[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 166 (Monday, October 21, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5912-S5913]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Trump Administration
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to talk about the
question of impeachment, which, of course, is being debated across the
country.
Evidence continues to mount regarding actions the President has
taken. Of course, this issue is not only worthy of debate but also
worthy of inquiry and review and even debate and discussion here in the
Senate.
From the Mueller report to the recent revelations regarding the
President's dealing with Ukraine and its President, evidence indicates
that the President is not only willing to take actions which, in my
judgment, amount to an abuse of power--in fact, I think the behavior of
the President on the phone call with the Ukrainian President was a
textbook case of abuse of power. Apparently, he wants to enlist others
to defend the indefensible--this behavior--and has said other things
that are troubling to so many Americans.
I think it is important to provide some historical perspective on
impeachment, and I will seek to do some of that today. This is by no
means a full review of the history, but I think it is important to talk
about some of the questions our Founders were wrestling with.
Our Founders grappled with many different questions as they debated
the Constitution itself, particularly the nature and the power of the
Office of the President of the United States. As our Founders debated
how to hold the President accountable during the 1787 Constitutional
Convention in Philadelphia, Elbridge Gerry said as follows regarding
the issue of impeachment: ``A good magistrate will not fear
[impeachments]. A bad one ought to be kept in fear of them.''
Consistent with Gerry's remarks, our Constitution provides an
impeachment process for ``Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and
Misdemeanors.'' At the time of the drafting, our Founders'
understanding of ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' was informed by
centuries of English legal precedent.
We know, as Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist No. 65,
impeachment should stem from ``abuse or violation of some public
trust.'' I will say it again: ``abuse or violation of some public
trust.'' Informed by this history, Congress has consistently
interpreted the phrase broadly to mean ``serious violations of the
public trust''--that was one understanding--and has explained that
``the phrase refers to misconduct that damages the state and the
operations of governmental institutions, and is not limited to criminal
misconduct.'' That is an important distinction--``not limited to
criminal misconduct.''
There is no requirement for a President to engage in a quid pro quo.
Any kind of quid pro quo arrangement is not required for impeachment,
although it is certainly an impeachable offense to engage in that kind
of conduct. Rather, our Constitution merely requires ``abuse or
violation of some public trust,'' as Hamilton spoke to.
Since Special Counsel Mueller issued his report on Russian
interference in the 2016 election and, more recently, as testimony has
emerged about President Trump's conduct toward Ukraine, I have
attempted to assess how President Trump's actions fit in our historical
and current understanding of what ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors''
means.
This is an undertaking that must be done in a considered manner and
after reviewing all of the relevant information that is available. But
I am increasingly convinced that Speaker Pelosi was correct in calling
for a formal impeachment inquiry into President Trump's conduct. A
failure by Congress to pursue impeachment in the face of grave offenses
by the President would be insulting to our Constitution and insulting
to our values.
Let's talk about the Ukraine example for a moment. Over the past
several weeks, our Nation has been confronted by credible and detailed
press reports, as well as exhaustive testimony, in some cases lasting 8
hours, 9 hours, 10 hours at a time, just for one witness, and this
testimony has come from both career diplomats and State Department
officials indicating that the
[[Page S5913]]
President has been employing his personal attorney to manage a shadow
diplomacy agenda focused on personal vendettas and unfounded conspiracy
theories in Ukraine.
In a telephone call with President Zelensky of Ukraine, President
Trump--immediately after the Ukrainian President raised the issue of
purchasing Javelins to defend his country from Russian aggression--
asked the Ukrainian President to ``do us a favor though'' by working
with his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and launching an investigation into a
discredited conspiracy theory regarding a DNC server in Ukraine. To say
that theory is discredited is an understatement. It has been debunked,
so said a former Homeland Security Advisor to President Trump, among
others.
President Trump also asked President Zelensky ``to look into'' Joe
Biden's son and explained that ``a lot of people want to find out''
about Biden--a political rival who, of course, is running for
President.
After a memorandum of the phone call was released to the public, the
House Intelligence Committee released a text message from the top U.S.
diplomat in Ukraine, who indicated that he thought it was ``crazy [for
the President] to withhold security assistance for help with a
political campaign.''
Other officials have since come forward, some even resigning because
of their serious concerns over the White House's handling of Ukraine
policy. Michael McKinley, a former senior adviser to the U.S. Secretary
of State, testified that he resigned for two reasons: ``the failure, in
my view, of the State Department to offer support to Foreign Service
employees caught up in the impeachment inquiry on Ukraine, and, second,
by what appears to be the utilization of our ambassadors overseas to
advance a domestic political objective.'' That is what Mr. McKinley,
who just left the State Department, said.
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. Surely, not every instance of Presidential wrongdoing merits
impeachment. Using the vast powers of impeachment in a cavalier fashion
would be an insult to our Constitution.
This inquiry is not simply about President Trump's abuse of power.
This inquiry is about our democracy and the values that the Founders
agreed should guide our Nation.
Impeachment is not what anyone in this town would prefer. It is what
our Constitution demands--demands--when an Executive abuses his or her
power in a manner that ``damages the state and the operations of
government institutions.'' That is from an earlier impeachment in the
1860s.
As Hamilton said so long ago--but so prescient--when there is an
``abuse or violation of some public trust,'' we are summoned--
summoned--by our constitutional duty to act.
To fail to act would be a dereliction of that duty, thereby inviting
this executive and future executives to abuse that public trust with
impunity. We should never do that.