[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 205 (Wednesday, December 18, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7126-S7127]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              Impeachment

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, in response to the limited set of 
relevant witnesses I proposed for a potential Senate trial earlier this 
week, the Republican leader gave a lengthy speech on the floor 
yesterday and another speech today. In neither of those speeches could 
the Republican leader offer one salient argument as to why the 
witnesses I proposed--all senior Trump administration officials--
shouldn't be allowed to testify. Instead, he made what are, in my view, 
irrelevant and incomplete comparisons to the 1999 Clinton trial.
  When faced with the fact that it is only fair to have these 
witnesses, who were eyewitnesses to the major, major allegations 
against the President and who had not testified before, the leader 
can't talk about 2019. He has to go back to 1999 because he has no good 
argument as to why they shouldn't testify.
  We are not asking to be dilatory. We are not asking for a list of 
4,000 witnesses. We are simply asking that those who know the truth 
best come and talk to us here in the Senate and to the American people.
  There is one fact that is impossible for the Senate to ignore. In the 
two Presidential impeachment trials in the history of this body, the 
Senate heard from witnesses, but Leader McConnell continues to push for 
no witnesses in the Senate trial. I have yet to hear an explanation as 
to why less evidence is better than more evidence, particularly when it 
comes to something as somber, as serious, and as important as 
impeachment of the President of the United States of America.
  Leader McConnell keeps talking about 1999 because he doesn't want to 
talk about 2019. The two situations are not analogous. Rather than 
focus on the past, the Republican leader should focus on the present 
and offer one good reason why relevant witnesses shouldn't testify in 
an impeachment trial of President Trump, particularly in light of the 
fact that we have not

[[Page S7127]]

heard from them. They probably have better evidence than anybody, even 
though the evidence the House has prepared, in the eyes of so many, is 
overwhelming.
  I was disappointed to hear yesterday that Leader McConnell declared 
that he would not be an impartial juror when it comes to the serious 
charges against President Trump. He said it proudly. What kind of 
example does that set for the country, which is looking for fairness 
and impartiality?
  In the event of a trial, every Senator will swear an oath--different 
from our standard oath of office--to do impartial justice, but 
yesterday McConnell told reporters: ``I'm not an impartial juror. This 
is a political process. I'm not impartial about this at all.'' Let me 
repeat that. Let the American people hear it loud and clear. The 
Republican leader said proudly: ``I'm not an impartial juror. . . . I'm 
not impartial about this at all.'' This is an astonishing admission of 
partisanship. The President may demand these public displays of fealty, 
but they are troubling for the leader of an independent branch of our 
government. I hope all Senators will take seriously the oath to do 
impartial justice that we seem likely to take in the near future.
  The House of Representatives, of course, will take a historic vote 
today on the impeachment of President Donald J. Trump. If the articles 
of impeachment are passed, the focus will quickly move to the Senate, 
where our Chamber will serve as a court of impeachment. We must, very 
soon, figure out the rules and procedures that will allow the Senate to 
rise to this occasion.
  Despite our disagreements, I do expect to sit down with Leader 
McConnell in the near future to discuss these matters. I have proposed 
a very reasonable structure for a trial based on the grand American 
tradition of a fair and speedy trial. We propose four witnesses--only 
those with direct knowledge of the charges made by the House; only 
those who could provide new, relevant, and potentially illuminating 
testimony--and place strict time limits on each stage of the process to 
prevent the trial from dragging out too long. No one is interested in 
delaying.
  The Senate's goal, above all, should be to conduct a trial with 
dignity, fairness to both sides, and one that examines all the relevant 
facts. There are large partisan divisions these days, but I suspect 
most Senate Republicans would agree with these goals. I suspect that 
even President Trump would agree with these goals--or at least say that 
he did. The President has repeatedly complained about a lack of due 
process and said that he ``would love''--his words--``would love'' for 
aides like Mr. Mulvaney to testify in the Senate.
  Setting aside for the moment that the President has refused to 
participate in the House process despite multiple invitations; setting 
aside for the moment that he has blocked witnesses from appearing and 
documents from being produced--Mr. President, we are offering you the 
due process you sought in your letter last night. Allow your current 
and former aides--Mulvaney, Blair, Duffey, Bolton--to testify on your 
behalf. Turn over all the requested documents and show that you and 
your aides didn't try to use taxpayer money to force a foreign 
government to announce an investigation against your political 
opponent. Let the truth come out.
  Mr. President, we are offering you due process. Due process means the 
right to be heard. Please take it. Don't ask for it and then refuse to 
take advantage of it.
  President Trump, you have a habit of accusing others of the offenses 
that you have, in fact, committed. You accuse the House of affording no 
due process while obstructing the process every step of the way. If you 
truly want due process to present your side of the case, President 
Trump, let your aides testify and turn over the documents we requested.
  We want to conduct a fair trial--fair to both sides. We don't know 
whether the witnesses we propose will incriminate the President or 
exonerate him. They are the appointees of President Donald J. Trump; 
they are hardly biased. We don't know what their testimony will be, but 
we do know one thing: We should hear from them. We just want the 
facts--``Just the facts, ma'am,'' as Detective Friday says--facts that 
will allow Senators to make fully informed decisions about something as 
serious--so serious--as the conviction or acquittal of an impeached 
President.
  Each individual Senator will have the power and will have the 
responsibility to help shape what an impeachment trial looks like. Do 
my Republican colleagues want a fair and honest trial that examines all 
the facts, or do they want to participate in a coverup?