[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 167 (Tuesday, October 22, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H8382-H8384]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STILL I RISE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Haaland). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 3, 2019, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, and still I rise. And since my
name has been called several times, I rise to respond. I rise to
explain why the impeachment inquiry should be expanded.
Some things bear repeating: I rise to explain why the impeachment
inquiry should be enlarged, to include the President's weaponization of
hate.
I know what weaponized hate is like. I am a son of the segregated
South, Madam Speaker. My rights that were accorded me and recognized
under the Constitution of the United States of America were denied me
by my neighbors.
I am a son of the segregated South. I know what weaponized hate is
like. I was forced to not only live with, but to also honor weaponized
hate.
Madam Speaker, I know what it was like to have to stand in the
colored line. And while standing in the colored line, others could
always come who were of a different hue and stand in front of me. And
it could happen until every person of a different hue had been served.
I know what weaponized hate is like.
And I recall once--actually, on more than one occasion, but this one
stands out in my mind--when the young man who was bagging the purchased
items, he took my purchased items and he put them in the bag--he was of
a different hue--and he crushed the bag. And he stared me down as he
crushed the goods that I had purchased.
I know what weaponized hate is like. I saw the anger not only in his
face, but I could see it exude from his body. He was probably a little
bit older than I was. He didn't know me, but he had the hate that had
been weaponized, and it was within him.
I can remember having to go to the back door. I had to go to the back
door to receive goods that I paid for, paid taxes on, the same as
others did. But I couldn't go to the front and receive my goods, only
the back door was available to me. And then when I would go to the back
door, people would still say ugly things to me, notwithstanding the
fact that I was a paying customer.
Weaponized hate causes people to behave this way, to stand against
their own interest. I was a customer, a paying customer, but weaponized
hate would cause them to stand against their own interest. It was in
their interest to have me come back, but they knew that I had no place
else to go for the most part, so they could be ugly to me and treat me
any way that they chose.
I know what weaponized hate is like. I can remember being required to
sit only in the balcony of the movie. When we came in, we had to make a
turn and go up to the balcony. This is what weaponized hate is like. It
segregates people. It didn't allow me to enjoy the movie in the
presence of persons of a different hue who might be seated next to me.
This is what the neighbors that I had denied me under the Constitution.
It was accorded me, but they forced me to go into a segregated area.
And, of course, I remember the colored water fountains. And the
incident that really stands out in my mind the most was when my mother
saw me drinking out of a White water fountain--that is what it was
called. And when she saw me drinking out of the White water fountain,
my mother pulled me away quickly. She pulled me away because she knew
that her young son was at risk of being harmed because he was drinking
from a White water fountain. And I remembered what the colored water
fountain was like. The colored water fountain was filthy. You could see
the crud, but it was all that was available to me. I know what hate is
like when it is weaponized, how it can hurt.
I remember traveling across country with my father and my mother, and
we stopped at a service station. We purchased gasoline, and we wanted
water. And the person who was there representing the management of that
station said that we could have water, but we would have to drink it
out of an oil can.
I know what it is like. I know what it is like to live under hate and
to have to honor hate. I remember my mother speaking to me in rather
stern terms about how I was to behave around White women. How I had to
always make sure that I never said anything that a White woman might
conclude was offensive, because White women had a license to accuse.
And once you were accused, only God knows what would happen to you. We
know what happened to Emmett Till. Weaponized hate killed Emmett Till.
I know what it is like. I am a son of the segregated South. I know
how persons of a different hue had but only to accuse you, and for all
practical purposes, you were guilty. You had to prove that you were
innocent.
I mention these things because the President of the United States of
America, who has been referenced by my colleagues tonight, same one,
the same President, compared impeachment to lynching. He compared
impeachment to mob violence, because that is what lynchings were all
about. Mob violence, no due process, no trial.
If it was said that you had spoken in an unkind way to a White woman,
you could be collected, taken off somewhere in the back woods,
castrated, lynched, beaten, brutalized. Mob violence, unlawful hate to
terrorize and intimidate.
I know what it is like. I lived in the segregated South. I am a son
of the segregated South. And for the President to compare this level of
violence and hate to Article II Section 4 of the Constitution, which
deals with impeachment, is unacceptable. Totally unacceptable. This is
nothing more than a continuation of his weaponizing of hate.
I am a son of the segregated South. I know what hate looks like. I
know what it smells like. I know what it sounds like, and I know what
it feels like. I have experienced all of the above.
So when the President did this, when he said it, it sparked this
flame in me to come and stand here in the well of the House, alone, to
explain why the impeachment inquiry should be expanded to include the
weaponization of hate by this President.
Yes, I stand alone, but I believe in my heart that it is better for
me to stand alone than not stand at all, because I see what's happening
to my country, and I love my country.
This is not a game for me. This will follow me the rest of my life. I
didn't come to Congress to impeach a President. It is not something
that was on my agenda, I had not a scintilla of a notion. I do it
because I love my country. I do it because I know what weaponized hate
is like.
Yes, I called for the impeachment of the President some 2 years ago
for his obstruction, but I also have called for his impeachment for his
infusion of hate into policy.
Earlier this evening, someone mentioned Federalist No. 65. I have
read it many times. Yes, the words of Hamilton. The words of Hamilton
addressed
[[Page H8383]]
what it is like to impeach a President. The Framers of the Constitution
knew that it would not be pleasant. It is not easy, but it is something
you do when you want to preserve democracy and protect the Republic.
They understood, and they gave us Federalist No. 65 to remind us how
prophetic they were, that there would be a time such as this and a
President such as Trump.
How prophetic they were. If you read Federalist No. 65, you will find
that the Framers of the Constitution defined impeachment as the acts of
public men, that would be people who hold public trust, and they went
on to explain that it was about the harm that they would cause society.
They didn't use terms like ``abuse of power'' in the sense that there
had to be a statutory crime committed. When they mentioned high crimes
and misdemeanors at that time in Article II Section 4 of the
Constitution, crime also meant a wrong that was being perpetrated, a
great wrong. You don't have to have a statutory offense committed,
something that is defined with a penalty associated with it.
And when they mention misdemeanors--then and to this day--a
misdemeanor is a misdeed, as well as a minor offense.
{time} 2045
Don't be misled. Don't be deceived by those who would have you
believe that the President has to commit a statutory offense, something
that is defined and codified with a penalty associated with it, before
a President can be impeached.
If this were true, Andrew Johnson would not have been impeached in
1868 for his comments that were rooted in bigotry and hate. He
weaponized hate. Because he weaponized hate, because he didn't want the
freed persons to have the same rights that other persons had, because
he didn't want the Freedmen's Bureau to function as it should have, he
weaponized hate.
In Article X, he was impeached for the high misdemeanor of saying
ugly things about the Congress as he was weaponizing his hate. It was a
high misdemeanor, and that law has not changed.
This notion of some modern law, modern constitutional requirement,
those persons who were closer to the Framers of the Constitution
probably knew better what the Framers intended than we do today. They
impeached Andrew Johnson for a high misdemeanor.
I beg that people would at least read Article X.
By the way, since we started this engagement to explain to the
public, a good many people have had to walk back their comments. A good
many people who wanted to know, ``What crime did he commit? What rule
did he break?'' a good many people have had to walk back those comments
because they are now of the belief that impeachment should prevail. A
lot of comments have been walked back.
By the way, I welcome the walk-back. I want people to do the right
thing, as it were, so walking back does not offend me.
Comments that were made about me don't offend me. Many of my
colleagues have made comments about me, but they don't offend me. I
welcome them coming on board now.
This is not about me. It has never been about me. It has been about
my country. It has been about democracy, not about Democrats. It has
always been about the Republic, not about Republicans.
Say what you may, I do what I must. And I must explain why we should
expand the impeachment inquiry so as to cause it to include the
President's weaponization of bigotry.
The President needs to be impeached for the high crime and
misdemeanor that he has perpetrated, and I will paraphrase Peter Irons,
a historian who deals with the Supreme Court. Paraphrasing, he reminds
us that the President--he didn't say ``weaponization''; these are my
words. The President's weaponization of hate presents a clear and
present danger--these are his words--to the constitutional equal
protection of the laws guaranteed to all of us.
My dear friends, he is eminently correct, and I have paraphrased
because I changed the language slightly.
So, Mr. Irons, if I have in any way abused what you have said--I read
your comments posted on NBC.com, I believe it was--I was moved by what
you said.
Yes, the President should be impeached for his weaponizing hate. Yes,
it does present a clear and present danger to equal protection under
the laws for all of us because, when the President does this, there are
people who will hear what he has said, and they don't always respond in
a positive way.
I will never forget that a man in Texas drove hundreds of miles so
that he could get to a place where he could murder, assassinate, people
of color who happened to be of Mexican ancestry. He went out of his way
to do this and said that they were invaders, the kind of comment that
we heard from the President as he weaponized hate.
I won't forget that the President decided he would ban a certain
religion, did it in a tweet, went on to develop a policy pursuant to
the tweet, infused the bigotry into policy, weaponized it.
If you are not Muslim and you are not around Muslims, you probably
don't know the level of consternation that has been created within
them, the level of concern that they have for their families, the level
of concern that they have when they go to their prayer hours. I am
around people who happen to be Muslim. I know how they are concerned
for their families.
Then the President went on to talk about the s-hole countries. Note
that the s-hole countries were countries where there were people of
color. He didn't say it about a European country. He didn't say it
about countries where people of a hue different from me happen to
predominate. He didn't say it because he knows that he has to be
careful, that it is all right in some quarters to say it about people
who look like me.
But you have to be careful, Mr. President. Don't say it about some
European country. Don't say it about some of these other countries in
what we call the Middle East. You will have more trouble on your hands
than you can contend with and likely would be impeached already.
There seems to be a willingness to tolerate the bigotry and hate when
it is directed toward people of African ancestry, when it is directed
toward people who happen to be Muslims, when it is directed toward
people who happen to be of the LGBTQ-plus community.
I will say this. I have plenty of friends who are of European
ancestry, who are Catholics and Christians and Jews, who are absolutely
opposed to what you have said about people of different hues who happen
to be of religions different from those that I have mentioned, who
happen to be of the LGBTQ-plus community. Yes, there are people across
this country who don't believe that this President should remain in
office.
As a matter of fact, there is a poll out now that says that about 50
percent of the people in this country--I think 50 percent is the number
that is used--are saying that the President ought to be impeached and
removed from office.
A Quinnipiac poll back in July of this year indicated that more than
50 percent of the American people believe that the President is a
racist.
Yes, he must be held accountable. Yes, no one is above the law.
What is the law? The law is Article II, Section 4 of the
Constitution. What does it say? It says that the President can be
impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and it does not say that a
misdemeanor or a high crime has to be a statutory offense.
I would also add this. Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution was
drafted with the notion in mind that not only should a President not be
above the law, that which is codified, but also with judicious and
prudent thoughts of the President not being beyond justice.
The Framers of the Constitution talked about how the President should
not be beyond justice. Above the law is here; beyond justice is far
above this level of above the law. Beyond justice means that the
President should not be able to destroy a country, destroy the norms,
and not be removed from office.
We have a general who has said that the President is harming the
country, that this person who represents the majesty of the United
States of America--he didn't use that term, but the person who holds
the highest office, the Chief Executive of the country, the
[[Page H8384]]
chief magistrate of the country, is harming the country.
Constitutional scholars are saying it. Over a thousand lawyers have
said that, pursuant to the Mueller report, the President should be
impeached. Anyone else would be locked up, would be charged. They said
he would be charged if he were anyone else. That is what they said.
I want you to know that, wherever I go, I encounter people who are
saying: Please, don't give up. Please, don't stop. Please, do something
about what is happening to our country.
I get expressions of gratitude from people across the length and
breadth of the country. And I don't do it to get expressions of
gratitude. I do it because I love my country.
The weaponization of hate ought to be a part of this impeachment
inquiry.
I have already prognosticated that the President will be impeached.
And when the President is impeached, I hope that we will have expanded
the articles such that the weaponization of hate will be included.
If Andrew Johnson could be impeached for his bigoted and hateful
commentary, surely, we can do this again. Those were radical
Republicans, by the way, who impeached Andrew Johnson--radical
Republicans. If radical Republicans could impeach him on evidence
rooted in his bigotry and hate, we can impeach this President for
similar reasons.
I do believe that, if you read the Articles of Impeachment with
reference to Andrew Johnson, you will gain a greater appreciation for
what I say.
There have been only two Presidents impeached, Andrew Johnson in 1868
and William Clinton in 1998. Only two. Nixon was not impeached.
We need not try to debate this issue of whether the President has to
commit a statutory offense. Constitutional scholars know better.
Unfortunately, you have had to cope with a person who is not said to
be a constitutional scholar, didn't finish number one in his class,
didn't finish from an Ivy League school. But he did bring you truth,
and that truth is being recognized.
I stand here in the well of the House of Representatives tonight. I
believe that comments comparable to what the President has said with
reference to lynching, comparing lynching to impeachment, is but a
continuation of his weaponization of hate, bigotry, racism, xenophobia,
homophobia, Islamophobia, all the invidious phobias. That is all it is.
It will not cease. He is only going to continue.
If the House of Representatives does not impeach, we will have a
President who will have no guardrails because we are the bar of
justice. We are where it is initiated, right here. It is not initiated
anyplace else.
The Justice Department is not going to do it. There is no place else.
This is where it is initiated, right here, the House of
Representatives.
If we do not impeach, no guardrails. If we do not impeach, we will
have a de facto monarch, a person who does pretty much what he chooses,
who believes that he is beyond the reach of any person or persons on
this planet.
If we do impeach and the Senate does not convict, that will send
another message. The President will perceive himself to be a de facto
monarch. We will have a de facto monarchy.
We have a duty to do this. Our country--our country--is what this is
all about.
{time} 2100
The Constitution is the last word. We are the first line of defense
against a reckless, ruthless President who would weaponize hate. We are
the first line of defense, the Members of this august body. We have a
duty to take up the cause of justice for the country that we love.
I respect anyone who differs with me. Do what you may. But I do
believe that, in time, I will be vindicated. I believe that, in time,
the 58 who voted initially to impeach will be, again, vindicated. We
have already been vindicated to a certain extent, but they will be
further vindicated.
The 66 who voted the second time, they are going to be vindicated,
too. The 95 who voted the third time, they will get additional
vindication. They are already vindicated because we are moving toward
impeachment. They were just a part of the avant-garde, already
vindicated.
And the question remains, where do we go from here? Do we limit the
impeachment to Ukraine and issues related to Ukraine only?
It is my opinion that we should expand it, and I have explained why--
because of hatred and bigotry.
Finally, this: We are talking about the original sin of this country;
and there are those who would make the argument that, well, the Ukraine
circumstance deals with national security; it is a threat to national
security.
Well, it is a threat to national security when you have white
nationalists who are murdering people in the streets of this country,
in the schools, to a certain extent, in various places where you would
assume that you are safe. That is a threat to national security as
well.
It is time for us to deal with the original sin. We have the
opportunity. It is impeachable.
I don't want him impeached because of some election. I want him
impeached because he has committed impeachable offenses. I want him
impeached because we need to deal with our original sin.
I believe that those who look through the vista of time upon this
time are going to realize how right we were, those of us who have moved
to impeach for the bigotry, the racism, all of the invidious phobias
that we have had to endure from our President.
Madam Speaker, I am grateful to have this opportunity to speak. I
love this facility. I love my country. This country means something to
me. I stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. I salute the flag.
But I also respect those who choose not to and will respect their
rights and defend their right if they choose not to.
But I do. This is my country. I love it. I love it. I stand alone,
but it is better to stand alone than not stand at all.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
____________________