[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 199 (Thursday, December 12, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7002-S7003]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              Impeachment

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, on impeachment, the House Judiciary 
Committee will continue today its markup of Articles of Impeachment 
against Donald Trump.
  The articles charge that President Trump abused the Office of the 
Presidency by soliciting the interference of a foreign power in our 
elections to benefit himself personally. The articles also charge him 
with obstruction of justice in the investigation into those matters.
  Those articles were drafted after a months-long investigation into 
the President's dealings with Ukraine, which included scores of fact 
witnesses and expert testimony. Throughout that time, and still today, 
the White House refuses to participate in the House process. It has 
blocked key witnesses. It has withheld relevant documents. It has 
instructed members of the administration to defy congressional 
subpoenas and not to testify. Those that did testify did so bravely 
against the wishes of the White House.
  What is the President hiding? What do these witnesses know? What do 
these documents show?
  Those are fair questions that every American could ask and, because 
neither the President nor Republican Congress Members have presented 
any refutation of the facts in the impeachment charges or any 
exculpatory evidence other than grand conspiracy theories, the American 
people have a right to say the President must be hiding something.
  If there are documents or witnesses the President believes could 
provide exculpatory evidence, nothing is stopping the witnesses from 
testifying and the documents from being sent over, except the President 
of the United States, who in all likelihood is afraid of what they show 
because they confirm and corroborate the lengthy factual basis that the 
House compiled to come up with the Articles of Impeachment. The fact 
that President Trump is blocking witnesses from testifying and blocking 
documents from release means that, more likely than not, those 
witnesses and documents do not and cannot refute the charges against 
the President.
  When someone who might be guilty of a crime says he doesn't want 
witnesses of the crime to come forward, what do you think that means?
  Why haven't the President and his allies presented exculpatory 
evidence--evidence that says this is not true? Why, instead, have they 
created these bobbles, these objects far away, saying: There is a 
conspiracy here. There is a conspiracy there.
  It is the old lawyer saying: When you have the facts, argue the 
facts. When you have the law, argue the law. When you have neither, 
pound the table.
  In this case, pounding the table means coming up with diversionary 
conspiratorial theories.
  House Republicans, rather than mount a vigorous defense of the 
President on the merits, have attacked the process. If House 
Republicans could focus on the merits, could find evidence that said: 
No, this is not true; that is not true; he did not try to influence 
Ukraine to help his campaign, they would have presented it.
  Why has no evidence been presented directly refuting the core of the 
charge against the President? Because there probably isn't any.
  In the Senate we have several Members who are swimming in the murky 
waters of conspiracy to divert attention from the fact that they don't 
have the facts and the law on their side. The only way they can defend 
the President's comments is to come up with crazy, out-of-line 
conspiracy theories that are not based on any evidence.
  Some Senate Republicans find it so difficult to argue the President's 
defense on the facts that they resort to fiction. For instance, in the 
past few weeks, certain Republicans have actually helped spread 
disinformation invented by Putin's intelligence services. He said that 
Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the election. No one believes it. 
There is no factual basis of it. Of course, Putin would say he wants to 
divert attention from Russia, but it is amazing that Senators would 
traffic in those theories, totally made up, not one bit of fact. It is 
a low moment for the Senate when their blind obeisance to President 
Trump overshadows any need to find truth and to defend rule of law. 
That is not what a democracy is about. That is the edges of 
dictatorship.

  Chairman Graham conducted an entire hearing yesterday to give public 
viewing to the now completely debunked conspiracy theory that the FBI 
investigation into the Trump campaign began with political motives. 
Inspector General Horowitz, to his credit, stuck to the findings in the 
report. He found no evidence of bias. So Senator Graham, as he tends to 
do these days, put on a big show, a lot of ranting, a lot of raving--no 
refutation of the fact of what the IG found.
  So it is just like Ukraine where certain Members are so unable to 
defend what the President did with Ukraine, they latch on to Russian 
propaganda, or they come up with these histrionics, again, to try to 
divert attention, a shiny object to take the American people's 
attention away from the wrongdoing that the House is accusing him of. 
In fact, the deputy counsel of the FBI actually said that the 
department ``would be derelict in its responsibility'' if it did not 
open an investigation into Trump. She is not a political person. She is 
a law enforcement officer.
  If you think President Trump is above the law, go right ahead, but 
that is not what George Washington or Benjamin Franklin or Thompson 
Jefferson

[[Page S7003]]

or Alexander Hamilton thought this Nation was about; that is not what 
generations of Americans who fought and died for our country thought it 
was about. We have reached a low moment in American history and a very 
low moment for the Republican Party now that it has been taken over by 
Donald Trump. This is not the Republican Party of the last 150 years.
  All of this is a backdrop to the impending trial of President Trump, 
where two lines of argument may be presented in a court of impeachment. 
One line of argument--accusations against the President--has relied on 
facts, public record, and the sworn testimony of dozens of officials 
with knowledge of the events. The other line of argument--the defense 
of the President--has so far relied on conspiracy, innuendo, 
hyperventilation about the process, with no refutation of the specific 
facts that the House has found.
  The American people will be savvy enough over the next several months 
to tell the difference.