 
instance, Ambassador Taylor testified that he spoke to Sondland by 
phone and that Sondland, ``said he had talked to President Trump . . . 
Trump was adamant that President Zelensky himself had to clear things 
up and do it in public.''); Impeachment Inquiry: Ambassador Gordon 
Sondland, supra note 114, at 109. (Ambassador Sondland did not dispute 
Taylor's characterization of these accounts.)
    181. Impeachment Inquiry: Ambassador Gordon Sondland, supra note 
114, at 19.
    182. Impeachment Inquiry: Ambassador William B. Taylor and Mr. 
George Kent, supra note 129, at 44.
    183. Id. at 44, 46.
    184. Letter from Whistleblower to Adam Schiff, Chairman, H. Perm. 
Select Comm. on Intelligence, and Richard Burr, Chairman, S. Select 
Comm. on Intelligence (August 12, 2019).
    185. Id.
    186. Michael S. Schmidt, Julian E. Barnes, and Maggie Haberman, 
Trump Knew of Whistleblower Complaint When He Released Aid to Ukraine, 
N.Y. Times, Nov. 26, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/26/us/
politics/trump-whistle-blower-complaint-ukraine.html.
    187. Letter from Michael K. Atkinson, Inspector General, the 
Intelligence Community, to Adam Schiff, Chairman, House Perm. Select 
Comm. on Intelligence, and Devin Nunes, Ranking Member, House Perm. 
Select Comm. on Intelligence (Sep. 9, 2019).
    188. Press Release, H. Perm. Select Comm. on Intelligence, Three 
House Committees Launch Wide-Ranging Investigation into Trump-Giuliani 
Ukraine Scheme (Sept. 9, 2019). (On September 9, 2019, the House 
Foreign Affairs Committee, in conjunction with the House Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence, and House Committee on Oversight and 
Government Reform launched ``a wide-ranging investigation into reported 
efforts by President Trump, the President's personal lawyer Rudy 
Giuliani, and possibly others to pressure the government of Ukraine to 
assist the President's reelection campaign.'')
    189. See Just Security Releases, supra note 126, at 1.
    190. Kenneth P. Vogel & Benjamin Novak, Giuliani, Facing Scrutiny, 
Travels to Europe to Interview Ukrainians, N.Y Times, Dec. 4, 2019, 
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/04/us/politics/giuliani-europe-
impeachment.html. 
(For instance, Mr. Giuliani met with Mr. Shokin in Ukraine as part of a 
trip to generate additional information on the Bidens and 2016 election 
collusion. According to the New York Times, Giuliani's trip was 
intended ``to help prepare more episodes of a documentary series for a 
conservative television outlet promoting his pro-Trump, anti-
impeachment narrative.'')
    191. Opinion Memorandum of United States Senator John F. Reed, 
supra note 38, at 3.
    192. Id. at 9
    193. Deposition of: Lieutenant Colonel Alexander S. Vindman, supra 
note 166, at 18.
    194. Impeachment Inquiry: Ms. Jennifer Williams and Lieutenant 
Colonel Alexander Vindman, supra note 123, at 15.
    195. Deposition of: Jennifer Williams Before the H. Perm. Select 
Comm. on Intelligence, Joint with the Comm. on Oversight and Reform and 
the Comm. on Foreign Affairs, 116th Cong. 149 (2019).
    196. Deposition of: Lieutenant Colonel Alexander S. Vindman, supra 
note 166, at 97; Deposition of: Tim Morrison, supra note 168, at 16.
    197. Letter from Whistleblower, supra note 184, at 3.
    198. Letter from John C. Rood, Under Secretary of Defense, U.S. 
Department of Defense, to Eliot L. Engel, Chairman, H. Comm. on Foreign 
Affairs (May 23, 2019).
    199. Deposition of: Laura Katherine Cooper, supra note 134, at 49. 
(Ms. Cooper testified that the officials present at the July 26 meeting 
did not consider corruption to be a legitimate reason for the hold 
because they unanimously agreed that Ukraine was making sufficient 
progress on anti-corruption reforms, as certified by the Defense 
Department on May 23, 2019.)
    200. Deposition of: William B. Taylor, supra note 113, at 28.
    201. Memorandum from The White House of President Trump's Telephone 
Conversation with President-Elect Zelenskyy of Ukraine (Apr. 21, 2019); 
Memorandum from The White House of President Trump's Telephone 
Conversation with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine (July 25, 2019).
    202. Impeachment Inquiry: Ms. Jennifer Williams and Lieutenant 
Colonel Alexander Vindman, supra note 123, at 24-25. (Lt. Col. Vindman 
testified that recommended talking points for the April 21 call 
included rooting out corruption.); See Memorandum from The White House 
of President Trump's Telephone Conversation with President-Elect 
Zelenskyy of Ukraine (Apr. 21, 2019). (The memorandum of telephone call 
from April 21 shows the issue was not raised.); Impeachment Inquiry: 
Ms. Jennifer Williams and Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, supra 
note 123, at 31. (Lt. Col Vindman further testified that he prepared 
the President's talking points for his July 25th phone call with 
President Zelensky and the topics for that call included, ``cooperation 
on supporting a reform agenda, anticorruption efforts, and helping 
President Zelensky implement his plans to end Russia's war against 
Ukraine.''); Memorandum from The White House of President Trump's 
Telephone Conversation with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine (July 25, 
2019). (The memorandum of telephone call from July 25, 2019, indicates 
that the President did not raise these issues.); Impeachment Inquiry: 
Kurt Volker and Timothy Morrison, supra note 117, at 34. (NSC official 
Morrison testified that references to Crowdstrike, the DNC server, and 
2016 election, and to Vice President Biden and his son, were not 
included in the President's talking points as written by the NSC.)
    203. Deposition of: Tim Morrison, supra note 168, at 41.
    204. See further discussion of this topic on pages 22-23.
    205. See further discussion of this topic on page 23.
    206. Impeachment Inquiry: Ambassador Marie ``Masha'' Yovanovitch 
Before the H. Perm. Select Comm. on Intelligence, 116th Cong. 115 
(2019). (For instance, during her testimony, Ambassador Yovanovitch was 
asked whether it was appropriate to investigate corruption including a 
potentially corrupt company such as Burisma. Ambassador Yovanovitch 
responded: ``I think it's appropriate if it's part of our national 
strategy. What I would say is that we have a process for doing that. 
It's called the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty. We have one with 
Ukraine, and generally it goes from our Department of Justice to the 
Ministry of Justice in the country of interest.''); Interview of: 
George Kent, supra note 63, at 158. (Deputy Assistant Secretary Kent, a 
career diplomat and recognized expert on anti-corruption measures 
stated in his deposition: ``. . . if there's any criminal nexus for any 
activity involving the U.S., that U.S. law enforcement by all means 
should pursue that case, and if there's an international connection, 
that we have mechanisms to ask either through Department of Justice 
MLAT in writing or through the presence of individuals representing the 
FBI, our legal attaches, to engage foreign governments directly based 
on our concerns that there had been some criminal act violating U.S. 
law.'')
    207. Memorandum from The White House of President Trump's Telephone 
Conversation with President Zelensky of Ukraine (July 25, 2019).
    208. Caitlin Oprysko, Trump pressed Ukraine's president to work 
with Barr for dirt on Biden, Politico, Sep. 25, 2019, https://
www.politico.com/story/2019/09/25/white-house-releases-transcript-of-
trumps-call-with-ukraines-president-1510767.
    209. Interview of: Kurt Volker, supra note 94, at 191. (Ambassador 
Volker testified that ``Andriy [Yermak, President Zelensky's close 
aide] asked whether any request had ever been made by the U.S. to 
investigate election interference in 2016.'' Ambassador Volker 
confirmed in his testimony that Yermak's inquiry equated to ``a request 
from the Department of Justice.'')
    210. Interview of: Kurt Volker, supra note 94, at 199. (Ambassador 
Volker testified that to his knowledge there was not an official United 
States Department of Justice request.).
    211. European Union External Action, EU-Ukraine Relations--
Factsheet (Jan. 28, 2020), https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/
headquarters-homepage_en/4081/%20EU-Ukraine%20relations%20-
%20factsheet; Iain King, Not Contributing Enough? A Summary of European 
Military and Development Assistance to Ukraine Since 2014 (Ctr. for 
Strategic & Int'l Studies, Sept. 26, 2019), https://www.csis.org/
analysis/not-contributing-enough-summary-european-military-and-
development-assistance-ukraine-2014.
    212. See further discussion of this topic at page 21.
    213. Id.
    214. Deposition of: Mark Sandy Before the H. Perm. Select Comm. on 
Intelligence, Joint with the Comm. on Oversight and Reform and the 
Comm. on Foreign Affairs, 116th Cong. 143 (2019). (Mr. Sandy testified 
that OMB Official Mike Duffey, ``simply said, we need to let the hold 
take place . . . and then revisit this issue with the President.'')
    215. Id. at 179. (Mr. Sandy responded ``that's correct'' to the 
question: ``at some point in early September, Mr. Blair stopped by your 
office and told you that the reason for the hold was out of concern 
that the United States gives more aid to Ukraine than other countries? 
Or, rather, that other countries should give more as well.'')
    216. Id. at 180.
    217. U.S. Govt. Accountability Office, supra note 137.
    218. Kate Brannen, Exclusive: Unredacted Ukraine Documents Reveal 
Extent of Pentagon's Level Concerns, Just Security, Jan. 2, 2020, 
https://www.justsecurity.org/67863/exclusive-unredacted-ukraine-
documents-reveal-extent-of-pentagons-legal-concerns/.
    219. Deposition of: Laura Katherine Cooper, supra note 134, at 79-
81.
    220. Id. at 80-81.
    221. Office of the Director of National Intelligence, National 
Intelligence Council, supra note 63.
    222. Staff of the S. Select Comm. on Intelligence, 115th Cong., 
Rep. on The Intelligence Community Assessment: Assessing Russian 
Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections 2 (Comm. Print 
2018). (On July 3, 2018, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 
announced that they had concluded an in-depth review of the 
Intelligence Committee's January 6, 2017, assessment and concluded that 
the assessment ``is a sound intelligence product.'')
    223. 1 Mueller, supra note 60, at 1. (Special Counsel Mueller 
concluded ``the Russian government interfered . . . in sweeping and 
systematic fashion.'')
    224. Impeachment Inquiry: Fiona Hill and David Holmes, supra note 
57 (statement of Dr. Fiona Hill).
    225. Impeachment Inquiry: Ambassador Kurt Volker and Timothy 
Morrison, supra note 117, at 11.
    226. Id.
    227. Impeachment Inquiry: Ambassador William B. Taylor and Mr. 
George Kent, supra note 129, at 169-170.
    228. Id. at 57.
    229. Id. at 54.
    230. Id. at 45.
    231. Interview of: Kurt Volker, supra note 94, at 15.
    232. Interview of: George Kent, supra note 63, at 114.
    233. 165 Cong. Rec. 205, H12193 (daily ed. Dec. 18, 2019) 
(statement of Rep. Adam Schiff).
    234. H.R. Res. 755, 116th Cong. Art. II (2019).
    235. Id.
    236. See generally The Federalist Paper No. 47 (James Madison) 
(Jacob E. Cooke ed., 1961); The Federalist Paper No. 48 (James Madison) 
(Jacob E. Cooke ed., 1961); The Federalist Paper No. 49 (James Madison) 
(Jacob E. Cooke ed., 1961); The Federalist Paper No. 50 (James Madison) 
(Jacob E. Cooke ed., 1961); The Federalist Paper No. 51 (James Madison) 
(Jacob E. Cooke ed., 1961). (Federalist Papers No. 47 through No. 51 
explain how the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches were to 
be wholly separated from each other, yet accountable to each other 
through a system of checks and balances.); See also Nixon v. 
Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425, 426 (1977). (In Nixon 
v. GSA, the Supreme Court articulated the test for a violation of the 
separation of powers as occurring when the action of one branch 
``prevents [another branch] from accomplishing its constitutionally 
assigned functions.'')
    237. U.S. Const. art. II, Sec. 3.
    238. McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 174-175 (1927). (``A 
legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence 
of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is 
intended to affect or change; and where the legislative body does not 
itself possess the requisite information--which not infrequently is 
true--recourse must be had to others who do possess it. Experience has 
taught that mere requests for such information often are unavailing, 
and also that information which is volunteered is not always accurate 
or complete; so some means of compulsion are essential to obtain what 
is needed. All this was true before and when the Constitution was 
framed and adopted. In that period the power of inquiry--with enforcing 
process--was regarded and employed as a necessary and appropriate 
attribute of the power to legislate--indeed, was treated as inhering in 
it. Thus there is ample warrant for thinking, as we do, that the 
constitutional provisions which commit the legislative function to the 
two houses are intended to include this attribute to the end that the 
function may be effectively exercised.'')
    239. Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 190 (1880).
    240. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 2, cl. 5.
    241. Frank O. Bowman III, High Crimes & Misdemeanors: A History of 
Impeachment for the Age of Trump 199-200 (2019). (``The subpoena power 
in impeachment cases arises directly from an explicit constitutional 
directive that the House conduct an adjudicative proceeding akin to a 
grand jury, the success of which is necessarily dependent on the 
availability of relevant evidence. Without the power to compel 
compliance with subpoenas and the concomitant right to impeach a 
president for refusal to comply, the impeachment power would be 
nullified.'')
    242. Cong. Globe, 27th Cong., 2d Sess. 580 (1842) (statement of 
Rep. John Quincy Adams).
    243. H.R. Rep. 93-1305, at 4 (1974).
    244. H.R. Res. 660, 116th Cong. (2019).
    245. Press Release, H. Perm. Select Comm. on Intelligence, Three 
House Committees Launch Wide-Ranging Investigation into Trump-Giuliani 
Ukraine Scheme (Sept. 9, 2019).
    246. Letter from Eliot L. Engel, Chairman, H. Comm. on Foreign 
Affairs, et al., to Pat Cipollone, Counsel to the President, The White 
House, (Sep. 9, 2019).
    247. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, 
Impeachment Inquiry Announcement (Sep. 24, 2019).
    248. Letter from Elijah E. Cummings, Chairman, H. Comm. on 
Oversight and Reform, et al., to John Michael Mulvaney, Acting Chief of 
Staff to the President, The White House (Oct. 4, 2019).
    249. Letter from Eliot L. Engel, Chairman, H. Comm. on Foreign 
Affairs, et al., to Michael R. Pompeo, Secretary, U.S. Department of 
State (Sept. 27, 2019); Letter from Eliot L. Engel, Chairman, H. Comm. 
on Foreign Affairs, et al., to T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, Counselor, U.S. 
Department of State (Oct. 25, 2019).
    250. Letter from Adam B. Schiff, Chairman, H. Perm. Select Comm. on 
Intelligence, et al., to Mark T. Esper, Secretary, U.S. Department of 
Defense (Oct. 7, 2019).
    251. Letter from Adam B. Schiff, Chairman, H. Perm. Select Comm. on 
Intelligence, et al., to Russell T. Vought, Acting Director, U.S. 
Office of Management and Budget (Oct. 7, 2019); Letter from Eliot L. 
Engel, Chairman, H. Comm. on Foreign Affairs, et al., to Russell T. 
Vought, Acting Director, U.S. Office of Management and Budget (Oct. 25, 
2019); Letter from Eliot L. Engel, Chairman, H. Comm. on Foreign 
Affairs, et al., to Michael Duffey, Associate Director for National 
Security Programs, U.S. Office of Management and Budget (Oct. 25, 
2019).
    252. Letter from Eliot L. Engel, Chairman, H. Comm. on Foreign 
Affairs, et al., to James Richard ``Rick'' Perry, Secretary, U.S. 
Department of Energy (Oct. 10, 2019).
    253. Letter from Adam B. Schiff, Chairman, H. Perm. Select Comm. on 
Intelligence, et al., to Rudolph ``Rudy'' W. L. Giuliani, Giuliani 
Partners LLC (Sept. 30, 2019).
    254. H.R. Rep. No. 116-266, at 3 (2019).
    255. Letter from Adam B. Schiff, Chairman, H. Perm. Select Comm. on 
Intelligence, et al., to Paul W. Butler, Esq., Counsel to Michael 
Ellis, Senior Associate Counsel to the President, The White House, and 
Deputy Legal Advisor, National Security Council (Nov. 3, 2019); Letter 
from Adam B. Schiff, Chairman, H. Perm. Select Comm. on Intelligence, 
et al., to Karen Williams, Esq., Counsel to Preston Wells Griffith, 
Senior Director for International Energy and Environment, National 
Security Council (Nov. 4, 2019).
    256. Letter from Adam B. Schiff, Chairman, H. Perm. Select Comm. on 
Intelligence, et al., to Whitney C. Ellerman, Counsel to Robert B. 
Blair, Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor to the Chief of 
Staff, The White House (Nov. 3, 2019); H. Perm. Select Comm. on 
Intelligence, Subpoena to John Michael Mulvaney, Acting Chief of Staff, 
The White House (Nov. 7, 2019).
    257. Letter from Eliot L. Engel, Chairman, H. Comm. on Foreign 
Affairs, et al., to Brian McCormack, Associate Director for Natural 
Resources, Energy and Science, U.S. Office of Management and Budget 
(Nov. 1, 2019).
    258. Letter from Adam B. Schiff, Chairman, H. Perm. Select Comm. on 
Intelligence, et al., to Justin Shur, Esq., Counsel to Jennifer 
Williams, Special Advisor for Europe and Russia, Office of the Vice 
President (Nov. 4, 2019); H. Perm. Select Comm. on Intelligence, 
Subpoena to Jennifer Williams, Special Advisor for Europe and Russia, 
Office of the Vice President (Nov. 19, 2019).
    259. Letter from Pat A. Cipollone, Counsel to the President, The 
White House, to Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, 
et al. 7 (Oct. 8, 2019).
    260. Jordyn Phelps, `We're Fighting All the Subpoenas': Trump on 
Battle with House Democrats, ABC News, Apr. 24, 2019, https://
abcnews.go.com/Politics/fighting-subpoenas-trump-battle-democrats/
story?id=62600497.
    261. Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter (Oct. 3. 2019, 
9:04 PM), https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/
1179925259417468928?s=20.
    262. Staff of H. Perm. Select Comm. on Intelligence, 116th Cong., 
Rep. on The Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry 220-224 (Comm. Print 
2019).
    263. Id. at 219-220.
    264. Id. at 226-227.
    265. Id. at 224-226.
    266. Memorandum from The White House of President Trump's Telephone 
Conversation with President-Elect Zelenskyy of Ukraine (Apr. 21, 2019).
    267. Memorandum from The White House of President Trump's Telephone 
Conversation with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine (July 25, 2019).
    268. Donald Trump, President, United States of America, Remarks by 
President Trump and President Niinist of the Republic of Finland in 
Joint Press Conference (Oct., 2, 2019). (On October 2, 2019, President 
Trump stated, ``All because they didn't know that I had a transcript 
done by very, very talented people--word for word, comma for comma. 
Done by people that do it for a living. We had an exact transcript.'')
    269. Deposition of: Lieutenant Colonel Alexander S. Vindman, supra 
note 166, at 53-55.
    270. H.R. Rep. No. 116-346, at 134-135 (2019). (The following Trump 
Administration officials defied congressional subpoenas directing them 
to testify in the impeachment inquiry: John Michael Mulvaney, Acting 
Chief of Staff to the President, The White House; Robert B. Blair, 
Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor to the Chief of Staff, 
The White House; John A. Eisenberg, Deputy Counsel to the President for 
National Security Affairs, the White House and Legal Advisor, National 
Security Council; Michael Ellis, Senior Associate Counsel to the 
President, The White House, and Deputy Legal Advisor, National Security 
Council; Preston Wells Griffith, Senior Director for International 
Energy and Environment, National Security Council; Russell T. Vought, 
Acting Director, Office of Management and Budget; Michael Duffey, 
Associate Director for National Security Programs, Office of Management 
and Budget; Brian McCormack, Associate Director for Natural Resources, 
Energy and Science, Office of Management and Budget, and former Chief 
of Staff to Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy; and T. Ulrich 
Brechbuhl, Counselor, Department of State).
    271. Staff of H. Perm. Select Comm. on Intelligence, 116th Cong., 
Rep. on The Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry 222-224 (Comm. Print 
2019).
    272. Id. at 225.
    273. Id. at 226-227.
    274. Id. at 25, 108-109, 134-135, 137-138.
    275. Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter (Oct. 8, 2019, 
9:23 AM), https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/
1181560772255719424. (Ten days before Ambassador Sondland's deposition 
before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the 
President issued two tweets, indicating that Ambassador Sondland should 
not cooperate because he had done nothing wrong: ``I would love to send 
Ambassador Sondland, a really good man and great American, to testify, 
but unfortunately he would be testifying before a totally compromised 
kangaroo court, where Republican's rights have been taken away, and 
true facts are not allowed out for the public. . . . to see. 
Importantly, Ambassador Sondland's tweet, which few report, stated, I 
believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intentions. The 
President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo's of any kind.' That 
says it ALL!'')
    276. Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter (Oct. 23, 2019, 
2:58 PM), https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/
1187080923961012228?lang=en. (The day after Ambassador Taylor's October 
22, 2019, deposition before the House Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence, President Trump suggested that Ambassador Taylor's 
testimony was politically motivated: ``Never Trumper Republican John 
Bellinger, represents Never Trumper Diplomat Bill Taylor (who I don't 
know), in testimony before Congress! Do Nothing Democrats allow 
Republicans Zero Representation, Zero due process, and Zero 
Transparency. . . .'')
    277. Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter (Nov. 15, 2019, 
10:01 AM), https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/
1195356211937468417. (The morning of her hearing on November 15, 2019, 
President Trump issued a series of disparaging, accusatory tweets 
saying: ``Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad. She started off 
in Somalia, how did that go? Then fast forward to Ukraine, where the 
new Ukrainian President spoke unfavorably about her in my second phone 
call with him. It is a U.S. President's absolute right to appoint 
ambassadors. . . . They call it ``serving at the pleasure of the 
President.'' The U.S. now has a very strong and powerful foreign 
policy, much different than proceeding administrations. It is called, 
quite simply, America First! With all of that, however, I have done FAR 
more for Ukraine than O.'')
    278. The White House (@WhiteHouse), Twitter (Nov. 19, 2019, 12:49 
PM), https://twitter.com/whitehouse/status/1196848072929796096?lang=en. 
(During the hearing of Lt. Col Vindman on November 19, 2019, the 
official White House twitter account tweeted the following message, 
suggesting that Lt. Col. Vindman was not a reliable witness: ``Tim 
Morrison, Alexander Vindman's former boss, testified in his deposition 
that he had concerns about Vindman's judgment.'')
    279. Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter (Nov. 17, 2019, 
2:57 PM), https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/
1196155347117002752?lang=en. (On Sunday, November 17, 2019, two days 
before Ms. Williams scheduled hearing before the House Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence on November 19, the President attempted to 
influence her testimony by tweeting: ``Tell Jennifer Williams, whoever 
that is, to read BOTH transcripts of the presidential calls, & see the 
just released ststement (sic) from Ukraine. Then she should meet with 
the other Never Trumpers, who I don't know & mostly never even heard 
of, & work out a better presidential attack!'')
    280. Trial Memorandum of President Donald J. Trump, supra note 25, 
at 37.
    281. Staff of H. Perm. Select Comm. on Intelligence, 116th Cong., 
Rep. on The Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry 235-236, 239-241, 243-250 
(Comm. Print 2019). (From the Department of State, that included Marie 
Yovanovitch, Gordon Sondland, George Kent, William Taylor, and T. 
Ulrich Brechbuhl. From the Department of Defense, that included Laura 
Cooper. In addition, the White House directed Charles Kupperman not to 
cooperate.).
    282. See Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 187 (1957). (Even 
in exercising its ordinary oversight powers, the Supreme Court held in 
Watkins v. United States that ``[t]he power of the Congress to conduct 
investigations is inherent in the legislative process. That power is 
broad. It encompasses inquiries concerning the administration of 
existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes. It 
includes surveys of defects in our social, economic or political system 
for the purpose of enabling the Congress to remedy them. It comprehends 
probes into departments of the Federal Government to expose corruption, 
inefficiency or waste.'')
    283. McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 175 (1927). (The Supreme 
Court in McGrain v. Daugherty elaborated on Congress' occasional need 
to compel information, writing that ``A legislative body cannot 
legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information 
respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect 
or change; and where the legislative body does not itself possess the 
requisite information--which not infrequently is true--recourse must be 
had to others who do possess it. Experience has taught that mere 
requests for such information often are unavailing, and also that 
information which is volunteered is not always accurate or complete; so 
some means of compulsion are essential to obtain what is needed.''); 
See also Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 187-95 (1957); See 
also Eastland v. U.S. Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 504-05 (1975).
    284. H.R. Doc. No. 115-77, at 586-588 (2019).
    285. Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 179 (1957). (The 
Supreme Court held in Watkins that ``In authorizing an investigation by 
a committee, it is essential that the Senate or House should spell out 
the committee's jurisdiction and purpose with sufficient particularity 
to insure that compulsory process is used only in furtherance of a 
legislative purpose.'' As such, the Court also held that ``a 
congressional investigation into individual affairs is invalid if 
unrelated to any legislative purpose, because it is beyond the powers 
conferred upon Congress by the Constitution.'')
    286. Letter from Adam B. Schiff, Chairman, H. Perm. Select Comm. on 
Intelligence, et al., to Paul W. Butler, Esq., Counsel to Michael 
Ellis, Senior Associate Counsel to the President, The White House, and 
Deputy Legal Advisor, National Security Council (Nov. 3, 2019); Letter 
from Adam B. Schiff, Chairman, H. Perm. Select Comm. on Intelligence, 
et al., to Karen Williams, Esq., Counsel to Preston Wells Griffith, 
Senior Director for International Energy and Environment, National 
Security Council (Nov. 4, 2019); Letter from Adam B. Schiff, Chairman, 
H. Perm. Select Comm. on Intelligence, et al., to Whitney C. Ellerman, 
Counsel to Robert B. Blair, Assistant to the President and Senior 
Advisor to the Chief of Staff, The White House (Nov. 3, 2019); H. Perm. 
Select Comm. on Intelligence, Subpoena to John Michael Mulvaney, Acting 
Chief of Staff, The White House (Nov. 7, 2019); Letter from Eliot L. 
Engel to Brian McCormack, supra note 257; Letter from Eliot L. Engel, 
Chairman, H. Comm. on Foreign Affairs, et al., to John A. Eisenberg, 
Deputy Counsel to the President for National Security Affairs, the 
White House and Legal Advisor, National Security Council (Nov. 1, 
2019); H.R. Rep. No. 116-346, at 134-135 (2019).
    287. Letter from Pat A. Cipollone to Nancy Pelosi, supra note 259, 
at 2.
    288. Donald Trump, President, United States of America, Remarks by 
President Trump in Press Conference, Davos, Switzerland (Jan. 22, 
2020).
    289. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 706 (1974).
    290. Id. at 706, 713. (Dicta from United States v. Nixon further 
suggests that a claim of confidentiality of presidential communications 
would be stronger if a need to protect military, diplomatic, or 
sensitive national security secrets is claimed.)
    291. Senate Select Comm. on Presidential Campaign Activities v. 
Nixon, 498 F.2d 725, 730 (D.C. Cir. 1974).
    292. Id. at 731.
    293. Letter from Pat A. Cipollone to Nancy Pelosi, supra note 259, 
at 2.
    294. See The Federalist No. 66, at 446 (Alexander Hamilton) (Jacob 
E. Cooke ed., 1961). (The Framers created impeachment as an ``essential 
check in the hands of [Congress] upon the encroachments of the 
executive'' and to ensure that the President could not be above the 
law.)
    295. Comm. on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives v. 
Miers, 558 F. Supp. 2d 53, 102-103 (2008). (``Congress's power of 
inquiry is as broad as its power to legislate and lies at the very 
heart of Congress's constitutional role. Indeed, the former is 
necessary to the proper exercise of the latter: according to the 
Supreme Court, the ability to compel testimony is ``necessary to the 
effective functioning of courts and legislatures . . . Thus, Congress's 
use of (and need for vindication of) its subpoena power in this case is 
no less legitimate or important than was the grand jury's in United 
States v. Nixon. Both involve core functions of a co-equal branch of 
the federal government, and for the reasons identified in Nixon, the 
President may only be entitled to a presumptive, rather than an 
absolute, privilege here. And it is certainly the case that if the 
President is entitled only to a presumptive privilege, his close 
advisors cannot hold the superior card of absolute immunity.'')
    296. Comm. on Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives v. McGahn, 
__F. Supp. 3d __, No. 19-cv-2379 (KBJ), 2019 WL 6312011 (D.D.C. Nov. 
25, 2019) (Ketanji Brown Jackson, J.) (Rejecting the Department of 
Justice's argument that presidential advisors like Don McGahn enjoy 
absolute immunity from compelled congressional testimony.)
    297. William French Smith, Assertion of Executive Privilege in 
Response to a Congressional Subpoena in Opinions of the Legal Counsel, 
Department of Justice 31 (October 13, 1981) (``The accommodation 
required is not simply an exchange of concessions or a test of 
political strength. It is an obligation of each branch to make a 
principled effort to acknowledge, and if possible to meet, the 
legitimate needs of the other branch.'')
    298. United States v. AT&T Co., 567 F.2d 121, 127 (D.C. Cir. 1977).
    299. See e.g. Neal Devins, Congressional-Executive Information 
Access Disputes: A Modest Proposal--Do Nothing, 48 Admin. L. Rev. 109, 
116 (1996).
    300. See id. at 122, 125. (``Types of intermediate options [when 
there are executive privilege claims] include the executive providing 
the requested information in timed stages, the executive releasing 
expurgated or redacted versions of the information, the executive 
preparing summaries of the information, Congress promising to maintain 
confidentiality regarding the information, and Congress inspecting the 
material while it remains in executive custody.'')
    301.William P. Barr, Congressional Requests for Confidential 
Executive Branch Information in Opinions of the Legal Counsel, 
Department of Justice 153, 162 (June 19, 1989).
    302.See John E. Bies, Primer on Executive Privilege and the 
Executive Branch Approach to Congressional Oversight, Lawfare, June 16, 
2017, https://www.lawfareblog.com/primer-executive-privilege-and-
executive-branch-approach-congressional-oversight. (``If negotiations 
reach a standstill and these officials conclude that the circumstances 
warrant invocation of executive privilege, they prepare materials for 
the White House counsel to present the issue to the president for his 
or her decision. Traditionally, this presentation involves a memorandum 
from the head of the agency that received the congressional request 
explaining the information sought by Congress, why the information is 
privileged, and the efforts that the agency has made to date to 
accommodate the congressional request; a memorandum from the attorney 
general evaluating the legal basis for a privilege assertion over the 
requested information, including whether the qualified privilege might 
be overcome in the balancing of interests and needs; and the White 
House counsel's recommendation to the president. Pending the 
president's decision, the agency is directed to ask Congress to hold 
the request in abeyance, and to explain that this is simply to protect 
the president's ability to assert the privilege and does not itself 
constitute a claim of privilege.'')
    303.166 Cong. Rec. 16, S575 (daily ed. Jan. 25, 2020) (Statement of 
Mr. Counsel Philbin).
    304.Trial Memorandum of President Donald J. Trump, supra note 25, 
at 75.
    305.Alison Durkee, Lev Parnas: Trump ``Knew Exactly What Was Going 
On'' in Ukraine, Vanity Fair, Jan. 6, 2020, https://www.vanityfair.com/
news/2020/01/lev-parnas-maddow-ukraine-trump; Olivia Rubin & Soo Rin 
Kim, Giuliani's Associate Lev Parnas Speaks Again: `It Was All About 
2020.', ABC News, Jan. 17, 2020, https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/
giulianis-associate-lev-parnas-speaks-2020/story?id=68340258.
    306.Maggie Haberman & Michael S. Schmidt, Trump Told Bolton to Help 
His Ukraine Pressure Campaign, Book Says, N.Y. Times, Jan. 31, 2020, 
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/31/us/politics/trump-bolton-
ukraine.html.
    307.Adam Edelman, Lev Parnas, the Indicted Associate of Giuliani, 
Tries to Attend Trump Impeachment Trial, NBC News, Jan. 29, 2020, 
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/lev-parnas-
indicted-associate-giuliani-tries-attend-trump-impeachment-trial-
n1125601; Nicholas Fandos & Michael S. Schmidt, Bolton is Willing to 
Testify in Trump Impeachment Trial, Raising Pressure for Witnesses, 
N.Y. Times, Jan. 6, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/06/us/
politics/bolton-testify-impeachment-trial.html.
    308.Fred Barbash, Trump Denies Telling Bolton that Ukraine Aid was 
Tied to Investigations, as Explosive Book Claiming Otherwise Leaks, 
Washington Post, Jan. 27, 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/
2020/01/27/trump-bolton-ukraine/; Justin Wise, Trump Again Denies 
Knowing Lev Parnas: `He's a Con Man,', The Hill, Jan. 22, 2020, https:/
/thehill.com/homenews/administration/479317-trump-again-denies-knowing-
lev-parnas-hes-a-conman.
    309.Caitlin Oprysko, Trump Suggests He'd Invoke Executive Privilege 
to Block Bolton Testimony, Politico, Jan. 10, 2020, https://
www.politico.com/news/2020/01/10/trump-john-bolton-testimony-097349.
    310.Trial Memorandum of President Donald J. Trump, supra note 25, 
at 40.
    311.Bowman, supra note 241, at 164-165.
    312.H.R. Rep. No. 93-1305, at 6 (1974).
    313.U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 3, cl. 6.
    314.Todd Garvey, Cong. Research Serv., R45983, Congressional Access 
to Information in an Impeachment Investigation 21 (2019).
    315.Comm. on Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives v. McGahn, __ 
F. Supp. 3d __, No. 19-cv-2379 (KBJ) 57-58, 2019 WL 6312011 (D.D.C. 
Nov. 25, 2019) (Ketanji Brown Jackson, J.)
    316.Id. at 59.
    317.2 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, supra note 12, 
at 65.
    318.Id. at 64.
    319.Id. 
    320.Letter from Pat A. Cipollone to Nancy Pelosi, supra note 259, 
at 4.
    321.Hebert v. State of La., 272 U.S. 312, 316-317 (1926).
    322.H.R. Rep. No. 105-795, at 25-26 (1998).
    323.H.R. Rep. No. 116-346, at 17-19 (2019).
    324.Staff of H. Comm on the Judiciary, 93rd Cong., Impeachment 
Inquiry Procedures 1-2 (Comm. Print 1974).
    325.H.R. Rep. No. 116-266, at 9-11 (2019).
    326.Letter from Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, H. Comm. on the 
Judiciary, to Donald Trump, President, United States of America (Nov. 
29, 2019).
    327.Letter from Pat A. Cipollone, Counsel to the President, The 
White House, to Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary 
(Dec. 6, 2019).
    328. Trial Memorandum of the United States House of 
Representatives, supra note 66, at SMF 58.
    329. 166 Cong. Rec. 12, S381-S382 (daily ed. Jan. 21, 2020) 
(statement of Mr. Manager Schiff).
    330. Claudia Grisales & Kelsey Snell, After Pressure, McConnell 
Makes Last-Minute Changes to Impeachment Trial Procedure, NPR, Jan. 20, 
2020, https://www.npr.org/2020/01/20/798007597/read-mcconnell-lays-out-
plan-for-senate-impeachment-trial-procedure; See S. Res. 483, 116th 
Cong. (2019).
    331. Claudia Grisales & Kelsey Snell, After Pressure, McConnell 
Makes Last-Minute Changes to Impeachment Trial Procedure, NPR, Jan. 20, 
2020, https://www.npr.org/2020/01/20/798007597/read-mcconnell-lays-out-
plan-for-senate-impeachment-trial-procedure.
    332. S. Res. 483, 116th Cong. (2019).
    333. Id.
    334. See S. Amdt. 1284 to S. Res. 483, 116th Cong. (2020); S. Amdt. 
1285 to S. Res. 483, 116th Cong. (2020); S. Amdt. 1286 to S. Res. 483, 
116th Cong. (2020); S. Amdt. 1287 to S. Res. 483, 116th Cong. (2020); 
S. Amdt. 1288 to S. Res. 483, 116th Cong. (2020); S. Amdt. 1289 to S. 
Res. 483, 116th Cong. (2020); S. Amdt. 1290 to S. Res. 483, 116th Cong. 
(2020); S. Amdt. 1291 to S. Res. 483, 116th Cong. (2020); S. Amdt. 1292 
to S. Res. 483, 116th Cong. (2020); S. Amdt. 1293 to S. Res. 483, 116th 
Cong. (2020); S. Amdt. 1294 to S. Res. 483, 116th Cong. (2020). (These 
amendments included: subpoenas for relevant documents held by the White 
House related to meetings and calls between President Trump and the 
President of Ukraine; subpoenas compelling the Secretary of State, 
Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Secretary 
of Defense to produce documents and records related to the July 25 
phone call between President Trump and the Ukrainian President and 
records related to the freezing of assistance to Ukraine; and subpoenas 
for the testimony of Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and Ambassador 
John Bolton, both of whom have significant firsthand knowledge of the 
events that are the subject of this impeachment trial. Other amendments 
sought to ensure that there would be votes on motions to subpoena 
witnesses, provide additional time to respond to motions, and require 
the Chief Justice to rule on motions to subpoena witnesses and 
documents.)
    335. 166 Cong. Rec. 12, S385-S431 (Jan. 21, 2020).
    336. 166 Cong. Rec. 21, S766-S769 (daily ed. Jan. 31, 2020).
    337. Id.
    338. Nicholas Fandos, McConnell Says He Will Proceed on Impeachment 
Trial Without Witness Deal, N.Y. Times, Jan. 7, 2020, https://
www.nytimes.com/2020/01/07/us/politics/impeachment-trial-
witnesses.html.
    339. H.R. Rep. 116-346, at 20, 24 (2019).
    340. Opinion Memorandum of United States Senator John F. Reed, 
supra note 38, at 4.
    341. Id.
    342. 166 Cong. Rec. 19, S650-S651 (daily ed. Jan. 29, 2020) 
(statement of Mr. Counsel Dershowitz).
    343. 166 Cong. Rec. 17, S614 (daily ed. Jan. 27, 2020) (statement 
of Mr. Counsel Dershowitz). (In response to the report in the New York 
Times on January 26, 2020, that the manuscript of a book by former 
National Security Adviser John Bolton contends that President Trump 
directly tied the freeze on security assistance for Ukraine to Ukraine 
agreeing to conduct investigations into the 2016 campaign and Biden/
Burisma theories, defense counsel Alan Dershowitz argued that ``if a 
President-any President-were to have done what `The Times' reported 
about the content of the Bolton manuscript, that would not constitute 
an impeachable offense. Let me repeat it. Nothing in the Bolton 
revelations, even if true, would rise to the level of an abuse of power 
or an impeachable offense . . . You cannot turn conduct that is not 
impeachable into impeachable conduct simply by using words like `quid 
pro quo''' and `personal benefit.''')
    344. Ashley Parker & David E. Sanger, Donald Trump Calls on Russia 
to Find Hillary Clinton's Missing Emails, N.Y. Times, July 27, 2016, 
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/28/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-
clinton-emails.html.
    345. 1 Mueller, supra note 60, at 5. (The Special Counsel's 
investigation concluded that, ``[t]he presidential campaign of Donald 
J. Trump . . . showed interest in WikiLeaks's releases of documents and 
welcomed their potential to damage candidate Clinton.'')
    346. Interview by George Stephanopoulos with Donald Trump, 
President, United States of America, in Washington, D.C. (June 16, 
2019).
    347. Peter Baker & Eileen Sullivan, Trump Publicly Urges China to 
Investigate the Bidens, N.Y. Times, Oct. 3, 2019, https://
www.nytimes.com/2019/10/03/us/politics/trump-china-bidens.html.
    348. See discussion at page 21.
    349. Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter (Jan. 16, 2020. 
3:39 PM), https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/
1217909231946477575?s=20. (President Trump has repeatedly claimed that 
his call with President Zelensky on July 25 was perfect. For example, 
on January 16, 2020 President Trump tweeted, ``I JUST GOT IMPEACHED FOR 
MAKING A PERFECT PHONE CALL!'')
    350. The Federalist No. 68, at 459 (Alexander Hamiltoni) (Jacob E. 
Cooke ed., 1961).
    351. Letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson (Dec. 6, 1787).
    352. Ellen L Weintraub (@EllenLWeintraub), Twitter (June 13, 2019, 
7:11 PM), https://twitter.com/EllenLWeintraub/status/
1139309394968096768/photo/1. (In response to President Trump's 
statement to George Stephanopoulos that he would consider taking 
information from a foreign government on one of his political 
opponents, Ellen Weintraub, Chair, Federal Election Commissioner, 
wrote, ``Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and 
anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to 
solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national 
in connection with a U.S. election. This is not a novel concept. 
Electoral intervention from foreign governments has been considered 
unacceptable since the beginning of our nation. Our Founding Fathers 
sounded the alarm about `foreign interference, intrigue and influence.' 
They knew that when foreign governments seek to influence American 
politics, it is always to advance their own interests, not 
America's.'')

    Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
text of a more comprehensive version of my statement regarding 
the impeachment trial of President Donald John Trump be printed 
in the Record.
    There being no objection, the material was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

      Statement on the Impeachment of President Donald John Trump

                            i. introduction
    Throughout this impeachment trial, I have often thought of an 
inscription above the front door of the Finance Building in Harrisburg, 
Pennsylvania from the 1930s: ``All public service is a trust, given in 
faith and accepted in honor.''
    This inscription helped me frame my own understanding of the 
evidence offered during this trial because I believe that President 
Trump and every public official in America must earn that trust every 
day. That sacred trust is given to us ``in faith'' by virtue of our 
election. The question for the President--and every official--is: Will 
we accept that ``trust'' by our honorable conduct? The trust set forth 
in the inscription is an echo of Alexander Hamilton's words in 
Federalist No. 65, where he articulated the standard for impeachment as 
``offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in 
other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.''\1\
    Much time has been devoted to why and how we got here. Let us make 
no mistake about this--we are here because of the President's conduct. 
He solicited the interference of a foreign government in our next 
election and demanded that same government announce an investigation of 
his political opponent, as well as an investigation into a debunked 
conspiracy theory about the last presidential election.
    President Trump has exhibited an unmistakable pattern of behavior 
that indicates a predisposition toward autocratic leadership and a 
willingness to embrace an agenda based on foreign propaganda, directly 
undermining the national interests of the United States.\2\ The world 
watched President Trump stand next to Russian President Vladimir Putin 
in Helsinki, Finland in July 2018.\3\ When President Trump was asked 
whether he believed President Putin or his intelligence agencies--all 
of which definitively concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 
election\4\--President Trump responded: ``My people came to me . . . 
[and] said they think it's Russia. I have President Putin. He just said 
it's not Russia. I will say this: I don't see any reason why it would 
be.''\5\
    After this press conference and despite his attempts to retract his 
comments, President Trump faced widespread and bipartisan condemnation. 
Republican members of Congress called his performance ``troubling,'' 
``a step backwards,'' ``shameful, ``untenable,'' ``bizarre and flat-out 
wrong.''\6\ However, only Senator John McCain offered a forceful rebuke 
of President Trump:
    Today's press conference in Helsinki was one of the most 
disgraceful performances by an American president in memory. The damage 
inflicted by President Trump's naivete, egotism, false equivalence, and 
sympathy for autocrats is difficult to calculate.
    No prior president has ever abased himself more abjectly before a 
tyrant. Not only did President Trump fail to speak the truth about an 
adversary; but speaking for America to the world, our president failed 
to defend all that makes us who we are--a republic of free people 
dedicated to the cause of liberty at home and abroad. American 
presidents must be the champions of that cause if it is to succeed. 
Americans are waiting and hoping for President Trump to embrace that 
sacred responsibility. One can only hope they are not waiting totally 
in vain.\7\
    Over a year and a half later, the President's pattern of conduct 
has made it clear. Just as Senator McCain feared, Americans have waited 
in vain for President Trump to embrace--or even understand--his duties 
as a public servant. This President has not and never will be faithful 
to the ``sacred responsibility'' that he holds as President of the 
United States, nor will he ever truly honor the trust that the people 
placed in him.
    Besides Senator McCain, Republican Senators failed to fully 
confront the President when he chose the word of a former KGB agent 
over the United States Intelligence Community. For this reason, it is 
unsurprising that our Nation has found itself imperiled yet again by 
another example of President Trump's shameful and dishonorable conduct. 
In response to Republican Senators who have expressed concern about the 
President's ``inappropriate'' conduct but have repeatedly refused to 
hold him accountable, I must ask: What will it take? What action will 
finally be so objectionable, so inappropriate to break from this 
President? He will not learn. He will not change. When confronted with 
a choice between the national interests and his personal political 
interests, President Trump will always choose the latter. The Senate's 
failure to hold him accountable in this impeachment trial would be a 
stain on American history.
    After a thorough, careful review of all of the available evidence 
in this impeachment trial, I have determined that House Managers have 
not only met, but exceeded, their burden of proof in this case. 
President Trump violated his duty as a public servant by corruptly 
abusing his power to solicit foreign interference in the 2020 election 
and by repeatedly obstructing Congress's constitutionally-based 
investigation into his conduct. President Trump's clearly established 
pattern of conduct indicates he will continue to be a ``threat to 
national security and the Constitution if allowed to remain in 
office.''\8\ For these reasons, I will vote ``guilty'' on both Article 
I and Article II.
                         ii. procedural history
    Before discussing the facts of this case, it is important to 
address the Senate trial itself. To ensure a full and fair trial for 
all parties, Senate Democrats repeatedly called for relevant witnesses 
and relevant documents to be subpoenaed during this trial in the 
Senate.\9\ The testimonial and documentary evidence would supplement an 
already substantial record presented by the House Managers and ensure 
that this was a fair trial for all parties involved. Senate Republicans 
refused to allow any witnesses and documents.\10\
    Seventy-five percent of Americans supported calling witnesses 
during his trial.\11\ Unfortunately, President Trump has been calling 
the shots and dictating the Republican approach to this trial.\12\ This 
is the third Presidential impeachment trial in our country's history, 
and it is the only one to be completed without calling a single 
witness.\13\ In fact, every completed impeachment trial in history has 
included new witnesses that were not even originally interviewed in the 
House of Representatives.\14\
    By blocking relevant witnesses and relevant documents, Senate 
Republicans have denied the American people the full and fair trial 
they deserve. It is clear that this proceeding was rigged from the 
start to protect President Trump rather than to hear all of the facts.
                          iii. material facts
Special Counsel Mueller & Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential 
        Election
    To fully understand the facts established by the House Managers in 
this case, it is necessary to first understand the context in which 
President Trump engaged in this behavior. In May 2017, Special Counsel 
Robert Mueller was appointed to investigate ```the Russian government's 
efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election,' including any 
links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals 
associated with the Trump Campaign.''\15\ Special Counsel Mueller 
released his comprehensive report in April 2019, which established in 
meticulous detail that Russian President Vladimir Putin personally 
directed an ongoing and systemic Russian attack in the 2016 
presidential election in the United States.\16\
    Special Counsel Mueller's conclusions were also confirmed by the 
United States Intelligence Community\17\ and the bipartisan Senate 
Select Committee on Intelligence.\18\ The Mueller investigation did not 
find evidence that President Trump's 2016 campaign conspired or 
coordinated with the Russian government, but Special Counsel Mueller 
did confirm that ``the Russian government perceived it would benefit 
from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the 
[Trump] Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information 
stolen and released through Russian efforts.''\19\ For example, then-
candidate Trump declared during a public rally in July 2016: ``Russia, 
if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that 
are missing'' from then-candidate Hillary Clinton's email server.\20\ 
Russian hackers targeted Clinton's personal server within hours of 
Trump's request.\21\ After the Mueller Report, in June 2019, President 
Trump was asked whether he would accept opposition research from a 
foreign government against his political opponent. President Trump 
responded ``I think I'd take it.''\22\
    Rather than embrace the Special Counsel's investigation and condemn 
Russian interference in the election, President Trump reportedly tried 
to undermine the investigation by calling it a ``witch hunt''\23\ and a 
``hoax.''\24\ In fact, in Volume II of his report, Special Counsel 
Mueller detailed the President's numerous efforts to obstruct the 
Special Counsel's investigation into Russian interference and his 
attempts to remove the Special Counsel in order to end the 
investigation. The Special Counsel identified ten separate episodes of 
potential obstruction of justice including, but not limited to: (1) 
President Trump firing former FBI Director James Comey;\25\ (2) 
President Trump attempting to fire Special Counsel Mueller;\26\ and (3) 
President Trump requesting his White House Counsel lie and publically 
deny that President Trump tried to fire Special Counsel Mueller.\27\
    Neither Special Counsel Mueller nor Attorney General William Barr 
charged President Trump with a crime for the actions detailed in 
Special Counsel Mueller's report,\28\ in part because of a 
controversial Office of Legal Counsel opinion indicating that a sitting 
President cannot be indicted for a crime.\29\ However, over a thousand 
former federal prosecutors, who served under Republican and Democratic 
administrations, issued a statement shortly after the release of the 
Special Counsel's report that stated, in part, as follows:
    Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described 
in Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report would, in the case of any 
other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against 
indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for 
obstruction of justice.\30\
    After releasing his report in April, Special Counsel Mueller 
testified in front of the House Judiciary Committee and the House 
Intelligence Committee on July 24, 2019.\31\ During his testimony, 
Special Counsel Mueller confirmed that Russia was still engaging in 
ongoing efforts to attack future elections and warned that the United 
States must ``use the full resources that we have to address this'' 
interference.\32\ On July 25, one day after Special Counsel Mueller 
testified, President Trump spoke on the phone with the newly-elected 
President of Ukraine, President Volodymyr Zelensky.\33\ Unknown at the 
time, this phone call would soon set off the comprehensive 
investigation leading to President Trump's impeachment and the current 
trial in the Senate.
Ukraine
    On April 21, 2019, several months before Special Counsel Mueller's 
public testimony, Volodymyr Zelensky was elected President of Ukraine 
and later that day, President Trump called him to congratulate him on 
his victory.\34\ On that call, President Trump extended a future 
invitation to the White House and he also promised that he would send a 
``very, very high level'' representative from the United States to 
attend President Zelensky's inauguration.\35\
    Two days after President Trump's call with President Zelensky, on 
April 23, media reports confirmed that former Vice President Joe Biden 
would enter the 2020 presidential race.\36\ Around this time, the 
President's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, was leading a smear 
campaign to tarnish and remove then-U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie 
Yovanovitch, a respected diplomat known for advancing the United 
States' anti-corruption efforts abroad.\37\ The smear campaign was also 
advanced by two ``corrupt former prosecutors''--Mr. Lutsenko and Mr. 
Shokin--in Ukraine.\38\ It was widely confirmed that the corrupt 
Ukraine prosecutors were seeking ``revenge against'' Ambassador 
Yovanovitch for exposing their misconduct.\39\ On the day after the 
media reported that former Vice President Biden was entering the 
presidential race, President Trump recalled Ambassador Yovanovitch from 
her position in Ukraine.\40\
    Mr. Lutsenko and Mr. Giuliani both promoted two conspiracy theories 
that have been pursued by President Trump.\41\ One of the conspiracy 
theories alleged that Ukraine hacked a Democratic National Committee 
(DNC) server in 2016 in order to frame Russia for election interference 
and help the Clinton Campaign.\42\ The other theory alleged that former 
Vice President Biden coerced the Ukrainian government into firing Mr. 
Shokin to ``prevent an investigation into Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian 
energy company for which Vice President Biden's son, Hunter, served as 
a board member.''\43\ Both theories have been criticized and debunked 
by officials in the Trump Administration.\44\
    On May 3, 2019, shortly after President Zelensky's election, 
President Trump and President Putin spoke by telephone and discussed, 
in part, the so-called ``Russian Hoax,'' referring to Special Counsel 
Mueller's investigation.\45\ During that conversation, President Putin 
reportedly spoke negatively about Ukraine, suggesting that it was 
corrupt and that President Zelensky was ``in the thrall of 
oligarchs.''\46\ A Washington Post article, published on December 19, 
2019, reported that a senior White House official even indicated that 
President Trump suggested that ``he knew Ukraine was the real culprit 
[of 2016 election interference] because `Putin told me.'''\47\
    On May 9, the New York Times reported that the President's personal 
attorney, Mr. Giuliani, would be traveling to Ukraine to pressure the 
government to open investigations into the conspiracy theories about 
Burisma and the 2016 election.\48\ Mr. Giuliani specifically 
acknowledged ``[t]his isn't foreign policy'' but that the 
investigations ``will be very, very helpful to my client.''\49\
    Around May 13, President Trump ordered Vice President Pence not to 
attend President Zelensky's inauguration and sent a lower-ranking 
delegation, despite his promise to President Zelensky to send a ``very, 
very high level'' representative.\50\ This delegation included 
Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, Ambassador to the European Union Gordon 
Sondland, Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations Ambassador 
Kurt Volker and NSC Director for Ukraine Lieutenant Colonel Alexander 
Vindman.\51\
    On May 23, despite positive reports from the delegation regarding 
President Zelensky's effort to combat corruption, President Trump said 
he ``didn't believe'' the delegation because that was not what Mr. 
Giuliani had told him.\52\ The President also reiterated that Ukraine 
``tried to take me down'' during the 2016 election, confirming that he 
still believed the conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, was 
actually responsible for 2016 election interference.\53\ President 
Trump directed Ambassador Sondland, Secretary Perry and Ambassador 
Volker to ``talk to Rudy'' and coordinate engagement with the Ukraine 
government.\54\
    Despite President Trump's misplaced concerns about Ukrainian 
conspiracy theories, in May 2019, the Department of Defense (DOD) and 
the State Department certified that Ukraine had ``taken substantial 
actions'' to decrease corruption.\55\ This was important because it was 
a necessary requirement in order for DOD to release $250 million in 
Ukrainian military assistance that had been appropriated and authorized 
by Congress.\56\ Congress had also appropriated and authorized another 
$141 million to be administered by the State Department for security 
assistance to Ukraine.\57\
    However, by July 12, the President had ordered a block on all 
military and security assistance for Ukraine against overwhelming 
recommendations from across the Executive Branch and strong bipartisan 
support for the aid.\58\ The hold continued throughout August in 
violation of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974.\59\ The President did 
not initially give a reason for the hold, although by September, the 
President claimed that the hold was because he was concerned about 
corruption in Ukraine and burden-sharing for Ukrainian assistance among 
European allies.\60\
    Throughout this time period, it also became clear that President 
Trump was withholding the White House meeting that he promised 
President Zelensky during their April 21 phone call.\61\ Ambassador 
Taylor, Ambassador Yovanovitch's replacement in Ukraine, pushed for the 
White House meeting, but he learned that the meeting was conditioned 
explicitly on Ukraine publically announcing investigations into the 
2016 election and Burisma.\62\ Ambassador Sondland was unequivocal in 
his description during his testimony: ``Was there a quid pro quo? As I 
testified previously with regard to the requested White House call and 
the White House meeting, the answer is yes.''\63\
    After a July 10 meeting, Dr. Fiona Hill, former Senior Director of 
European and Russian Affairs at the National Security Council, informed 
then-National Security Advisor John Bolton that Ambassador Sondland 
reiterated the quid pro quo to Ukrainian officials during a meeting at 
the White House.\64\ Dr. Hill testified that Mr. Bolton advised her to 
``go and tell [the NSC Legal Advisor] that I am not part of whatever 
drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up on this.''\65\ Over the 
next two weeks, Mr. Giuliani coordinated with Ambassadors Sondland and 
Volker to arrange a phone call between President Trump and President 
Zelensky for President Zelensky to inform President Trump that he would 
announce the investigations.\66\
    On July 25, President Trump spoke on the phone with President 
Zelensky.\67\ At one point, President Zelensky thanked President Trump 
for the ``great support'' in military assistance and indicated that 
Ukraine would be interested in purchasing more Javelin anti-tank 
missiles soon.\68\ In response, immediately after the Javelin 
reference, President Trump stated as follows: ``I would like you to do 
us a favor though.''\69\ President Trump brought up the investigations 
that he sought into the Ukrainian election interference and Biden 
conspiracy theories.\70\ After the call, Ambassador Sondland informed a 
State Department aide that President Trump ``did not give a [expletive] 
about Ukraine'' and he only cared only about ``big stuff,'' meaning 
```the Biden investigation' that Mr. Giuliani was pushing.''\71\
    Around that time, the Ukrainian government also became aware that 
President Trump was withholding military aid.\72\ On August 12, 
Ambassadors Volker and Sondland, with consultation from Mr. Giuliani, 
edited a draft statement for President Zelensky to publically release 
that included explicit references to ``Burisma and the 2016 U.S. 
elections.''\73\ On that same day, a whistleblower filed a complaint 
with the Intelligence Community Inspector General expressing concerns 
about President Trump's phone call with President Zelensky on July 
25.\74\
    Ukraine ultimately did not release the statement regarding 
investigations and no further action was taken regarding a White House 
meeting.\75\ Furthermore, there were increasing concerns among national 
security officials regarding President Trump's hold on military aid, 
which many began to understand was meant to pressure Ukraine too.\76\ 
Ambassador Sondland testified that President Trump's effort to 
condition release of the security assistance on Ukraine announcing 
investigations was as clear as ``two plus two equals four.''\77\
    On September 7, President Trump and Ambassador Sondland spoke on 
the telephone and Ambassador Sondland explained that President told him 
``there was no quid pro quo, but President Zelensky must announce the 
opening of the investigations and he should want to do it.''\78\ 
Shortly after, on September 9, Ambassador Taylor texted Ambassadors 
Sondland and Volker and explicitly said, ``I think it's crazy to 
withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.''\79\ 
On that same day, the Intelligence Community Inspector General notified 
Congress of the August 12 whistleblower complaint regarding President 
Trump's July 25 phone call with President Zelensky.\80\
    Two days later, President Trump unexpectedly released his hold on 
Ukraine's security assistance.\81\ Since President Trump lifted the 
hold, however, he has continued to press Ukraine, and even other 
foreign countries, to open investigations into his political rival.\82\ 
For example, on October 3, President Trump stated as follows on the 
White House lawn:
    Well I would think that if they [Ukraine] were honest about it, 
they'd start a major investigation into the Bidens. It's a very simple 
answer. They should investigate the Bidens. . . . Likewise, China 
should start an investigation into the Bidens because what happened in 
China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine. So, I would 
say that President Zelensky, if it were me, I would recommend that they 
start an investigation into the Bidens.\83\
    To date, President Zelensky still has not met with President Trump 
at the White House.
Congressional Investigations
    As noted above, Congress was notified on September 9 of the August 
12 whistleblower complaint regarding President Trump's phone call with 
Ukraine.\84\ Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced on September 24 that the 
House would move forward with an official impeachment inquiry.\85\
    On September 9 and September 24, three House Committee sent letters 
to White House Counsel Pat Cipollone asking for six specific categories 
of documents related to the Ukraine investigation.\86\ The White House 
did not respond, and as a result, the Committees issued a subpoena to 
Acting White House Chief of Staff, Mick Mulvaney.\87\
    On October 8, Mr. Cipollone responded and indicated that 
``President Trump cannot permit his Administration to participate in 
this partisan inquiry under these circumstances.''\88\ The letter 
called the inquiry ``constitutionally invalid'' even though the 
Constitution grants the House the sole power of impeachment.\89\ The 
letter made reference to ``long-established Executive Branch 
confidentiality interests and privileges,''\90\ although President 
Trump has never specifically asserted an executive privilege over a 
single piece of information related to the inquiry.
    As a result of President Trump's blanket directive, every Executive 
Branch agency that received an impeachment inquiry request or subpoena 
has not complied with the request.\91\ Specifically, the Executive 
Branch has not produced a single document or permitted a single witness 
to testify in response to a subpoena.\92\ The only witnesses who did 
testify or submit documents did so in direct violation of the White 
House's directive.\93\
                      iv. articles of impeachment
    As we know, Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 of the Constitution 
states that ``[t]he Senate shall have the sole Power to try all 
Impeachments.''\94\ As a Senator reviewing this case, I have based my 
assessment of the evidence on the following two questions:
    (1) Did the president do what he is charged with in the Articles?; 
and
    (2) If so, is that action an impeachable offense that warrants 
removal from office?
Abuse of Power
    In the first Article of Impeachment, the House of Representatives 
charged President Trump with abusing his power as President by 
corruptly ``soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce 
investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election 
prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States 
Presidential election to his advantage.''\95\ In this case, I have 
found that the House has presented substantial, persuasive evidence to 
prove the allegations in Article I.
    First, there is no dispute that the White House directly withheld 
$391 million dollars in military aid from Ukraine.\96\ The Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) held the aid, at the direction of the 
President, despite the Department of Defense and the State Department 
certifying that Ukraine was taking necessary measures to reduce 
corruption.\97\ Furthermore, all agencies--except OMB--strongly 
supported the release of the aid because it was in the national 
interest of the United States.\98\
    Nor is there dispute that President Trump withheld a White House 
meeting with President Zelensky. On his April 21 phone call, President 
Trump explicitly invited President Zelensky to the White House in the 
future.\99\ However, after former Vice President Joe Biden announced 
his candidacy for President just a few days later, President Zelensky--
despite numerous efforts--still has not met with President Trump at the 
White House.
    Second, the evidence establishes that President Trump conditioned 
the aid and the White House meeting on Ukraine announcing 
investigations into Burisma and the 2016 election. In the July 25 phone 
call, President Trump asked President Zelensky to ``do us a favor 
though'' and referenced the 2016 election and Burisma investigations 
immediately after President Zelensky brought up military 
assistance.\100\
    Related to the White House meeting, Ambassador Sondland could not 
have been more clear when he testified that ``yes,'' there was a quid 
pro quid conditioning a White House meeting with Ukraine announcing 
investigations into the Bidens and Burisma.\101\ He further testified 
that the conditioning of the White House meeting and military 
assistance on Ukraine publically announcing investigations was as clear 
as ``2+2=4.''\102\
    So, the question is: Why? Was President Trump acting corruptly to 
advance his own political interests, or was he, as his defense 
attorneys would have us believe, deeply concerned about ongoing 
``corruption'' in Ukraine and ``burden-sharing?''\103\ The facts 
clearly established that President Trump was acting corruptly to 
further his own political interests.
    First, while the President's defense lawyers have rightly argued 
that the President ``defines foreign policy,''\104\ the facts do not 
support that the President's actions related to Ukraine were based on 
``legitimate concerns'' regarding corruption and burden-sharing.\105\ 
Also, if the President was so concerned about corruption in Ukraine, 
why did he dismiss one of the Nation's best corruption-fighting 
diplomats, Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch?\106\
    Second, the President was utilizing his personal attorney, Mr. 
Giuliani, to coordinate the announcement of investigations in Ukraine. 
Mr. Giuliani explicitly said that he was not engaged in foreign policy, 
but was acting on behalf of President Trump in his ``personal 
capacity.''\107\ The State Department also released a statement in 
August emphasizing that Mr. Giuliani is a private citizen acting in his 
personal capacity and ``does not speak on behalf of the U.S. 
government.''\108\ Accordingly, one cannot reasonably argue that the 
investigations pursued by Mr. Giuliani were related to ``legitimate'' 
foreign policy when they were coordinated by the President's personal 
attorney for the President's personal benefit.
    Third, it was the prior practice of the Administration to release 
aid to Ukraine without delay or regard to alleged corruption and 
burden-sharing concerns. Both of these asserted concerns were an after-
the-fact distraction from the truth. The Trump Administration 
disbursed--without question--approximately $511 million and $359 
million to Ukraine in 2017 and 2018, respectively.\109\ The only thing 
that changed in 2019 was that former Vice President Joe Biden announced 
that he was running for President.
    Finally, the proposed investigations into Burisma and 2016 election 
interference were debunked conspiracy theories that would have only 
benefited one person--Donald Trump. Regarding Burisma, President Trump 
claimed that former Vice President Biden corruptly forced Ukraine to 
fire then-Prosecutor General Shokin to avoid further investigation into 
Burisma.\110\ The truth is that Vice President Biden was actually 
pursuing Mr. Shokin's termination--with bipartisan and international 
support--because Mr. Shokin was a corrupt and ineffective 
prosecutor.\111\ In fact, Mr. Shokin was not actively investigating 
Burisma and his removal would have made it more likely--not less--that 
Burisma would be investigated in the future.\112\
    Furthermore, even if we were to accept that President Trump had 
legitimate interests regarding alleged corruption in Ukraine, he 
certainly should not have asked a foreign government to announce the 
investigation. Rather, he should have gone through official channels 
and asked the Department of Justice to look into the allegations.\113\ 
Ambassador Sondland indicated that President Trump was only concerned 
about the announcement of investigations--he was not concerned with the 
actual completion of investigations.\114\ President Trump was not 
actually interested in corruption in Ukraine, but was only concerned 
with harming a political opponent with the announcement of an 
investigation.
    Regarding Ukrainian election interference, President Trump has 
suggested that Ukraine attempted to help the Hillary Clinton campaign 
in 2016 by framing Russia and hacking a Democratic National Committee 
server.\115\ This theory is not supported by any evidence. The U.S. 
Intelligence Community, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and 
Special Counsel Robert Mueller all came to the conclusion that Russia, 
not Ukraine, interfered in the 2016 election.\116\ Dr. Fiona Hill 
called this Ukraine theory a ``fictional narrative that is being 
perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services'' to raise 
doubts about Russia's own culpability and to harm the relationship 
between the United States and Ukraine.\117\ President Trump's former 
Homeland Security Advisor, Tom Bossert, also indicated that the Ukraine 
theory was ``not only a conspiracy theory, it is completely 
debunked.''\118\ Pursuing such a clearly debunked conspiracy theory 
only served to benefit President Trump, and Putin, by raising doubts 
regarding Russia's own election interference and its preference for 
President Trump's election in 2016.
    Based on this evidence, it is clear that President Trump acted 
corruptly by conditioning the release of military aid and a White House 
meeting on Ukraine announcing investigations into his political 
opponent.
Obstruction of Congress
    Under the second Article of Impeachment, the House charged that 
President Trump has obstructed Congress by directing the ``the 
unprecedented, categorical, and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas 
issued by the House of Representatives pursuant to its `sole Power of 
Impeachment.'''\119\ I have concluded that the House has presented 
substantial evidence to prove the allegations in this Article.
    On October 8, 2019, during the House impeachment inquiry, the White 
House Counsel wrote that ``President Trump cannot permit his 
Administration to participate in this partisan inquiry under these 
circumstances.''\120\ As a result of President Trump's directives, the 
House did not receive a ``single document'' from the White House, the 
Vice President, OMB, the Department of State, DOD or the Department of 
Energy--despite 71 requests and demands.\121\ Furthermore, the only 
witnesses who testified or produced documents did so in opposition to 
the President's directive.\122\
    President Trump did not assert a single claim of ``executive 
privilege'' over any specific document or piece of testimony during 
this inquiry.\123\ Rather, he issued a blanket directive that 
completely denied the constitutional oversight responsibilities of the 
House.\124\ Based on this evidence, it is clear that President Trump 
has obstructed Congress.
                         v. impeachable conduct
    Having established that the President did, in fact, engage in the 
conduct alleged in these Articles--I now turn to whether this conduct 
warrants removal from office.
    During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, our Founders grappled 
significantly with how to elect the Executive, but they also debated 
how to hold the Executive accountable. While some delegates believed 
that the President should only be held accountable at the ballot box 
through elections, others voiced the logical concern that ``if [the 
President] be not impeachable whilst in office, he will spare no 
efforts or means whatever to get himself re-elected.''\125\ After much 
debate, the Convention voted that the Executive shall be ``removable on 
impeachments''\126\ and later confirmed the grounds for impeachment 
included ``Treason, bribery and other high crimes and 
misdemeanors.''\127\
    ``High Crimes and Misdemeanors'' is left ambiguous in the 
Constitution. At the time of the drafting, the Founders' understanding 
of ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' was informed by centuries of 
English legal precedent.\128\ This understanding was reflected in 
Federalist No. 65, written by Alexander Hamilton, which explained that 
impeachment should stem from an ``abuse or violation of some public 
trust.''\129\ Noted historian Ron Chernow explained that Hamilton's 
understanding of impeachment should ``count heavily because he was the 
foremost proponent of a robust presidency, yet he also harbored an 
abiding fear that a brazen demagogue could seize the office.''\130\ 
Informed by this history, Congress has consistently interpreted ``high 
Crimes and Misdemeanors'' broadly to mean ``serious violations of the 
public trust.''\131\
    The President's defense lawyers argued that impeachment requires a 
violation of a criminal statute to be constitutionally valid.\132\ This 
argument is not supported by historical precedent, credible scholarship 
or our common sense about the sacred notion of the public trust.\133\ 
When applying the accurate Hamiltonian standard for impeachment--an 
``abuse or violation of some public trust''--it is clear that President 
Trump's conduct exceeds that standard. Any effort to corrupt an 
election must be met with a swift measure of accountability as provided 
for under the impeachment clause in the Constitution. There is no other 
remedy to constrain a President who has acted, time and again, to 
advance his personal interests over those of the Nation.
    Furthermore, since his candidacy, President Trump has engaged in 
substantial and ongoing efforts to solicit foreign interference in our 
elections. As detailed in Special Counsel Mueller's report, the Trump 
campaign routinely welcomed Russian interference in the 2016 
presidential election because they ``expected [the Campaign] would 
benefit electorally from information stolen and released through 
Russian efforts.''\134\ As an illustration of just how brazen President 
Trump has become in his conduct, his July 25 phone call with President 
Zelensky occurred just one day after Special Counsel Mueller testified 
in Congress, where he warned of the ongoing threat of foreign 
interference in elections.\135\ As the Washington Post reported on 
September 21 in a story written by three reporters who have covered the 
President for several years, the President's conduct on the Ukraine 
call revealed ``a president convinced of his own invincibility--
apparently willing and even eager to wield the vast powers of the 
United States to taint a political foe and confident that no one could 
hold him back.''\136\
    The President's blanket obstruction of Congress also substantially 
imperils our constitutional system of checks and balances. Not only has 
this President taken the unprecedented step of issuing an outright 
refusal to cooperate with Congressional oversight in this case, but 
President Trump has exhibited an ongoing hostility to oversight of his 
administration. As detailed in Special Counsel Mueller's report, 
President Trump engaged in ten distinct efforts to obstruct and curtail 
investigations into his conduct and Russia's interference in the 2016 
election.\137\ It is clear that this President has engaged in an 
ongoing pattern of behavior that threatens to diminish any meaningful 
future oversight of the Executive Branch.
    Given the President's ongoing pattern of corrupt behavior, 
especially as it relates to the next election, I find him ``guilty'' 
under both Articles of Impeachment.
                             vi. conclusion
    Our Founders had the foresight to ensure that the power of the 
President was not unlimited and that Congress could--if necessary--hold 
the Executive accountable for abuses of power through the impeachment 
process. This Senate trial is not simply about grave presidential abuse 
of power, it is about our Democracy, the sanctity of our elections and 
the very values that the Founders agreed should guide our Nation.
    The inscription--``[a]ll public service is a trust, given in faith 
and accepted in honor''--serves as a reminder to us all of the bedrock 
principles of our republic. We must hold those accountable who violate 
this sacred trust. President Trump dishonored that public trust given 
to him by abusing his power for personal, political gain. In order to 
prevent continuing interference in our upcoming election and blatant 
obstruction of Congress, the Senate should find him guilty under both 
Articles.
                                endnotes
    1. The Federalist No. 65 (Alexander Hamilton).
    2. Vivian Salama & Julie Pace, Trump Has Embraced Autocratic 
Leaders Without Hesitation, PBS (Apr. 19, 2017), https://www.pbs.org/
newshour/world/trump-embraced-autocratic-leaders-without-hesitation. 
See also Michael S. Schmidt & Maggie Haberman, Bolton Was Concerned 
That Trump Did Favors for Autocratic Leaders, Book Says, N.Y. TIMES 
(Jan. 27, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/us/politics/john-
bolton-trump-book-barr.html (explaining that President Trump's former 
National Security Advisor, John Bolton, was concerned that ``President 
Trump was effectively granting personal favors to . . . autocratic 
leaders'').
    3. Transcript: Trump and Putin's Joint Press Conference, NPR (July 
16, 2018) [hereinafter Helsinki Transcript], https://www.npr.org/2018/
07/16/629462401/transcript-president-trump-and-russian-president-
putins-joint-press-conference.
    4. U.S. Intelligence CMTY., ICA 2017-01D, Assessing Russian 
Activities and Intentions in recent US Elections ii (2017).
    5. Helsinki Transcript, supra note 3.
    6. How Republican Lawmakers Responded to Trump's Russian Meddling 
Denial, N.Y. Times (July 17, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/
interactive/2018/07/16/us/politics/republicans-trump-putin-russia-
reaction.html.
    7. Niels Lesniewski, `Pathetic Rout,' `Tragic Mistake' and 
`Painful'--John McCain Holds Little Back in Describing Helsinki, 
Rollcall (July 16, 2018), https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/
mccain-calls-trump-performance-with-putin-a-pathetic-rout.
    8. H.R. Res. 755, 116th Cong. art. I (2019).
    9 See 166 Cong. Rec. S438-41 (daily ed. Jan. 21, 2020) (identifying 
the amendments proposed by Minority Leader Schumer seeking documents 
and witnesses).
    10. See id. at S394-431 (detailing the amendments and roll call 
votes on the amendments).
    11. Press Release, Quinnipiac Univ. Poll, 75% Of Voters Say Allow 
Witnesses In Senate Impeachment Trial, Quinnipiac University National 
Poll Finds; 53% Say President Trump Not Telling Truth About Ukraine 
(Jan. 28, 2020), https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-
detail?ReleaseID=3654.
    12. Sheryl Gay Stolberg, McConnell, Coordinating With White House, 
Lays Plans for Impeachment Trial, N.Y. Times (Dec. 17, 2019), https://
www.nytimes.com/2019/12/13/us/politics/mcconnell-white-house-
impeachment-trial.html.
    13. Press Release, Citizens For Responsibility & Ethics in 
Washington, New Analysis: Every Impeachment Trial Has Had New Witnesses 
(Jan. 28, 2020), https://www.citizensforethics.org/press-release/new-
witnesses-impeachment/.
    14. Id.
    15. I Robert S. Mueller, III, U.S. Dep't of Justice, Report on the 
Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential 
Election 1 (2019) [hereinafter Mueller Report].
    16. Id. at 1-2.
    17. U.S. Intelligence Cmty., supra note 4, at ii.
    18. 2 Select Comm. on Intelligence, U.S. Senate, 116th Cong. Report 
on Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 U.S. 
Election: Russia's Use of Social Media 3-4 (Comm. Print 2019).
    19. I Mueller Report, supra note 15, at 5.
    20. Id. at 49.
    21. Id.
    22. Transcript: ABC News' George Stephanopoulos' Exclusive 
Interview with President Trump, ABC News (June 16, 2019), https://
abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-abc-news-george-stephanopoulos-
exclusive-interview-president/story?id=63749144.
    23. @realDonaldTrump, Twitter (July 29, 2018, 3:35 PM), https://
twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1023653191974625280; see also Olivia 
Paschal, Trump's Tweets and the Creation of `Illusory Truth,' Atlantic 
(Aug. 3, 2018), https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/08/
how-trumps-witch-hunt-tweets-create-an-illusory-truth/566693/ 
(explaining that President Trump referred to the Mueller investigation 
as a ``witch hunt'' no less than 84 times between January and August 
2018).
    24. @realDonaldTrump, Twitter (Aug. 1, 2018, 3:35 PM), https://
twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1024656465158721536.
    25. II Mueller Report, supra note 15, at 62-64.
    26. Id. at 77-90.
    27. Id. at 113-20.
    28. Oversight of the Report on the Investigation Into Russian 
Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election: Former Special Counsel 
Robert S. Mueller, III: Hearing Before the H.R. Comm. on the Judiciary, 
116th Cong. 6 (2019) [hereinafter Mueller Hearing I] (statement of 
Robert S. Mueller, III, Special Counsel); Letter from the Honorable 
William Barr, Att'y Gen., U.S. Dep't of Justice, to Chairman Lindsay 
Graham, S. Comm. on the Judiciary, et al. (Mar. 24, 2019), https://
www.justice.gov/ag/page/file/1147981/download.
    29. A Sitting President's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal 
Prosecution, 24 Op. O.L.C. 222 (2000), https://www.justice.gov/sites/
default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222--0.pdf.
    30. DOJ Alumni Statement, Statement by Former Federal Prosecutors, 
Medium (May 6, 2019), https://medium.com/@dojalumni/statement-by-
former-federal-prosecutors-8ab7691c2aa1.
    31. Mueller Hearing I, supra note 28; Former Special Counsel Robert 
S. Mueller III on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 
2016 Presidential Election: Hearing Before the H.R. Perm. Select Comm. 
on Intelligence, 116th Cong. (2019) [hereinafter Mueller Hearing II].
    32. Mueller Hearing II, supra note 31, at 75.
    33. H.R. Permanent Select Comm. on Intelligence, The Trump-Ukraine 
Impeachment Inquiry Report, H.R. Rep. No. 116-335, at 2-3 (2019) 
[hereinafter HPSCI Report].
    34. Id. at 39.
    35. Id.
    36 Molly Nagle, Former Vice President Joe Biden to Announce He's 
Entering the 2020 Race Thursday Morning, ABC News (Apr. 23, 2019), 
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/vice-president-joe-biden-announce-hes-
entering-2020/story?id=62558852.
    37. HPSCI Report, supra note 33, at 25.
    38. Id. at 28.
    39. Id.
    40. Id. at 26-27.
    41. Id. at 29.
    42. Id. at 29-30.
    43. Id.
    44. Id. at 88-89. Related to the Ukraine election interference 
theory, President Trump's former Homeland Security Advisor, Tom 
Bossert, publicly stated that it was ``not only a conspiracy theory, it 
is completely debunked.'' Id. at 89. Dr. Fiona Hill, former Senior 
Director of European and Russian Affairs at the National Security 
Council, called it a ``fictional narrative that is being perpetrated 
and propagated by the Russian security services.'' Id. at 88. She also 
indicated that former National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster ``spent a 
lot of time'' trying to convince President Trump that the theory was 
Russian propaganda. Id. at 89. Furthermore, FBI Director Christopher 
Wray confirmed that the FBI had ``no information that indicates that 
Ukraine interfered with the 2016 presidential election.'' Luke Barr & 
Alexander Mallin, FBI Director Pushes Back On Debunked Conspiracy 
Theory About 2016 Election Interference, ABC News (Dec. 9, 2019), 
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fbi-director-pushes-back-debunked-
conspiracy-theory-2016/story?id=67609244.
    45. HPSCI Report, supra note 33, at 46.
    46. Id. at 47.
    47. Shane Harris et al., Former White House Officials Say They 
Feared Putin Influenced the President's Views on Ukraine and 2016 
Campaign, Wash. Post (Dec. 19, 2019), https://www.washingtonpost.com/
national-security/former-white-house-officials-say-they-feared-putin-
influenced-the-presidents-views-on-ukraine-and-2016-campaign/2019/12/
19/af0fdbf6-20e9-11ea-bed5-880264cc91a9_story.html.
    48. Kenneth P. Vogel, Rudy Giuliani Plans Ukraine Trip to Push for 
Inquiries That Could Help Trump, N.Y. Times (May 9, 2019), https://
www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/us/politics/giuliani-ukraine-trump.html.
    49. Id. Mr. Giuliani also wrote a letter to President-elect 
Zelensky requesting a meeting as the attorney for President Trump in 
his capacity as a ``private citizen, not as President of the United 
States.'' H.R. Comm. on the Judiciary, Impeachment of President Donald 
John Trump: The Evidentiary Record Pursuant to H. Res. 798, H.R. Doc. 
No. 116-95, vol. IV, at 7639 (2020) [hereinafter Evidentiary Record].
    50. HPSCI Report, supra note 33, at 39, 47.
    51. Id. at 48.
    52. Id. at 50.
    53. Id. Despite reports that certain Ukrainian officials did prefer 
Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election, there is little comparison to the 
Russian interference personally directed by President Vladimir Putin to 
assist the Trump campaign: ``There's little evidence of such a top-down 
effort by Ukraine. Longtime observers suggest that the rampant 
corruption, factionalism and economic struggles plaguing the country--
not to mention its ongoing strife with Russia--would render it unable 
to pull off an ambitious covert interference campaign in another 
country's election.'' Kenneth P. Vogel & David Stern, Ukrainian Efforts 
to Sabotage Trump Backfire, Politico (Jan. 11, 2017), https://
www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446.
    54. HPSCI Report, supra note 33, at 50.
    55. Id. at 57.
    56. Id.
    57. Id. at 57-58.
    58. Id. at 59.
    59. U.S. Gov't Accountability Off., B-331564, Matter of Office of 
Mgmt. & Budget--Withholding of Ukraine Sec. Assistance (2020), https://
www.gao.gov/assets/710/703909.pdf.
    60. HPSCI Report, supra note 33, at 59-62. See, e.g., Evidentiary 
Record, vol. II, pt. 1, supra note 49, at 48-49 (testifying that 
burden-sharing was first provided as a rationale to him in September).
    61. HPSCI Report, supra note 33, at 70-71.
    62. Id. at 72.
    63. Id. at 82.
    64. Id. at 76-78.
    65. Id. at 78.
    66. Id. at 79-84.
    67. Id. at 86.
    68. Id. at 87.
    69. Id. at 87-88.
    70. Id. at 88-90.
    71. Id. at 99.
    72. Id. at 69-70.
    73. Id. at 106-08.
    74. Id. at 128.
    75. Id. at 110-11, 131-33.
    76. Id. at 111-25.
    77. Id. at 16.
    78. Id. at 120.
    79. Id. at 122.
    80. Id. at 128.
    81. Id. at 129-30.
    82. Id. at 131-35.
    83. PBS NewsHour, Trump Says China Should Investigate the Bidens, 
YouTube (Oct. 3, 2019), https://youtu.be/eJd1y0TPPl8?t=99.
    84. HPSCI Report, supra note 33, at 128.
    85. Id. at 173.
    86. Id. at 181.
    87. Id.
    88. Letter from Pat A. Cipollone, Counsel to the President, to 
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House of Representatives, et al., 2 (Oct. 8, 
2019), https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/PAC-
Letter-10.08.2019.pdf.
    89. Id.
    90. Id. at 4.
    91. HPSCI Report, supra note 33, at 180.
    92. Id.
    93. Id.
    94. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 2, cl. 5.
    95. H.R. Res. 755, 116th Cong. art. I (2019).
    96. See supra text accompanying notes 58-60.
    97. HPSCI Report, supra note 33, at 57.
    98. Id. at 60-62.
    99. Id. at 39.
    100. Id. at 87-90.
    101. Id. at 82.
    102. Id. at 16.
    103. Trial Memorandum of President Donald J. Trump at 10, In Re 
Impeachment of President Donald J. Trump (Jan. 20, 2020).
    104. Id. at 2.
    105. Id. at 10.
    106. See supra text accompanying notes 36-40.
    107. Evidentiary Record, vol. IV, supra note 49, at 7639.
    108. Allan Smith, Giuliani Says State Dept. Aided His Effort to 
Press Ukraine on Trump Opponents, NBC News (Aug. 22, 2019), https://
www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/giuliani-says-state-dept-aided-
his-effort-press-ukraine-trump-n1045171.
    109. Statement of Material Facts: Attachment to the Trial 
Memorandum of the United States House of Representatives at 14, In Re 
Impeachment of President Donald J. Trump (Jan. 18, 2020) [hereinafter 
House Manager's Statement of Material Facts].
    110. HPSCI Report, supra note 33, at 42-43.
    111. Id.
    112. Id. at 43.
    113. Id. at 108-09.
    114. House Manager's Statement of Material Facts, supra note 109, 
at 20.
    115. HPSCI Report, supra note 33, at 88.
    116. Id. at 29.
    117. Id. at 88.
    118. Id. at 89.
    119. H.R. Res. 755, 116th Cong. art. II (2019) (quoting U.S. Const. 
art. I, Sec. 2, cl. 5).
    120. HPSCI Report, supra note 33, at 175
    121. Id. at 180.
    122. Id.
    123. Id. at 179.
    124. Id.
    125. 2 Max Farrand, ed., The Records of the Federal Convention of 
1787, 64 (1911) (Madison).
    126. Id. at 69 (Madison).
    127. Id. at 550 (Madison). See also U.S. Const. art. II, Sec. 4 
(``The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United 
States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction 
of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'').
    128. See Charles L. Black, Jr. & Philip Bobbitt, Impeachment: A 
Handbook, New Edition 43 (2018) (``The phrase `high Crimes and 
Misdemeanors' comes to us out of English law and practice, starting (as 
far as we know) in 1386.'').
    129. The Federalist No. 65 (Alexander Hamilton).
    130. Ron Chernow, Hamilton Pushed For Impeachment Powers. Trump Is 
What He Had In Mind., Wash. Post (Oct. 18, 2019), https://
www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/10/18/hamilton-pushed-impeachment-
powers-trump-is-what-he-had-mind/?arc404=true.
    131. H.R. Rept. No. 101-36, at 5 (1989).
    132. 166 Cong. Rec. S611 (daily ed. Jan. 27, 2020) (statement of 
Counsel Dershowitz explaining that ``[p]urely non-criminal conduct, 
including abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, are outside the 
range of impeachable offenses'').
    133. See e.g., S. Misc. Doc. No. 40-42, at 8 (1868) (impeaching 
President Johnson for bringing ``the high office of the President of 
the United States into contempt, ridicule and disgrace''); H.R. Rept. 
No. 93-1305, at 2 (1974) (recommending Articles of Impeachment against 
President Nixon because he ``prevented, obstructed, and impeded the 
administration of justice''); H.R. Res. 601, 105th Cong. art. IV (1998) 
(impeaching President Clinton for an ``abuse of high office'').
    134. I Mueller Report, supra note 15, at 5.
    135. See supra text accompanying note 31-33.
    136. Philip Rucker et al., Trump's Ukraine Call Reveals a President 
Convinced of His Own Invincibility, Wash. Post (Sept. 21, 2019), 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-ukraine-call-reveals-a-
president-convinced-of-his-own-invincibility/2019/09/21/1a56466c-dc6a-
11e9-ac63-3016711543fe_story.html.
    137. See II Mueller Report, supra note 15, at 3-4 (summarizing the 
ten incidents).

    Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today 
regarding the recent impeachment trial of President Donald 
Trump. This was a rare moment in our young Nation's history. We 
had little to guide us other than the Founding Fathers' 
collective wisdom and sparse precedent.
    The process may seem daunting, and the debate over even the 
most basic mechanics of the trial could leave the future 
Members of this body susceptible to deception or 
misinformation. I therefore want to offer my thoughts for 
future Senators when this issue inevitably rises again.
    The impeachment trial proceedings are unique. It is an 
inherently political process analogous to a legal trial. There 
is a prosecution, represented by the House managers, as well as 
a defense, representing the President. There is also a 
presiding judge, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
    As in a courtroom, the prosecution and defense take 
opposite sides of the judge as they make their arguments. The 
burden of proof is on the prosecutors, who must present their 
evidence, and it is the job of the defense to refute the 
arguments.
    There is also a jury, the U.S. Senate. Like a courtroom 
jury, we sit in silence throughout the trial listening to the 
arguments of both sides and are asked to render a verdict at 
the conclusion. However, unlike a courtroom but as instructed 
by the Constitution, we are not jurors subject to peremptory 
challenge; we are elected officials instructed to offer 
impartial justice based on the evidence presented to us.
    We are not expected to check our knowledge or our existing 
relationships at the door. If this were a true trial, all 
Senators would have to recuse themselves for the inherent bias 
connected to the election certificate they earned. As Alexander 
Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper 65, ``In many cases, it 
[impeachment] will connect itself with the pre-existing 
factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, 
influence, and interest on one side or on the other.'' Rather, 
we are asked to follow our conscience, to hear the arguments of 
both sides with an open mind and deliver a verdict. We also 
differ from courtroom jurors in that we establish the rules for 
the proceedings. This is done through organizing resolutions we 
debate and pass.
    Before considering the merits of this particular case, it 
is important to discuss the idea of impeachment itself in light 
of the present context. During President Trump's hearing, the 
President's legal team alluded to the idea that a President can 
do essentially whatever he or she wants, and it will not be 
considered an impeachable offense as long as that President's 
interests in doing so align with the interests of the United 
States.
    ``If a President does something which he believes will help 
him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind 
of quid pro quo that results in impeachment,'' said Alan 
Dershowitz, a member of the President's legal team, during the 
trial.
    I feel that particular statement is wrong. The Constitution 
grants no President absolute power. There is a threshold that 
can be reached. Thankfully, this was later clarified by Mr. 
Dershowitz in an opinion piece he wrote for The Hill entitled 
``I never said the President could do anything to get re-
elected.'' In it, he said:

    Any action by a politician motivated in part by a desire to 
be reelected was, by its nature, corrupt. Moving to my 
response, I listed three broad categories of relevant motives, 
which are pure national interest to help the military, pure 
corrupt motive to obtain a kickback, and mixed-motive to help 
the national interest in a way that can also help a reelection 
effort. I said the third motive was often the reality of 
politics, and helping your own reelection effort cannot by 
itself necessarily be deemed corrupt.

    In the end, it is the duty of every Senator to determine 
whether the President acted in a purely self-interested manner 
without any regard for the national interest. Given the full 
context of his actions, it is clear President Trump did not act 
in a purely selfish, boundless manner.
    While the question of whether a President can commit a 
crime and therefore be impeached is firmly settled, there 
arises another question this impeachment trial did not 
sufficiently answer but must be addressed in the future.
    The Constitution says it is the job of the House of 
Representatives to impeach a President whose trial is held 
before the Senate. According to current Senate rules, our body 
must move forward with impeachment proceedings, but is that 
according to the Constitution?
    Article I, section 3 of the Constitution states:

    The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all 
Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on 
Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is 
tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be 
convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members 
present.

    With this impeachment behind us, now is the time we as a 
body need to evaluate the constitutionality and wisdom of our 
rules requiring the Senate to move forward with any impeachment 
articles. We must reaffirm our right to dictate what is 
considered on the Senate floor and when it is considered, which 
is not without precedent.
    Article II, section 2 of the Constitution says:

    He [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the 
Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, 
other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme 
Court, and all other Officers of the United States.

    In 2016, after the passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin 
Scalia, President Barack Obama appointed a Supreme Court 
nominee to replace him. However, with the election of a new 
President just months away, the Senate declared it would not 
consider this particular nominee and would instead let the 
people decide whom they would like to nominate a Supreme Court 
Justice.
    The Senate was well within its right to decide the timing 
and consideration, or lack thereof, of this constitutional 
obligation to consider judicial nominations, and the same 
should be true of impeachment trials.
    This is a question in need of an answer for future 
impeachment proceedings because impeachment articles brought by 
the House completely derail Senate legislative activity. We are 
unable to consider legislation, nominations, or conduct any 
floor activity.
    While I agree such an enormous responsibility should elicit 
our undivided attention, it seems illogical to automatically 
grant primacy to impeachment articles, especially those as 
flawed as the ones presented by House Democrats.
    The House's impeachment process was entirely partisan. 
Since the moment he was sworn in, Democrats schemed to remove 
Donald Trump from office. By May of 2017, 26 Democratic Members 
of Congress had called for the impeachment of President Trump. 
Speaker Pelosi herself said impeachment was 2\1/2\ years in the 
making.
    When House Democrats finally agreed on a reason to impeach 
the President, their vote to begin the process received no 
Republican votes, and multiple Democrats voted against it. It 
does not seem unreasonable to me that a vote to begin an 
impeachment inquiry which has only partisan support and 
bipartisan opposition--as this one did--is not what the 
Founders had in mind and is what they firmly rejected and 
cautioned us against.
    ``Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate 
and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and 
private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our 
governments are too unstable, that the public good is 
disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that 
measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of 
justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior 
force of an interested and overbearing majority,'' Founding 
Father James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper 10. ``However 
anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, 
the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that 
they are in some degree true.''
    When it came time for the House to vote on impeaching the 
President, the same ``overbearing majority'' outcome occurred. 
No minds were changed, but the country was further torn apart 
and the process strayed beyond the original intent of the 
Founding Fathers. The two Articles of Impeachment before this 
body were, in my view, without merit. They were an affront to 
this institution and to our Constitution, representing the very 
same partisan derangement that worried our Founding Fathers so 
much that they made the threshold for impeachment so high.
    I think it would be universally agreeable that Impeachment 
Articles passed by a majority of one party and opposed by 
members of both parties at the very least fail the spirit of 
the Constitution. To this point, detractors could say the 
partisan nature of this impeachment proceeding is the fault of 
Republicans who blindly follow President Trump, rather than 
Democrats whose hatred for this President compels them to act 
more than the facts in front of them.
    Such an argument quickly falls apart when you read the 
statements of Republicans who found the President's actions 
inappropriate but did not believe they rose to the level of 
impeachment. That argument further corrodes when you consider 
the content of the Impeachment Articles and the partisan and 
secretive process House Democrats followed in writing them.
    Fundamentally, the Articles of Impeachment were incomplete. 
Democrats did not complete their own investigation before 
drafting and ultimately passing the articles, which is why 
Senate Democrats spent most of their time demanding witnesses 
and more documents. The House also did not provide due process 
to the President, nor to the minority during the House 
investigation. In October of 2019, as the House began formally 
considering impeachment in earnest, Senator Lindsey Graham led 
several Senators in introducing S. Res. 378. It laid out 
specific issues we had with the House process in hopes it would 
remedy the situation before sending the articles to the Senate.
    In it, we mentioned five rights President Trump was being 
denied, although the House had provided similar due process to 
Presidents Nixon and Clinton during their impeachments. The 
denied rights included allowing the President to be represented 
by counsel, permitting the President's counsel to be present at 
all hearings and depositions, permitting the President's 
counsel to present evidence and object to the admission of 
evidence, allowing the President's counsel to call and cross-
examine witnesses; and giving the President's counsel access to 
and the ability to respond to the evidence offered by the 
Committee.
    The impeachment process against President Trump had been 
nothing more than secretive hearings and selective leaks 
designed to sway public opinion and hurt the President 
politically. It was a hyper-partisan process completely void of 
due process, and that never changed until it reached the 
Senate. In our resolution, we also highlighted the fact that 
``the main allegations against President Trump are based on 
assertions and testimony from witnesses whom he is unable to 
confront, as part of a process in which he is not able to offer 
witnesses in his defense or have a basic understanding of the 
allegations lodged against him.''
    The issue of evidence, both its origin and the lack of 
compelling proof from the House managers, became the foundation 
of this impeachment. This investigation began because an 
anonymous national security official approached Democratic 
chairman Adam Schiff with a secondhand claim that President 
Trump sought to withhold aid to a foreign country to force it 
to announce it would launch an investigation into one of the 
President's political rivals.
    President Trump was quick to offer the transcript of the 
phone call where this allegedly occurred. He did, and it showed 
there was, in fact, no quid pro quo, and House Democrats in 
their investigation were never able to produce a firsthand 
witness to testify otherwise.
    Future Senators should be sure to note the eagerness or 
reluctance of an accused President to share clarifying 
information. President Trump took unprecedented action to 
release the transcript of the conversation Democrats called 
into question--an action he was not legally required to take 
and most of his predecessors have never done. Contrast that 
with President Nixon, who fought until the end to hide his 
recorded conversations because he knew the contents were 
damning. Contrast President Trump's actions even further with 
the House Democrats who pursued a secretive, one-sided process 
to craft the narrative they wanted.
    Despite several pieces of information demonstrating the 
President's innocence and none to the contrary, House Democrats 
continued this crusade. Their fixation on his removal was a 
conclusion in search of a justification.
    They manufactured criminality from a simple phone 
conversation between world leaders, leaked by one of the many 
career bureaucrats who seem to have forgotten they work for the 
elected leaders in this country, not the other way around. 
Motives matter. In the future, Senators should be vigilant in 
figuring out an accuser's intention.
    There is a common narrative that career bureaucrats are 
simply righteous, opinion-less civil servants. This impeachment 
and the actions leading up to it prove the exact opposite. By 
no means are all of them evil or ill-willed, but this 
proceeding showed they are far from unbiased, and they are 
capable of weaponizing the tools and access they are given.
    Unsurprisingly, this led to two Impeachment Articles being 
sent to the Senate on a party-line vote that were without 
merit. They were an affront to this institution and to our 
Constitution, representing the very same partisan derangement 
that worried our Founding Fathers so much they made the 
threshold for impeachment this high.
    The Founders created the Senate for moments just like this. 
When Impeachment Articles are sent to the Senate, it is not our 
job to fix the mistakes made by the House, and it is not our 
job to finish an investigation it admittedly did not complete. 
It is the Senate's solemn duty to set aside the heat of the 
moment, prevent short-term stress from leading to long-term 
decay, and deliver impartial justice.
    As James Madison said at the Constitutional Convention, 
``The Senate is to consist in its proceeding with more 
coolness, with more system, and with more wisdom, than the 
popular branch.'' That is why, even under the cloud of purely 
partisan politics of the House of Representatives, the Senate 
conducted a complete, comprehensive trial. The obvious result 
of which was the conclusion that the Democratic-led House of 
Representatives failed to meet the most basic standards of 
proof and dramatically lowered the bar for impeachment in the 
future to unacceptable levels.
    With all of this established, we as a Congress and as a 
nation must unite around some commonsense changes, both to 
institutional rules and to our understanding of the impeachment 
process. Lowering the bar for impeachment undermines our shared 
democratic principles.
    Impeachment must be a tool employed only when the evidence 
is overwhelming and well-founded. We must discourage future 
House actions like what we just witnessed from ever occurring 
again.
    We must also find ways to take on a bureaucracy run 
rampant. President Trump was impeached because an unelected 
bureaucrat provided falsehoods to an overly receptive 
Democratic House chairman's office with a directive to remove 
President Trump. The opinion of Federal career staff is not 
sacrosanct. Without further action, these impeachment 
proceedings will be interpreted as empowering to them, rather 
than a reminder of who holds constitutional power.
    Finally, as we seek to apply the lessons learned from this 
historic time, I was reminded of the words Chaplain Black 
offered to us during his daily opening prayer. ``We must pray 
for God's will to be done.'' There is a higher power than any 
of us, and our country would benefit from remembering that more 
often.