[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 7 (Monday, January 13, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Page S154]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              Impeachment

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, the President of the United States is 
charged with committing a grave injury to our democracy: trying to 
shake down a foreign leader to get him to interfere in our elections, 
using the powers of his public office to benefit himself and jaundice 
our elections. These are the kinds of actions the Framers of our 
Constitution most feared when they forged the impeachment powers of the 
Congress.
  The House of Representatives decided the President's conduct 
warranted his impeachment. The Senate's constitutional duty now is to 
try that case to the best of our ability with honesty, with integrity, 
with impartially, and with fairness.
  A fair trial is one that considers all the facts and gives the 
Senators all the information they need to make an informed decision. 
That means relevant witnesses. That means relevant documents. That 
means the truth. Without these things, a Senate trial would become a 
farce, a nationally televised meeting of the mock trial club.
  There is a reason that, with one exception, every impeachment trial 
of any official in the history of the United States has featured 
witnesses. That one exception was the trial of a fellow Senator in the 
18th century, and the question of his impeachment was dismissed on 
jurisdictional grounds before the issue of witnesses could ever come 
up. Every other trial has had witnesses. So when Leader McConnell talks 
precedent, he is talking about witnesses, plain and simple.
  The Democratic request for four fact witnesses and three specific 
sets of relevant documents is very much in line with our history. We 
don't know what those witnesses will say. We don't know what those 
documents will reveal. They could help the President's case, or they 
could hurt it. Regardless of the consequences for the President, 
Democrats are on a quest for the truth.
  At the moment, Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans are opposing 
witnesses and documents, but they can't seem to muster a real reason 
why. Instead, Leader McConnell and the Republican leadership have 
labeled a Democratic request for witnesses and documents as 
``political.'' If seeking the truth is political, if doing our 
constitutional duty is political in the minds of our Republican 
colleagues, then the Republican Party is in trouble. History is not 
kind to political parties that fight to hide the truth. History is not 
kind to parties that participate in coverups.
  If anything, these absurd accusations by Republicans demonstrate just 
how unable Republicans have been to make an affirmative case about why 
the Senate shouldn't ask for evidence. The Republican argument against 
calling witnesses is basically nonexistent. The most commonly repeated 
talking point from the other side is that we should follow the example 
of the 1999 Clinton trial by deciding on witnesses after both sides 
complete their presentations.
  Republicans are so unwilling to argue against witnesses, they can 
only support delaying the decision, like a broken Magic 8 Ball that 
keeps saying ``Ask again later.'' Leader McConnell has represented his 
position as being fair and open-minded. He has said he is not 
foreclosing the possibility of witnesses--the Senate should just 
discuss them later. As I have made clear, this makes no sense from a 
trial perspective. Why should both sides make their entire 
presentations before even considering requesting evidence? Leader 
McConnell's proposal is completely backward and through the looking 
glass.
  Let's consider what, practically speaking, Leader McConnell is 
suggesting when he claims to be open to witnesses at a later date. What 
does he really mean when he says that?
  In the 1999 Clinton trial, the Senate waited 3 weeks into the trial 
to confront the issue of witnesses. Once they decided on three 
witnesses, with the support of several Senate Republicans here today, 
including Leader McConnell, it took time for the witnesses to be 
deposed and for the Senate to consider what they had submitted. 
Ultimately, the Clinton trial ran for 2 more weeks.
  I want my fellow Republican Senators to ask themselves: After the 
Senate concludes the part of the trial that Leader McConnell wants to 
get through, do you think he really wants to extend the trial by 
several weeks? Leader McConnell has gone on record and said that he 
wants the trial to span 2 weeks total. Leader McConnell has gone on 
record and said: ``After we've heard the arguments, we ought to vote 
and move on.''
  Are we to believe that Leader McConnell, after 2 weeks is up, will 
really have an open mind about extending the trial several more weeks, 
or does he want to delay the question of witnesses and documents until 
later and then, when the time comes, exert enormous pressure on 
Republicans to reject them to avoid prolonging the trial? He will say: 
We can't go on any further; let's just end it. Every Republican--every 
Republican--should ask themselves that question.
  Democrats are not advocating a lengthy and drawn-out trial. That is 
why we proposed handling this issue up front, so evidence can be part 
of the presentations and so we don't have to extend the trial 
unnecessarily. We have proposed a schedule that would save the Senate a 
whole lot of time.
  Before voting on a resolution that would punt the question of 
witnesses until after all the presentations are complete, Senate 
Republicans must ask themselves: What are Leader McConnell's true 
intentions?