[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 2 (Monday, January 6, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14-S15]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              Impeachment

  Mr. President, as my colleagues return from the holiday recess, one 
question looms before us: Will the Senate conduct a fair impeachment 
trial of the President of the United States? Will we search for all of 
the facts, or will we look for a coverup--a sham trial--on one of the 
most important powers the Founding Fathers gave the American people?
  The Framers gave the Senate the sole power to try Presidential 
impeachments because they could not imagine another body with 
``confidence enough'' in its own status to ``preserve the necessary 
impartiality.'' It is up to every Senator now to live up to that 
awesome and profound responsibility.
  At the moment, there is a very clear difference of opinion between 
the Republican leader and myself about what it means to have a fair 
trial. I believe a fair trial is one that considers all the relevant 
facts and allows relevant witnesses and documents--a feature of every 
single impeachment trial of a President in the history of our Nation. 
We have never had one with no witnesses--not once.
  Leader McConnell likes to cite precedent. That precedent stares him 
in the face, and he can't answer it. My Republican counterpart believes 
that a trial should feature no relevant witnesses and none of the 
relevant documents. He has made clear in his public appearance on FOX 
News that it should proceed according to the desires of the White 
House--the defendant in this case. Glaringly, the Republican leader has 
yet to make one single argument why witnesses should not testify.
  I am waiting to hear it, Leader McConnell. Give us specific answers 
why these witnesses should not come forward. Don't call names. Don't 
finger-point. Don't get angry at Nancy Pelosi. Tell us why, here in the 
Senate, witnesses and documents should not come forward that are 
directly relevant to the charges against the President of the United 
States of America.
  Leader McConnell has sort of exempted himself from fair debate. He 
doesn't want a fair trial; he wants a quick and sham trial. Now it is 
up to every Senator. Every Senator will have a say in deciding which of 
the two views wins out. Will we have a fair trial or a coverup? Will we 
hear the evidence, or will we try to hide it? It will not be me and not 
the Republican leader alone but a majority of Senators who will decide 
whether we have a fair trial with facts and evidence or a Senate-
sponsored coverup of the President's alleged misconduct.
  Make no mistake--there will be votes on whether to call each of the 
four witnesses we proposed and subpoena the documents we have 
identified. Under the rules of the Senate trial, the minority will be 
able to offer motions subject to a majority vote.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, your constituents and 
the voice of history are watching. You will be required to vote on 
whether we have a fair trial with witnesses and with documents, or you 
will say: I am running away from the facts. I am scared of the facts. I 
will go for a coverup.
  A few hours ago, the momentum for uncovering the truth in a Senate 
trial gathered even more momentum. One of the key witnesses I have 
asked for, Mr. John Bolton, former National Security Advisor to 
President Trump, correctly acknowledged that he needs to comply with a 
Senate subpoena for his testimony, if issued. Previously, Mr. Bolton 
said he was leaving the question of his testimony up to the courts. 
Today, he made it perfectly clear that he will come if the Senate asks, 
as he should. The other potential witnesses we have identified--Mr. 
Mulvaney, Mr. Duffey, and Mr. Blair--should do the same.
  We know that Mr. Bolton, like Mr. Mulvaney, Mr. Duffey, and Mr. 
Blair--the three other witnesses--has crucial, eyewitness knowledge of 
the President's dealings with Ukraine, about how decisions were made to 
withhold security assistance and how opposition within the 
administration to that delay President Trump seemed to want was 
overcome.
  A simple majority is all it takes to ensure that the Senate issues a 
subpoena for these witnesses. If only four Republicans decide that Mr. 
Bolton and the three other witnesses ought to be heard, they will be 
heard, because every Democrat will vote to hear them. It is now up to 
four Senate Republicans to support bringing in Mr. Bolton and the three 
other witnesses, as well as the key documents we have requested, to 
ensure that all the evidence is presented at the outset of the Senate 
trial.
  Given that Mr. Bolton's lawyers have stated he has new and relevant 
information to share, if any Senate Republican opposes issuing 
subpoenas to the four witnesses and documents we have requested, they 
would make it absolutely clear they are participating in a coverup on 
one of the most sacred duties we have in this Congress--in this 
Senate--and that is to keep a President in check.
  Leader McConnell has suggested we follow the 1999 example of 
beginning the impeachment trial first and then deciding on witnesses 
and documents

[[Page S15]]

after the arguments are complete. He keeps making this argument. It 
doesn't gather any steam because it is such a foolish one. Let me again 
respond for the benefit of my colleagues.
  Witnesses and documents are the most important issue, and we should 
deal with them first. To hear Leader McConnell say ``no witnesses now 
but maybe some later'' is just another indication that he has no 
argument against witnesses and documents on the merits. He is afraid to 
address the argument because he knows it is a loser for him, so he 
says: Let's decide it later.
  Why? There is no reason. In fact, it is sort of backward. We are 
going to have all the arguments--pro and con--then say maybe we will 
have witnesses and documents? We will have the arguments first and the 
evidence later? As I have said, Leader McConnell's view of the trial is 
an ``Alice in Wonderland'' view--first the trial, then the evidence.
  More important than precedent is the fact that his analogy plainly 
doesn't make sense because you don't have both sides present their 
arguments first and then afterward ask for the evidence that we know is 
out there. The evidence should inform the trial, not the other way 
around.
  When Leader McConnell proposes that we follow the 1999 precedent, he 
is essentially arguing that we should conduct the entire impeachment 
trial first and then once it is over, decide on whether we need 
witnesses and documents. Again, McConnell's view is ``Alice in 
Wonderland,'' where we first have the trial and then the evidence. If 
the Senate were to agree to Leader McConnell's proposal, the Senate 
would act as little more than a nationally televised meeting of a mock 
trial club.
  Leader McConnell's proposal on witnesses and documents later is a 
poorly disguised trap. He has already actually made clear what his 
goals are. He said it on FOX News radio: ``After we've heard the 
arguments, we ought to vote and move on'' with no witnesses and no 
documents.
  Well, at least 47 Democrats and I hope some Republicans won't fall 
for that kind of specious logic. What McConnell said doesn't sound like 
someone who will reasonably consider witnesses and documents at a later 
date; he sounds more like someone who has already made up his mind.
  You cannot have a fair trial without the facts and without the 
testimony from witnesses with knowledge of the events and related 
documents. A trial without all the facts is a farce.
  If the President is acquitted at the end of a partisan sham trial 
with no witnesses and no documents, then his acquittal will not carry 
much weight in the minds of the American people or in the judgment of 
history.
  President Trump, if you are hurting about this impeachment and you 
are wishing for a fair trial and a real acquittal, join us in asking 
for the witnesses to come forward. Join us in asking for the documents. 
What are you hiding, President Trump? What are you afraid of, President 
Trump? If you think that you have done nothing wrong, you wouldn't mind 
having your own witnesses come here. These are people you appointed.
  Most Americans know that President Trump seems to be afraid of the 
truth. And 64 percent of all Republicans who almost always side with 
President Trump in the polling data say there should be witnesses and 
documents--64 percent. A trial without all the facts is a farce. The 
verdicts of a kangaroo court are empty.
  It is time for a bipartisan majority in this Chamber, Democrat and 
Republican, to support the rules and procedures of a fair trial. A vote 
to allow witnesses and documents does not presume a vote for conviction 
in any way. It merely ensures that when the ultimate judgment is 
rendered, whatever that judgment will be, it will be based on the 
facts. We don't know what the witnesses will say; it could be 
exculpatory for President Trump or it could be more condemning. 
Whatever it will be, we should have the facts come out and let the 
chips fall where they may. The Senate Democrats believe we must conduct 
a fair trial. As for the Senate Republicans, we will see.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Ernst). The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I have some prepared remarks regarding 
the Soleimani strike and some other related matters, but I want to take 
a moment and just respond briefly to my friend, the Democratic leader.
  There seems to be a lot of irony involved in this question of the 
Articles of Impeachment. First of all, of course, Speaker Pelosi, who 
said this is an urgent fulfilling of a constitutional duty and who 
wanted the Articles of Impeachment voted on in the House, has been 
radio silent and appears to be getting cold feet on whether or not she 
will even send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate.
  I would suggest that the first thing we need to know is if Speaker 
Pelosi is actually serious about this. If she is not, there is no 
occasion for us to even begin this conversation about how the Senate 
trial will proceed. Speaker Pelosi is mistaken if she thinks she can 
direct or influence the Senate's decision on how the trial will 
proceed. In fact, one of the things I am pretty sure of is that the 
Senate will not replicate the circuslike atmosphere of the impeachment 
inquiry in the House, which was one of the most partisan undertakings I 
have seen in my time in the Senate.
  I think they are really grasping at straws now and are recognizing 
they did a poor job in developing the case that led to the two Articles 
of Impeachment. One was because of a disagreement over the manner in 
which the President exercised his authority under the Constitution to 
engage in foreign relations, and the other was based on this bogus idea 
that by saying: I need to go to court to get some direction on a claim 
of executive privilege, that somehow, even though Mr. Schiff dropped 
the subpoena or no longer sought that witness's testimony, one has 
obstructed Congress's investigation. All of this was without even 
alleging any crime.
  I suggest that the Senate is an institution that follows the rules 
and that we follow our precedents. The most obvious precedent for this 
impeachment trial is the Clinton impeachment trial. There, we saw 100 
Senators agree to a procedure which allowed both sides to present their 
cases, after which there was a vote to see whether additional testimony 
would be required. Indeed, there was an agreement to provide three 
additional witnesses, not live, in a circuslike atmosphere here on the 
floor of the Senate, but through depositions taken out of court that 
could then be out of the Chamber, whereby excerpts of those depositions 
could be offered as additional evidence. That was the procedure that 
was supported by the Democratic leader, the Senator from New York. I 
suggest that what was fair for President Clinton is fair for President 
Trump. It is not much more complicated than that, and that, indeed, is 
the most relevant precedent.
  With regard to this claim that some Senators aren't demonstrating 
impartiality, I recall reading that the Senator from New York, when he 
was running against incumbent Senator D'Amato, said a vote for him for 
the Senate would be a guaranteed vote of acquittal of President 
Clinton. That was hardly impartial. Now he protests too much and, I 
think, demonstrates his hypocrisy when it comes to the standard by 
which he holds himself and others.
  I am sorry. I just can't believe that Senator Warren and Senator 
Sanders would qualify under anybody's definition of an impartial juror. 
Yet that is our constitutional system. I think what has happened is 
that they realize their case is falling short of any standard by which 
a President would be convicted and impeached, and they are simply 
grasping at straws.