[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 176 (Tuesday, November 5, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6371-S6372]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Impeachment
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, last week, the House of Representatives
voted in favor of a set of procedures to govern its impeachment
inquiry, laying out a formal process to examine the facts in a
deliberate and fairminded process.
Our Republican colleagues keep changing their arguments as to why
they are opposed to what the House is doing. First, there needed to be
a vote. There was a vote. Second, make it public. Now it is public.
Third, there is no quid pro quo. Now there is a quid pro quo, they even
admit.
So now they are saying it is not impeachable. The shifting stands of
the Republicans' argument in the House and Senate, which seems to shift
all the time, indicates they don't seem to have a real interest in
following the facts to where they lead but rather just defending Trump,
regardless of the facts. That is a huge mistake for the Republic and
for the Senate and how we should conduct ourselves.
So let me elaborate. For weeks, congressional Republicans criticized
House Democrats for not scheduling a vote. As soon as the vote was
taken, the same Republicans criticized the process once again.
Republicans criticized House Democrats for conducting classified
hearings, even though the material discussed concerns our national
security and Republicans readily participated in those hearings. Then
once the House voted on the plan for open hearings, predictably, the
same Republicans kept criticizing the process, coming up with a new
argument: The idea that there was no ``quid pro quo,'' which the
President himself stated, although he was contradicted by Mr. Mulvaney,
and that seemed to be the linchpin of their defense of the President in
the last few days and weeks.
But now, all of the sudden, knowing maybe what is coming out, all of
the sudden, our Republican colleagues are saying: Yes, there was a quid
pro quo, but it doesn't matter. It is not impeachable. Some of them
even think it is not even wrong, which is absolutely absurd.
So instead of the shifting sands of defenses of the President on a
near daily basis, my Republican friends should let all the facts come
out and make their judgments based on the facts. Instead of changing
their argument every third day when faced with new facts, they should
remain dispassionate and say we are going to look at the facts, instead
of just jumping to find a new defense of the President no matter what
the facts.
If you are defending the President because there is no quid pro quo
and there is quid pro quo, maybe you should be saying: Maybe something
is going on here. But, no, a new argument pops up.
The investigation is not yet complete. Jumping to conclusions before
all the facts come out is misguided. It is unbefitting of a Senator's
role as judge and juror of a potential impeachment case.
Now, last night, the President held a political rally in Kentucky
with several Republican elected officials, including the junior Senator
from Kentucky who publicly and explicitly urged the media to expose the
identity of the Federal whistleblower. The President, of course,
quickly praised the Senator's idea.
I cannot stress just how wrong this is. We have Federal whistleblower
laws designed to protect the identity and safety of patriotic Americans
who come forward to stand up for the Constitution. There are Members on
the other side of the aisle, including senior Members and chairs of
committees, who spent their entire careers defending whistleblowers and
the laws that protect them and their families.
So where are they now? I was pleased to hear that my colleague,
Senator Thune, spoke out and said that whistleblowers must be
protected. I believe
[[Page S6372]]
that Senator Grassley is saying the same. They are both right. But
there should be bipartisan outrage at the public attempts by the
President and a Member of this body to expose the identity of a Federal
whistleblower. You do not get to determine when our whistleblower laws
apply or do not or whether you like what the whistleblower said or you
do not. They are laws. This whistleblower, whose complaint was deemed
``credible'' and an ``urgent matter'' by a Trump appointee, is
protected by these statutes. Every single Member of this body should
stand up and say that it is wrong to disclose his or her identity.
Our rhetoric can sometimes be overheated, but I am appalled by these
developments. There is no other word for it. We are in a moment of
history when the Republicans, over only a few weeks, have shifted from
saying that no laws were broken to saying that laws were broken, but it
is not impeachable, to outright advocating that laws be broken.
Where is the internal gyroscope, the clock of decency and honor on
the other side? They are twisting themselves in contradictory pretzels
to defend this President who is going to bounds that we have rarely
seen in this body with any party with any President.
I don't understand what sort of effect President Trump has on people
of integrity and some degree of strength, who just fold whenever he
says something, twist their arguments, change their arguments, do 180-
degree hairpins about their arguments, all because they are afraid of
telling the truth to power, the truth to this President who never likes
to hear it.