[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 24 (Wednesday, February 5, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S873-S936]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              IMPEACHMENT

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, over the last months, our country has 
been consumed by a single word, one that we don't use often in our 
ordinary parlance. That word, of course, is ``impeachment.'' It has 
filled our news channels, our Twitter feeds, and dinner conversations. 
It has led to a wide-ranging debate on everything from the 
constitutional doctrines of the separation of powers to the due process 
of law--two concepts which are the most fundamental building blocks of 
who we are as a nation. It has even prompted those who typically have 
no interest in politics to tune into C-SPAN or into their favorite 
cable news channels.
  The impeachment of a President of the United States is simply the 
gravest undertaking we can pursue in this country. It is the nuclear 
option in our Constitution--the choice of last resort--when a President 
has committed a crime so serious that Congress must act rather than 
leave the choice to the voters in the election.
  The Framers of the Constitution granted this awesome power to the 
U.S. Congress and placed their confidence in the Senate to use only 
when absolutely necessary, when there is no other choice.
  This is a rare, historic moment for the Members of this Chamber. This 
has been faced by the Senate only on two previous occasions during our 
Constitution's 232-year history--only two times previously. We should 
be extraordinarily vigilant in ensuring that the impeachment power does 
not become a regular feature of our differences and, in the process, 
cheapen the vote of the American people. Soon, Members of the Senate 
will determine whether, for the first time in our history, a President 
will be removed from office, and then we will decide whether he will be 
barred from the ballot in 2020.
  The question all Senators have to answer is, Did the President 
commit, in the words of the Constitution, a high crime and misdemeanor 
that warrants his removal from office or should he be acquitted of the 
charges made by the House?
  I did my best to listen intently to both sides as they presented 
their cases during the trial, and I am confident in saying that 
President Trump should be acquitted and not removed from office.
  First, the Constitution gives the Congress the power to impeach and 
remove a President from office only for treason, bribery, and other 
high crimes and misdemeanors, but the two Articles of Impeachment 
passed by the House of Representatives fail to meet that standard.
  The first charge, as we know, is abuse of power. House Democrats 
alleged that the President withheld military aid from Ukraine in 
exchange for investigations of Joe and Hunter

[[Page S874]]

Biden. But they failed to bring forward compelling and unassailable 
evidence of any crime--again, the Constitution talks about treason, 
bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors; clearly, a criminal 
standard--and thus failed to meet their burden of proof. Certainly, the 
House managers did not meet the high burden required to remove the 
President from office, effectively nullifying the will of tens of 
millions of Americans just months before the next election. What is 
more, the House's vague charge in the first article is equivalent to 
acts considered and rejected by the Framers of our Constitution.
  That brings us to the second article we are considering--obstruction 
of Congress. During the House inquiry, Democrats were upset because 
some of the President's closest advisers--and their most sought-after 
witnesses--did not testify. To be clear, some of the executive branch 
witnesses were among the 13 witnesses whose testimony we did hear 
during the Senate trial. But for those witnesses for whom it was clear 
the administration would claim a privilege, almost certainly leading to 
a long court battle, the House declined to issue the subpoenas and 
certainly did not seek judicial enforcement. Rather than addressing the 
privilege claims in court, as happened in the Nixon and Clinton 
impeachments, the Democratic managers moved to impeach President Trump 
for obstruction of Congress for protecting the Presidency itself from a 
partisan abuse of power by the House.
  Removing the President from office for asserting long-recognized and 
constitutionally grounded privileges that have been invoked by both 
Republican and Democratic Presidents would set a very dangerous 
precedent and would do violence to the Constitution's separation of 
powers design. In effect, it would make the Presidency itself 
subservient to Congress.
  The father of our Constitution, James Madison, warned against 
allowing the impeachment power to create a Presidential tenure at the 
pleasure of the Senate.
  Even more concerning, at every turn throughout this process, the 
House Democrats violated President Trump's right to due process of law. 
All American law is built on a constitutional foundation securing basic 
rights and rules of fairness for a citizen accused of wrongdoing.
  It is undisputed that the House excluded the President's legal team 
from both the closed-door testimony and almost the entirety of the 
House's 78-day inquiry. They channeled personal, policy, and political 
grievances and attempted to use the most solemn responsibility of 
Congress to bring down a political rival in a partisan process.
  It is no secret that Democrats' crusade to remove the President began 
more than 3 years ago on the very day he was inaugurated. On January 
20, 2017, the Washington Post ran a story with the headline ``The 
campaign to impeach President Trump has begun.''
  At first, Speaker Pelosi wisely resisted. Less than a year ago, she 
said, ``Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there is 
something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think 
we should go down that path because it divides the country.'' And she 
was right. But when she couldn't hold back the stampede of her caucus, 
she did a 180-degree about-face. She encouraged House Democrats to rush 
through an impeachment inquiry before an arbitrary Christmas deadline.
  In the end, the articles passed with support from only a single 
party--not bipartisan. The bipartisanship the Speaker claimed was 
necessary was actually opposed to the impeachment of the President; 
that is, Democrats and Republicans voted in opposition to the Articles 
of Impeachment. Only Democrats voted for the Articles of Impeachment in 
the House.
  Once the articles finally made it to the Senate after a confusing, 
28-day delay, Speaker Pelosi tried to have Senator Schumer--the 
Democratic leader here--use Speaker Pelosi's playbook, and he staged a 
number of political votes every Member of the Senate knew would fail, 
just so he could secure some perceived political advantage against 
Republican Senators in the 2020 election.
  What should be a solemn, constitutional undertaking became partisan 
guerilla warfare to take down President Trump and make Senator Schumer 
the next majority leader of the U.S. Senate.
  All of this was done on the eve of an election and just days shy of 
the first primary in Iowa.
  Well, to say the timing was a coincidence would be laughable. This 
partisan impeachment process could not only remove the President from 
office, it would also potentially prevent his name from appearing on 
the ballot in November. We are only 9 months away from an election--9 
months away from the American people voting on the direction of our 
country--but our Democratic colleagues don't trust the American people, 
so they have taken matters into their own hands.
  This politically motivated impeachment sets a dangerous precedent. 
This is a very important point. This is not just about President Trump; 
this is about the Office of the Presidency and what precedent a 
conviction and removal would set for our Constitution and for our 
future. If successful, this would give a green light to future 
Congresses to weaponize impeachment to defeat a political opponent for 
any action--even a failure to kowtow to Congress's wishes.
  Impeachment is a profoundly serious matter that must be handled as 
such. It cannot become the Hail Mary pass of a party to remove a 
President, effectively nullifying an election and interfering in the 
next.
  I believe--I think we should all believe--that the results of the 
next election should be decided by the American people, not by 
Congress.
  The decision to remove a President from office requires undeniable 
evidence of a high crime. That is the language chosen by the Framers of 
our Constitution. But despite our colleagues' best attempts, the facts 
they presented simply don't add up to that standard.
  House managers failed to meet their heavy burden of proof that 
President Trump, beyond a reasonable doubt, committed a crime, let 
alone a high crime; therefore, I will not vote to convict the 
President.
  I hope our Democratic colleagues will finally accept the result of 
this trial--just as they have not accepted the result of the 2016 
election--and I hope they won't take the advice of Congresswoman 
Waters, Maxine Waters in the House, and open a second impeachment 
inquiry. It is time for our country to come together to heal the wounds 
that divide us and to get the people's work done.
  There is no doubt, as Speaker Pelosi observed in March of 2019, that 
impeachment is a source of division in our country, and it is also a 
period of great sadness. If this partisan impeachment were to succeed, 
my greatest fear is it would become a routine process for every 
President who serves with a House majority of the opposite party, and 
we would find ourselves in a recurring impeachment nightmare every time 
we elect a new President.
  Our country is deeply divided and damaged by this partisan 
impeachment process. It is time for us to bring it to a close and to 
let the wounds from this unnecessary and misguided episode heal.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

    Statement for the Record--Impeachment Trial of Donald John Trump


                      Senator John Cornyn of Texas

       Mr. President, I would like to submit this statement for 
     the record regarding the impeachment trial of President 
     Donald Trump. This statement seeks to supplement the remarks 
     that I made on the Senate floor on Wednesday, February 5, 
     2020. It includes some of my observations as a former judge 
     on some of the complicated constitutional, legal, and factual 
     issues associated with this impeachment proceeding and its 
     implications for future presidential impeachments.
     (1) What is the Constitutional standard?
       In America, all government derives its power, in the words 
     of the Declaration of Independence, ``from the consent of the 
     governed.'' \1\ This is not just a statement of national 
     policy, but a statement about legitimacy.
       Elections are the principal means of conferring legitimacy 
     by the consent of the governed. Impeachments, by the House 
     and tried in the Senate, while conferring authority on 535 
     Members of Congress to nullify one election and disqualify a 
     convicted President from appearing on a future ballot, 
     exercise delegated power from the governed, much attenuated 
     from the direct consent provided by

[[Page S875]]

     an election. It seems obvious that an impeachment of a 
     President during an election year should give rise to 
     heightened concerns about legitimacy.
       While there was extensive argument on what the Framers 
     intended the impeachment standard to be, suffice it to say, 
     they believed it should be serious enough to warrant removal, 
     and disqualification from future office, of a duly elected 
     President.
       The role of impeachments in a constitutional republic like 
     the United States was borrowed, to some extent, from our 
     British forebears. But it was not a wholesale acceptance of 
     the British model, with its parliamentary system where entire 
     governments can be removed on a vote of no confidence, but 
     rather a distinctly Americanized system that purposefully 
     created a strong and co-equal chief executive, elected by the 
     people for a definite term, with a narrowed scope of 
     impeachable offenses for the President.
       Under the U.S. Constitution, Presidents may be impeached 
     for ``treason, bribery, and other high crimes and 
     misdemeanors.'' Due to the rarity of presidential 
     impeachments (three in 232 years), the age of some precedents 
     (dating back to the Johnson impeachment of 1868), and the 
     diversity of impeachment cases (and in particular, the 
     significant difference between the impeachment of judges and 
     Presidents), there remains quite a bit of debate about 
     precisely what actions by a President are impeachable.
       Some argue a crime is not required, although all previous 
     presidential impeachments charged a crime. Some argue that 
     not all crimes are impeachable, only serious crimes can be 
     ``high'' crimes. Some categories, including ``malversation,'' 
     ``neglect of duty,'' ``corruption,'' ``malpractice,'' and 
     ``maladministration'' were considered and rejected by the 
     Framers.\2\
     (2) Abuse of power
       The President's lawyers charge that ``abuse of power'' 
     alleged in the first Article of Impeachment is not a crime, 
     much less a ``high'' crime, nor a violation of established 
     law. This argument raises Due Process of Law concerns with 
     regard to notice of what is prohibited. As Justice Antonin 
     Scalia observed shortly before his death in the criminal 
     context, ``invoking so shapeless a provision to condemn 
     someone . . . does not comport with the Constitution's 
     guarantee of due process.'' \3\
       Moreover, they argue that ``abuse of power'' is tantamount 
     to ``maladministration,'' which was rejected by the Framers. 
     There is little doubt that a vague and ambiguous charge in an 
     Article of Impeachment can be a generalized accusation into 
     which the House can lump all of their political, policy, and 
     personal differences with a President. This should be 
     avoided.
       The House Managers say no crime is required for 
     impeachment, and that abuse of power, which incorporates a 
     host of nefarious acts, is all that is required. No violation 
     of criminal statutes is alleged, nor required they say, and 
     they disagree that abuse of power equates with 
     ``maladministration.'' They point to Alexander Hamilton's 
     statement in Federalist 65 that impeachable offenses are 
     ``those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public 
     men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some 
     public trust.''
     (3) Obstruction of Congress.
       The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence issued 
     dozens of subpoenas and heard testimony from 17 witnesses. As 
     to other witness subpoenas issued to members of the Trump 
     Administration, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone argued in 
     his October 8, 2019 letter to Speaker of the House Pelosi 
     that any subpoenas issued before passage of a formal 
     resolution of the House establishing an impeachment inquiry 
     were constitutionally invalid and a violation of due process. 
     The House Managers rely on the Constitution's grant of the 
     ``sole power of impeachment'' to the House and argue that no 
     authorizing resolution was required. Essentially, they argue 
     that under the Constitution the House can run an 
     impeachment inquiry any way the House wants and no one can 
     complain.
       No committee of the House was officially delegated the 
     House's impeachment authority until October 31, 2019, when 
     the House passed House Resolution 660 directing ``the 
     Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committees 
     on Financial Services, Foreign Affairs, the Judiciary, 
     Oversight and Reform, and Ways and Means to continue their 
     ongoing investigations as part of the existing House of 
     Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist 
     for the House of Representatives to exercise its 
     constitutional power to impeach Donald John Trump, President 
     of the United States.''
       Neither the House's theory that it could act without a 
     delegation resolution, nor the White House Counsel's argument 
     that subpoenas were void without one was presented to a court 
     during this impeachment inquiry.\4\ In fact, the House 
     intentionally avoided litigation because, as House Manager 
     Adam Schiff stated, it would slow down their inquiry.
       One example makes this point. Charles Kupperman was a 
     deputy to former National Security Advisor John Bolton. Other 
     than Bolton himself, Kupperman was one of the officials most 
     likely to have direct knowledge of an alleged quid pro quo on 
     aid to Ukraine. But after the House subpoenaed him last fall, 
     Kupperman went to court and asked for a resolution of the 
     competing claims between the President and the House. Rather 
     than wait for a judicial determination in this interbranch 
     dispute, the House withdrew its subpoena and affirmatively 
     disclaimed any desire to pursue Kupperman's testimony in the 
     future.\5\ The House also decided not to subpoena Bolton or 
     any other key witnesses in the administration.
       Instead, the House elected to push through impeachment with 
     an abbreviated period of roughly three months and declared 
     any delay by President Trump, even to seek judicial review, 
     to be obstruction of Congress and a high crime and 
     misdemeanor. The Administration is currently in court 
     challenging demands for witnesses and documents. Just a 
     couple weeks ago, the Supreme Court accepted such cases for 
     review and stayed the lower court decisions ordering the 
     production of President Trump's financial records from third 
     parties.\6\ Still, the House impeached President Trump before 
     the Supreme Court or other federal courts could rule on the 
     merits of claims of presidential privileges and immunities in 
     this impeachment inquiry.
       The essence of the House's second Article of Impeachment is 
     that it is Obstruction of Congress to decline to voluntarily 
     submit to the House's inquiry and forgo any claims of 
     presidential privileges or immunities. One interpretation of 
     these facts is that the House simply gave up pursuing the 
     testimony in the interest of speed. While undoubtedly 
     litigation would have delayed for a time the House's 
     impeachment inquiry if they were determined to secure the 
     testimony they initially sought, it is clear that the 
     President, and not the witnesses, would assert claims of 
     executive privilege or absolute testimony immunity to protect 
     the Office of the Presidency. These claims are 
     constitutionally based in the separation of powers, long-
     recognized by the Department of Justice's Office of Legal 
     Counsel, and repeatedly asserted by both Republican and 
     Democratic Administrations in countless disputes with 
     Congress. And since the House did not pursue the testimony 
     originally subpoenaed, the issue of presidential privileges 
     or immunity was never decided.\7\
       But that is not all. Representative Eric Swalwell recently 
     declared that not only should a sitting president be 
     impeached if he or she goes to the courts rather than submit 
     to Congress, but that contesting demands for evidence is 
     actually evidence of guilt on all of the charged offenses. 
     Congressman Swalwell claimed ``we can only conclude that you 
     are guilty'' if someone refuses to give testimony or 
     documents to Congress.\8\ So much for the presumption of 
     innocence and other constitutional rights encompassed by the 
     Constitution's guarantee of Due Process of Law.
       It is an odd argument that a person accused of running a 
     red light has more legal rights than a President being 
     impeached.
     (4) The House's impeachment inquiry
       The House Managers argue that since Article 1, Section 2 of 
     the Constitution gives the House the ``sole power of 
     impeachment,'' the President cannot question the procedures 
     as a denial of Due Process of Law or authority by which that 
     House produced the Articles. What they don't explain is how 
     House rules can preempt the Constitution. They can't. As 
     Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in Marbury v. Madison, 
     ``the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the 
     legislature, [and] the Constitution, and not such ordinary 
     act, must govern the case to which they both apply.'' \9\
       While the Constitution gives the House the ``sole power to 
     impeach'' it gives the Senate the ``sole power to try all 
     impeachments.'' Some have analogized the House's role to a 
     grand jury in criminal cases. Generally speaking, a grand 
     jury may issue an indictment, also known as a ``true bill,'' 
     only if it finds, based upon the evidence that has been 
     presented to it, that there is probable cause to believe that 
     a crime has been committed by a criminal suspect.
       But impeachment is not, strictly speaking, a criminal case, 
     even though the Constitution speaks in terms of 
     ``conviction'' and the impeachment standard is ``treason, 
     bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.'' Contrast 
     that with Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7: ``the Party 
     convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to 
     Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to 
     Law.'' In other words, the constitutional prohibition of 
     double jeopardy does not apply.
       Neither are Senators jurors in the usual sense of being 
     ``disinterested'' in the facts or outcome. Senators take the 
     following oath: ``Do you solemnly swear that in all things 
     appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald John 
     Trump, President of the United States, now pending, you will 
     do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, 
     so help you God?''
       Hamilton wrote in Federalist 65 the Senate was chosen as 
     the tribunal for courts of impeachment because:
       ``Where else than in the Senate could have been found a 
     tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent? 
     What other body would be likely to feel confidence enough in 
     its own situation, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the 
     necessary impartiality between an individual accused, and the 
     representatives of the people, his accusers?''
       Because impeachment is neither civil nor criminal in the 
     usual sense, it must be something different. President 
     Trump's counsel referred to the Senate role as sitting in a

[[Page S876]]

     ``High Court of Impeachment,'' and ``Democracy's ultimate 
     court.'' Hamilton, in Federalist 65, called it ``a method of 
     national inquest.''
       One of most significant disputes in the Senate impeachment 
     trial of President Trump was the duty of the House to develop 
     evidence during its impeachment inquiry and the duty of the 
     Senate when new evidence is sought by one or both parties 
     during the trial. In addressing this issue, it is helpful to 
     remind ourselves that the American system of justice is 
     adversarial in nature. That is, it is a system that 
     ``resolves disputes by presenting conflicting views of fact 
     and law to an impartial and relatively passive arbiter, who 
     decides which side wins what.'' \10\ This system ``consists 
     of a core of basic rights that recognize and protect the 
     dignity of the individual in a free society.'' \11\
       The rights that comprise the adversary system include . . . 
     the rights to call and to confront witnesses, and the right 
     to require the government to prove guilt beyond a reasonable 
     doubt. . . . These rights, and others, are also included in 
     the broad and fundamental concept [of] due process of law--a 
     concept which itself has been substantially equated with the 
     adversary system.'' \12\
       The adversarial nature of these proceedings means that the 
     House Managers were obligated to develop their case, 
     including the evidence, in the House inquiry, and not rely on 
     the Senate to do so. In typical court proceedings, the 
     failure of the prosecutor to present sufficient evidence at 
     trial results in dismissal, not in open-ended discovery or a 
     re-opened investigation.
       President Trump's lawyers argued that there were three main 
     errors in the House proceedings:
       (1) The House did not initially authorize the impeachment 
     inquiry, thus delegating its ``sole power'' to the 
     Intelligence Committee, which issued dozens of subpoenas the 
     President deemed invalid;
       (2) Numerous due process violations during the Intelligence 
     Committee's proceedings, including denial of notice, counsel, 
     cross examination, and the opportunity to call witnesses;
       (3) And, finally, that as an interested fact witness 
     regarding Intelligence Committee contacts with the 
     whistleblower, Chairman Schiff could not be said to have 
     fairly conducted the House investigation.
       Again, the House Managers argue that the method by which 
     the Articles of Impeachment were approved in the House cannot 
     be challenged in the Senate trial given the House's ``sole 
     power to impeach.''
       Ominously, the President's lawyers argue that whatever 
     precedent was set by the Senate in this trial would be the 
     ``new normal'' and govern not just this trial but all 
     impeachment trials in the future. They also argue that to 
     make impeachment ``too easy'' in the House will result in 
     more frequent presidential impeachments being approved by 
     this and future Houses, which the Senate would then be 
     obligated to try. Similarly, they argue that the Senate 
     should not reward the failure of the House to litigate 
     questions of presidential privileges and immunities in their 
     impeachment inquiry and transfer that burden to the Senate. 
     An important difference between the House and Senate is that 
     House inquiries can be delegated to committees while the 
     House conducts other business; not so in the Senate, which 
     must sit as a court of impeachment until the trial is 
     completed.
       Thus, during a Senate impeachment trial, absent unanimous 
     consent--unlikely given the contentious nature of the 
     proceedings--the Senate is precluded from any other business, 
     even during delays while executive privilege and similar 
     issues are litigated in the courts. Given that the House 
     chose to not seek judicial enforcement of subpoenas during 
     its impeachment inquiry because of concerns about delay, the 
     question is do they have a right to do so during the Senate 
     trial? If so, the President's lawyers claim, such an outcome 
     would significantly protract a Senate trial and permanently 
     alter the relationship between the House and Senate in 
     impeachment proceedings. Indeed, there is a strong textual 
     and structural argument that the Constitution prohibits the 
     Senate from performing the investigative role assigned to the 
     House.
       The House Managers contend that Chief Justice John Roberts 
     could rule on questions of privilege while presiding over the 
     impeachment trial, avoiding delay during litigation, but the 
     Chief Justice made clear his was not a judicial role in the 
     usual sense.\13\ When the issue of whether the Chief Justice 
     would be a tie-breaking vote came up during the trial, he 
     said: ``I think it would be inappropriate for me, an 
     unelected official from a different branch of government, to 
     assert the power to change that result so that the motion 
     would succeed.'' So it is that the Senate, not the Chief 
     Justice presiding in an essentially ceremonial role during 
     impeachment trials, determines disputed issues. This 
     conclusion is further supported by the rule that a majority 
     of Senators are empowered to effectively ``overrule'' an 
     initial determination by the presiding officer. In the words 
     of Senate Impeachment Rule Seven: ``The presiding officer 
     may, in the first instance, submit to the Senate, without a 
     division, all questions of evidence and incidental questions; 
     but the same shall, on the demand of one-fifth of the members 
     present, be decided by yeas and nays.'' The unseemliness of 
     imposing this role on the Chief Justice is obvious and should 
     be avoided.
     (5) The Facts
       Of course, the main factual contentions of the House 
     Managers involve President Trump's interest in an 
     investigation of Hunter and Joe Biden's role in Ukraine. They 
     allege the President's ``corrupt'' motive to dig up dirt on a 
     potential political rival is an abuse of power. The 
     President's lawyers argue that it is clearly within the 
     President's authority to investigate corruption and leverage 
     foreign aid in order to combat it. Even if it incidentally 
     helps the President electorally, they argue it is not a 
     ``high crime and misdemeanor.''
       But there are more basic factual conundrums. Any 
     investigations discussed in the July 25 conversation between 
     Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and President Trump 
     never occurred. And the foreign aid, including lethal 
     defensive aid and weapons, was paused for just a short time 
     and delivered on September 11, 2019, before the deadline of 
     September 30.
       The abuse of power alleged was based on desired 
     investigations and the withholding of foreign aid. But 
     neither, ultimately, occurred. This is similar to an 
     ``attempted'' offense under the criminal law. Indeed, the law 
     criminalizes a host of attempted offenses. But the Articles 
     of Impeachment do not charge President Trump with any crimes, 
     including any ``attempted'' offenses.
     (6) Burden of Proof
       President Trump's counsel argued that the appropriate 
     burden of proof in this quasi-criminal trial is ``proof 
     beyond a reasonable doubt.'' This point was not seriously 
     contested by the House Managers who repeatedly claimed the 
     evidence in support of the Articles of Impeachment was 
     ``overwhelming.'' Manager Jerry Nadler went further and 
     claimed, repeatedly, that the evidence produced was 
     ``conclusive'' and ``uncontested.'' Manager Zoe Lofgren 
     argued that Senators could use, literally, any standard they 
     wished.
       This is significant on the issue of the President's motive 
     in seeking a corruption investigation from President 
     Zelensky, one that included former Vice President Biden and 
     his son, Hunter, and the company on whose board he served, 
     Burisma. The House Managers argued, repeatedly, that 
     President Trump did not care about Ukrainian corruption or 
     burden sharing with allies and that his sole motive was to 
     get information damaging to a political rival, Joe Biden.
       President Trump's lawyers contend that he has a record of 
     concerns about burden sharing with allies, as well as 
     corruption, and produced several examples. At most, they say, 
     his was a mixed motive--partly policy, partly political--and 
     in any event it was not a crime and thus not impeachable.
       Therefore, the question arises: did the House Managers 
     prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the sole motive for 
     pausing military aid to Ukraine was for his personal benefit? 
     Or, did they fail to meet their burden?
     Conclusion
       Ultimately, the House Managers failed to prove beyond a 
     reasonable doubt that President Trump's sole motive for 
     seeking any corruption investigation in Ukraine, including of 
     Hunter Biden, was for a personal political benefit. This is 
     particularly true given the evidence of President Trump's 
     documented interest in financial burden sharing with allies, 
     and the widely shared concerns, including by the Obama/Biden 
     Administration, with corruption in Ukraine and the need to 
     protect American taxpayers.
       Even if President Trump had mixed motives--a public 
     interest combined with a personal interest--the fact is the 
     investigations never occurred and the aid to Ukraine was 
     paused but delivered on schedule.
       Moreover, none of the above conduct rises to the level of a 
     ``high crime and misdemeanor.'' The first article, Abuse of 
     Power, which charges no crime or violation of existing law is 
     too vague and ambiguous to meet the Constitution's 
     requirements. It is simply a conclusion into which any 
     disagreeable conduct can be lumped.
       Finally, the second article, Obstruction of Congress, 
     cannot be sustained on this record. The President's counsel 
     argued persuasively that its subpoenas were largely 
     unauthorized in the absence of a House resolution delegating 
     its authority to a House committee. What's more, the House 
     never sought to enforce its subpoenas in the courts, 
     essentially giving up efforts to do so in favor of expediting 
     the House impeachment inquiry. The desire to meet an 
     arbitrary deadline before Christmas was prioritized over a 
     judicial determination in the interbranch dispute.


                                endnotes

       1. See Declaration of Independence (``We hold these truths 
     to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they 
     are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, 
     that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of 
     Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are 
     instituted among Men, deriving their powers from the consent 
     of the government.'')
       2. See The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 (Max 
     Farrand, ed., 1911).
       3. Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 2560 (2015). 
     Chief Justice Roberts similarly relied on Justice Scalia's 
     views when he raised due process concerns in the context of 
     an amorphous definition of corruption in the criminal 
     prosecution of public officials. McDonnell v. United States, 
     136 S.Ct. 2355, 2373 (2016).
       4. A variation of these arguments came up in active 
     litigation related to the House's access to testimony and 
     evidence connected

[[Page S877]]

     with Special Counsel Mueller's investigation. The district 
     courts rejected the White House Counsel's position. See House 
     of Representatives v. McGahn, No. 1:19-cv-02379-KBJ, 2019 WL 
     6312011 (D.D.C. Nov. 25, 2019) and In re Application of House 
     of Representatives for Release of Certain Grand Jury 
     Materials, No. 1:19-gj-00048, 2019 WL 5485221 (D.D.C. Oct. 
     25, 2019). But those decisions are now on appeal, and the 
     D.C. Circuit heard argument in those cases on January 3, 
     2020.
       5. See Kupperman v. House of Representatives, 1:19-cv-
     03224-RJL, 2019 WL 729359 (D.D.C. Dec. 30, 2019).
       6. See Order of Supreme Court dated December 13, 2019 
     granting certiorari in Trump v. Mazars USA, 940 F.3d 710 
     (D.C. Cir. 2019); Trump v. Deutsche Bank, 943 F.3d 627 (2d 
     Cir. 2019), and Trump v. Vance, 941 F.3d 631 (2d Cir. 2019). 
     The Supreme Court will hear argument in these cases on March 
     31, 2020.
       7. Issues associated with executive privilege were 
     litigated and resolved in the courts well in advance of the 
     Nixon and Clinton impeachments.
       8. See December 17, 2019 Interview of Congressman Eric 
     Swalwell by CNN's Wolf Blitzer (``Unless you send those 
     [witnesses] to us, we can only conclude that you are guilty, 
     because in America, innocent men do not hide and conceal 
     evidence. In fact, . . . they do just the opposite, they are 
     forthcoming and they want to cooperate, and the President is 
     acting like a very guilty person.'')
       9. See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 138 (1803) (``An act 
     of congress repugnant to the constitution cannot become a 
     law.'')
       10. Monroe H. Freeman, ``Our Constitutionalized Adversary 
     System,'' 1 Chapman Law Rev. 57, 57 (1998). Justice Scalia 
     noted that the adversarial system is founded on ``the 
     presence of a judge who does not (as the inquisitor does) 
     conduct the factual and legal investigation himself, but 
     instead decides on the basis of facts and arguments pro and 
     con adduced by the parties.'' McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 
     171, 181 n.2 (1991).
       11. Id.
       12. Id.
       13. As even one of the witnesses who testified in the House 
     has recognized, the Constitution designates the Chief Justice 
     to serve as presiding officer of the Senate for presidential 
     impeachments because the Framers understood the obvious 
     conflict of interest and tension in allowing the Vice 
     President to preside over the trial of the President. Michael 
     Gerhardt, The Constitutional Limits to Impeachment and Its 
     Alternatives, 68 Texas Law Review 1, 98 (1989).

  Mr. CORNYN. I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Loeffler). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, I come here today with the business of 
impeachment before this Chamber. It should hardly be necessary at this 
late juncture to outline again the train of abuses and distortions and 
outright lies that have brought us to today's impeachment vote: the 
secret meetings in the Capitol basement; the closed hearings without 
due process or basic fairness; the failure of the House to follow their 
own rules and authorize an impeachment inquiry and then the bipartisan 
vote against impeachment; and the attempt to manipulate or even prevent 
a trial here in the Senate--holding the Articles of Impeachment for 33 
days--in brazen defiance of the Constitution's mandates.
  The House Democrats have given us the first purely partisan 
impeachment in our history and the first attempt to remove an elected 
President that does not even allege unlawful conduct.
  Animating it all has been the bitter resentment of a professional 
political class that cannot accept the verdict of the people in 2016, 
that cannot accept the people's priorities, and that now seeks to 
overturn the election and entrench themselves in power. That is how we 
arrived at this moment, that is how we got here, and that is what this 
is really about.
  Now it is time to bring this fiasco to a close. It is time to end 
this cycle of retribution and payback and bitterness. It is time to end 
the abuse of our institutions. It is time to let the verdict of the 
people stand. So I will vote today to acquit the President of these 
charges.
  You know, it has been clear for a long time that impeachment is not a 
priority of the people--it is not even close. It is a pipe dream of 
politicians. And as the Democrats have forced it on this country over 
these many months, it has sapped our energy and diverted our attention 
from the real issues that press upon our country, the issues the people 
of this Nation have tried to get this town to care about for years. I 
mean the crisis of surging suicides and drug addiction that is driving 
down life expectancy in my State and across this Nation. I mean the 
crisis at the border, where those drugs are pouring across. I mean the 
crisis of skyrocketing healthcare costs, which burden families, young 
and old, with bills they cannot pay. I mean the crisis of affordable 
housing, which robs parents of a safe place to raise their children and 
build a life. I mean the crisis of trafficking and exploitation, which 
robs our young girls and boys of a future and our society of their 
innocence. I mean the crisis of the family farm and the crisis of 
education costs for those who go to college and the lack of good-paying 
jobs for those who don't. I mean the crisis of connectivity in our 
heartland, where too many schoolchildren can't access the internet even 
to do their homework at night. I mean the crisis of unfair trade and 
lost jobs and broken homes. And I could go on.
  My point is this: When I listen to the people of my State, I don't 
hear about impeachment. No, I hear about the problems of home and 
neighborhood, of family and community, about the loss of faith in our 
government and about the struggle to find hope for the future. This 
town owes it to these Americans--the ones who sent us here--finally to 
listen, finally to act, and finally to do something that really matters 
to them.
  We must leave this impeachment circus behind us and ensure that our 
Constitution is never again abused in this way. It is time to turn the 
page. It is time to turn to a new politics of the people and to a 
politics of home. It is time to turn to the future--a future where this 
town finally accepts the people's judgment and the people's verdict and 
where this town finally delivers for the people who elected them; a 
future where the middle of our society gets a fair shake and a level 
playing field; a future where maybe--maybe--this town will finally 
listen.
  When I think of all the energy and all the effort that has been 
expended on this impeachment crusade over almost 3 years now, I wonder 
what might have been.
  Today is a sad day, but it does not have to remain that way. Imagine 
what we might achieve for the good of this Nation if we turn our energy 
and our effort to the work of the American people. Imagine what we 
could do to keep families in their homes and to bring new possibility 
to the Nation's heartland and to care for our children in every part of 
this society. Imagine what we could do to lift up the most vulnerable 
among us who have been exploited and trafficked and give them new hope 
and new life. Imagine what we could do for those who have been 
forgotten, from our rural towns to our inner cities. Imagine what we 
could do to give them control over their own destinies.
  We can find the common good. We can push the boundaries of the 
possible. We can rebuild this Nation if we will listen to the American 
people. Let us begin.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, in this impeachment proceeding, I 
worked with other Senators to make sure that we had the right to ask 
for more documents and witnesses, but there was no need for more 
evidence to prove something that I believe had already been proven and 
that did not meet the U.S. Constitution's high bar for an impeachable 
offense.
  There was no need for more evidence to prove that the President asked 
Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter. He said this on 
television on October 3, 2019, and he said it during his July 25, 2019, 
telephone call with the President of Ukraine.
  There was no need for more evidence to conclude that the President 
withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to 
investigate the Bidens. The House managers have proved this with what 
they called a ``mountain of overwhelming evidence.'' One of the 
managers said it was ``proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.''
  There was no need to consider further the frivolous second Article of 
Impeachment that would remove from the President and future 
Presidents--remove this President for asserting his constitutional 
prerogative to protect confidential conversations with his close 
advisers.

[[Page S878]]

  It was inappropriate for the President to ask a foreign leader to 
investigate his political opponent and to withhold U.S. aid to 
encourage this investigation. When elected officials inappropriately 
interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle of 
equal justice under the law. But the Constitution does not give the 
Senate the power to remove the President from office and ban him from 
this year's ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate.
  The question, then, is not whether the President did it but whether 
the Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what 
he did. I believe that the Constitution clearly provides that the 
people should make that decision in the Presidential election that 
began on Monday in Iowa.
  The Senate has spent 11 long days considering this mountain of 
evidence, the arguments of the House managers and the President's 
lawyers, their answers to Senators' questions, and the House record. 
Even if the House charges were true, they don't meet the Constitution's 
``Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors'' standard 
for impeachable offense.
  The Framers believed that there never ever should be a partisan 
impeachment. That is why the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of 
the Senate to convict. Yet not one House Republican voted for these 
articles.
  If this shallow, hurried, and wholly partisan impeachment were to 
succeed, it would rip the country apart, pouring gasoline on the fire 
of cultural divisions that already exist. It would create a weapon of 
perpetual impeachment to be used against future Presidents whenever the 
House of Representatives is of a different political party.
  Our founding documents provide for duly elected Presidents who serve 
with ``the consent of the governed,'' not at the pleasure of the U.S. 
Congress. Let the people decide.
  A year ago, at the Southeastern Conference basketball tournament, a 
friend of 40 years sitting in front of me turned to me and said: ``I am 
very unhappy with you for voting against the President.'' She was 
referring to my vote against the President's decision to spend money 
that Congress hadn't appropriated to build the border wall.
  I believed then and now that the U.S. Constitution gives to the 
Congress the exclusive power to appropriate money. This separation of 
powers creates checks and balances in our government that preserve our 
individual liberty by not allowing, in that case, the Executive to have 
too much power.
  I replied to my friend: ``Look, I was not voting for or against the 
President. I was voting for the United States Constitution.'' Well, she 
wasn't convinced.
  This past Sunday, walking my dog Rufus in Nashville, I was confronted 
by a neighbor who said she was angry and crushed by my vote against 
allowing more witnesses in the impeachment trial. ``The Senate should 
remove the President for extortion,'' she said.
  I replied to her: ``I was not voting for or against the President. I 
was voting for the United States Constitution, which, in my view, does 
not give the Senate the power to remove a President from his office and 
from this year's election ballot simply for actions that are 
inappropriate. The United States Constitution says a President may be 
convicted only for Treason, Bribery, and other High Crimes and 
Misdemeanors. President Trump's actions regarding Ukraine are a far cry 
from that. Plus,'' I said, ``unlike the Nixon impeachment, when almost 
all Republicans voted to initiate an impeachment inquiry, not one 
single Republican voted to initiate this impeachment inquiry against 
President Trump. The Trump impeachment,'' I said to her, ``was a 
completely partisan action, and the Framers of the United States 
Constitution, especially James Madison, believed we should never ever 
have a partisan impeachment. That would undermine the separation of 
powers by allowing the House of Representatives to immobilize the 
executive branch, as well as the Senate, by a perpetual partisan series 
of impeachments.'' Well, she was not convinced.
  When our country was created, there never had been anything quite 
like it--a democratic republic with a written Constitution. Perhaps its 
greatest innovation was the separation of powers among the Presidency, 
the Supreme Court, and the Congress.
  The late Justice Scalia said this of checks and balances: ``Every tin 
horn dictator in the world today, every president for life, has a Bill 
of Rights. . . . What has made us free is our Constitution.'' What he 
meant was, what makes the United States different and protects our 
individual liberty is the separation of powers and the checks and 
balances in our Constitution.
  The goal of our Founders was not to have a King as a chief executive, 
on the one hand, or not to have a British-style parliament, on the 
other, which could remove our chief executive or prime minister with a 
majority or no-confidence vote. The principle reason our Constitution 
created a U.S. Senate is so that one body of Congress can pause and 
resist the excesses of the Executive or popular passions that could run 
through the House of Representatives like a freight train.
  The language of the Constitution, of course, is subject to 
interpretation, but on some things, its words are clear. The President 
cannot spend money that Congress doesn't appropriate--that is clear--
and the Senate can't remove a President for anything less than treason, 
bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors, and two-thirds of us, the 
Senators, must agree on that. That requires a bipartisan consensus.
  We Senators take an oath to base our decisions on the provisions of 
our Constitution, which is what I have endeavored to do during this 
impeachment proceeding.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to include a few documents 
in the Record following my remarks. They include an editorial from 
February 3 from the Wall Street Journal; an editorial from the National 
Review, also dated February 3; an opinion editorial by Robert Doar, 
president of the American Enterprise Institute on February 1; an 
article from KnoxTNToday, yesterday; and a transcript from my 
appearance on ``Meet the Press'' on Sunday, February 2, 2020. These 
documents illuminate and further explain my statement today.
  Thank you.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Wall Street Journal, Feb. 3, 2020]

   Editorial Board: Lamar Alexander's Finest Hour--His Vote Against 
             Witnesses was Rooted in Constitutional Wisdom

       Senate Republicans are taking even more media abuse than 
     usual after voting to bar witnesses from the impeachment 
     trial of President Trump. ``Cringing abdication'' and ``a 
     dishonorable Senate'' are two examples of the sputtering 
     progressive rage. On the contrary, we think it was Lamar 
     Alexander's finest hour.
       The Tennessee Republican, who isn't running for re-election 
     this year, was a decisive vote in the narrowly divided Senate 
     on calling witnesses. He listened to the evidence and 
     arguments from both sides, and then he offered his sensible 
     judgment: Even if Mr. Trump did what House managers charge, 
     it still isn't enough to remove a President from office.``It 
     was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader 
     to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United 
     States aid to encourage that investigation,'' Mr. Alexander 
     said in a statement Thursday night. ``But the Constitution 
     does not give the Senate the power to remove the president 
     from office and ban him from this year's ballot simply for 
     actions that are inappropriate.''
       The House managers had proved their case to his 
     satisfaction even without new witnesses, Mr. Alexander added, 
     but ``they do not meet the Constitution's `treason, bribery, 
     or other high crimes and misdemeanors' standard for an 
     impeachable offense.'' Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse told reporters 
     ``let me be clear: Lamar speaks for lots and lots of us.''
       This isn't an abdication. It's a wise judgment based on 
     what Mr. Trump did and the rushed, partisan nature of the 
     House impeachment. Mr. Trump was wrong to ask Ukraine to 
     investigate Joe and Hunter Biden, and wrong to use U.S. aid 
     as leverage. His call with Ukraine's President was far from 
     ``perfect.'' It was reckless and self-destructive, as Mr. 
     Trump often is.
       Nearly all of his advisers and several Senators opposed his 
     actions, Senators like Wisconsin's Ron Johnson lobbied Mr. 
     Trump hard against the aid delay, and in the end the aid was 
     delivered within the fiscal year and Ukraine did not begin an 
     investigation. Even the House managers did not allege 
     specific crimes in their impeachment articles. For those who 
     want the best overall account of what happened, we again 
     recommend the Nov. 18 letter that Mr. Johnson wrote to House 
     Republicans.
       Mr. Alexander's statement made two other crucial points. 
     The first concerns the damage that partisan removal of Mr. 
     Trump would do to the country.

[[Page S879]]

       ``The framers believed that there should never, ever be a 
     partisan impeachment. That is why the Constitution requires a 
     2/3 vote of the Senate for conviction. Yet not one House 
     Republican voted for these articles,'' Mr. Alexander noted. 
     ``If this shallow, hurried and wholly partisan impeachment 
     were to succeed, it would rip the country apart, pouring 
     gasoline on the fire of cultural divisions that already 
     exist. It would create the weapon of perpetual impeachment to 
     be used against future presidents whenever the House of 
     Representatives is of a different political party.''
       Does anyone who isn't a Resistance partisan doubt this? 
     Democrats and the press talk as if removing Mr. Trump is a 
     matter of constitutional routine that would restore American 
     politics to some pre-2016 normalcy. That's a dangerous 
     illusion.
       The ouster of Mr. Trump, the political outsider, on such 
     slender grounds would be seen by half the country as an 
     insider coup d'etat. Unlike Richard Nixon's resignation, it 
     would never be accepted by Mr. Trump's voters, who would wave 
     it as a bloody flag for years to come. Payback against the 
     next Democratic President when the Republicans retake the 
     House would be a certainty.
       Mr. Alexander directed Americans to the better solution of 
     our constitutional bedrock. ``The question then is not 
     whether the president did it, but whether the United States 
     Senate or the American people should decide what to do about 
     what he did,'' his statement said. ``Our founding documents 
     provide for duly elected presidents who serve with `the 
     consent of the governed,' not at the pleasure of the United 
     States Congress. Let the people decide.''
       Democrats and their allies in the media have spent three 
     years trying to nullify the election their candidate lost in 
     2016. They have hawked false Russian conspiracy theories, 
     ignored abuse by the FBI, floated fantasies about triggering 
     the 25th Amendment, and tried to turn bad presidential 
     judgment toward Ukraine into an impeachable offense. Yet Mr. 
     Trump's job approval rating has increased during the 
     impeachment hearings and trial.
       Our friendly advice to Democrats and the impeachment press 
     is to accept that you lost fair and square in 2016 and focus 
     on nominating a better Democratic candidate this year. On the 
     recent polling evidence, that task is urgent. In the 
     meantime, thank you, Lamar Alexander.
                                  ____


                [From the National Review, Feb. 3, 2020]

             Editorial Board: Lamar Alexander Gets It Right

       The impeachment saga is drawing to a close.
       The Senate is prepared to acquit without hearing from 
     witnesses, after Lamar Alexander, a swing vote, came out 
     against calling them late last week.
       In his statement, Alexander expressed the correct view on 
     the underlying matter--one we have been urging Republicans to 
     publicly adopt since impeachment first got off the ground.
       The Tennessee Republican said that it has been amply 
     established that Donald Trump used a hold on defense aid to 
     pressure the Ukrainians to undertake the investigations that 
     he wanted, and that this was, as he mildly put it, 
     inappropriate. But this misconduct, he argued, doesn't rise 
     to the level of the high crimes and misdemeanors required to 
     remove a president from office. If the Senate were to do so 
     anyway, it would further envenom the nation's partisan 
     divide. Besides, there is a national election looming where 
     the public itself can decide whether Trump should stay in 
     office or not.
       Since we already know the core of what happened, Alexander 
     explained, there was no need to hear from additional 
     witnesses in the Senate trial. (On this theory of the case, 
     the Senate is in effect acting like an appellate court, 
     rendering a judgment on a threshold question of law, rather 
     than a trial court sifting through the facts.)
       In the wake of Alexander's statement, other Senate 
     Republicans endorsed his line of analysis, which, it must be 
     noted, is superior to the defense mounted by the White House 
     legal team over the last two weeks.
       Because the president refused to acknowledge what he did, 
     his team implausibly denied there was a quid pro quo and 
     argued that one hadn't been proven since there were no first-
     hand witnesses. Obviously, this position was at odds with the 
     defense team's insistence that no further witnesses be 
     called. It also raised the natural question why, if people 
     with firsthand knowledge had exculpatory information, the 
     White House wasn't eager to let them come forward.
       Additionally, the White House maintained that a president 
     can't be impeached unless he's guilty of a criminal 
     violation. This is an erroneous interpretation of the 
     Constitution, although it is true that past presidential 
     impeachments have involved violations of the law and that 
     such violations provide a bright line that's missing if the 
     charge is only abuse of power. Alan Dershowitz argued this 
     position most aggressively for the president's defense, and 
     made it even worse by briefly seeming--before walking it 
     back--to argue that anything a president does to advance his 
     reelection is properly motivated.
       As for the House managers, they were at their strongest 
     making the case that the president had done what they 
     alleged, and their weakest arguing that he should be removed 
     for it.
       They tried to inflate the gravity of Trump's offense by 
     repeatedly calling it ``election interference.'' At the end 
     of the day, though, what the Trump team sought was not an 
     investigation of Joe or Hunter Biden, but a statement by the 
     Ukrainians that they'd look into Burisma, the Ukrainian 
     company on whose board Hunter Biden sat. The firm has a shady 
     past and has been investigated before. Trump should have 
     steered clear of anything involving his potential opponent, 
     but it's not obvious that a new Burisma probe would have had 
     any effect on 2020 (the vulnerability for Biden is Hunter's 
     payments, which are already on the record) and, of course, 
     the announcement of an investigation never happened.
       They said that Trump's seeking this Ukrainian interference 
     was in keeping with his welcoming of Russian meddling, 
     implying that Trump had been found guilty of colluding with 
     the Russians in 2016, rather than exonerated. (Part of the 
     complaint here is that Trump made use of material that 
     emerged via Russian hacking. Then again, so did Bernie 
     Sanders in his fight with the DNC.)
       They alleged that the brief delay in aid to Ukraine somehow 
     endangered our national security, a risible claim given that 
     the Ukrainians got the aid and that Trump has provided 
     Ukraine lethal assistance that President Obama never did.
       They accused the president of obstruction of justice for 
     asserting privileges invoked by other presidents and not 
     producing documents and witnesses on the House's accelerated 
     timeline, a charge that White House lawyer Patrick Philbin 
     effectively dismantled.
       Finally, they insisted that a trial without witnesses 
     wouldn't be fair, despite making no real effort to secure the 
     new witnesses during their own rushed impeachment inquiry.
       As for the Senate trial being a ``cover up,'' as Democrats 
     now insist it is, there is nothing stopping the House--or the 
     Senate, for that matter--from seeking testimony from John 
     Bolton and others outside the confines of the trial. This 
     would be entirely reasonable congressional oversight (despite 
     the White House arguing otherwise) and there is still a 
     public interest in knowing as much as possible about this 
     matter, even if Trump isn't going to be removed.
       If nothing else, the last two weeks have been a forum for 
     extensive discussion about the respective powers of the two 
     elected branches of government. We are sympathetic to the 
     view that the executive branch has too much power. If 
     Congress seeks to remedy this imbalance by impeaching and 
     removing presidents, though, it will be sorely disappointed, 
     since the two-thirds requirement for a Senate conviction is 
     an almost insuperable obstacle to removal (as both House 
     Republicans and House Democrats have experienced the last 20 
     years).
       It would be better if Congress undertook a more systematic 
     effort to take back prerogatives it has ceded to the 
     executive branch and the courts. But we aren't optimistic on 
     this score, since the same Democrats who claim to be 
     sticklers about congressional power on the Ukraine matter 
     won't say a discouraging word about Elizabeth Warren's and 
     Bernie Sanders's promised adventures in unilateral rule as 
     president.
       At the end of the day, Nancy Pelosi impeached knowing that 
     the Senate wouldn't convict, and so here we are--with nine 
     months to go until voters get to make their judgment: not 
     just about Ukraine, but about the last four years and Trump's 
     eventual opponent.
                                  ____


                      [From the AEI, Feb. 1, 2020]

      Alexander Got It Right: It Takes More To Remove a President

                            (By Robert Doar)

       ``It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign 
     leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold 
     United States aid to encourage that investigation. When 
     elected officials inappropriately interfere with such 
     investigations, it undermines the principle of equal justice 
     under the law. But the Constitution does not give the Senate 
     the power to remove the president from office and ban him 
     from this year's ballot simply for actions that are 
     inappropriate.''
       Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander's words reminded me of the 
     struggle my father, John Doar, had as he considered whether 
     the conduct of President Richard Nixon was so serious that it 
     should lead the House to impeach him and the Senate to remove 
     him from office. Dad was in charge of the House Judiciary 
     Committee staff, which took seven months (between December 
     1973 and July 1974) to examine the evidence and consider the 
     question. What he concluded, and what the House Judiciary 
     Committee by bipartisan majorities also found, was that Nixon 
     deserved impeachment and removal for a pattern of conduct 
     over a multi-year period that both obstructed justice and 
     abused power.
       So the first article, concerning obstruction of justice, 
     found that Nixon and his subordinates had tampered with 
     witnesses and interfered with the Department of Justice's 
     investigations. They had paid hush money and attempted to 
     misuse the CIA. And they had lied repeatedly to investigators 
     and the American people.
       On abuse of power, Nixon was found to have misused his 
     authority over the IRS, the FBI, the CIA, and the Secret 
     Service to defeat political opponents and protect himself, 
     and in the process he had violated the constitutional rights 
     of citizens. After he came

[[Page S880]]

     under suspicion, he tried to manipulate these agencies to 
     interfere with the investigation.
       President Trump's conduct toward Ukraine, though 
     inappropriate, differs significantly from Nixon's in one 
     crucial respect. Where Nixon's impeachable abuse of power 
     occurred over a period of several years, the conduct 
     challenged by the House's impeachment of Trump was not nearly 
     as prolonged. From July to September of last year, Trump 
     attempted to cajole a foreign government to open an 
     investigation into his political opponent. That conduct was 
     wrong. But it's not the same as what Nixon did over multiple 
     years.
       This contrast brings to light a critical difference between 
     the House's behavior in 1974 and its efforts today. When 
     Nixon's actions came to light, the House conducted an 
     impeachment the right way: The House Judiciary Committee took 
     seven months to examine all of the evidence, built up a 
     theory of the case which matched the Constitution's 
     requirements, and produced charges that implicated the 
     president and his subordinates in a pattern of impeachable 
     conduct. Faced with certain impeachment and removal from 
     office, Nixon resigned. What Trump attempted to do, as 
     Alexander rightly sees, is not that.
       Alexander is right about one other thing--we should let the 
     people decide who our next president should be.
                                  ____


                 [From the Knox TN Today, Feb. 4, 2020]

                            Lamar Was Right

                            (By Frank Cagle)

       Since I'm older than dirt, there have been occasions over 
     the years when first-term state legislators would ask me if I 
     had any advice for them.
       Yes.
       When a major and controversial issue looms study it, decide 
     where you are and let everyone know where you are. In other 
     words, pick a side early, have a reputation for keeping your 
     word, and do not be known as a member who will go where the 
     wind blows.
       Make sure you do not get into the group known as the 
     undecideds. You will get hammered by both sides, wooed by 
     both sides and hounded by the media. And finally, do not 
     under any circumstances be the deciding vote. Yours will be 
     the only vote anyone remembers.
       You would think someone who has been around as long as 
     Lamar Alexander could avoid this trap. But not so. In the 
     impeachment trial of President Trump, he got the label 
     undecided, he was then hounded by the media and hammered by 
     both sides over whether he would march in lockstep with 
     Majority Leader Mitch McConnell or whether he would vote to 
     call more witnesses as the Democrats wanted.
       And horror of horrors, he was the deciding vote and the 
     only one that will be remembered. When he announced how he 
     would vote the ``more witnesses'' movement collapsed.
       Alexander now finds himself being excoriated by both sides. 
     The Trump supporters will never forget his failure to fall in 
     line and salute. The anti-Trumpers are expressing their 
     disappointment.
       I've never been a Lamar fan. But I would like to make the 
     case that he did exactly the right thing and he expressed the 
     position of the majority of his Republican colleagues. He, 
     and anyone who has been paying attention, says Trump did what 
     he was accused of and what he did was wrong--inappropriate. 
     But it did not rise to the level of removing him from office. 
     There was no point in listening to additional witnesses and 
     dragging things out. Everyone knew he was guilty. But if 
     Trump is to be removed from office, let the voters do it.
       If you believe that Trump didn't hold up aid to Ukraine or 
     that he didn't ask them to investigate Joe Biden you have 
     surrendered your critical faculties or you haven't been 
     paying attention.
       Joe and Hunter Biden should be investigated. By the FBI. I 
     understand Trump's frustration that the mainstream media 
     could not be counted on to investigate what should be 
     disqualifying information about Biden's presidential run. (In 
     the media's defense, Trump's kids are also trading off their 
     father's position.) Trump's problem is that instead of 
     turning to the FBI he turned the problem over to Rudy 
     Giuliani and a couple of his questionable associates, 
     otherwise known as the ``Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight.''
       I doubt you could find 10 Republican senators who, in their 
     heart of hearts, didn't agree with Lamar's position. Many 
     have echoed his argument. But it will be Lamar who will take 
     the heat.
                                  ____


                  [From Meet the Press, Feb. 2, 2020]

   Interview With Senator Lamar Alexander, U.S. Senator for Tennessee

       Chuck Todd: Republican Senator Lamar Alexander of 
     Tennessee. Senator Alexander, welcome back.
       Senator Lamar Alexander: Thank you, Chuck.
       Todd: So one of the reasons you gave in your release about 
     not voting for more witnesses is that--and to decide that, 
     okay, this trial is over, let's let the people decide--was 
     that the election was too close. So let me ask you though, on 
     the witness vote itself, would it be helpful for the people 
     to decide if they had more information?
       Alexander: Well, I mean, if you have eight witnesses who 
     say someone left the scene of an accident, why do you need 
     nine? I mean, the question for me was, do I need more 
     evidence to conclude that the president did what he did? And 
     I concluded no. So I voted.
       Todd: What do you believe he did?
       Alexander: What I believe he did. One, was that he called 
     the president of Ukraine and asked him to become involved in 
     investigating Joe Biden, who was--
       Todd: You believe his wrongdoing began there, not before?
       Alexander: I don't know about that, but he admitted that. 
     The president admitted that. He released the transcript. He 
     said it on television. The second thing was, at least in 
     part, he delayed the military and other assistance to Ukraine 
     in order to encourage that investigation. Those are the two 
     things he did. I think he shouldn't have done it. I think it 
     was wrong. Inappropriate was the way I'd say it, improper, 
     crossing the line. And then the only question left is, who 
     decides what to do about that?
       Todd: Well, who decides what to do with that?
       Alexander: The people. The people is my conclusion. You 
     know, it struck me really for the first time early last week, 
     that we're not just being asked to remove the president from 
     office. We're saying, tell him you can't run in the 2020 
     election, which begins Monday in Iowa.
       Todd: If this weren't an election year, would you have 
     looked at this differently?
       Alexander: I would have looked at it differently and 
     probably come to the same conclusion because I think what he 
     did is a long way from treason, bribery, high crimes and 
     misdemeanors. I don't think it's the kind of inappropriate 
     action that the framers would expect the Senate to substitute 
     its judgment for the people in picking a president.
       Todd: Does it wear on you though that one of the 
     foundational ways that the framers wrote the constitution was 
     almost fear of foreign interference.
       Alexander: That's true.
       Todd: So, and here it is.
       Alexander: Well, if you hooked up with Ukraine to wage war 
     on the United States, as the first Senator from Tennessee 
     did, you could be expelled, but this wasn't that. What the 
     president should have done was, if he was upset about Joe 
     Biden and his son and what they were doing in Ukraine, he 
     should've called the Attorney General and told him that and 
     let the Attorney General handle it the way they always handle 
     cases that involve public things.
       Todd: Why you think he didn't do that?
       Alexander: Maybe he didn't know to do it.
       Todd: Okay. This has been a rationale that I've heard from 
     a lot of Republicans. Well boy, he's still new to this.
       Alexander: Well, a lot of people come to Washington--
       Todd: At what point though, is he no longer new to this?
       Alexander: The bottom line is not an excuse. He shouldn't 
     have done it. And I said he shouldn't have done it and now I 
     think it's up to the American people to say, okay, good 
     economy, lower taxes, conservative judges, behavior that I 
     might not like, call to Ukraine. And weigh that against 
     Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders and pick a president.
       Todd: Are you at all concerned though when you seek foreign 
     interference? He does not believe he's done anything wrong. 
     That what has happened here might encourage him that he can 
     continue to do this?
       Alexander: I don't think so. I hope not. I mean, enduring 
     an impeachment is something that nobody should like. Even the 
     president said he didn't want that on his resume. I don't 
     blame him. So, if a call like that gets you an impeachment, I 
     would think he would think twice before he did it again.
       Todd: What example in the life of Donald Trump has he been 
     chastened?
       Alexander: I haven't studied his life that close, but, like 
     most people who survive to make it to the Presidency, he's 
     sure of himself. But hopefully he'll look at this and say, 
     okay, that was a mistake I shouldn't have done that, 
     shouldn't have done it that way. And he'll focus on the 
     strengths of his Administration, which are considerable.
       Todd: Abuse of power, define it.
       Alexander: Well, that's the problem with abuse of power. As 
     Professor Dershowitz said during his argument, he had a list 
     of 40 presidents who'd been accused of abuse of power from 
     Washington to Obama. So it's too vague a standard to use to 
     impeach a president. And the founders didn't use it. I mean, 
     they said, I mean, think of what a high bar they set. They 
     said treason, bribery, high crimes or misdemeanors. And then 
     they said
       Todd: What do you think they meant by misdemeanors? 
     Violation of a public trust.
       Alexander: At the time they used it, misdemeanor meant a 
     different thing in Great Britain. But I think Dershowitz was 
     right. It was something akin to treason, bribery and other 
     high crimes and misdemeanors, very high. And then in addition 
     to that, two thirds of us in the Senate have to agree to 
     that, which is very hard to do, which is why we've never 
     removed a president this way in 230 years.
       Todd: One of your other reasonings was the partisan nature 
     of the impeachment vote itself in the House. Except now we 
     are answering a partisan impeachment vote in the House with a 
     partisan, I guess, I don't know what we would call this right 
     now.
       Alexander: Well you all it acquittal. That's what happens.
       Todd: An acquittal, but essentially also, on how the trial 
     was run--a partisan way from

[[Page S881]]

     the trial. So, if we make bipartisanship a standard, if 
     somebody has a stranglehold on a base of a political party, 
     then what you're saying is, you can overcome any impeachable 
     offense as long as you have this stranglehold on a group of 
     people.
       Alexander: Well, as far as what the Senate did, I thought 
     we gave a good hearing to the case. I mean, I help make sure 
     that we didn't dismiss it. We heard it. There were some who 
     wanted to dismiss it. I helped make sure that we had a right 
     to ask for more evidence if we needed it, which we thought we 
     didn't. We heard, we saw videotapes of 192 times that 
     witnesses testified. We sat there for 11 and 12 hour days for 
     nine days. So, I think we heard the case pretty well, but the 
     partisan points, the most important point to me, James 
     Madison, others thought there never, ever should be a wholly 
     partisan impeachment. And if you look at Nixon, when the vote 
     that authorized that inquiry was 410 to four and you look at 
     Trump, where not a single Republican voted for it. If you 
     start out with a partisan impeachment, you're almost destined 
     to have a partisan acquittal.
       Todd: Alright, but what do you do if you have somebody who 
     has the ability to essentially be a populist? You know, be 
     somebody who is able to say it's fake news. It's deep state. 
     Don't trust this. Don't trust that. The establishment is 
     doing this. And so don't worry about truth anymore. Don't 
     worry about what you hear over there. I mean, some may say 
     I'm painting an accurate picture. Some may be saying I'm 
     painting a radical picture. But how do you prevent that?
       Alexander: Well, the way you prevent that in our system, 
     according to the Declaration of Independence, is we have duly 
     elected presidents with the consent of the governed. So we 
     vote them out of office. The other thing we do is, as in the 
     Nixon case, Nixon had just been elected big in 1972 big time, 
     only lost only one state, I think. But then a consensus 
     developed, a bipartisan consensus, that what he was doing was 
     wrong. And then when they found the crimes, he only had 10 or 
     12 votes that would have kept him in the Senate. So he quit. 
     So those are the two options you have.
       Todd: Have we essentially eliminated impeachment as a tool 
     for a first-term president?
       Alexander: No, I don't think so. I think impeachment as a 
     tool should be rarely used and it's never been used in 230 
     years to remove a president. There been 63 impeachments, 
     eight convictions. They're all federal judges on a lower 
     standard.
       Todd: Does it bother you that the president's lead lawyer, 
     Pat Cipollone, is now fingered as being in the room with John 
     Bolton the first time the president asked John Bolton to call 
     the new President of Ukraine and have him take a meeting with 
     Rudy Giuliani? And I say that because Pat Cipollone is up 
     there arguing that there's no direct evidence and yet, he may 
     have been a firsthand witness.
       Alexander: Well, it doesn't have anything to do with my 
     decision because my decision was, did the president do it, 
     what he's charged with? He wasn't charged with a crime. He 
     was charged with two things. And my conclusion was, he did do 
     that and I don't need any more evidence to prove it. That 
     doesn't have anything to do with where Cipollone was.
       Todd: No, I say that does it only reinforce what some 
     believe is that the White House was disingenuous about this 
     the whole time. They've been disingenuous about how they've 
     handled subpoenas from the House or requests from the House.
       Alexander: I don't agree with that Chuck, either. The fact 
     of the matter is in the Nixon case, the House voted 410 to 
     four to authorize an inquiry. That means that it authorized 
     subpoenas by the judiciary committee for impeachment. This 
     House never did that. And so, all the subpoenas that they 
     asked for were not properly authorized. That's the reason 
     that the president didn't respond to them.
       Todd: Bill Clinton offered regret for his behavior. This 
     president has not. Does that bother you?
       Alexander: Well, there hasn't been a vote yet either, so 
     we'll see what he says and does. I think that's up to him.
       Todd: You're comfortable acquitting him before he says 
     something of regret. Would that not, would that not help make 
     your acquittal vote?
       Alexander: Well, I wasn't asked to decide who says his 
     level of regret. I was asked, did he make a phone call and 
     did he, at least in part, hold up aid in order to influence 
     an investigation of Joe Biden? I concluded yes. So I don't 
     need to assess his level of regret. What I hope he would do 
     is when he makes his State of the Union address, that he puts 
     this completely behind him, never mentions it and talks about 
     what he thinks he's done for the country and where we're 
     headed. He's got a pretty good story to tell. If he'll focus 
     on it.
       Todd: You're one of the few people that detailed what you 
     believe he did wrong. One of the few Republicans that have 
     accepted the facts as they were presented. Mitt Romney was 
     just uninvited from CPAC. Mike Pompeo can't speak freely in 
     talking about Maria Bonovich, the ousted ambassador. Is there 
     room for dissent in the Republican party right now?
       Alexander: Well, I believe there is. I mean, I dissent when 
     I need to. Whether it's on--
       Todd: --not easy though right now, is it?
       Alexander: Well, I voted in a way that not everybody 
     appreciated on immigration. Just before I was reelected, I 
     voted against the president's decision to use what I thought 
     was unauthorized money to build a wall, even though I think 
     we need the wall. I said, I thought he did it this past week 
     and we'll vote to acquit him. So I'm very comfortable saying 
     what I believe. And I think others can as well.
       Todd: You know, in that phone call, there's one thing on 
     the phone call that I'm surprised frankly, hasn't been 
     brought up more by others. It's the mere mention of the word, 
     CrowdStrike is a Russian intelligence sort of piece of 
     propaganda that they've been circulating. Does it bother you 
     that the President of United States is reiterating Russian 
     propaganda?
       Alexander: Yes. I think that's a mistake. I mean if you, 
     see what's happening in the Baltic States where Russians have 
     a big warehouse in St. Petersburg in Russia where they're 
     devoted to destabilizing Western democracies. I mean, for 
     example, in one of the Baltic States, they accused a NATO 
     officer of raping a local girl--of course it didn't happen, 
     but it threw the government in a complete disarray for a 
     week. So I think we need to be sensitive to the fact that the 
     Russians are out to do no good to destabilize Western 
     democracies, including us. And be very wary of theories that 
     Russians come up with and peddle.
       Todd: Well, I was just going to say this, is it not 
     alarming? The President of United States in this phone call 
     and you clearly are judging him on the phone, more so than,
       Alexander: Well the phone call and the evidence. There was 
     plenty of evidence. I mean the House managers came to us and 
     said, we have overwhelming evidence. We have a mountain of 
     evidence and we approve it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Which 
     made me think, well then why do you need more evidence?
       Todd: Do you think it's more helpful for the public to hear 
     from John Bolton?
       Alexander: They'll read his book in two weeks.
       Todd: You don't want to see him testify.
       Alexander: Well, if the question is do I need more evidence 
     to think the president did it, the answer is no. I guess I'm 
     coming back to this issue--if you looked at it as an isolated 
     incident, here he is using Russian propaganda in order to try 
     to talk to this new president of Ukraine. That's alarming. 
     Where is he getting this CrowdStrike propaganda. My view is 
     that that is Russian propaganda. Maybe he has information 
     that I didn't have.
       Todd: Okay. Are you definitely voting to acquit or do you 
     think you may vote present?
       Alexander: No question. I'm going to vote to acquit. I'm 
     very concerned about any action that we could take that would 
     establish a perpetual impeachment in the House of 
     Representatives whenever the House was a different party than 
     the president. That would immobilize the Senate. You know, we 
     have to take those articles, stop what we're doing, sit in 
     our chairs for 11 hours a day for three or four weeks and 
     consider it. And it would immobilize the presidency. So I 
     don't want a situation--and the framers didn't either--where 
     a partisan majority in the house of either party can stop the 
     government.
       Todd: You used the phrase ``pour gasoline on a fire.''
       Alexander: Yeah.
       Todd: It certainly struck home with me reading you saying 
     something that I've been thinking long and hard about. How 
     concerned are you about the democracy as it stands right now?
       Alexander: Well, I'm concerned and I want to give credit to 
     Marco Rubio because that's really his phrase. I borrowed it 
     from him--pouring gasoline on the cultural fires.
       Todd: He went a step further. He said this was an 
     impeachable offense, but he was uncomfortable in an election 
     year.
       Alexander: But, I'm concerned about the divisions in the 
     country. They're reflected in the Senate. They make it harder 
     to get a result. I mean, I work pretty hard to get results on 
     healthcare, making it easier to go to college. And we've had 
     some real success with it. But the Senate is for the purpose 
     of solving big problems that the country will accept. And 
     that goes back to what happened this past week. The country 
     would not have accepted the Senate saying to it, you can't 
     vote for or against President Trump in the Iowa caucus, New 
     Hampshire primary, or the election this year.
       Todd: Are you glad you're leaving?
       Alexander: No, I've really loved being in the Senate, but 
     it's time for me to go on, turn the page, think of something 
     else to do. It'll be my third permanent retirement.
       Todd: You've retired a few times, is this one going to 
     stick?
       Alexander: Well, we'll see.
       Todd: Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican from Tennessee, 
     our always thoughtful guest. Thanks for coming on.
       Alexander: Thank you, Chuck.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
  Mr. SASSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to introduce into 
the Senate Record and into the impeachment trial record an op-ed that I 
wrote in the Omaha World-Herald this morning.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S882]]

  


              [From the Omaha World Herald, Feb. 4, 2020]

   Midlands Voices: Open Letter From Ben Sasse Presents His Take on 
                              Impeachment

                             (By Ben Sasse)

       Impeachment is serious. It's the ``Break Glass in Case of 
     Emergency'' provision of the Constitution.
       I plan to vote against removing the president, and I write 
     to explain this decision to the Nebraskans on both sides who 
     have advocated so passionately.
       An impeachment trial requires senators to carry out two 
     responsibilities: We're jurors sworn to ``do impartial 
     justice.'' We're also elected officeholders responsible for 
     promoting the civic welfare of the country. We must consider 
     both the facts before us, and the long-term effects of the 
     verdict rendered. I believe removal is the wrong decision.
       Let's start with the facts of the case. It's clear that the 
     president had mixed motives in his decision to temporarily 
     withhold military aid from Ukraine. The line between personal 
     and public was not firmly safeguarded. But it is important to 
     understand, whether one agrees with him or not, three things 
     President Trump believes:
       He believes foreign aid is almost always a bad deal for 
     America. I don't believe this, but he has maintained this 
     position consistently since the 1980s.
       He believes the American people need to know the 2016 
     election was legitimate, and he believes it's dangerous if 
     they worry Russia picked America's president. About this, 
     he's right.
       He believes the Crowdstrike theory of 2016, that Ukraine 
     conducted significant meddling in our election. I don't 
     believe this theory, but the president has heard it 
     repeatedly from people he trusts, chiefly Rudy Giuliani, and 
     he believes it.
       These beliefs have consequences. When the president spoke 
     to Ukraine's president Zelensky in July 2019, he seems to 
     have believed he was doing something that was simultaneously 
     good for America, and good for himself politically--namely, 
     reinforcing the legitimacy of his 2016 victory. It is worth 
     remembering that that phone call occurred just days after 
     Robert Mueller's two-year investigation into the 2016 
     election concluded that ``the investigation did not establish 
     that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated 
     with the Russian government in its election interference 
     activities.''
       This is not a blanket excuse, of course. Some of the 
     president's lawyers have admitted that the way the 
     administration conducted policymaking toward Ukraine was 
     wrong. I agree. The call with Zelensky was certainly not 
     ``perfect,'' and the president's defense was made weaker by 
     staking out that unrepentant position.
       Moreover, Giuliani's off-the-books foreign policy-making is 
     unacceptable, and his role in walking the president into this 
     airplane propeller is underappreciated: His Crowdstrike 
     theory was a bonkers attempt not only to validate Trump's 
     2016 election, and to flip the media's narrative of Russian 
     interference, but also to embarrass a possible opponent. One 
     certainty from this episode is that America's Mayor shouldn't 
     be any president's lawyer. It's time for the president and 
     adults on his team to usher Rudy off the stage--and to ensure 
     that we do not normalize rogue foreign policy conducted by 
     political operatives with murky financial interests.
       There is no need to hear from any 18th impeachment witness, 
     beyond the 17 whose testimony the Senate reviewed, to confirm 
     facts we already know. Even if one concedes that John 
     Bolton's entire testimony would support Adam Schiff's 
     argument, this doesn't add to the reality already 
     established: The aid delay was wrong.
       But in the end, the president wasn't seduced by the most 
     malign voices; his honest advisers made sure Ukraine got the 
     aid the law required. And importantly, this happened three 
     weeks before the legal deadline. To repeat: The president's 
     official staff repeatedly prevailed upon him, Ukraine 
     ultimately got the money, and no political investigation was 
     initiated or announced.
       You don't remove a president for initially listening to bad 
     advisors but eventually taking counsel from better advisors--
     which is precisely what happened here.
       There is another prudential question, though, beyond the 
     facts of the case: What is the right thing for the long-term 
     civic health of our country? Will America be more stable in 
     2030 if the Senate--nine months from Election Day 2020--
     removes the president?
       In our Constitution's 232 years, no president has ever been 
     removed from office by the Senate. Today's debate comes at a 
     time when our institutions of self-government are suffering a 
     profound crisis of legitimacy, on both sides of the aisle. 
     This is not a new crisis since 2016; its sources run much 
     deeper and longer.
       We need to shore up trust. A reckless removal would do the 
     opposite, setting the nation on fire. Half of the citizenry--
     tens of millions who intended to elect a disruptive 
     outsider--would conclude that D.C. insiders overruled their 
     vote, overturned an election and struck their preferred 
     candidate from the ballot.
       This one-party removal attempt leaves America more bitterly 
     divided. It makes it more likely that impeachment, intended 
     as a tool of last resort for the most serious presidential 
     crimes, becomes just another bludgeon in the bag of tricks 
     for the party out of power. And more Americans will conclude 
     that constitutional self-government today is nothing more 
     than partisan bloodsport.
       We must do better. Our kids deserve better. Most of the 
     restoration and healing will happen far from Washington, of 
     course. But this week, senators have an important role: Get 
     out of the way, and allow the American people to render their 
     verdict on election day.

  Mr. SASSE. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The Senator from California.
  Ms. HARRIS. Mr. President, when the Framers wrote the Constitution, 
they didn't think someone like me would serve as a U.S. Senator, but 
they did envision someone like Donald Trump being President of the 
United States, someone who thinks he is above the law and that rules 
don't apply to him. So they made sure our democracy had the tool of 
impeachment to stop that kind of abuse of power.
  The House managers have clearly laid out a compelling case and 
evidence of Donald Trump's misconduct. They have shown that the 
President of the United States of America withheld military aid and a 
coveted White House meeting for his political gain. He wanted a foreign 
country to announce--not actually conduct, announce--an investigation 
into his political rivals. Then he refused to comply with congressional 
investigations into his misconduct. Unfortunately, a majority of U.S. 
Senators, even those who concede that what Donald Trump did was wrong, 
are nonetheless going to refuse to hold him accountable.
  The Senate trial of Donald Trump has been a miscarriage of justice. 
Donald Trump is going to get away with abusing his position of power 
for personal gain, abusing his position of power to stop Congress from 
looking into his misconduct and falsely claim he has been exonerated. 
He is going to escape accountability because a majority of Senators 
have decided to let him. They voted repeatedly to block key evidence 
like witnesses and documents that could have shed light on the full 
truth.
  We must recognize that still in America there are two systems of 
justice--one for the powerful and another for everyone else. So let's 
speak the truth about what our two systems of justice actually mean in 
the real world. It means that in our country too many people walk into 
courthouses and face systemic bias. Too often they lack adequate legal 
representation, whether they are overworked, underpaid, or both. It 
means that a young man named Emmett Till was falsely accused and then 
murdered, but his murderer didn't have to spend a day in jail. It means 
that four young Black men have their lives taken and turned upside-down 
after being falsely accused of a crime in Groveland, FL. It means that, 
right now, too many people in America are sitting in jail without 
having yet been convicted of a crime but simply because they cannot 
afford bail. And it means that future Presidents of the United States 
will remember that the U.S. Senate failed to hold Donald Trump 
accountable, and they will be emboldened to abuse their power knowing 
there will be no consequence.
  Donald Trump knows all this better than anybody. He may not 
acknowledge that we have two systems of justice, but he knows the 
institutions in this country, be it the courts or the Senate, are set 
up to protect powerful people like him. He told us as much when, 
regarding the sexual assault of women, he said, ``When you're a star, 
they let you do it. You can do anything.'' He said that article II of 
the U.S. Constitution gives him, as President, the right to do whatever 
he wants.
  Trump has shown us through his words and actions that he thinks he is 
above the law. And when the American people see the President acting as 
though he is above the law, it understandably leaves them feeling 
distrustful of our system of justice, distrustful of our democracy. 
When the U.S. Senate refuses to hold him accountable, it reinforces 
that loss of trust in our system.
  Now, I am under no illusion that this body is poised to hold this 
President accountable, but despite the conduct of the U.S. Senate in 
this impeachment trial, the American people must continue to strive 
toward the more perfect Union that our Constitution promises. It is 
going to take all of us--in every State, every town, everywhere--to 
continue fighting for the best of who we

[[Page S883]]

are as a country. We each have an important role to play in fighting 
for those words inscribed on the U.S. Supreme Court building: ``Equal 
Justice Under Law.''
  Frederick Douglass, who I, like many, consider to be one of the 
Founders of our Nation, wrote that ``the whole history of the progress 
of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august 
claims have been born of earnest struggle.''
  The impeachment of Donald Trump has been one of those earnest 
struggles for liberty, and this fight, like so many before it, has been 
a fight against tyranny. This struggle has not been an easy one, and it 
has left too many people across our Nation feeling cynical. For too 
many people, this trial confirmed something they have always known, 
that the real power in this country lies not with them but with just a 
few people who advance their own interests at the expense of others' 
needs. For many, the injustice in this trial is yet another example of 
the way that our system of justice has worked or, more accurately, 
failed to work.
  But here is the thing. Frederick Douglass also told us that ``if 
there is no struggle, there is no progress.'' He went on to say: 
``Power concedes nothing without a demand.'' And he said: ``It never 
did, and it never will.''
  In order to wrestle power away from the few people at the very top 
who abuse their power, the American people are going to have to fight 
for the voice of the people and the power of the people. We must go 
into the darkness to shine a light, and we cannot be deterred and we 
cannot be overwhelmed and we cannot ever give up on our country.
  We cannot ever give up on the ideals that are the foundation for our 
system of democracy. We can never give up on the meaning of true 
justice. And it is part of our history, our past, clearly, our present, 
and our future that, in order to make these values real, in order to 
make the promise of our country real, we can never take it for granted.
  There will be moments in time, in history, where we experience 
incredible disappointment, but the greatest disappointment of all will 
be if we give up. We cannot ever give up fighting for who we know we 
are, and we must always see who we can be, unburdened by who we have 
been. That is the strength of our Nation.
  So, after the Senate votes today, Donald Trump will want the American 
people to feel cynical. He will want us not to care. He will want us to 
think that he is all powerful and we have no power, but we are not 
going to let him get away with that.
  We are not going to give him what he wants because the true power and 
potential of the United States of America resides not with the 
President but with the people--all the people.
  So, in our long struggle for justice, I will do my part by voting to 
convict this lawless President and remove him from office, and I urge 
my colleagues to join me on the right side of history.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Ms. HASSAN. Mr. President, considering whether to convict a President 
of the United States on Articles of Impeachment is a solemn and 
consequential duty, and I do not take it lightly. Even before we had a 
country, our Founders put forward the notion of ``country first,'' 
pledging in the Declaration of Independence their lives, fortunes, and 
sacred honor--a pledge they made to an idea, imagining and hoping for a 
country where no one was above the law, where no one had absolute 
power.
  My dad, a World War II veteran, and my mom raised me to understand 
that this is what made our country the unique and indispensable 
democracy that it is.
  My obligation throughout this process has been to listen carefully to 
the case that the House managers put forward and the defenses asserted 
by the President's lawyers, and then to carefully consider the 
constitutional basis for impeachment, the intent of our Founders, and 
the facts.
  That is what I have done over the past few days. The Senate heard 
extensive presentations from both sides and answers to the almost 200 
questions that Senators posed to the House managers and the President's 
advocates.
  The facts clearly showed that President Trump abused the public's 
sacred trust by using taxpayer dollars to extort a foreign government 
into providing misinformation about a feared political opponent.
  Let me repeat that. The President of the United States used taxpayer 
money that had been authorized, obligated, and cleared for delivery as 
critical military aid to Ukraine to try to force that country to 
interfere in our elections. He violated the law and the public trust. 
And he put our national security, and the lives of the Ukrainian 
soldiers on the frontlines of Russian aggression at risk.
  Although the country was alerted to the possibility that the 
President had crossed a critical line because of revelations about his 
now-infamous July 25 phone call, it is not the phone call alone that 
led to the President's impeachment. Instead, the phone call was a 
pivotal point in a scheme that had started earlier, spearheaded by 
President Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani.
  Mr. Giuliani has acknowledged that he was doing the President's 
personal and political bidding when he engaged with the Ukrainian 
government.
  As the newly elected anti-corruption Ukrainian Government came into 
power, in need of recognition and support from the United States, 
President Trump forced officials from Ukraine and the United States to 
negotiate through Mr. Giuliani, conflating his personal and political 
interests with the national security and diplomatic interests of our 
country.
  And then, as President Zelensky resisted the request that he concoct 
and announce a fake investigation into the Bidens, the President and 
Mr. Giuliani increased the pressure. Suddenly, and without explanation 
or a legally required notification to Congress, the President ordered 
that previously approved and critically needed military aid to Ukraine 
be held up.
  Mr. Trump, at first through Mr. Giuliani, and then directly, 
solicited interference with an American election from a foreign 
government. And he ordered others in his administration to work with 
Mr. Giuliani to ensure this scheme's success.
  While there is still more evidence that the Senate should have 
subpoenaed both witnesses and documents that would have given us a more 
complete understanding of what happened, we know as much as we do 
because of the courage and strength of American patriots who put 
country before self--patriots like the intelligence community 
whistleblower, who was followed by Army Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, and 
former U.S. Ambassadors to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch and William 
Taylor, as well as current members of the administration.
  These Americans who came forward were doing exactly what we always 
ask of citizens: If you see something wrong, you need to speak up; 
``See something, say something.'' It is a fundamental part of 
citizenship to alert each other to danger, to act for the greater good, 
to care about each other and our country without regard to political 
party.
  When Americans step forward, sometimes at real risk to themselves, 
they rightly expect that their government will take the information 
they provide and act to make them safer, to protect their fundamental 
rights. That is the understanding between the American people and their 
representative government.
  While the brave women and men who appeared before the House did their 
jobs, the Senate, under this majority, has unfortunately not. Rather 
than gathering full, relevant testimony under oath and with the benefit 
of cross-examination, the Senate majority has apparently decided that 
despite what it has heard, it is not interested in learning more; not 
interested in learning more about how a President, his personal agent, 
and members of his administration corrupted our foreign policy and put 
our Nation's security at risk; not interested in learning more about 
how they planned to use the power of his office to tilt the scales of 
the next election to ensure that he stays in power; not interested in 
learning more about how they worked to cover it up.
  Increasingly, over the last few days, the President's defense team 
and more and more of my colleagues in the Senate have acknowledged the 
facts of the

[[Page S884]]

President's scheme. Their argument has shifted from ``He didn't do it'' 
to ``He had a right to,'' to ``He won't do it again,'' or even ``It 
doesn't really matter.''
  I disagree so strongly.
  The idea that in our country, established by the very rejection of a 
monarchy, the President has absolute power is absurd, as is the idea 
that this President, whose conduct is ultimately the cause of this 
entire process, will suddenly stop. President Trump continues to invite 
foreign powers to interfere with our elections, maintaining to this day 
that ``it was a perfect call.''
  Our Founders knew that all people, all leaders, are fallible human 
beings. And they knew that our system of checks and balances could 
survive some level of human frailty, even in as important an office as 
the Presidency.
  The one thing that they feared it could not survive was a President 
who would put self-interest before the interests of the American people 
or who didn't understand the difference between the two. As citizen-in-
chief, and one wielding enormous power, Presidents must put country 
first.
  Our Founders knew that we needed a mechanism to hold Presidents 
accountable for behavior that violated that basic understanding and 
that would threaten our democracy. And they provided a mechanism for 
removal outside of the election process because of the immense damage a 
President could do in the time between elections--damage, in the case 
of this President's continuing behavior, to our national security and 
election integrity.
  Our Founders believed that they were establishing a country that 
would be unique in the history of humankind, a country that would be 
indispensable, built on the rule of law, not the whims of a ruler. 
Generation after generation of Americans have fought for that vision 
because of what it has meant to our individual and collective success 
and to the progress of humankind worldwide.
  That is the America that I have sworn an oath to protect. I will vote 
in favor of both Articles of Impeachment because the President's 
conduct requires it, Congress's responsibility as a coequal branch of 
government requires it, and the very foundation and security of our 
American idea requires it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. JONES. Mr. President, on the day I was sworn in as a United 
States Senator, I took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. 
Just last month, at the beginning of the impeachment trial, I took a 
second oath to do fair and impartial justice, according to the same 
Constitution I swore to protect.
  As I took the oath and throughout the impeachment trial, I couldn't 
help but think of my father. As many of you know, I lost my dad over 
the holiday recess. While so many were arguing over whether or not the 
Speaker of the House should send Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, 
I was struggling with watching him slip away, while only occasionally 
trying to weigh in with my voice to be heard about the need for 
witnesses in the upcoming impeachment trial. My dad was a great man, a 
loving husband, father, grandfather, and great-grandfather who did his 
best to instill in me the values of right and wrong as I grew up in 
Fairfield, AL. He was also a fierce patriot who loved this country. 
Although, fortunately, he was never called on to do so, I firmly 
believe he would have placed his country even above his family because 
he knew and understood fully what America and the freedoms and 
liberties that come with her mean to everyone in this great country 
and, significantly, to people around the world.
  I know he would have put his country before any allegiance to any 
political party or even to any President. He was on the younger side of 
that ``greatest generation'' who joined the Navy at age 17 to serve our 
great military. That service and love of country shaped him into the 
man of principle that he was, instilling in me those same principles. 
In thinking of him, his patriotism, his principles, and how he raised 
me, I am reminded of Robert Kennedy's words that were mentioned in this 
trial:

       Few men are willing to brave the disapproval of their 
     fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their 
     society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in 
     battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, 
     vital quality for those who seek to change a world that 
     yields most painfully to change.

  Candidly, to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I fear that 
moral courage, country before party is a rare commodity these days. We 
can write about it and talk about it in speeches and in the media, but 
it is harder to put into action when political careers may be on the 
line. Nowhere is the dilemma more difficult than in an impeachment of 
the President of the United States. Very early on in this process, I 
implored my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, in both Houses of 
Congress, to stay out of their political and partisan corners. Many 
did, but so many did not. Even the media continually view this entire 
process through partisan, political eyes and how it may or may not 
affect an election. That is unfortunate. The country deserves better, 
and we must find a way to move beyond such partisan divides.
  The solemn oaths that I have taken have been my guides during what 
has been a difficult time for the country, my State, and for me 
personally. I did not run for the Senate hoping to participate in the 
impeachment trial of a duly elected President, but I cannot and will 
not shrink from my duty to defend the Constitution and to do impartial 
justice.
  In keeping with my oath as Senator and my oath to do impartial 
justice, I resolved that throughout this process, I would keep an open 
mind, to consider the evidence without regard to political affiliation, 
and to hear all of the evidence before making a final decision on 
either charge against the President. I believe that my votes later 
today will reflect that commitment.
  With the eyes of history upon us, I am acutely aware of the 
precedents that this impeachment trial will set for future Presidencies 
and Congresses. Unfortunately, I do not believe that those precedents 
are good ones. I am particularly concerned that we have now set a 
precedent that the Senate does not have to go forward with witnesses or 
review documents, even when those witnesses have firsthand information 
and the documents would allow us to test not just the credibility of 
witnesses but also test the words of counsel of both parties.
  It is my firm belief that the American people deserve more. In short, 
witnesses and documents would provide the Senate and the American 
people with a more complete picture of the truth. I believe the 
American people deserve nothing less.
  That is not to say, however, that there is not sufficient evidence in 
which to render a judgment. There is. As a trial lawyer, I once 
explained this process to a jury as like putting together the pieces of 
a puzzle. When you open the box and spread all the pieces on the table, 
it is just an incoherent jumble. But one by one, you hold those pieces 
up, and you hold them next to each other and see what fits and what 
doesn't. Even if, as was often the case in my house growing up, you are 
missing a few pieces--even important ones--you more often than not see 
the picture.
  As I have said many times, I believe the American people deserve to 
see a completed puzzle, a picture with all of the pieces--pieces in the 
form of documents and witnesses with relevant, firsthand information, 
which would have provided valuable context, corroboration, or 
contradiction to that which we have heard. But even with missing 
pieces, our common sense and life's experiences allow us to see the 
picture as it comes into full view.
  Throughout the trial, one piece of evidence continued to stand out 
for me. It was the President's statement that under the Constitution, 
``we have Article II, and I can do anything I want.'' That seems to 
capture this President's belief about the Presidency; that he has 
unbridled power, unchecked by Congress or the Judiciary or anyone 
else. That view, dangerous as it is, explains the President's actions 
toward Ukraine and Congress.

  The sum of what we have seen and heard is, unfortunately, a picture 
of a President who has abused the great power of his office for 
personal gain--a picture of a President who has placed his personal 
interest well above the interests of the Nation and, in so doing,

[[Page S885]]

threatened our national security, the security of our European allies, 
and the security of Ukraine. The evidence clearly proves that the 
President used the weight of his office and the weight of the U.S. 
Government to seek to coerce a foreign government to interfere in our 
election for his personal political benefit. His actions were more than 
simply inappropriate; they were an abuse of power.
  When I was a lawyer for the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission, 
there was a saying that the chairman of the inquiry commission and one 
of Alabama's great judges, Randall Cole, used to say about judges who 
strayed from the canons of ethics. He would say that the judge ``left 
his post.''
  Sadly, President Trump left his post with regard to the withholding 
of military aid to Ukraine and a White House visit for the new 
Ukrainian President, and in so doing, he took the great powers of the 
Office of the President of the United States with him. Impeachment is 
the only check on such Presidential wrongdoing.
  The second article of impeachment, obstruction of Congress, gave me 
more pause. I have struggled to understand the House's strategy in 
their failure to fully pursue documents and witnesses and wished that 
they had done more. However, after careful consideration of the 
evidence developed in the hearings, the public disclosures, the legal 
precedents, and the trial, I believe that the President deliberately 
and unconstitutionally obstructed Congress by refusing to cooperate 
with the investigation in any way. While I am sensitive to protecting 
the privileges and immunities afforded to the President and his 
advisers, I believe it is critical to our constitutional structure that 
we also protect the authorities of the Congress of the United States. 
Here it was clear from the outset that the President had no intention 
whatsoever of accommodating Congress when he blocked both witnesses and 
documents from being produced. In addition, he engaged in a course of 
conduct to threaten potential witnesses and smear the reputations of 
the civil servants who did come forward and provide testimony.
  The President's actions demonstrate a belief that he is above the 
law, that Congress has no power whatsoever in questioning or examining 
his actions, and that all who do so, do so at their peril. That belief, 
unprecedented in the history of this country, simply must not be 
permitted to stand. To do otherwise risks guaranteeing that no future 
whistleblower or witness will ever come forward, and no future 
President, Republican or Democrat, will be subject to congressional 
oversight as mandated by the Constitution even when the President has 
so clearly abused his office and violated the public trust.
  Accordingly, I will vote to convict the President on both Articles of 
Impeachment. In doing so, I am mindful that in a democracy there is 
nothing more sacred than the right to vote and respecting the will of 
the people. But I am also mindful that when our Founders wrote the 
Constitution, they envisioned a time or at least a possibility that our 
democracy would be more damaged if we fail to impeach and remove a 
President. Such is the moment in history that we face today.
  The gravity of this moment, the seriousness of the charges, and the 
implication for future Presidencies and Congress have all contributed 
to the difficulty at which I arrived at my decision.
  I am mindful that I am standing at a desk that once was used by John 
F. Kennedy, who famously wrote ``Profiles in Courage,'' and there will 
be so many who simply look at what I am doing today and say that it is 
a profile in courage. It is not. It is simply a matter of right and 
wrong, where doing right is not a courageous act; it is simply 
following your oath.
  This has been a divisive time for our country, but I think it has 
nonetheless been an important constitutional process for us to follow. 
As this chapter of history draws to a close, one thing is clear to me. 
As I have said before, our country deserves better than this. They 
deserve better from the President, and they deserve better from the 
Congress. We must find a way to come together, to set aside partisan 
differences, and to focus on what we have in common as Americans.
  While so much is going in our favor these days, we still face great 
challenges, both domestically and internationally. But it remains my 
firm belief that united we can conquer them and remain the greatest 
hope for the people around the world.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, today the Senate is called upon to uphold 
our oath of office and our duty to the Constitution because President 
Trump failed to do so himself.
  After listening closely to the impeachment managers and the 
President's defense team, weighing the evidence that was presented to 
us, and being denied the opportunity to see relevant documents and hear 
from firsthand witnesses, I will vote to find President Trump guilty on 
both Articles of Impeachment.
  I take no pleasure in voting to impeach a President and remove him 
from office. I agree with those who say that impeachment should be rare 
and American voters should decide our elections. That is why it is so 
galling that President Trump blatantly solicited foreign interference 
in our democratic process. And he did it as he geared up for 
reelection.
  The evidence shows President Trump deliberately and illicitly sought 
foreign help to manufacture a scandal that would elevate him by 
tarnishing a political rival.
  He attempted to undermine our democracy, using U.S. taxpayer money in 
the form of U.S. military aid for Ukraine as leverage for his own 
personal benefit. The President's aides who heard President Trump's 
call seeking ``a favor'' from the Ukrainian President immediately 
sensed it was wrong. So when they alerted the White House lawyers, the 
record of the call was immediately placed on a highly classified 
computer system. And despite the President claiming that the version of 
the call that was publicly released ``is an exact word-for-word 
transcript of the conversation,'' we know from testimony that there are 
key omissions in the document we all read.
  Compounding the President's misconduct, he then engaged in an 
extended cover up that appears to be ongoing to this day.
  There is a lot to unravel here, and I will provide a more detailed 
legal explanation in the near future. But for now, let me briefly 
explain my decision and outline my thoughts on the Senate's impeachment 
proceedings and the disturbing precedents I fear will be set when the 
majority chooses to side with the President over the Constitution's 
checks and balances.
  The House of Representatives voted to impeach the President for abuse 
of power and obstruction of Congress. Based on the uncontested 
evidence, I concur.
  It is clear that President Trump and others, such as Mr. Giuliani, 
who was serving as the President's lawyer, attempted to coerce the 
newly elected President of Ukraine to announce two sham investigations, 
including one that sought to directly damage President Trump's rival in 
the upcoming election. The President's actions served his personal and 
political needs, not those of our country. His efforts to withhold 
military aid to Ukraine for his own personal benefit undermined our 
national security.
  The second article of impeachment charges the President with 
obstruction of Congress for blocking testimony and refusing to provide 
documents in response to House subpoenas in the impeachment inquiry. 
Again, the House managers produced overwhelming evidence of the 
President's obstruction and his efforts to cover up his malfeasance.
  The President's counsel offered a number of unpersuasive arguments 
against this article, which fail to overcome the following: first, that 
the legislative branch has sole power over impeachment under the 
Constitution. That could not be more clear; second, past precedents of 
prior administrations and court rulings; and third, the blatant October 
8 letter expressing a complete rejection of the House's impeachment 
proceedings.
  The Constitution grants the executive branch significant power, but 
as every student in America learns, our system is one of checks and 
balances so that no branch is entirely unfettered from oversight and 
the law.

[[Page S886]]

  President Trump would have us believe this system of checks and 
balances is wrong. In President Trump's own words, he expressed the 
misguided imperial belief in the supremacy of his unchecked power, 
stating, quote: ``I have an Article II, where I have the right to do 
whatever I want as President.''
  Couple this sentiment with his January 2016 boast that, quote: ``I 
could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I 
wouldn't lose voters.'' That paints a chilling picture of someone who 
clearly believes, incorrectly, that he is above the law. The 
President's attorneys have hewn to this line of faulty reasoning and, 
in one notably preposterous effort, even claimed the President could 
avoid impeachment for an inappropriate action motivated entirely by his 
own political and personal interests.
  The President's defense also failed to sufficiently demonstrate that 
the President's blanket defiance of subpoenas and document requests 
overcomes the precedents established in prior impeachment proceedings 
and the record of congressional oversight of the executive branch.
  In the Clinton impeachment, there was an enormous amount of 
documentary evidence, as well as sworn depositions and testimony by the 
President and his closest advisers.
  In the cases of United States v. Nixon, House Judiciary Committee v. 
Miers, and others, the House managers rightly point out that the courts 
have held ``Congress's power to investigate is as broad as its power to 
legislate and lies at the heart of Congress's constitutional role.''
  While President Trump's impeachment lawyers claim the House should 
take the President to court over these previously settled issues, 
President Trump's lawyers at the Justice Department are simultaneously 
arguing in the courts that the judicial branch cannot even rule on such 
matters.
  As President Trump staked out new, expansive, and aggressive 
positions about executive privilege, immunity, and the limits of 
Congress's oversight authority, Republican leaders went along with it.
  I have heard a variety of explanations for why my Republican 
colleagues voted against witnesses. But no one has offered the simplest 
explanation: My Republican colleagues did not want to hear new evidence 
because they have a hunch it would be really, really bad for this 
President. It would further expose the depth of his wrongdoing. And it 
would make it harder for them to vote to acquit.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle did not ask to be put in 
this position. President Trump's misconduct forced it on them. But in 
the partisan rush to spare President Trump from having his staff and 
former staff publicly testify against him under oath, a bar has been 
lowered, a constitutional guardrail has been removed, the Senate has 
been voluntarily weakened, and our oversight powers severely 
diminished.
  This short-term maneuver to shield President Trump from the truth is 
a severe blow against good government that will do lasting damage to 
this institution and our democracy. I hope one day the damage can be 
repaired.
  The arc of history is indeed long, and it does bend toward justice--
but not today. Today, the Senate and the American people have been 
denied access to relevant, available evidence and firsthand witnesses. 
We have been prohibited from considering new, material information that 
became available after the House's impeachment vote.
  The Constitution is our national compass. But at this critical 
moment, clouded by the fog of President Trump's misconduct, the Senate 
majority has lost its way, and is no longer guided by the Constitution. 
In order to regain our moral bearings, stay true to our core values, 
and navigate a better path forward, we must hold President Trump 
accountable.
  The President was wrong to invite foreign interference in our 
democracy. He was wrong to try and stonewall the investigation. And he 
is wrong if he thinks he is above the law.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, from the first words in the 
Constitution, the weight that lies on every American's shoulders has 
been clear: We the people are the ones who dreamed up this wild 
experiment that we call America, and we the people are the ones charged 
with ensuring its survival.
  That is the tension--the push and the pull--behind our democracy 
because, while there is no greater privilege than living in a country 
whose Constitution guarantees our rights, there is no greater burden 
than knowing that our actions could sap that very same Constitution of 
its power; that our inaction risks allowing it to wither like any other 
piece of parchment from some bygone era.
  For the past few weeks, it has been my sworn duty as a U.S. Senator 
to sit as an impartial juror in the impeachment trial of Donald J. 
Trump. While I wish the President had not put our Nation in this 
position, after having listened closely with an open mind to both 
sides, it is now my duty as an American to vote on whether to remove 
him from office. Other than sending our troops into harm's way, I 
cannot think of a more serious, more somber vote to take in this 
Chamber, but as sobering as it is, the right path forward is clear.
  Throughout this trial, we have seen unprecedented obstruction from 
the Trump administration--obstruction so flagrant that it makes Nixon, 
when in the thick of Watergate, look like the model of transparency. 
Yet the facts uncovered still prove the truth of the matter: Trump 
abused his power when he secretly withheld security aid and a White 
House meeting to try to force Ukraine to announce investigations into a 
political rival in order to help him swing November's election. He put 
his political self-interest ahead of our national security. He smeared 
the name of an American Ambassador, even seemingly risking her safety 
because she was simply too principled to further his corruption, 
because she was too clean to help him strong-arm Ukraine into that 
favor he demanded.
  When the reports first emerged about what he had done, he denied it. 
Then his explanation changed to: Well, maybe I did do it, but it was 
only because I was trying to root out corruption.
  If that were true, there would be some documentary record to prove 
that, and we have seen absolutely none, even after I asked for it 
during the questioning period.
  Now his defense team has gone so far as to claim that, well, it 
doesn't matter if he did it because he is the President, and the 
President can do anything he wants if it will help him get reelected. 
Breathtaking. To put it another way, when he got caught, he lied. Then, 
when that lie was found out, he lied again, then again, then again.
  Along the way, his own defense counsel could not papier-mache 
together even the most basic argument to actually exonerate him. The 
best case they could muster boiled down to: When the President does it, 
it is not illegal. Nixon already tried that defense. It did not work 
then, and it does not work now because--here is the thing--in America, 
we believe not in rulers but in the rule of law.
  Through all we have seen over the past few months, the truth has 
never changed. It is what National Security Council officials and 
decades-long diplomats testified to under oath. It is what foreign 
policy experts and Trump administration staffers--and, yes, an American 
warrior with a Purple Heart--have raised their right hands to tell us, 
time after time, since the House hearings had begun.
  Even some of my Republican colleagues have admitted that Trump 
``cross[ed] a line.'' Some said it as recently as this weekend, but 
many more said months ago that, if Trump did do what he is accused of, 
then it would, indeed, be wrong. Well, it is now obvious that those 
allegations were true, and it is pretty clear that Trump's defense team 
knows that also. If they actually believe Trump did nothing wrong--that 
his call was ``perfect''--then why would they fight so hard to block 
the witnesses and the documents from coming to light that could 
exonerate him? The only reason they would have done so is if they had 
known that he was guilty. The only reason for one to vote to acquit 
Trump today is if one is OK with his trying to cover it up.
  Now, I know that some folks have been saying that we should acquit

[[Page S887]]

him--that we should ignore our constitutional duty and leave him in 
office--because we are in an election year and that the voters should 
decide his fate. That is an argument that rings hollow because this 
trial was about Trump's trying to cheat in the next election and rob 
the voters of their ability to decide. Any action other than voting to 
remove him would give him the license and the power to keep tampering 
with that race, to keep trying to turn that election into as much of a 
sham as an impeachment trial without witnesses.
  You know, I spent 23 years in the military, and one of the most 
critical lessons anyone who serves learns is of the damage that can be 
done when troops don't oppose illegal orders, when fealty becomes blind 
and ignorance becomes intentional. Just as it is the duty of military 
officers to oppose unlawful orders, it is the responsibility of public 
servants to hold those in power accountable.
  Former NSC official Fiona Hill understood that when she testified 
before Congress because she knew that politics must never eclipse 
national security.
  Ambassador Bill Taylor understood that as well. The veteran who has 
served in every administration since Reagan's answered the question 
that is at the heart of the impeachment inquiry. He said under oath 
that, yes, there was a ``clear understanding'' of a quid pro quo--
exactly the sort of abuse of power no President should be allowed to 
get away with.
  LTC Alexander Vindman--the Purple Heart recipient who dedicated 
decades of his life to our Armed Forces--understood the lessons of the 
past, too, in his saying that, here in America, right matters.
  My colleagues in this Chamber who have attacked Lieutenant Colonel 
Vindman or who have provided a platform for others to tear him down 
just for his doing what he believes is right should be ashamed of 
themselves.
  We should all be aware of the example we set and always seek to 
elevate the national discourse. We should be thoughtful about our own 
conduct both in terms of respecting the rule of law and the sacrifices 
our troops make to keep us safe because, at the end of the day, our 
Constitution is really just a set of rules on some pieces of paper. It 
is only as strong as our will to uphold its ideals and hold up the 
scales of justice.
  So I am asking each of us today to muster up just an ounce of the 
courage shown by Fiona Hill, Ambassador Taylor, and Lieutenant Colonel 
Vindman. When our names are called from the dais in a few hours, each 
of us will either pass or fail the most elementary, yet most important, 
test any elected official will ever take--whether to put country over 
party or party over country.
  It may be a politically difficult vote for some of us, but it should 
not be a morally difficult vote for any of us because, while I know 
that voting to acquit would make the lives of some of my colleagues 
simpler come election day, I also know that America would have never 
been born if the heroes of centuries past made decisions based on 
political expediency.
  It would have been easier to have kept bowing down to King George III 
than to have pushed 342 chests of tea into the Boston Harbor, and it 
would have been easier to have kept paying taxes to the Crown than to 
have waged a revolution. Yet those patriots knew the importance of 
rejecting what was easy if it were in conflict with what was right. 
They knew that the courage of just a few could change history.
  So, when it is time to vote this afternoon, we cannot think of 
political convenience. If we say abuse of power doesn't warrant removal 
from office today, we will be paving the way for future Presidents to 
do even worse tomorrow--to keep breaking the law and to keep 
endangering our country--one ``perfect'' call, one ``favor,'' one high 
crime and misdemeanor at a time.
  Time and again, over these past few months, we have heard one story 
about our Founders, perhaps, more than any other. It was the time when 
Benjamin Franklin walked out of Independence Hall after the 
Constitutional Convention and someone asked: ``What have we got--a 
republic or a monarchy?''
  We all know what he said: ``A Republic if you can keep it.''
  Keeping it may very well come down to the 100 of us in this very 
Chamber. We are the ones the Constitution vests with the power to hold 
the President accountable, and through our actions, we are the ones who 
vest the Constitution with its power.
  In this moment, let's think not just of today but of tomorrow too. In 
this moment, let's remember that, here, right matters; truth matters. 
The truth is that Donald Trump is guilty of these Articles of 
Impeachment. I will vote to do the right thing, and I hope my 
colleagues will as well. For the sake of tomorrow and the tomorrow 
after that, we must.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, later today I will vote to acquit the 
President on the charges of the two Articles of Impeachment. A not-
guilty verdict, as every Senator on this floor has known for some time, 
was always what would happen in a House-driven, partisan impeachment 
process.
  Less than a year ago, the Speaker of the House said that we should 
not go through this process unless something was compelling, unless 
something was overwhelming, unless something was bipartisan. I think 
the Speaker was exactly right then, and I hope all future Speakers look 
at that guidance as we think about this process of impeachment.
  In the first 180 years of the Constitution, individual Members talked 
about impeachment of Presidents--maybe of almost every President--but 
the Congress only seriously touched this topic one time--one time in 
180 years.
  In the last 46 years, Presidential impeachment has been before the 
country three times, and each case has been less compelling than the 
one before it. We don't want partisan impeachment to become an exercise 
that happens when one party--not the party of the President--happens to 
have a majority of the votes in the House of Representatives.
  Impeachment is fundamentally a political process. The Members of the 
Senate meet no standards for a regular jury. The jury can override the 
judge. Two-thirds of the Senate is necessary to remove the President. 
We really have no better term in the Constitution, I suppose, to use 
than ``trial,'' but in any classic sense, this isn't a trial. In any 
classic sense, a partisan impeachment isn't any kind of a real 
indictment.
  Maybe, first and foremost, the House has to do its job. Part of that 
job would be to create a case that would produce a bipartisan vote on 
the articles in the House. If you haven't met that standard--going back 
to the Speaker's standard--you should work on the case some more and 
then wonder, if you can't meet the standard, what is wrong with the 
process you are going through. Part of that job is to do everything 
necessary to have Articles of Impeachment that are compelling and 
complete.
  The House has time available to it to consider impeachment as they go 
about their essential work. They can continue to do the work of the 
Congress. They have weeks, months, if they choose to have, even maybe 
years to put a case together. They can call witnesses. They can go to 
court to seek testimony. They can determine if this is an impeachment 
question or just an oversight question.
  The House can do lots of things, but once the Senate gets the 
Articles of Presidential Impeachment, they become for the Senate an 
absolute priority. Both our rules and reality mean we cannot do 
anything else, realistically, until we are done dealing with the case 
the House sent over.
  That was fundamentally what was so wrong with the House sending over 
a case that they said needed more work. If it needed more work, it 
should have had more work.
  You can be for strong review of the executive. You can be for strong 
congressional oversight and still support the idea of executive 
privilege. The

[[Page S888]]

President has the right to unfettered advice and to know all the 
options. In fact, I think when you pierce that right, you begin to have 
advisers who may not want to give all the options to the President 
because it might appear they were for all the options. But the 
President's advisers need to see that the President understands all the 
options and implications of a decision.
  The President, by the way--another topic that came up here several 
times--the President determines executive policy. The staff, the 
assistants, and whoever else works in the executive branch doesn't 
determine executive policy; the President determines executive policy. 
The staff can put all the notes in front of the President they want to, 
but it is the President's decision what the policy of the 
administration will be. Sharing that decision with the Congress, 
sharing how he got to that point--or later, she got to that point--with 
that decision is a negotiated balance.
  Congress says: We want to know this.
  The President says: No. I need to have some ability for people to 
give me advice that isn't all available for the Congress.
  So this is balanced out, and if that can't happen, if that balance 
can't be achieved, the judiciary decides what the balance is. The 
judiciary decides a question and says: You really must talk to the 
Congress about this, but you don't have to talk to them about the next 
sentence you said at that same meeting.
  That is the kind of balance that occurs.
  The idea repeatedly advanced by the House managers that the Senate, 
by majority vote, can decide these questions is both outrageous and 
dangerous.
  The idea that the government would balance itself is, frankly, the 
miracle of the Constitution. Nobody had ever proposed, until 
Philadelphia in 1787, one, that the basis for government was the people 
themselves, and two, you could have a government that was so finely 
balanced that it would operate and maintain itself over time.
  The House managers would really upend that balance. By being 
unwilling to take the time the House had to pursue the constitutional 
solution, they decided: We don't have to worry about the Constitution 
to have that solution.
  To charge that the President's assertion of article II rights that go 
back to Washington is one of the actual Articles of Impeachment--that 
is dangerous.
  The legislative branch cannot also be the judicial branch. The 
legislative branch can't also decide ``here is the balance'' if the 
executive and legislative branch are in a fight about what should be 
disclosed and what shouldn't. You can't continue to have the three 
balances of power in our government if one of the branches can decide 
what the legislative branch should decide.
  In their haste to put this case together, the House sent the Senate 
the two weakest Articles of Impeachment possible. Presidents since 
Washington have been accused by some Members of Congress of abuse of 
power. Presidents since Washington have been accused by some Members of 
Congress of failure to cooperate with the Congress.
  The House managers argued against their own case. They repeatedly 
contended that they had made their case completely, they had made their 
case totally, they had made their case incontrovertibly, but they 
wanted us to call witnesses they had chosen not to call. They said they 
had already been in court 9 months to get the President's former White 
House Counsel to testify and weren't done yet, but somehow they thought 
the Senate could get that person and others in a matter of days.
  These arguments have been and should have been rejected by the 
Senate.
  Today, the Articles of Impeachment should be and will be rejected by 
the Senate. Based on the Speaker's March comments, these articles 
should have never been sent to the Senate. They were not compelling, 
they were not overwhelming, they were not bipartisan, and most 
importantly, they were not necessary.
  One of the lessons we send today is to this House and to future 
Houses of Representatives: Do your job. Take it seriously. Don't make 
it political.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I have long maintained that most, if not all, 
of the most serious and vexing problems within our Federal Government 
can be traced to a deviation from the twin core structural protections 
of the Constitution.
  There are two of these protections--one that operates along a 
vertical axis; the other, a horizontal.
  The vertical protection we call federalism, which states a very 
simple fact: that in the American system of government, most power is 
to be reserved to the States respectively, or the people, where it is 
exercised at the State and local level. It is only those powers 
enumerated in the Constitution, either in article I, section 8 or 
elsewhere, that are made Federal, those things that the Founding 
Fathers appropriately deemed unavoidably, necessarily national or that 
we have otherwise rendered national through a subsequent constitutional 
amendment.
  As was the case when James Madison wrote Federalist No. 45, the 
powers reserved to the States are numerous and indefinite, while those 
that are given to the Congress to be exercised federally are few and 
defined--few and defined powers, the Federal Government; numerous and 
indefinite reserved for the States.
  The horizontal protection operates within the Federal Government 
itself, and it acknowledges that we have three coequal, independent 
branches within the Federal Government: one that makes the laws, one 
that executes the laws, and one that interprets the laws when people 
can't come to an agreement and have an active, live dispute as to the 
meaning of a particular law in a particular case or controversy.
  Sadly, we have drifted steadily, aggressively from both of these 
principles over the last 80 years. For roughly the first 150 years of 
the founding of our Republic and of the operation of our constitutional 
structure, we adhered pretty closely to them, but over the last 80 
years or so, we have drifted steadily. This has been a bipartisan 
problem. It was one that was created under the broad leadership of 
Republicans and Democrats alike and, in fact, in Senates and Houses of 
Representatives and White Houses of every conceivable partisan 
combination.
  We have essentially taken power away from the American people in two 
steps--first, by moving power from the State and local level and taking 
it to Washington, in violation of the vertical protection we call 
federalism; and then a second time, moving it away from the people's 
elected lawmakers in Washington to unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats 
placed within the executive branch of government but who are neither 
elected by the people nor accountable to anyone who is electable. Thus, 
they constitute essentially a fourth branch of government within our 
system, one that is not sanctioned or contemplated by the Constitution 
and doesn't really fit all that well within its framework.
  This has made the Federal Government bigger and more powerful. It has 
occurred in a way that has made people less powerful. It has made 
government in general and in particular, this government, the Federal 
Government, less responsive to the needs of the people. It has been 
fundamentally contrary to the way our system of government operates.
  What, one might ask, does any of this have to do with impeachment? 
Well, in my opinion, everything--or at least a lot. This distance that 
we have created in these two steps--moving power from the people to 
Washington and within Washington, handing it to unelected lawmakers or 
unelected bureaucrats--has created an amount of anxiety among the 
American people. Not all of them necessarily recognize it in the same 
way that I do or describe it with the same words, but they know 
something is not right. They know it when their Federal Government 
requires them to work many months out of every year just to pay their 
Federal taxes, only to be told later that it is not enough and hasn't 
been enough for

[[Page S889]]

a long time since we have accumulated $22 to $23 trillion in debt, and 
when they come to understand that the Federal Government also imposes 
some $2 trillion in regulatory compliance costs on the American people.
  This harms the poor and middle class. It makes everything we buy more 
expensive. It results in diminished wages, unemployment, and 
underemployment. On some level, the American people feel this. They 
experience this. They understand it. It creates anxiety. It was that 
very anxiety that caused people to want to elect a different kind of 
leader in 2016, and they did. It was this set of circumstances that 
caused them to elect Donald J. Trump as the 45th President of the 
United States, and I am glad they did because he promised to change the 
way we do things here, and he has done that.
  But as someone who has focused intently on the need to reconnect the 
American people with their system of government, Donald Trump presents 
something of a serious threat to those who have occupied these 
positions of power, these individuals who, while hard-working, well-
intentioned, well-educated, and highly specialized, occupy these 
positions of power within what we loosely refer to as the executive 
branch but is in reality an unelected, unaccountable fourth branch of 
government.
  He has bucked them on many, many levels and has infuriated them as he 
has done so, even as he is implementing the American people's wishes to 
close that gap between the people and the government that is supposed 
to serve them.
  He has bucked them on so many levels, declining to defer to the 
opinions of self-proclaimed government experts who claim that they know 
better than any of us on a number of levels.
  He pushed back on them, for example, when it comes to the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act--or FISA, as it is sometimes described--
when he insisted that FISA had been abused in efforts to undermine his 
candidacy and infringe on the rights of the American people. When he 
took that position, Washington bureaucrats predictably mocked him, but 
he turned out to be right.
  He called out the folly of engaging in endless nation-building 
exercises as part of a two-decade-long war effort that has cost this 
country dearly in terms of American blood and treasure. Washington 
bureaucrats mocked him again, but he turned out to be right.
  He raised questions with how U.S. foreign aid is used and sometimes 
misused throughout the world, sometimes to the detriment of the 
American people and the very interests that such aid was created to 
alleviate. Washington bureaucrats mocked him, but he turned out to be 
right.
  President Trump asked Ukraine to investigate a Ukrainian energy 
company, Burisma. He momentarily paused U.S. aid to Ukraine while 
seeking a commitment from the then newly elected Ukrainian President, 
Volodymyr Zelensky, regarding that effort. He wanted to make sure that 
he could trust this recently elected President Zelensky before sending 
him the aid. Within a few weeks, his concerns were satisfied, and he 
released the aid. Pausing briefly before doing so isn't criminal. It 
certainly isn't impeachable. It is not even wrong.
  Quite to the contrary, this is exactly the sort of thing the American 
people elected President Trump to do. He would and has decided to bring 
a different paradigm to Washington, one that analyzes things from how 
the American citizenry views the American Government.
  This has in some respects, therefore, been a trial of the Washington, 
DC, establishment itself but not necessarily in the way the House 
managers apparently intended. While the House managers repeatedly 
invoked constitutional principles, including separation of powers, 
their arguments have tended to prove the point opposite of the one they 
intended.
  Yes, we badly need to restore and protect both federalism and 
separation of power, and it is my view that the deviation from one 
contributes to the deviation from the other. But here, in order to do 
that, we have to respect the three branches of government for what they 
are, who leads them, how they operate, and who is accountable to whom.
  For them to view President Trump as somehow subservient to the career 
civil servant bureaucratic class that has tended to manage agencies 
within the Federal Government, including the National Security Council, 
the Department of Defense, the Office of Management and Budget, 
individuals in the White House, and individuals within the State 
Department, among others, is not only mischaracterizing this problem, 
it helps identify the precise source of this problem.
  Many of these people, including some of the witnesses we have heard 
from in this trial, have mistakenly taken the conclusion that because 
President Trump took a conclusion different from that offered by the 
so-called interagency process, that that amounted to a constitutionally 
impeachable act. It did not. It did nothing of the sort.
  Quite to the contrary, when you actually look at the Constitution 
itself, it makes clear that the President has the power to do what he 
did here. The very first section of article II of the Constitution--
this is the part of the Constitution that outlines the President's 
authority--makes clear that ``[t]he executive Power [of the United 
States Government] shall be vested in the President of the United 
States.''
  It is important to remember that there are exactly two Federal 
officials who were elected within the executive branch of government. 
One is the Vice President, and the other is the President.
  The Vice President's duties, I would add, are relatively limited. 
Constitutionally speaking, the Vice President is the President of the 
Senate and thus performs a quasi-legislative role, but the Vice 
President's executive branch duties are entirely bound up with those of 
the President's. They consist of aiding and assisting the President as 
the President may deem necessary and standing ready to step into the 
position of the Presidency should it become necessary as a result of 
disability, incapacitation, or death. Barring that, the entire 
executive branch authority is bound up within the Presidency itself. 
The President is the executive branch of government, just as the 
Justices who sit across the street themselves amount to the capstone of 
the judicial branch, just as 100 Senators and 435 Representatives are 
the legislative branch.
  The President is the executive branch. As such, it is his 
prerogative, within the confines of what the law allows and authorizes 
and otherwise provides, to decide how to execute that. It is not only 
not incompatible with that system of government, it is entirely 
consistent with it--indeed, authorized by it.
  A President should be able to say: Look, we have a newly elected 
President in Ukraine.
  We have longstanding allegations of corruption within Ukraine. Those 
allegations have been well-founded in Ukraine. No one disputes that 
corruption is rampant in Ukraine.
  A newly elected President comes in. This President or any President 
in the future decides: Hey, we are giving a lot of aid to this 
country--$391 million for the year in question. I want to make sure 
that I understand how that President operates. I want to establish a 
relationship of trust before taking a step further with that President. 
So I am going to take my time a little bit. I am going to wait maybe a 
few weeks in order to make sure we are on a sure footing there.
  He did that. There is nothing wrong with that.
  What is the response from the House managers? Well, it gets back to 
that interagency process, as if people whom the American people don't 
know or have reason to know because those people don't stand 
accountable to the people--they are not elected by the people; they are 
not really accountable to anyone who is in turn elected by the people--
the fact that those people involved in the interagency process might 
disagree with a foreign policy decision made by the President of the 
United States and the fact that this President of the United States 
might take a different approach than his predecessor or predecessors 
does not make this President's decisions criminal. It certainly doesn't 
make them impeachable. It doesn't even make them wrong.
  In the eyes of many and I believe most Americans--they want a 
President to be careful about how the

[[Page S890]]

United States spends money. They want the United States to stop and 
reconsider from time to time the fact that we spend a lot of money 
throughout the world on countries that are not the United States. We 
want a President of the United States to be able to exercise a little 
bit of discretion in pushing pause before that President knows whether 
he can trust a newly elected government in the country in question.
  So to suggest here that our commitment to the Constitution; to 
suggest here, as the House managers have, that our respect for the 
separation of powers within the constitutional framework somehow 
demands that we remove the duly elected President of the United States 
is simply wrong. It is elevating to a status completely foreign to our 
constitutional structure an entity that the Constitution does not name. 
It elevates a policy dispute to a question of high crimes and 
misdemeanors. Those two are not the same thing.
  At the end of the day, this government does, in fact, stand 
accountable to the people. This government is of, by, and for the 
people. We cannot remove the 45th President of the United States for 
doing something that the law and the Constitution allow him to do 
without doing undue violence to that system of government to which 
every single one of us has sworn an oath.
  We have sworn to uphold and protect and defend that system of 
government. That means standing up for the American people and those 
they have elected to do a job recognized by the Constitution.
  I will be voting to defend this President's actions. I will be voting 
against undoing the vote taken by the American people some 3\1/2\ years 
ago. I will be voting for the principle of freedom and for the very 
principles that our Constitution was designed to protect.
  I urge all of my colleagues to reject these deeply factually and 
legally flawed Articles of Impeachment and to vote not guilty.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, I rise today to officially declare that I 
will vote against both Articles of Impeachment brought against 
President Trump by the very partisan and, quite frankly, ridiculous 
House of Representatives. I know my position is hardly a surprise, but 
it is almost as unsurprising as the House impeaching the President, to 
begin with.
  Since the moment he was sworn into office, Democrats have schemed to 
remove Donald Trump from office. It is not my opinion. I take them at 
their word. Their fixation on his removal was a conclusion in search of 
a justification, which they manufactured from a phone conversation 
between world leaders leaked--leaked--by one of the many career 
bureaucrats who seem to have forgotten that they work for the elected 
leaders in this country, not the other way around.
  So the two Articles of Impeachment before this body today, in my 
view, are without merit. They are an affront, in fact, to this 
institution and to our Constitution, representing the very same 
partisan derangement that worried our Founding Fathers so much that 
they made the threshold for impeachment this high.
  The Senate exists exactly for moments like this. I didn't arrive at 
my conclusion to support acquittal hastily or flippantly, and I don't 
believe any of my colleagues did either, including those who come to a 
different conclusion from mine. Despite being sent such flawed Articles 
by the House, the Senate did in fact dutifully and solemnly follow its 
constitutional obligation. During the last days of the trial, we heard 
sworn testimony from 13 witnesses, read 17 depositions, asked 180 
questions, viewed 193 video clips, and poured over 28,000 pages of 
documents.
  But even more than the House managers' shallow arguments and lack of 
evidence against and due process for our President and the obvious 
derangement at the very root of every investigation, beginning with the 
corrupt FBI Crossfire Hurricane counterintelligence investigation 
during the 2016 election cycle, the Articles of Impeachment we will 
vote on in a few hours should have ended at their beginning.
  Can we agree that if a Speaker of the House unilaterally declares an 
impeachment inquiry, it represents the opinion of one Member of 
Congress, not the official authorization of the entire Congress? Can we 
agree that a vote to begin an impeachment inquiry that has only 
partisan support and bipartisan opposition is not what the Founders had 
in mind and in fact is what they firmly rejected and cautioned about? 
Can we agree that impeachment articles passed by a majority of one 
party and opposed by Members of both parties on their face fail, if not 
the letter of the law, certainly, the spirit of the Constitution?
  Yet, even under the cloud of purely partisan politics of the House of 
Representatives, the Senate conducted a complete, comprehensive trial, 
resulting, in my view, in a crystal clear conclusion: The Democratic-
led House of Representatives failed to meet the most basic standards of 
proof and has dramatically lowered the bar for impeachment to 
unacceptable levels. It is deeply concerning, and I believe we must 
commit to never, ever letting it happen again to the President of any 
political party.
  That can start today. In just a few hours, the Senate will have the 
opportunity to cast a vote to end this whole ordeal, and, in doing so, 
can make a statement that the threshold for undoing the will of the 
American people in the most recent election and undoing the will of a 
major political party in the upcoming election should be higher than 
one party's petty obsession.
  I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle join me in voting 
against these charges. But whether he is acquitted or convicted and 
removed, it is my prayer, as we were admonished many times throughout 
the last few weeks by our Chaplain Black, that God's will is the one 
that will be done.
  Then we can move on to the unifying issues the American people want 
us to tackle--issues like infrastructure, education, energy security 
and dominance, national security, and the rising cost of healthcare, 
among many others. These are issues the American people care about. 
These are issues that North Dakotans care about. These are issues that 
the people have sent us here to deal with. Let's do it together. Let's 
start now.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. HYDE-SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HYDE-SMITH. Mr. President, I will vote to acquit President 
Donald J. Trump on both Articles of Impeachment presented by House 
Democrats. I have listened carefully to the arguments presented by the 
House Democratic managers and the White House defense team. Those 
prosecuting the President failed on a legal and constitutional basis to 
produce the evidence required to undertake the very serious act of 
removing a duly elected President from this office.
  This trial exposed that pure political partisanship fueled a reckless 
investigation and the subsequent impeachment of the President on weak, 
vague, and noncriminal accusations. The Democrats' case, which lacked 
the basic standards of fairness and due process, was fabricated to 
fulfill their one long-held hope to impeach President Trump.
  We should all be concerned about the dangerous precedent and 
consequences of convicting any President on charges originating from 
strictly partisan reasons. The Founding Fathers warned against allowing 
impeachment to become a political weapon. In this case, House Democrats 
crossed that line.
  Rejecting the abuse of power and obstruction of Congress articles 
before us will affirm our belief and the impeachment standards intended 
by the Founders. With my votes to acquit President Trump, justice will 
be served. The Senate has faithfully executed its constitutional duties 
to hear and judge the charges leveled against the President.
  I remain hopeful that we can finally set aside this flawed partisan 
investigation, prosecution, and persecution of President Trump. The 
people of Mississippi and this great Nation are more interested in us 
getting back to doing the work they sent us here to do.

[[Page S891]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, fellow Senators, I come today to talk about 
the business at hand. Obviously, it is the vote that we are going to 
take at 4 o'clock this afternoon.
  We were subjected to days and days of trial here--many witnesses, 
witness statements, and all that sort of thing--and it is incumbent 
upon us now as jurors to reach a conclusion, and I have done so.
  I come at this with a little bit of a different view, probably, than 
others. I have tried more cases, probably, than anyone on the floor, 
both as a prosecutor and in private practice. So I watched carefully as 
the case was presented to us and how the case had been put together by 
the managers from the House. What I learned in the many years of trial 
experience that I had is that the only way, really, to try a case and 
to reach where you want to get is to do it in good faith and to do it 
honestly.
  I had real trouble right at the beginning when I saw that the lead 
manager read a transcript purporting to be a transcript of the 
President's phone call that has been at issue here, and it was 
falsified. It was falsified knowingly, willfully, and intentionally. 
So, as a result of that, when they walked through the door and wanted 
to present their case, there was a strike there already, and I put it 
in that perspective.
  How the case unfolded after that was stunning because I have never 
seen a case succeed the way they put the case together. They put the 
case together by taking every fact that they wanted to make fly and put 
it only in the best light without showing the other side but more 
importantly--more importantly--intentionally excluding evidence. Of 
course, this whole thing centered on witness statements that the 
President had somehow threatened or pressured the President of Ukraine 
to do what he was going to do. That simply wasn't the case. The 
transcript didn't say that.
  Now, admittedly, they had a witness who was going around saying that, 
and they called every person he told to tell us that that was the 
situation. The problem is, it was hearsay. There is a good reason why 
they don't allow hearsay in a court of law, and that is, it simply 
wasn't true.
  When the person who was spreading that rumor actually talked to the 
President about it, the President got angry and said: That is not true. 
I would never do that.
  They never told us that. Once the tape was shown, the House managers 
spent days putting together that proposition for us. The President's 
counsel dismantled that in about an hour and did so really quickly. 
And, as a result of that, simply from a factual basis, it is my opinion 
that the prosecution in this case did not meet its burden.
  Now, much has been said about witnesses and how they did this and 
what have you, but the Constitution is crystal clear. It gives the 
House absolute, total, 100-percent control of impeachment; that is, the 
investigation and the vote on it. It gives us the same thing but on the 
trial basis.
  The thing I think was surprising is that they came over here and 
tried to tell us how to do their job. I suspect they, in the House, 
would feel the exact same way about it if we went over there and told 
them how they should impeach. They came over here and told us how we 
should do witnesses and all that sort of thing. They had every 
opportunity to prepare the case. It was totally in their hands. They 
had as much time as they wanted, and they simply didn't do it. So in 
that respect, I also found that they came short.
  But the bottom line for me, too, is that there is a second reason I 
would vote to acquit, and that is the stunning attack that this was on 
the U.S. Constitution. This is really the first time in history when a 
purely political attack was instigated by reaching to the U.S. 
Constitution and using what is really a sacred item in that 
Constitution, a process that the Founding Fathers gave us for good 
reason, and that is impeachment.
  It was not intended to be used as a political bludgeon. It simply 
wasn't. We had in front of us the Federalist Papers, and we had the 
debates of the Constitutional Convention. Really, the one silver lining 
that came out of this was it underscored again for us the genius of the 
Founding Fathers giving us three branches of government--not just three 
branches of government but three branches of government that had 
distinct lanes in which they operated and, most importantly, indicating 
that they were separate but equal.
  They wanted not a parliamentary system like they had looked at from 
Britain with a head of state that was a Prime Minister who could be 
removed and changed, as happens all around the world today. They gave 
us a unique system with three branches of government.
  So the Founding Fathers were very clear. They debated the question of 
what should it take to get rid of the head of state, and they concluded 
that the second branch of government couldn't be a strong branch of 
government if, indeed, the President could be removed as a Prime 
Minister could be removed, simply by Congress getting unhappy with his 
policies or disagreeing with him. So, as a result of that, they did 
give us impeachment, and it is a unique process. They were very clear 
that it was supposed to be used only in very extreme circumstances and 
not just simply because of a political disagreement or a policy 
disagreement. And that is exactly what happened here.
  The Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention debates are 
very, very clear that it is not a broad swath of reasons to impeach the 
President that is given to the first branch of government but, indeed, 
a very, very narrow swath. It was interesting that, from the beginning, 
they picked the two words of ``treason'' and ``bribery,'' and to that 
they then had a long debate about what it would be in addition to that. 
They had such words as ``malfeasance,'' ``misfeasance,'' 
``corruption,'' and all those kinds of things that could be very broad. 
They rejected all those and said, no, specifically, it had to be ``high 
Crimes and Misdemeanors.''
  So what they did was they narrowed the lane considerably and made it 
difficult to remove the head of the second branch of government. And 
then, on top of that, for frosting on the cake, they said it has got to 
be two-thirds. Now, what did that simply mean? They knew--they knew--
that human beings being the way they are, that human beings who were 
involved in the political process and political parties would reach to 
get rid of a political enemy using everything they could. So they 
wanted to see that that didn't happen with impeachment. So, as a result 
of that, they gave us the two-thirds requirement, and that meant that 
no President was going to be impeached without a bipartisan movement.
  This movement has been entirely partisan. No Republican voted to 
impeach him in the House of Representatives. This afternoon at 4 we are 
going to have a vote, and it is going to be along party lines and, 
again, it is going to be political.
  So what do we have here? At the end of the day, we have a political 
exercise, and that political exercise is going to fail. And once 
again--once again--God has blessed America, and the Republic that 
Benjamin Franklin said we have, if we can keep it, is going to be 
sustained.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Loeffler). The Senator from Ohio is 
recognized.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, over the past 3 weeks, we have heard from 
the House managers and the President's counsel regarding the facts of 
the case against President Donald Trump.
  Much like trials in Lorain and Lima and Lordstown, OH, or in 
Marietta, in Massillon, and in Marion, OH, we have seen the 
prosecution--in this case, the House managers--and the defense--in this 
case, the President's lawyers--present their cases. All 100 of us--
every one of us--are the jury. We took an oath to be impartial jurors. 
We all took an oath to be impartial jurors just like juries in Ohio and 
across America. But to some of my colleagues, that just appeared to be 
a joke.
  The great journalist Bill Moyers summed up the past 3 weeks: ``What 
we've just seen is the dictator of the Senate manipulating the 
impeachment process to save the demagogue in the White House whose 
political party has become the gravedigger of democracy.''
  Let me say that again. ``What we have just seen is the dictator of 
the

[[Page S892]]

Senate manipulating the impeachment process to save the demagogue in 
the White House whose political party has become the gravedigger of 
democracy.''
  Even before this trial began, Leader McConnell admitted out loud that 
he was coordinating the trial process with the White House. The leader 
of the Senate was coordinating with the White House on impeachment. I 
challenge him to show me one trial in my State of Ohio or his State of 
Kentucky where the jury coordinated with the defense lawyers. In a fair 
trial, the defense and prosecution would have been able to introduce 
evidence, to call witnesses, and to listen to testimony.
  Every other impeachment proceeding in the Senate for 250 years had 
witnesses. Some of them had dozens. We had zero. Leader McConnell 
rushed this trial through. He turned off cameras in this body so that 
the American public couldn't see the whole process. He restricted 
reporter access. We know reporters roam the halls to talk to Members of 
the House and Senate. He restricted access there. He twisted arms to 
make sure every Republican voted with him to block witnesses. He didn't 
get a couple of them, but he had enough to protect himself.
  The public already sees through it. This is a sham trial. I said from 
the beginning that I would keep an open mind. If there are witnesses 
who would exonerate the President, the American people need to hear 
from them.
  Over the course of this trial we heard mounting, overwhelming 
evidence that President Trump did something that not even Richard Nixon 
ever did: He extorted a foreign leader. He fired a career foreign 
service officer for rooting out corruption. He put his own Presidential 
campaign above our collective national security.
  The President said this is just hearsay, but he and the Republican 
leader, together with 51 of 53 Republican Senators, blocked every 
single potential witness we wanted to call. The President says it was 
hearsay. We knew there were witnesses who were in the room with 
President Trump. We didn't get to hear from them. We didn't hear from 
Ambassador Bolton. We didn't hear from interim Chief of Staff Mulvaney. 
We didn't hear from Secretary Pompeo. The Republican leader denied the 
American people the chance to hear all of them testify under oath.
  We have seen more information come to light each day, which builds on 
the pattern of facts laid out in great detail by the House managers. We 
have now heard tape recordings of the President of the United States 
telling associates to ``get rid of'' U.S. Ambassador Yovanovitch, a 
public servant who devoted her life to fighting corruption and 
promoting American ideals and foreign policy throughout her long, 
distinguished career at the State Department. With her removed from the 
post, it appears the President thought he would be able to compel our 
ally Ukraine to investigate President Trump's political opponent.
  Reporters have now revealed that Ambassador Bolton--again, a 
firsthand witness--outlined that the President did exactly what the 
Impeachment Articles allege: He withheld security assistance to an ally 
at war with Russia in exchange for a political favor.
  The Justice Department admits there are 24 emails showing the 
President's thinking on Ukraine assistance. But you know what? Senator 
McConnell, down the hall, will not allow us to see any of these 24 
emails.
  Make no mistake, the full truth is going to come out. The Presiding 
Officer, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they are all 
going to be embarrassed because they covered this up. It wasn't just 
the President and the Vice President and Secretary Pompeo and Chief of 
Staff Mulvaney; it was 51 Republican U.S. Senators, including the 
Presiding Officer, who is a new Member of this body, who covered up 
this evidence.
  It will come out this week. It will come out this month, this year, 
the year after that, for decades to come. And when the full truth comes 
out, we will be judged by our children and grandchildren.
  Without additional witnesses, we must judge based on the facts 
presented. The House managers made a clear, compelling case. In the 
middle of a war with Russia, the President froze $400 million in 
security assistance to Ukraine. He wanted an investigation into his 
2020 political opponent. He refused a critical meeting with President 
Zelensky in the Oval Office.
  These actions don't promote our national security or the rule of law; 
they promote Donald Trump personally and his campaign.
  We know the President extorted President Zelensky. He asked the 
leader of a foreign government to help him. That is the definition of 
an abuse of power. That is why we have no choice--no choice--but to 
convict this President of abusing his office. All of us know this. To 
acquit would set a clear, dangerous precedent: If you abuse your 
office, it is OK. Congress will look the other way.
  This trial and these votes we are about to cast are about way more 
than just President Trump. They are about the future of democracy. It 
will send a message to this President--or whomever we elect in 
November--and to all future Presidents. It will be heard around the 
world--our verdict--by our allies and enemies alike, especially the 
Russians. Are we going to roll out the welcome mat to our adversaries 
to interfere in our elections? Are we going to give a green light to 
the President of the United States to base our country's foreign policy 
not on our collective, agreed-upon national security or that of our 
allies, like Ukraine, but on the President's personal political 
campaign?
  These are the issues at stake. If we don't hold this President 
accountable for abuse of office, if no one in his own party, if no one 
on this side of the aisle--no one--has the backbone to stand up and say 
``stop,'' there is no question it will get worse. How do I know that? I 
have heard it from a number of my Republican colleagues when, 
privately, they will tell me, yes, we are concerned about what the 
President is going to do if he is exonerated.
  I was particularly appalled by the words of Mr. Dershowitz. He said: 
``If a President does something which he believes will help him get 
elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo 
that results in impeachment.''
  Think about that for a moment. If the President thinks it is OK, he 
thinks it is going to help his election, and he thinks his election is 
in the public interest, then it is OK; the President can break any law, 
can funnel taxpayer money toward his reelection, can turn the arm of 
the State against his political enemies and not be held accountable. 
That is what this claim comes down to.
  Remember the words of Richard Nixon: ``When the President does it, 
that means it is not illegal.'' Our country rejected that argument 
during Watergate. We had a Republican Party with principle in those 
days and Senators with backbone, and they told that President to resign 
because nobody is above the State; nobody is above the law.
  If we have a President who can turn the Office of the Presidency and 
the entire executive branch into his own political campaign operation, 
God help us.
  My colleagues think I am exaggerating. We don't have the option to 
vote in favor of some arguments made during the trial and not others. 
Mr. Dershowitz's words will live forever in the historical record. If 
they are allowed to stand beside a ``not guilty'' verdict--make no 
mistake--they will be used as precedent by future aspiring autocrats. 
In the words of House Manager Schiff, ``that way madness lies.''
  I know some of my colleagues agree this sets a dangerous precedent. 
Some of you have admitted to me that you are troubled by the 
President's behavior. You know he is reckless. You know he lies. You 
know what he did was wrong. I have heard Republican after Republican 
after Republican Senator tell me that privately. If you acknowledge 
that, if you have said it to me, if you said it to your family, if you 
said it to your staff, if you just said it to yourself, I implore you, 
we have no choice but to vote to convict.
  What are my colleagues afraid of? I think about the words of Adam 
Schiff in this Chamber on Tuesday: ``If you find that the House has 
proved its case and still vote to acquit''--if you still vote to 
acquit--``your name will be tied to his with a cord of steel and for 
all of history.''
  ``[Y]our name will be tied to his with a cord of steel and for all of 
history.''
  So I ask my colleagues again: What are you afraid of?

[[Page S893]]

  One of our American fundamental values is that we have no Kings, no 
nobility, no oligarchs. No matter how rich, no matter how powerful, no 
matter how much money you give to Mitch McConnell's super PAC, everyone 
can and should be held accountable.
  I hope my colleagues remember that. I hope they will choose courage 
over fear. I hope they will choose country over party. I hope they will 
join me in holding this President accountable to the American people we 
all took an oath to serve.
  We know this: Americans are watching. They will not forget.
  I will close with quoting, again, Bill Moyers, a longtime journalist: 
``What we have just seen is the dictator of the Senate manipulating the 
impeachment process to save the demagogue in the White House whose 
political party has become the gravedigger of democracy.''
  I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle know better. I 
hope they vote what they really know.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
  Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, when the Framers debated whether to 
include the power of impeachment in the Constitution, they envisioned a 
moment very much like the one we face now. They were fearful of a 
corrupt President who would abuse the Presidency for his or her 
personal gain, particularly one who would allow any foreign country to 
interfere in the affairs of our United States. With this fear in mind, 
the Framers directed the Senate to determine whether to ultimately 
remove that President from office.

  In normal times, the Senate--conscious of its awesome 
responsibility--would meet this moment with the appropriate sobriety 
and responsibility to conduct a full and fair trial. That includes 
calling appropriate witnesses and subpoenaing relevant documents, none 
of which happened here.
  In normal times, the Senate would have weighed the evidence presented 
by both sides and rendered impartial justice. And in normal times, 
having been presented with overwhelming evidence of impeachable acts, 
the Senate would have embraced its constitutional responsibility to 
convict the President and remove him or her from office.
  But as we have learned too often over the past 3 years, these are not 
normal times. Instead of fulfilling its duty later today, the U.S. 
Senate will fail its test at a crucial moment of our country by voting 
to acquit Donald J. Trump of abuse of power and obstruction of 
Congress.
  The Senate cannot blame its constitutional failure on the House 
managers. They proved their case with overwhelming and compelling 
evidence. Manager Jerry Nadler laid out a meticulous case demonstrating 
how and why the President's actions rose to the constitutional standard 
for impeachment and removal.
  Manager Hakeem Jeffries explained how Donald Trump ``directly 
pressured the Ukrainian leader to commence phony political 
investigations as a part of his effort to cheat and solicit foreign 
interference in the 2020 election.''
  Manager Val Demings walked us through the evidence of how Donald 
Trump used $391 million of taxpayer money to pressure Ukraine to 
announce politically motivated investigations. She concluded: ``This is 
enough to prove extortion in court.''
  Manager Sylvia Garcia showed us how Donald Trump's demand for 
investigations was purely for his personal, political benefit. She 
debunked the conspiracy theories the President's counsel raised against 
former Vice President Joe Biden--Donald Trump's political rival and the 
true target of his corrupt scheme.
  Manager Jason Crow described vividly the human costs of withholding 
aid from Ukrainian troops fighting a hot war against Russia.
  Manager Adam Schiff tied together the evidence of Donald Trump's 
abuse of power--the most serious of impeachable offenses and one that 
includes extortion and bribery.
  And manager Zoe Lofgren used her extensive experience to provide 
perspective on Donald Trump's unprecedented, unilateral, and complete 
obstruction of Congress to cover up his corrupt scheme. She is the only 
Member of Congress to be involved in three Presidential impeachments.
  The President's lawyers could not refute the House's case. Instead, 
they ultimately resorted to the argument that, even accepting the facts 
as presented by the House managers, Donald Trump's conduct is not 
impeachable. It is what I have called the ``He did it; so what?'' 
argument.
  Many of my Republican colleagues are using the ``So what?'' argument 
to justify their votes to let the President off the hook. Yet the 
senior Senator from Tennessee said: ``I think he shouldn't have done 
it. I think it was wrong.'' He said it was ``inappropriate'' and 
``improper, crossing a line.'' But he refused to hold the President 
accountable, arguing that the voters should decide.
  The junior Senator from Iowa said: ``The President has a lot of 
latitude to do what he wants to do'' but he ``did it maybe in the wrong 
manner.''
  She also said that ``whether you like what the President did or 
not,'' the charges didn't rise to the level of an impeachable offense.
  The junior Senator from Ohio called the President's actions ``wrong 
and inappropriate'' but said they did not ``rise to the level of 
removing a duly-elected president from office and taking him off the 
ballot in the middle of an election.''
  And the senior Senator from Florida went so far as to say: ``Just 
because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in 
the best interest of the country to remove a president from office.''
  By refusing to hold this President accountable, my Republican 
colleagues are reinforcing the President's misguided belief that he can 
do whatever he wants under article II of the U.S. Constitution.
  Donald Trump was already a danger to this country. We have seen it in 
his policy decisions--from taking away healthcare from millions of 
Americans to threatening painful cuts to Social Security and Medicare, 
to engaging in an all-out assault on immigrants in this country.
  But today, we are called on to confront a completely different type 
of danger--one that goes well beyond the significant policy differences 
I have with this President.
  If we let Donald Trump get away with extorting the President of 
another country for his own personal, political benefit, the Senate 
will be complicit--complicit--in his next corrupt scheme.
  Which country will he bully or invite to interfere in our elections 
next? Which pot of taxpayer money will he use as a bribe to further his 
political schemes?
  Later today, I will vote to convict and remove President Donald Trump 
for abusing his power and obstructing Congress. I am under no illusion 
that my Republican colleagues will do the same. They have argued it is 
up to the American people to decide, as though impeachment were not a 
totally separate, constitutional remedy for a lawless President.
  As I considered my vote, I listened closely to Manager Schiff's 
closing statement about why the Senate needs to convict this President. 
He said:

       I do not ask you to convict him because truth or right or 
     decency matters nothing to him--

  He is referring to the President--

     but because we have proven our case, and it matters to you. 
     Truth matters to you. Right matters to you. You are decent. 
     He is not who you are.

  It is time for the Senate to uphold its constitutional responsibility 
by convicting this President and holding him accountable.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. BENNET. Madam President, when I was in the second grade--which I 
did twice because I was dyslexic, so I don't know which year of the 
second grade it was, but one of those 2 years--we were asked to line up 
in order of whose family had been here the longest period of time and 
whose family had been here the shortest period of time.
  I turned out to be the answer to both of those questions. My father's 
family went all the way back to the Mayflower, and my mom's family were 
Polish Jews who survived the Holocaust. They didn't leave Warsaw 
because my grandfather had a large family he didn't want to leave 
behind. And in the event--everybody was killed in the war, except my 
mom, her parents, and an aunt. They lived in Warsaw for 2 years after 
the war. Then they went to Stockholm for a year. They went to

[[Page S894]]

Mexico City for a year, of all places. And then they came to the United 
States--the one place in the world they could rebuild their shattered 
lives, and they did rebuild their shattered lives. My mom was the only 
person in the family who could speak any English. She registered 
herself in the New York City public schools. She graduated from Hunter 
College High School. She went on to graduate from Wellesley College in 
Massachusetts in one generation. My grandparents rebuilt the business 
they had lost during the war.
  I knew from them how important this symbol of America was to people 
struggling all over the world. They had been through some of the worst 
events in human history, and their joy of being Americans was 
completely unadulterated. I have met many immigrants across this 
country, and I still haven't met anybody with a stronger accent than my 
grandparents had, and I have never met anybody who were greater 
patriots than they were. They understood how important the idea of 
America was, not because we were perfect--exactly the opposite of 
that--because we were imperfect. But we lived in a free society that 
was able to cure its imperfections with the hard work of our citizens 
to make this country more democratic, more free, and more fair--a 
country committed to the rule of law. Nobody was above the rule of law, 
and nobody was treated unfairly by the law, even if you were an 
immigrant to this country.
  From my dad's example, I learned something really different. It might 
interest some people around here to know he was a staffer in the Senate 
for many years. I actually grew up coming here on Saturday mornings, 
throwing paper airplanes around the hallways of the Dirksen Building 
and Russell Building.
  He worked here at a very different time in the Senate. He worked here 
at a time when Republicans and Democrats worked together to uphold the 
rule of law, to pass important legislation that was needed by the 
American people to move our country forward, a time when Democrats and 
Republicans went back home and said: I didn't get everything I wanted, 
to be sure, but the 65 percent I did get is worth the bill we have, and 
here is why the other side needed 35 percent.
  Those days are completely gone in the U.S. Senate, and I grieve for 
them. My dad passed away about a year ago. I know how disappointed he 
would be about where we are, but there isn't anybody who can fix it, 
except the 100 people who are here and, I suppose, the American people 
for whom we ostensibly work.
  In the last 10 years that I have been here, I have watched 
politicians come to this floor and destroy the solemn responsibility we 
have--the constitutional responsibility we have--to advise and consent 
on judicial appointments, to turn that constitutional responsibility 
into nothing more than a vicious partisan exercise. That hasn't been 
done by the American people. That wasn't done by any other generation 
of politicians who were in this place. It has been done by this 
generation of politicians led by the Senator from Kentucky, the 
majority leader of the Senate.
  We have become a body that does nothing. We are an employment agency. 
That is what we are. Seventy-five percent of the votes we took last 
year were on appointments. We voted on 26 amendments last year--26--26. 
In the world's greatest deliberative body, we passed eight amendments 
in a year. Pathetic. We didn't consider any of the major issues the 
American people are confronting in their lives, not a single one--10 
years of townhalls with people saying to me: Michael, we are killing 
ourselves, and we can't afford housing, healthcare, higher education, 
early childhood education. We cannot save. We can't live a middle-class 
life. We think our kids are going to live a more diminished life than 
we do.
  What does the U.S. Senate do? Cut taxes for rich people. We don't 
have time to do anything else around here. And now, when we are the 
only body on planet Earth charged with the responsibility of dealing 
with the guilt or innocence of this President, we can't even bring 
ourselves to have witnesses and evidence as part of a fair trial, even 
when there are literally witnesses with direct knowledge of what the 
President did practically banging on the door of the Senate saying: Let 
me testify.
  We are too lazy for that. The reality is, we are too broken for that. 
We are too broken for that. And we have failed in our duty to the 
American people.
  Hamilton said in Federalist 65 that in an impeachment trial we were 
the inquisitors for the people. The Senate--we would be the inquisitors 
for the people. How can you be the inquisitors for the people when you 
don't even dignify the process with evidence and with witnesses?
  I often have school kids come visit me here in the Senate, which I 
really enjoy because I used to be the superintendent of the Denver 
Public Schools. When they come visit me, they very often have been on 
the Mall. They have seen the Lincoln Memorial. They have seen the 
Washington Monument. They have been seen the Supreme Court, this 
Capitol. And there is a tendency among them to believe that this was 
just all here, that it was all just here. And of course, 230 years ago, 
I tell them, none of it was here. None of it was here. It was in the 
ideas of the Founders, the people whom we call the Founders, who did 
two incredible things in their lifetime, in their generation, that had 
never been done before in human history. They wrote a Constitution that 
would be ratified by the people who lived under it. It never happened 
before. They would never have imagined that we would have lasted 230 
years--at least until the age of Donald Trump.

  They led an armed insurrection against a colonial power. We call that 
the Revolutionary War. That succeeded too.
  They did something terrible in their generation that will last for 
the rest of our days and that is they perpetuated human slavery. The 
building we are standing in today was built by enslaved human beings 
because of the decisions that they made.
  But I tell the kids who come and visit me that there is a reason why 
there are not enslaved human beings in this country anymore and that is 
because of people like Frederick Douglass. He was born a slave in the 
United States of America, escaped his slavery in Maryland, risked his 
life and limb to get to Massachusetts, and he found the abolitionist 
movement there. And the abolitionist movement has been arguing for 
generations that the Constitution was a pro-slavery document. Frederick 
Douglass, who is completely self-taught, said to them: You have this 
exactly wrong, exactly backward, 180 degrees from the truth. The 
Constitution is an anti-slavery document, Frederick Douglass said, not 
a pro-slavery document.
  But we are not living up to the words of the Constitution. It is the 
same thing Dr. King said the night before he was killed in Memphis when 
he went down there for the striking garbage workers and he said: I am 
here to make America keep the promise you wrote down on the page.
  In my mind, Frederick Douglass and Dr. King are Founders, just as 
much as the people who wrote the Constitution of the United States. How 
could they not be? How could they not be?
  The women who fought to give my kids, my three daughters, the right 
to vote, who fought for 50 years to get the right to vote--mostly women 
in this country--are Founders, just like the people who wrote the 
Constitution, as well.
  Over the years that I have been here, I have seen this institution 
crumble into rubble. This institution has become incapable of 
addressing the most existential questions of our time that the next 
generation cannot address. They can't fix their own school. They can't 
fix our immigration system. They can't fix climate change, although 
they are getting less and less patient with us on that issue.
  But what I have come to conclude is that the responsibility of all of 
us--not just Senators but all of us as citizens in a democratic 
republic--230 years after the founding of this Republic, is the 
responsibility of a Founder. It is that elevated sense of what a 
citizen is required to do in a republic to sustain that republic, and I 
think that is the right way to think about it. It gives you a sense of 
what is really at stake beyond the headlines on the cable television at 
night and, certainly, in the social media feeds that divide us minute 
to minute in our political life today.

[[Page S895]]

  The Senate has clearly failed that standard. We have clearly failed 
that standard. The idea that we would turn our backs and close our eyes 
to evidence pounding on the outside of the doors of this Capitol is 
pitiful. It is disgraceful, and it will be a stain on this body for all 
time. More than 50 percent of the people in this place have said that 
what the President did was wrong. It clearly was wrong. It clearly was 
unconstitutional. It clearly was impeachable. What President would run 
for office saying to the American people: I am going to try to extort a 
foreign power for my own electoral interest to interfere in our 
elections? It is exactly the kind of conduct that the impeachment 
clause was written for. It is a textbook case of why the impeachment 
clause exists.
  But even if you don't agree with me that he should have been 
convicted or that he should be convicted, I don't know how anybody in 
this body goes home and faces their constituents and says that we 
wouldn't even look at the evidence.
  So I say to the American people: Our democracy is very much at risk. 
I am not one of those people who believes that Donald Trump is the 
source of all our problems. I think he has made matters much worse, to 
be sure, but he is a symptom of our problem. He is a symptom of our 
failure to tend to the democracy--to our responsibility--as Founders. 
And if we don't begin to take that responsibility as seriously as our 
parents and grandparents did--people who faced much bigger challenges 
than we ever did--nobody is asking us, thank God, to end human slavery. 
Nobody is asking us to fight for 50 years for the self-evident 
proposition that women should have the right to vote. We are not 
marching in Selma, being beaten for the self-evident prospect that all 
people are created equal. Nobody is asking us to climb the Cliffs of 
Normandy to fight for freedom in a World War.
  But we are being asked to save the democracy and we are going to fail 
that test today in the Senate. And my prayer for our country is that 
the American people will not fail that test. I am optimistic that we 
will not. We have never failed it before, and I don't think we will 
fail it in our time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Madam President, in 2012, the good people of Wisconsin 
elected me to work for them in the Senate. Like every one of my fellow 
Senators, I took an oath of office. In 2018, I was reelected and I took 
that same oath. We have all taken that oath. It is not to support and 
defend the President--this President or any other. Our oath is to 
support and defend the Constitution of the United States. That is our 
job every day that we come to work, and it certainly is our job here 
today.
  Just over 2 weeks ago, we all stood together right here and we took 
another oath given to us by Chief Justice Roberts to do impartial 
judgment in this impeachment trial. I have taken this responsibility 
very seriously. I have listened to both sides make their case. I have 
reviewed the evidence presented and I have carefully considered the 
facts.
  From the beginning, I have supported a full, fair, and honest 
impeachment trial. A majority of this Senate has failed to allow it. I 
supported the release of critical evidence that was concealed by the 
White House. The other side of the aisle let President Trump hide it 
from us, and they voted to keep it a secret from the American people. I 
voted for testimony of relevant witnesses with direct, firsthand 
evidence about the President's conduct. Senate Republicans blocked 
witness testimony because they didn't want to be bothered with the 
truth.
  Every Senate impeachment trial in our Nation's history has included 
witnesses, and this Senate trial should have been no different. 
Unfortunately, it was. A majority of the Senate has taken the 
unprecedented step of refusing to hear all the evidence, declining all 
the facts, denying the full truth about this President's corrupt abuse 
of power. President Trump has obstructed Congress, and this Senate will 
let him.
  Last month, President Trump's former National Security Advisor, John 
Bolton, provided an unpublished manuscript to the White House. The 
recent media reports about what Ambassador Bolton could have testified 
to, had he not been blocked as a witness, go to the heart of this 
impeachment trial--abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
  As reported, in early May 2019, there was an Oval Office meeting that 
included President Trump, Mick Mulvaney, Pat Cipollone, Rudy Giuliani, 
and John Bolton. According to Mr. Bolton, the President directed him to 
help with his pressure campaign to solicit assistance from Ukraine to 
pursue investigations that would not only benefit President Trump 
politically but would act to exonerate Russia from their interference 
in our 2016 elections.
  Several weeks later, the U.S. Department of Defense certified the 
release of military aid to Ukraine, concluding that they had taken 
substantial actions to decrease corruption. This was part of the 
security assistance we approved in Congress with bipartisan support to 
help Ukraine fight Russian aggression. However, President Trump blocked 
it and covered it up from Congress.
  On July 25, 2019, as President Trump was withholding the support for 
Ukraine, he had a telephone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky. 
Based on a White House call summary memo that was released 2 months 
later, we all know the President put his own political interest ahead 
of our national security and the integrity of our elections.
  Based on the clear and convincing evidence presented in this trial, 
we know President Trump used American taxpayer dollars in security 
assistance in order to get Ukraine to interfere in our elections to 
help him politically. We know the President solicited assistance from 
Ukraine to pursue an investigation of phony conspiracy theories about 
our 2016 U.S. elections that are a part of a Russian disinformation 
campaign. We know the President solicited assistance from Ukraine to 
discredit the conclusion by American law enforcement, the U.S. 
intelligence community, and confirmed by a bipartisan Senate report 
that Russia interfered with our 2016 elections. We also know President 
Trump solicited foreign interference in the upcoming election by 
pressuring Ukraine to publicly announce investigations to help him 
politically.
  I ask my friends to consider the fact that the Ukrainian President 
was pressured and prepared to go on an American cable television 
network to announce these political investigations.
  To those who are making the argument to acquit the President because 
to convict would create further division in our country, I ask you to 
acknowledge the fact that President Trump's corrupt scheme has given 
Russia another opening to attack our democracy, interfere in our 
elections, and further divide our already divided country. We know this 
to be true, but the Senate is choosing to ignore the truth.
  As reported just weeks after the Zelensky call, President Trump told 
Ambassador Bolton in August that he wanted to continue freezing $391 
million in security assistance to Ukraine until it helped with the 
political investigations. Had Ambassador Bolton testified to these 
facts in this trial, it would have directly contradicted what the 
President told Senator Johnson in a phone call on August 31, 2019, in 
which, according to Senator Johnson, the President said:

       I would never do that. Who told you that?

  John Bolton not only has direct evidence that implicates President 
Trump in a corrupt abuse of power, but he has direct evidence that 
President Trump lied to one of our colleagues in an attempt to cover it 
up. It may not matter to this Senate, but I can tell you that it 
matters to the people of the State of Wisconsin that this President did 
not tell their Senator the truth.
  Based on the facts presented to us, I refuse to join this President's 
coverup, and I refuse to conclude that the President's abuse of power 
doesn't matter, that it is OK, and that we should just get over it.
  I recognize the courageous public servants who did what this Senate 
has failed to do--to put our country first. In the House impeachment 
inquiry, brave government servants came forward and told the truth. 
They put their jobs on the line. Instead of inspiring us to do our 
duty--to do our jobs--they

[[Page S896]]

have faced character assassination from this President, the White 
House, and some of my colleagues here in the Senate. It is a disgrace 
to this institution that they have been treated as anything less than 
the patriots they are.
  As Army LTC Alexander Vindman said, ``This is America. Here, right 
matters.''
  My judgment is inspired by these words, and I am guided to my 
commitment to put country before party and our Constitution first.
  My vote on the President's abuse of power and obstruction of Congress 
is a vote to uphold my oath of office and to support and defend the 
Constitution. My vote is a vote to uphold the rule of law and our 
uniquely American principle that no one--not even the President--is 
above the law. I only have 1 of 100 votes in the U.S. Senate, and I am 
afraid that the majority is putting this President above the law by not 
convicting him of these impeachable offenses.
  Let's be clear. This is not an exoneration of President Trump. It is 
a failure to show moral courage and hold this President accountable.
  Now every American will have the power to make his or her own 
judgment. Every American gets to decide what is in our public interest. 
We the people get to choose what is in our national interest. I trust 
the American people. I know they will be guided by our common good and 
the truth. The people we work for know what the truth is, and they 
know, in America, it matters.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, it is important to remind ourselves, at 
moments like this, how unnatural and uncommon democracy really is.
  Just think of all of the important forums in your life. Think about 
your workplace, your family, your favorite sports team. None of them 
makes decisions by democratic vote. The CEO decides how much money you 
are going to make. It is not by the vote of your fellow employees. You 
love your kids, but they don't get an equal say in household matters as 
mom and dad do. The plays the Chiefs called on their game-winning 
drives were not decided by a team vote.
  No, most everything in our lives that matters, other than the 
government under which we live, is not run by democratic vote, and, of 
course, a tiny percentage of humans--well under 1 percent--have lived 
in a democratic society over the last thousand years of human history.
  Democracy is unnatural. It is rare. It is delicate. It is fragile, 
and untended to, neglected, or taken for granted, it will disappear 
like ashes that scatter into the cold night.
  This body--the U.S. Senate--was conceived by our Founders to be the 
ultimate guardians of this brittle experiment in governance. We, the 
100 of us, were given the responsibility to keep it safe from those who 
may deign to harm it, and when the Senate lives up to this charge, it 
is an awesome, inspirational sight to behold.
  I was born 3 weeks after Alexander Butterfield revealed the existence 
of a taping system in the White House that likely held evidence of 
President Nixon's crimes, and I was born 1 week after the Senate 
Watergate Committee, in a bipartisan vote, ordered Nixon to turn over 
several key tapes.
  Now, my parents were Republicans. My mom is still a Republican. Over 
the years, they have voted for a lot of Democrats and Republicans. They 
raised me, in the shadow of Watergate, to understand that what mattered 
in politics wasn't really someone's party. It was whether you were 
honest and decent and if you were pursuing office for the right 
reasons.
  In the year I was born, this Senate watched a President betray the 
Nation, and this Senate--both Democrats and Republicans--stood together 
to protect the country from this betrayal. This is exactly what our 
Founders envisioned when they gave the Congress the massive 
responsibility of the impeachment power. They said to use it sparingly, 
to use it not to settle political scores but to use it when a President 
has strayed from the bonds of decency and propriety.
  The Founders wanted Congress to save the country from bad men who 
would try to use the awesome power of the executive branch to enrich 
themselves or to win office illicitly, and I grew up under the belief 
that, when those bad men presented themselves, this place had the 
ability to put aside party and work to protect our fragile democracy 
from attack.
  This attack on our Republic that we are debating today, if left 
unchecked, is potentially lethal. The one sacred covenant that an 
American President makes with the governed is to use the massive power 
of the executive branch for the good of the country, not for personal 
financial or political benefit. The difference between a democracy and 
a tin-pot dictatorship is that, here, we don't allow Presidents to use 
the official levers of power to destroy political opponents. Yet that 
is exactly what President Trump did, and we all know it. Even the 
Republicans who are going to vote to acquit him today admit that. If 
you think that our endorsement through acquittal will not have an 
impact, then, just look at Rudy Giuliani's trip to Ukraine in December, 
which was in the middle of the impeachment process. He went back, 
looking for more dirt, and the President was ringing him up to get the 
details before Giuliani's plane even hit the gate. The corruption 
hasn't stopped. It is ongoing. If this is the new normal--the new means 
by which a President can consolidate power and try to destroy political 
opponents--then we are no longer living in America.
  What happened here over the last 2 weeks is as much a corruption as 
Trump's scheme was. This trial was simply an extension of Trump's 
crimes--no documents, no witnesses. It was the first-ever impeachment 
trial in the Senate without either. John Bolton, in his practically 
begging to come here and tell his firsthand account of the President's 
corruption, was denied--just to make sure that voters couldn't hear his 
story in time for them to be able to pressure their Senators prior to 
an impeachment vote.
  This was a show trial--a gift-wrapped present for a grateful party 
leader. We became complicit in the very attacks on democracy that this 
body is supposed to guard against. We have failed to protect the 
Republic.
  What is so interesting to me is that it is not like the Republicans 
didn't see this moment coming. In fact, many of my colleagues across 
the aisle literally predicted it. Prior to the President's election, 
here is what the Republican Senators said about Donald Trump.
  One said:

       He is shallow. He is ill-prepared to be Commander in Chief. 
     I think he is crazy. I think he is unfit for office.

  Another said:

       The man is a pathological liar. He doesn't know the 
     difference between truth and lies.

  Yet another Republican Senator said:

       What we are dealing with is a con artist. He is a con 
     artist.

  Now, you can shrug this off as election-year rhetoric, but no 
Democrat has ever said these kinds of things about a candidate from our 
party, and prior to Trump, no Republican had said such things about 
candidates from their party either. The truth is the Republicans, 
before Trump became the head of their party, knew exactly how dangerous 
he was and how dangerous he would be if he won. They knew he was the 
archetype of that bad man the Founders intended the Senate to protect 
democracy from.
  That responsibility seems to no longer retain a position of primacy 
in this body today. The rule of law doesn't seem to come first today. 
Our commitment to upholding decency and truth and honor is not the 
priority today. In the modern Senate today, all that seems to matter is 
party. What is different about this impeachment is not that the 
Democrats have chosen to make it partisan. It is that the Republicans 
have chosen to excuse their party's President's conduct in a way that 
they would not have done and did not do 45 years ago. That is what 
makes this moment exceptional.
  Now, Congressman Schiff, in his closing argument, rightly challenged 
the Democrats to think about what we would do if a President of our 
party ever committed the same kind of offense that Donald Trump has. I 
think it was a very wise query and one that we as Democrats should not 
be so quick on the trigger to answer self-righteously.

[[Page S897]]

  Would we have the courage to stand up to our base, to our political 
supporters, and vote to remove a Democratic President who had chosen to 
trade away the safety of the Nation for political help? It would not be 
easy. No, the easy thing to do would be to just do what is happening 
today--to box our ears, close our eyes, and just hope the corruption 
goes away.
  So I have thought a lot about this question over these past 2 days, 
and I have come to the conclusion that, at least for me, I would hold 
the Democrats to the same standard. I would vote to remove. But I admit 
to some level of doubt, and I think that I need to be honest about that 
because the pressures today to put party first are real on both sides 
of the aisle, and they are much more acute today than they were during 
Watergate.
  It is with that reality as context that I prepare to vote today. I 
believe that the President's crimes are worthy of removal. I will vote 
to convict on both Articles of Impeachment.
  But I know that something is rotten in the state of Denmark. Ours is 
an institution built to put country above party, and today we are 
doing, often, the opposite. I believe within the cult of personality 
that has become the Trump Presidency, the disease is more acute and 
more perilous to the Nation's health on the Republican side of the 
ledger, but I admit this affliction has spread to all corners of this 
Chamber.
  If we are to survive as a democracy--a fragile, delicate, constantly 
in need of tending democracy--then this Senate needs to figure out a 
way after today to reorder our incentive system and recalibrate our 
faiths so that the health of one party never ever again comes before 
the health of our Nation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. ROMNEY. Mr. President, the Constitution is at the foundation of 
our Republic's success, and we each strive not to lose sight of our 
promise to defend it.
  The Constitution established a vehicle of impeachment that has 
occupied both Houses of our Congress these many days. We have labored 
to faithfully execute our responsibilities to it. We have arrived at 
different judgments, but I hope we respect each other's good faith.
  The allegations made in the Articles of Impeachment are very serious. 
As a Senator juror, I swore an oath before God to exercise impartial 
justice. I am profoundly religious. My faith is at the heart of who I 
am. I take an oath before God as enormously consequential.
  I knew from the outset that being tasked with judging the President--
the leader of my own party--would be the most difficult decision I have 
ever faced. I was not wrong.
  The House managers presented evidence supporting their case, and the 
White House counsel disputed that case.
  In addition, the President's team presented three defenses: first, 
that there could be no impeachment without a statutory crime; second, 
that the Bidens' conduct justified the President's actions; and third, 
that the judgment of the President's actions should be left to the 
voters. Let me first address those three defenses.
  The historic meaning of the words ``high crimes and misdemeanors,'' 
the writings of the Founders, and my own reasoned judgment convinced me 
that a President can indeed commit acts against the public trust that 
are so egregious that, while they are not statutory crimes, they would 
demand removal from office.
  To maintain that the lack of a codified and comprehensive list of all 
the outrageous acts that a President might conceivably commit renders 
Congress powerless to remove such a President defies reason.
  The President's counsel also notes that Vice President Biden appeared 
to have a conflict of interest when he undertook an effort to remove 
the Ukrainian prosecutor general. If he knew of the exorbitant 
compensation his son was receiving from a company actually under 
investigation, the Vice President should have recused himself. While 
ignoring a conflict of interest is not a crime, it is surely very 
wrong.
  With regard to Hunter Biden, taking excessive advantage of his 
father's name is unsavory but also not a crime.
  Given that in neither the case of the father nor the son was any 
evidence presented by the President's counsel that a crime had been 
committed, the President's insistence that they be investigated by the 
Ukrainians is hard to explain other than as a political pursuit. There 
is no question in my mind that were their names not Biden, the 
President would never have done what he did.
  The defense argues that the Senate should leave the impeachment 
decision to the voters. While that logic is appealing to our democratic 
instincts, it is inconsistent with the Constitution's requirement that 
the Senate, not the voters, try the President. Hamilton explained that 
the Founders' decision to invest Senators with this obligation rather 
than leave it to the voters was intended to minimize to the extent 
possible the partisan sentiments of the public at large. So the verdict 
is ours to render under our Constitution. The people will judge us for 
how well and faithfully we fulfill our duty.
  The grave question the Constitution tasks Senators to answer is 
whether the President committed an act so extreme and egregious that it 
rises to the level of a high crime and misdemeanor. Yes, he did. The 
President asked a foreign government to investigate his political 
rival. The President withheld vital military funds from that government 
to press it to do so. The President delayed funds for an American ally 
at war with Russian invaders. The President's purpose was personal and 
political. Accordingly, the President is guilty of an appalling abuse 
of public trust.
  What he did was not ``perfect.'' No, it was a flagrant assault on our 
electoral rights, our national security, and our fundamental values. 
Corrupting an election to keep one's self in office is perhaps the most 
abusive and destructive violation of one's oath of office that I can 
imagine.
  In the last several weeks, I have received numerous calls and texts. 
Many demanded, in their words, that I ``stand with the team.'' I can 
assure you that thought has been very much in my mind. You see, I 
support a great deal of what the President has done. I have voted with 
him 80 percent of the time. But my promise before God to apply 
impartial justice required that I put my personal feelings and 
political biases aside. Were I to ignore the evidence that has been 
presented and disregard what I believe my oath and the Constitution 
demands of me for the sake of a partisan end, it would, I fear, expose 
my character to history's rebuke and the censure of my own conscience.
  I am aware that there are people in my party and in my State who will 
strenuously disapprove of my decision, and in some quarters, I will be 
vehemently denounced. I am sure to hear abuse from the President and 
his supporters. Does anyone seriously believe that I would consent to 
these consequences other than from an inescapable conviction that my 
oath before God demanded it of me?
  I sought to hear testimony from John Bolton, not only because I 
believe he could add context to the charges but also because I hoped 
that what he might say could raise reasonable doubt and thus remove 
from me the awful obligation to vote for impeachment.
  Like each Member of this deliberative body, I love our country. I 
believe that our Constitution was inspired by providence. I am 
convinced that freedom itself is dependent on the strength and vitality 
of our national character.
  As it is with each Senator, my vote is an act of conviction. We have 
come to different conclusions, fellow Senators, but I trust we have all 
followed the dictates of our conscience.
  I acknowledge that my verdict will not remove the President from 
office. The results of this Senate court will, in fact, be appealed to 
a higher court--the judgment of the American people. Voters will make 
the final decision, just as the President's lawyers have implored. My 
vote will likely be in the minority in the Senate. But irrespective of 
these things, with my vote, I will tell my children and their children 
that I did my duty to the best of my ability, believing that my country 
expected it of me.
  I will only be one name among many--no more, no less--to future 
generations of Americans who look at the record of this trial. They 
will note merely that I was among the Senators

[[Page S898]]

who determined that what the President did was wrong, grievously wrong.
  We are all footnotes at best in the annals of history, but in the 
most powerful Nation on Earth, the Nation conceived in liberty and 
justice, that distinction is enough for any citizen.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, over the past few weeks, 
we have heard a lot of arguments, accusations, and anecdotes. Some very 
skilled speakers on both sides have presented their case both for and 
against impeachment.
  I listened intently, hour after hour, day after day, to the House 
managers and the President's lawyers, and the word that kept coming to 
me, that I kept writing down in my notes was ``fairness'' because, you 
see, here in America you are innocent until proven guilty.
  As the President's defense team noted, ``[A]t the foundation of those 
authentic forms of justice is fundamental fairness. It's playing by the 
rules. It's why we don't allow deflated footballs or stealing signs 
from the field. Rules are rules. They're there to be followed.''
  You can create all the rhetorical imagery in the world, but without 
the facts to prove guilt, it doesn't mean a thing. They can say the 
President cannot be trusted, but without proving why he can't be 
trusted, their words are just empty political attacks.
  You can speak of David v. Goliath, but if you were the one trying to 
subvert the presumption of innocence, if you were the one to will facts 
into existence, you are not David; you have become Goliath.
  Our job here in the Senate is to ensure a fair trial based on the 
evidence gathered by the House. I have been accused, as have many of my 
colleagues, of not wanting that fair trial. The exact opposite is true. 
We have ensured a fair trial in the Senate after House Democrats abused 
historical precedents in their zeal to impeach a President they simply 
do not like.
  During prior impeachment proceedings in the last 50 years--lasting 
around 75 days or so in the House--the House's opposing party was 
allowed witnesses and the ability to cross-examine. This time, House 
Republicans were locked out of the first 71 of 78 days. Let me say that 
differently. The ability to cross-examine the witnesses who are coming 
before the House against the President, the House Republicans and the 
President's team were not allowed to cross-examine those witnesses. The 
ability to contradict and/or to cross-examine or have a conversation 
about the evidence at the foundation of the trial? The White House 
counsel and Republicans were not allowed. Think about the concept of 
due process. The House Republicans and President's team, were not 
allowed for 71 of 78 days in the House. This is not a fair process. 
Does that sound fair to you?
  Democrats began talking about impeachment within months of President 
Trump's election and have made it clear that their No. 1 goal--perhaps 
their only goal--has been to remove him from office. Does that sound 
fair to you?
  They have said: ``We are going to impeach the . . . '' and used an 
expletive.
  They said: ``We have to impeach him, otherwise he's going to win the 
election.'' Now that might be the transparency we have been looking for 
in this process--the real root or foundation of why we found ourselves 
here for 60 hours of testimony. It might be because, as they said 
themselves, if we don't impeach him, he might just win.
  What an amazing thought that the American people and not Members of 
Congress would decide the Presidency of the United States. What a novel 
concept that the House managers and Congress would not remove his name 
from the ballot in 2020, but we would allow the American people to 
decide the fate of this President and of the Presidency.
  They don't get it. They don't understand that the American people 
should be and are the final arbiters of what happens. They want to make 
not only the President vulnerable, but they want to make Republican 
Senators vulnerable so that they can control the majority of the U.S. 
Senate because the facts are not winning for them. The facts are 
winning for us because when you look at the facts, they are not their 
facts and our facts, they are just the facts. What I have learned from 
watching the House managers who were very convincing--they were very 
convincing the first day--and after that what we realized was, some 
facts mixed with a little fiction led to 100 percent deception. You 
cannot mix facts and fiction without having the premise of deceiving 
the American public, and that is what we saw here in our Chamber.
  Why is that the case? It is simple. When you look at the facts of 
this Presidency, you come to a few conclusions that are, in fact, 
indisputable. One of those conclusions is that our economy is booming, 
and it is not simply booming from the top. When you start looking into 
the crosstabs, as I like to say, what you find is that the bottom 20 
percent are seeing increases that the top 20 percent are not seeing. So 
this economy is working for the most vulnerable Americans, and that is 
challenging to our friends on the other side.
  When you think about the fact that the opportunity zone legislation 
supported by this President is bringing $67 billion of private sector 
dollars into the most vulnerable communities, that is challenging to 
the other side, but those, too, are facts. When you think about the 
essence of criminal justice reform and making communities safer and 
having a fairer justice system for those who are incarcerated, that is 
challenging to the other side, but it is, indeed, a fact, driven home 
by the Republican Party and President Donald John Trump. These facts do 
have consequences, just like elections.
  Our friends on the other side, unfortunately, decided that if they 
could not beat him at the polls, give Congress an opportunity to, in 
fact, impeach the President. My friends on the left simply don't want a 
fair process. This process has lacked fairness. Instead, they paint 
their efforts as fighting on behalf of democracy when, in fact, they 
are just working on behalf of Democrats. That is not fair. It is not 
what the American people deserve.
  House managers said over and over again, the Senate had to protect 
our Nation's free and fair elections, but they are seeking to overturn 
a fairly won election with absurd charges.
  The House managers said over and over again that the Senate has to 
allow new witnesses so as to make the Senate trial fair, but they 
didn't bother with the notion of fairness when they were in charge in 
the House.
  Their notion of fairness is to give the prosecution do-overs and 
extra latitude but not the defendants.
  Actions speak louder than words, and the Democrats' actions have said 
all we need to hear.
  Let's vote no on these motions today and get back to working for the 
American people.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, the last time this body--the last time the 
Senate--debated the fate of a Presidency in the context of impeachment, 
the legendary Senator from West Virginia, Robert Byrd, rose and said:

       I think my country sinks beneath the yoke. It weeps, it 
     bleeds, and each new day a gash is added to her wounds.

  Our country today, as then, is in pain. We are deeply divided, and 
most days, it seems to me that we here are the ones wielding the shiv, 
not the salve.
  The Founders gave this Senate the sole power to try impeachments 
because, as Alexander Hamilton wrote: ``Where else than in the Senate 
could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or 
sufficiently independent?''
  I wish I could say with confidence that we here have lived up to the 
faith our Founders entrusted in us. Unfortunately, I fear, in this 
impeachment trial, the Senate has failed a historic test of our ability 
to put country over party.
  Foreign interference in our democracy has posed a grave threat to our 
Nation since its very founding. James Madison wrote that impeachment 
was an ``indispensable'' check against a President who would ``betray 
his trust to foreign powers.''
  The threat of foreign interference remains grave and real to this 
day. It is indisputable that Russia attacked our 2016 election and 
interfered in it broadly. President Trump's own FBI Director and 
Director of National Intelligence have warned us they are intent

[[Page S899]]

on interfering in our election this coming fall.
  So, to my Republican colleagues, I have frankly found it difficult to 
understand why you would continue to so fervently support a President 
who has repeatedly and publicly invited foreign interference in our 
elections.
  During his 2016 campaign, Donald Trump looked straight into the 
cameras at a press conference and said: Russia, if you're listening, I 
hope you're able to find Secretary Clinton's 30,000 emails.
  We now know with certainty that Russian military intelligence hackers 
first attempted to break into Secretary Clinton's office servers for 
the first time that very day. Throughout his campaign, President Trump 
praised the publication of emails that Russian hackers had stolen from 
his political opponent. He mercilessly attacked former FBI Director 
Robert Mueller throughout his investigation into the 2016 election and 
allegations of Russian interference.
  Now we know, following this trial, that the day after Special Counsel 
Mueller testified about his investigation to this Congress, President 
Trump, on a phone call with the President of Ukraine, asked for a 
favor. He asked President Zelensky to announce an investigation of his 
chief political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden, and he asked 
for an investigation into a Russian conspiracy theory about that DNC 
server. In the weeks and the months since, he has repeated that Ukraine 
should investigate his political opponent and that China should as 
well.
  During the trial here, after the House managers and President's 
counsel made their presentation, Senators had the opportunity to ask 
questions. I asked a question of the President's lawyers about a 
sentence in their own trial brief that stated: ``Congress has forbidden 
foreigners' involvement in American elections.''
  I simply asked whether the President's own attorneys believed their 
client, President Trump, agrees with that statement, and they refused 
to confirm that he does. And how could they when he has repeatedly 
invited and solicited foreign interference in our elections?
  So, to my colleagues: Do you doubt that President Trump did what he 
is accused of? Do you doubt he would do it again? Do you think for even 
one moment he would refuse the help of foreign agents to smear any one 
of us if he thought it was in his best political interest? And I have 
to ask: What becomes of our democracy when elections become a no-holds-
barred blood sport, when our foreign adversaries become our allies, and 
when Americans of the opposing party become our enemies?
  Throughout this trial, I have listened to the arguments of the House 
managers prosecuting the case against President Trump and of the 
arguments of counsel defending the President. I engaged with colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle and listened to their positions.
  The President's counsel have warned us of danger in partisan 
impeachments. They have cautioned that abuse of power--the first 
article--is a difficult standard to define. They have expressed deep 
concern about an impeachment conducted on the brink of our next 
Presidential election.
  I understand those concerns and even share some of them. The House 
managers, in turn, warned us that our President has demonstrated a 
perilous willingness to seek foreign interference in our elections and 
presented significant evidence that the President withheld foreign aid 
from a vulnerable ally, not to serve our national interest but to 
attack a political opponent. They demonstrated the President has 
categorically obstructed congressional investigations to cover up his 
misconduct. These are serious dangers too.
  We, then, are faced with a choice between serious and significant 
dangers. After listening closely to the evidence, weighing the 
arguments, and reflecting on my constitutional responsibility and my 
oath to do impartial justice, I have decided today I will vote guilty 
on both articles.
  I recognize that many of my colleagues have made up their minds. No 
matter what decision you have reached, I think it is a sad day for our 
country. I myself have never been on a crusade to impeach Donald Trump, 
as has been alleged against all Democrats. I have sought ways to work 
across the aisle with his administration, but in the years that have 
followed his election, I have increasingly become convinced our 
President is not just unconventional, not just testing the boundaries 
of our norms and traditions, but he is at times unmoored.
  Throughout this trial, I have heard from Delawareans who are 
frustrated the Senate refused to hear from witnesses or subpoena 
documents needed to uncover all the facts about the President's 
misconduct. I have heard from Delawareans who fear our President 
believes he is above the law and that he acts as if he is the law. I 
have also heard from Delawareans who just want us to find a way to work 
together.
  It is my sincere regret that, with all the time we have spent 
together, we could not find common ground at all. From the opening 
resolution that set the procedures for trial adopted on a party-line 
basis, the majority leader refused all attempts to make this a more 
open and more fair process. Every Democrat was willing to have Chief 
Justice Roberts rule on motions to subpoena relevant witnesses and 
documents. Every Member of the opposing party refused. We could not 
even forge a consensus to call a single witness who has said he has 
firsthand evidence, who is willing to testify and was even preparing to 
appear before us.
  When an impeachment trial becomes meaningless, we are damaged and 
weakened as a body, and our Constitution suffers in ways not easily 
repaired. We have a President who hasn't turned over a single scrap of 
paper in an impeachment investigation. Unlike Presidents Nixon and 
Clinton before him, who directed their senior advisers and Cabinet 
officials to cooperate, President Trump stonewalled every step of this 
Congress's impeachment inquiry and then personally attacked those who 
cooperated. The people who testified to the House of Representatives in 
spite of the President's orders are dedicated public servants and 
deserve our thanks, not condemnation.
  Where do we go from here? Well, after President Clinton's impeachment 
trial, he said: ``This can be and must be a time of reconciliation and 
renewal for [our country],'' and he apologized for the harm he had done 
to our Nation.
  When President Nixon announced his resignation, he said: ``The first 
essential is to begin healing the wounds of this Nation.''
  I wish President Trump would use this moment to bring our country 
together, to assure us he would work to make the 2020 election a fair 
contest; that he would tell Russia and China to stay out of our 
elections; that he would tell the American people, whoever his opponent 
might be, the fight will be between candidates, not families; that if 
he loses, he will leave peacefully, in a dignified manner; and that if 
he wins, he will work tirelessly to be the President for all people.
  But at this point, some might suggest it would be hopelessly naive to 
expect of President Trump that he would apologize or strive to heal our 
country or do the important work of safeguarding our next election. So 
that falls to us.
  To my colleagues who have concluded impeachment is too heavy a hammer 
to wield, if you believe the American people should decide the fate of 
this President in the next election, what will you do to protect our 
democracy? What will you do to ensure the American people learn the 
truth of what happened so that they can cast informed votes? Will you 
cosponsor bills to secure our elections? Will you insist they receive 
votes on this floor? Will you express support for the intelligence 
community that is working to keep our country safe? Will you ensure 
whistleblowers who expose corruption are protected, not vilified? Will 
you press this administration to cooperate with investigations and to 
allow meaningful accommodations so that Congress can have its power of 
oversight? Why can we not do this together?
  Each day of this trial, we have said the Pledge of Allegiance to our 
common Nation. For my Republican friends who have concluded the voters 
should decide President Trump's fate, we need to do more together to 
make that possible. Many of my Democratic friends, I know, are poised 
to do their very best to defeat President Trump at the ballot box.
  So here is my plea--that we would find ways to work together to 
defend

[[Page S900]]

our democracy and safeguard our next election. We have spent more time 
together here in the last few weeks than in the last few years. Imagine 
if we dedicated that same time to passing the dozens of bipartisan 
bills that have come over from the House that are awaiting action. 
Imagine what we could accomplish for our States and our country if we 
actually tackled the challenges of affordable healthcare and ending the 
opioid crisis, making our schools and communities safer, and bridging 
our profound disagreements.
  What fills me with dread, to my colleagues, is that each day we come 
to this floor and talk past each other and not to each other and fail 
to help our constituents.
  Let me close by paraphrasing our Chaplain--Chaplain Black--whose 
daily prayers brought me great strength in recent weeks: May we work 
together to bring peace and unity. May we permit Godliness to make us 
bold as lions. May we see a clear vision of our Lord's desire for our 
Nation and remember we borrow our heartbeats from our Creator each day.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, over the last several months and last 
several weeks, the American people have watched Washington convulse in 
partisan accusations, investigations, and endless acrimony. That 
division reached its high watermark as the U.S. Senate carried out the 
third Presidential impeachment trial in our Nation's history.
  We saw, over the last 2 weeks, an impeachment process that included 
the testimony of 17 witnesses, more than 100 hours of testimony, and 
tens of thousands of pages of evidence, records, and documents, which I 
successfully fought to make part of the record. I fought hard to extend 
the duration of testimony to ensure that each side could be heard over 
6 days instead of just 4. But what we did not see over the last 2 weeks 
was a conclusive reason to remove the President of the United States--
an act which would nullify the 2016 election and rob roughly half the 
country of their preferred candidate for the 2020 elections.

  House managers repeatedly stated that they had established 
``overwhelming evidence'' and an ``airtight'' case to remove the 
President. Yet they also repeatedly claimed they needed additional 
investigation and testimony. A case cannot be both ``overwhelming'' and 
``airtight'' and yet incomplete at the same time. That contradiction is 
not mere semantics.
  In their partisan--their partisan--race to impeach, the House failed 
to do the fundamental work required to prove its case, to meet the 
heavy burden. For the Senate to ignore this deficiency and conduct its 
own investigation would weaponize the impeachment power. A House 
majority could simply short-circuit an investigation, impeach, and 
demand the Senate complete the House's work--what they were asking us 
to do.
  The Founders were concerned about this very point. Alexander Hamilton 
wrote, regarding impeachments: ``[T]here will always be the greatest 
danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative 
strength of parties, than by real demonstrations of innocence or 
guilt.''
  More recently, Congressman Jerry Nadler, one of the House managers in 
the trial, said:

       There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an 
     impeachment substantially supported by one of our major 
     political parties and largely opposed by the other. Such an 
     impeachment will lack legitimacy.

  Last March, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said: ``Impeachment is so divisive 
to the country that unless there's something so compelling and 
overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path, 
because it divides the country.''
  The Framers knew that partisan impeachments could lead to 
impeachments over policy disagreements. Legal scholars like Charles 
Black have written that policy differences are not grounds for 
impeachment. But policy differences about corruption and the proper use 
of tax dollars are at the very heart of this impeachment. Nevertheless, 
that disagreement led the House to deploy this most serious of 
constitutional remedies.
  The reason the Framers were concerned about partisan or policy 
impeachments was their concern for the American people. Removing a 
President disenfranchises the American people. For a Senate of only 100 
people, to do that requires a genuine, bipartisan, national consensus. 
Here, especially only 9 months before an election, I cannot pretend the 
people will accept this body removing a President who received nearly 
63 million votes without meeting that high burden.
  The House managers' other argument to remove the President--
obstruction of Congress--is an affront to the Constitution. The Framers 
created a system of government in which the legislative, executive, and 
the judiciary are evenly balanced. The Framers consciously diluted each 
branch's power, making all three separate but equal and empowered to 
check each other.
  The obstruction charge assumes the House is superior to the executive 
branch. In their zeal, the House managers would disempower the 
judiciary and demand that the House's interpretation of the sole power 
of impeachment be accepted by the Senate and the other branches without 
question. They claim no constitutional privilege exists to protect the 
executive branch against the legislature seeking impeachment. They go 
further and claim that a single Justice--a single Justice--exercising 
the Senate's sole power to try impeachments, can actually strip the 
executive of its constitutional protections with a simple decree.
  In Federalist 78, Hamilton wrote: ``[L]iberty can have nothing to 
fear from the judiciary alone, but would have everything to fear from 
its union with either of the other departments.''
  If the House managers prevail, the House would have destroyed our 
constitutional balance, declaring itself the arbiter of constitutional 
rights and conscripting the Chief Justice to do it.
  To be clear, the executive branch is not immune from legislative 
oversight or impeachment and trial, but that cannot come at the expense 
of constitutional rights--certainly not without input from the 
judiciary. After all, since Marbury v. Madison, ``[i]t is emphatically 
the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.'' Without 
this separation, nothing stops the House from seeking privileged 
information under the guise of an impeachment inquiry.
  But the House managers say that no matter how flimsy the House's 
case, if the Executive tries to protect that information 
constitutionally, that itself is an impeachable offense. That dangerous 
precedent would weaken the stability of government--constantly 
threatening the President with removal and setting the stage for a 
constitutional crisis without recourse to the courts. With that 
precedent set, the separation of powers would simply cease to exist.
  Over the 244-year history of our country, no President has been 
removed from office. The first Presidential impeachment occurred in 
1868. The next was more than 100 years later. Now, 50 percent of 
Presidents have been impeached in the last 25 years alone. A tool so 
rarely used in the past is now being used more frequently. It is a 
dangerous development, and the Senate stands as the safeguard as 
passions grow even more heated.
  These defective articles and the defective process leading to them 
allow the House to muddy things and claim we are setting a destructive 
precedent for the future.
  Of course, bad cases make bad law. The House's decision to short-
circuit the investigation--moving faster than any Presidential 
impeachment ever, and a wholly partisan one at that--certainly makes 
for a bad case.
  So, again, let me be clear about what this precedent does not do. At 
the outset, this case does not set the precedent that a President can 
do anything as long as he believes it to be in his electoral interest. 
I also reject the claim that impeachment requires criminal conduct. 
Rather, this shows, first, that House committees cannot simply assume 
the impeachment power to compel evidence without express authority from 
the full body and corresponding political accountability.
  Second, the House should work in good faith with the Executive 
through the accommodation process. If that process reaches an impasse, 
the House should seek the assistance of the judicial branch before 
turning to impeachment.

[[Page S901]]

  Finally, when Articles of Impeachment come to the Senate along 
partisan lines, when nearly half of the people appear unmoved and 
maintain adamant support for the President and when the country is just 
months away from an election, in these circumstances, the American 
people would likely not accept removing the President, and the Senate 
can wisely decline to usurp the people's power to elect their own 
President.
  It has been said in this trial that the American people cannot make 
that decision for themselves. I couldn't disagree more. I believe in 
the American people. I believe in the power of our people to evaluate 
the President, to make their decision in November, and to move forward 
in our enduring effort to form a more perfect union. I do not believe a 
Senate nullification of two elections over defective Impeachment 
Articles is in the Nation's best interest.
  So let's move forward with the people's business and bring this 
Nation back together. Let's rise up together, not fight each other. Not 
all of us voted for President Trump. Not all of us voted for the last 
President or the one before him. Yet we should work to make our Nation 
successful regardless of partisan passions. Passion, positively placed, 
will provide our Nation with the prosperity it has always been blessed 
with. Partisan poison will prove devastating to our Nation's long-term 
prosperity.
  We must not allow our fractures to destroy our national fabric or 
partisanship to destroy our friendships. If we come together, we will 
succeed together, for surely we are bound together in this, the great 
United States of America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I entered the Senate in the wake of 
Watergate in 1975, a time when the American people's faith in our 
institutions was profoundly shaken. The very first vote I cast was in 
favor of creating the Select Committee to Study Government Operations 
with Respect to Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans--
that is, the Church Committee. Through that Committee's work, the 
American public soon learned of years of abuses that had occurred at 
the hands of the executive branch's intelligence agencies. In response, 
the Senate passed sweeping reforms to rein in this overreach. In many 
ways, this represented the best of the Senate: we came together across 
party lines to thoroughly investigate, and ultimately curb, gross 
executive branch abuses.
  The Senate has never been perfect. And much has changed in the 45 
years I have served in this body. Yet today we face a similar test: 
whether the Senate, in the face of egregious misconduct directed by the 
President himself, will rise again to serve as the check on executive 
abuses our Founders intended us to be.
  But today, and throughout this ``trial,'' we are failing this test 
and witnessing the very worst of the modern Senate. After being 
confronted with overwhelming evidence of a brazen abuse of executive 
power, and an equally brazen attempt to keep that scheme hidden from 
Congress and the American people, the Senate is poised to look the 
other way. To simply move on. To pretend the Senate has no 
responsibility to reveal the President's misconduct and, God forbid, 
hold him to account.
  Indeed we are being told the Senate has no constitutional role to 
play, and only the American people should judge the President's 
misconduct in the next election. This is despite the Senate's 
constitutionally-mandated role, and despite the fact that the 
President's scheme was aimed at cheating in that very election. And now 
the Senate is cementing a cover-up of the President's misconduct, to 
keep its extent hidden from the American people. How, then, will the 
American people be equipped to judge the President's actions? How far 
the Senate has fallen.
  In some ways, President Nixon's misconduct--directing a break-in of 
the Democratic National Committee headquarters to benefit himself 
politically--seems quaint compared to what we face today. As charged in 
Article I, President Trump secretly directed a sweeping, illegal scheme 
to withhold $400 million in military aid from an ally at war in order 
to extort that ally into announcing investigations of his political 
opponent to boost his re-election. Then, instead of hiding select 
incriminating records, as President Nixon did, President Trump 
attempted to hide every single record from the American people. As 
reflected in Article II, President Trump has the distinction of being 
the only president in our nation's history to direct all executive 
branch officials not to cooperate with a congressional investigation.
  I want to be clear: I did not relish the prospect of an impeachment 
trial. I have stark disagreements with this President on issues of 
policy and the law, on morality and honesty. But it is for the American 
people to judge a president on those matters. Today is not about 
differences over policy. It is about the integrity of our elections, 
and it is about the Constitution.
  The Constitution cannot not protect itself. During this trial, the 
words of Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, and Lincoln have 
frequently been invoked on behalf of our Constitution. Now it is our 
turn to record our names in defense of our democracy.
  In Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton described impeachment as the 
remedy for ``the abuse or violation of some public trust.'' Although 
that definition has guided the nation for 230 years, President Trump's 
counsels would have us rely on a very different definition.
  The central arguments presented by the President's defense team were 
stunning. The President argues that we cannot convict him because abuse 
of power is not impeachable. He can abuse his power to benefit his re-
election, and engage in improper quid pro quos, so long he believes his 
re-election is in the national interest. King Louis XIV of France--who 
famously declared ``I am the State''--might approve of that reasoning, 
but the Senate should condemn it. The President and his attorneys even 
argue that a president may welcome and even request foreign governments 
to ``dig up dirt'' on their opponents with impunity. Yet not only are 
such requests illegal, they violate the very premise of our democracy--
that American elections are decided only by Americans.
  The Senate should flatly reject the President's brazen and dangerous 
arguments. But an acquittal today will do the opposite. If you believe 
that the President's outlandish arguments are irrelevant after today, 
and will have no lasting impact on our democracy, remember this: The 
President's counsel's claim that abuse of power is not impeachable is 
largely--and mistakenly--based on the argument of another counsel, 
Justice Benjamin Curtis, defending another president from impeachment, 
President Johnson. That was 150 years ago.
  What we do today will set a weighty precedent. An acquittal today--
despite the overwhelming evidence of guilt, and following a sham of a 
trial--may fundamentally, and perhaps irreparably, distort our system 
of checks and balances for another 150 years.
  And what a sham trial it was. The fact that this body would not call 
a uniquely critical witness who has declared his willingness to 
testify, John Bolton, is beyond outrageous. And why? To punish the 
House for not taking years to first litigate a subpoena and then 
litigate every line of testimony? Or is it because testimony detailing 
this corrupt scheme, no matter how damning, would not alter the 
Majority Leader's pre-ordained acquittal?
  The Senate had a constitutional obligation to try this impeachment 
impartially. Yet the Senate willfully blinded itself to evidence that 
will soon be revealed. Senate Republicans even defeated a motion merely 
to consider and debate whether to seek critical documents and key 
witnesses. The notion that the Senate could retain the title of the 
``world's greatest deliberative body'' following this charade rings 
hollow.
  It is often said that history is watching. I expect that's true. But 
in this moment we are not merely witnesses to history--we are writing 
it. It is ours to shape. And let me briefly describe the dark chapters 
we are inscribing in the story of our republic today.
  In his farewell address, George Washington warned us that ``foreign 
influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.'' 
Yet, as a candidate, President Trump famously requested that Russia 
hack his political

[[Page S902]]

opponent's emails. Hours later, Russia did. The President then 
weaponized Russia's criminal influence campaign, which resulted in an 
investigation that uncovered a morass of inappropriate contacts with 
Russians, lies to cover them up, multiple instances of the President's 
obstruction of justice, and 37 other indictments and convictions. Yet, 
after the saga concluded, the President felt liberated. Literally the 
day after Special Counsel Robert Mueller testified, the President asked 
the Ukrainian president ``for a favor.'' He has since publicly repeated 
his request for Ukraine to intervene in our election, and made the same 
request to China, on national television.
  All of us must ask: If we acquit President Trump today, what will he 
do tomorrow? None of us knows. But two things I am confident of: 
President Trump's willingness to abuse his office, and his eagerness to 
exploit foreign interference in our elections, will only grow. And, 
crucially, Congress's capacity to do anything about it will be 
crippled.
  While the President's lawyers stood on the Senate floor and 
admonished the House Managers for failing to litigate each subpoena in 
court to exhaustion, he had other lawyers in court making the mutually 
exclusive argument that Article III courts have no jurisdiction to 
settle disputes between our two branches. Such duplicity would put the 
two-faced Roman God Janus to shame. Meanwhile, the President's 
Department of Justice claims not only that President Trump cannot be 
indicted while in office, he cannot even be investigated.
  But don't worry, the President's lawyers promise us, the President is 
still not above the law because Congress can hold him in check through 
our confirmation power and power of the purse. Neither would come close 
to checking a lawless executive. It is well known that the President 
has effectively stopped nominating senior officials in his 
administration. He has now set a modern record for acting cabinet 
secretaries. The President has said that he prefers having acting 
officials, who bypass Senate scrutiny, because they are easier to 
control.
  More crucially, with this vote today, we inflict grave damage on our 
power of the purse. I am the Vice Chairman of Appropriations, a 
Committee on which I have served for 40 years. Members of this 
Committee not only write the spending bills, they are the guardians of 
this body's power of the purse, granted exclusively to Congress by the 
Founders to counter ``all the overgrown prerogatives of the other 
branches.'' The Framers, having broken free from the grip of a 
monarchy, feared an unchecked executive who would use public dollars 
like a king: as a personal slush fund. Yet this is precisely what 
President Trump has done.
  If we fail to hold President Trump accountable for illegally freezing 
congressionally appropriated military aid to extract a personal favor, 
what would stop him from freezing disaster aid to states hit by 
hurricanes and flooding until governors or home state senators agree to 
endorse him? What would stop any future president from holding any part 
of the $4.7 trillion budget hostage to their personal whims? The answer 
is nothing. We will have relinquished the very check that the Founders 
entrusted to us to ensure a president could never behave like a king.
  The President's defense team also argued that impeachment is 
inappropriate unless it is fully bipartisan. Decades ago, I questioned 
whether an impeachment would be accepted if not bipartisan. But this 
argument has revealed itself to be painfully flawed. In 1974, 
Republicans ultimately convinced President Nixon to resign; in 1999, 
Democrats condemned President Clinton's private misconduct and 
supported a formal censure. In contrast, with one important exception, 
President Trump's supporters have thus far shown no limits in their 
tolerance of overwhelming misconduct; they even chased out of their 
party a Congressman who stood up to the President. Indeed, a 
prerequisite for membership in the Republican Party today appears to be 
the belief that he can do no wrong. Under this standard, claiming that 
President Trump's impeachment would only be valid if it were supported 
by his most unflinching enablers renders the impeachment clause null 
and void.
  That said, I do understand the immense pressure my Republican friends 
are under to support this President. I know well how much easier it is 
for me to express my disgust and disappointment that the President has 
proven himself so unfit for his office. That is one reason why I feel 
it is important to make a commitment right now. If any president, 
Republican or Democrat, uses the power of his or her office to extort a 
foreign nation to interfere in our elections to do the president's 
domestic political bidding, I will support their impeachment and 
removal. It is wrong, no matter the party. And we all should say so.
  Before I close, I want to thank the brave individuals who shared 
their testimony with both the House of Representatives and American 
people. Each of these witnesses served this President in his 
administration. And they have served their country. They witnessed 
misconduct originating in the highest office in world, and they spoke 
up. They did not hide behind the President's baseless order not to 
cooperate. Most knew that by stepping forward they would be attacked by 
the President and some of his vindictive defenders. Yet they came 
forward anyway. We owe them our enduring appreciation. They give me 
hope for tomorrow.
  Yet today is a dark day for our democracy. And what frightens me most 
is this: We are currently on a dangerous road, and no one has any idea 
where this road will take us. Not one of us here knows. But we all know 
our democracy has been indelibly altered.
  The notion that the President has learned his lesson is farcical. The 
President's lead counsel opened and closed this trial by claiming the 
President did nothing wrong. The President himself describes his 
actions as ``perfect.'' On 75 separate occasions, including yesterday, 
he's claimed he's done nothing wrong. Lord help us if the Senate 
agrees. The only lesson the President has learned from this trial is 
how easily he can get away with egregious, illegal misconduct.
  If the Senate does not recognize the gravity of President Trump's 
``violation of the public trust,'' and hold him accountable, we will 
have seen but a preview of what is to come. Foreign interference in our 
elections. Total noncompliance with lawful congressional oversight. 
Disregard of our constitutional power of the purse. Open, flagrant 
corruption. I fear there is no bottom.
  This is the tragic result of the Senate failing its constitutional 
duty to hold a real trial. We will leave President Trump ``sacred and 
inviolable'' and with ``no constitutional tribunal to which he is 
amenable; no punishment to which he can be subjected without involving 
the crisis of a national revolution.'' As Hamilton warned over two 
centuries ago, that is not a president; that is a king. I, for one, 
will not merely ``get over it.''
  I have listened very carefully to both sides over the past two weeks. 
The record has established, leaving no doubt in my view, that President 
Trump directed the most impeachable, corrupt scheme by any president in 
this country's history. To protect our constitutional republic, and to 
safeguard our government's system of checks and balances, my oath to 
our Constitution compels me to hold the President of the United States 
accountable.
  I will vote to convict and remove President Donald J. Trump from 
office.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, over the past 2 weeks, my colleagues and I 
have patiently listened to arguments from both the House managers and 
the President's counsel right here in the Senate regarding a grave 
allegation from the House that the President has committed an act 
worthy of impeachment.
  As a Senator, I believe that the first and perhaps most important 
consideration is whether abuse of power and obstruction of Congress are 
impeachable offenses as asserted by our House managers.
  Impeachment is a necessary and essential component of our 
Constitution. It serves as an important check on civil officers who 
commit crimes against the United States. However, our Founding Fathers 
were wise to ensure that the impeachment and the

[[Page S903]]

conviction of a sitting President would not be of partisan intent. 
Since President Trump took office, many have sought to delegitimize his 
Presidency with partisan attacks. We have heard this right here in the 
Senate, and we have experienced it. This extreme effort to unseat the 
President, I believe, is unjustified and intolerable.
  Now that the Senate has heard and studied the arguments from both 
sides, I believe the lack of merit in the House managers' case is 
evident. The outcome of the impeachment trial is a foregone conclusion. 
Acquittal is the judgment the Senate should and, I believe, will 
render--and soon.
  For my part, I have weighed the House managers' case and found it 
wanting in fundamental aspects. I will try to explain.
  I believe that their case does not allege an impeachable offense. 
Even if the facts are as they have stated, the managers have failed, I 
believe, as a matter of constitutional law, to meet the exceedingly 
high bar for removal of the President as established by our Founding 
Fathers, the Framers of the Constitution.
  In their wisdom, the Framers rejected vague grounds for impeachment--
offenses like we have heard here, ``maladministration''--for fear that 
it would, in the words of Madison, result in a Presidential ``tenure 
during [the] pleasure of the Senate.''
  ``Abuse of power,'' one of the charges put forward here by the House 
managers, is a concept as vague and susceptible to abuse, I believe, as 
``maladministration.'' If you take just a minute or two to look at the 
definitions of ``abuse'' and ``mal,'' they draw distinct similarities. 
``Mal,'' a prefix of Latin origin, means bad, evil, wrong. ``Abuse,'' 
also of Latin origin, means to wrongly use or to use for a bad effect. 
There is a kinship between ``mal'' and ``abuse.''
  As the Framers rejected in their wisdom ``maladministration,'' I 
believe that they, too, would reject the noncriminal ``abuse of 
power.'' Instead, the Framers, as the Presiding Officer knows, provided 
for impeachment only in a few limited cases: treason, bribery, and high 
crimes and misdemeanors. Only those offenses justify taking the dire 
step of removing a duly elected President from office and permanently 
taking his name off the ballot.
  This institution, the U.S. Senate, I believe, should not lower the 
constitutional bar and authorize their theory of impeachment for abuse 
of power. It is simply not an impeachable offense, in my judgment. 
Their criteria for removal centers not on the President's actions but 
on their loose perception of his motivations. If the Senate endorses 
this approach, we will dramatically transform the impeachment power as 
we have known it over the years. We will forever turn this grave 
constitutional power into a tool for adjudicating policy disputes and 
political disagreements among all of us. The Framers, in their wisdom, 
cautioned us against this dangerous path, and I believe the Senate will 
heed their warning.
  The other article, the House managers' obstruction of Congress claim, 
is similarly flawed. Congress's investigative and oversight powers are 
critical tools, and we use them in ensuring our system of checks and 
balances. But those powers are not absolute.
  The President, too, as head of a coequal branch of government, enjoys 
certain privileges and immunities from congressional factfinding. That 
is his constitutional right and has been the right of former Presidents 
from both parties. The President's mere assertion of privileges and 
immunities is not an impeachable offense. Endorsing otherwise would be 
unprecedented and would ignore the past practices of administrations of 
both parties. Adopting otherwise would drastically undermine the 
separation of powers enshrined in our Constitution.
  This was not what our Framers intended. Nowhere in the Constitution 
or in the Federal statute is abuse of power or obstruction of Congress 
listed as a crime--nowhere. What constitutes an impeachable offense is 
not left to the discretion of the Congress. We cannot expand, I 
believe, on the scope of actions that could be deemed impeachable 
beyond that which the Framers intended.
  What we really have here, I believe, is nothing more than the abuse 
of the power of impeachment itself by the Democratic House. Doesn't our 
country deserve better? The President certainly deserves better.
  Today I am proud to stand and repudiate those very weak impeachment 
efforts, and I will accordingly vote to acquit the President on both 
articles.
  My hope is that, in the future, Congress will reject this episode 
and, instead, choose to be guided by the Constitution and the words 
from our Framers.
  Basically, I believe it is a time to move on. We know that the 
American economy is booming. The United States is projecting strength 
and promoting peace abroad. The President is unbowed. I believe the 
American people see all of this. At the end of the day, the ultimate 
judgment rests in their hands. In my judgment, that is just as it 
should be.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, Benjamin Franklin knew the strength of our 
Constitution, but he also knew its vulnerability. His words, oft 
repeated on this floor--``a republic, if you can keep it''--were a 
stark warning. Franklin believed every generation could face the 
challenge of protecting and defending our Nation's liberty-affirming 
document.
  We know this personally. Before we can legally serve as Senators, we 
must publicly swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution of 
the United States. A trial of impeachment, more than any other Senate 
assignment, tests the oath each one of us takes before the people of 
this Nation.
  The President's legal team warns us of the danger of impeachment and 
conviction. They tell us to think carefully about what the removal of a 
duly elected President could mean for our democracy. But if we should 
have our eyes wide open to the danger of conviction, we also cannot 
ignore the danger of acquittal. The facts of this impeachment are well 
known, and many Republicans concede that they are likely true. They 
believe as I do, that President Trump pressured the Ukrainian President 
by withholding vital military aid and a prized White House visit in 
return for the announcement of an investigation of the Bidens and the 
Russian-concocted CrowdStrike fantasy.
  Some of these same Republicans acknowledge that what the President 
did was ``inappropriate.'' At least one has used the word 
``impeachable.'' But many say they are still going to vote to acquit 
him regardless. So let's open our eyes to the morning after a judgment 
of acquittal. Facing a well-established election siege by Russia and 
other enemies of the United States, we, the Senate, will have absolved 
a President who continues to brazenly invite foreign interference in 
our elections. Expect more of the same.
  A majority of this body will have voted for the President's argument 
that inviting interference by a foreign government is not impeachable 
if it serves the President's personal political interests.
  We will also have found for the first time in the history of this 
Nation that an impeachment proceeding in the Senate can be conducted 
without any direct witnesses or evidence presented on either side of 
the case and that a President facing impeachment can ignore subpoenas 
to produce documents or witnesses to Congress.
  Alexander Hamilton described the Senate as the very best venue for an 
impeachment trial because it is ``independent and dignified,'' in his 
words. When the Senate voted 51 to 49 against witnesses and evidence, 
those 51 raised into question any claim to independence or dignity.
  In addition, an acquittal will leave the extreme views stated by the 
President's defense counsel Alan Dershowitz unchallenged: first, that 
abuse of power is not an impeachable offense; second, that the 
impeachment charges against the President were constitutionally 
insufficient; and, third, his most dangerous theory, that unless the 
President has committed an actual crime, his conduct cannot be corrupt 
or impeachable as long as he believes it was necessary for his 
reelection.
  By this logic, Professor Dershowitz would have excused Richard 
Nixon's ordering of IRS audits of his political enemies. Mr. Dershowitz 
has created an

[[Page S904]]

escape clause to impeachment, which is breathtaking in its impact and 
unfounded in our legal history. We have all received a letter signed by 
nearly 300 constitutional law scholars flatly rejecting the arguments 
offered by the President's defense team.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the scholars' 
letter.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                 January 31, 2020.
       To the United States Senate: The signatories of this letter 
     are professors of law and scholars of the American 
     constitution who write to clarify that impeachment does not 
     require proof of crime, that abuse of power is an impeachable 
     offense, and that a president may not abuse the powers of his 
     office to secure re-election, whatever he may believe about 
     how beneficial his continuance in power is to the country.


        Impeachable conduct does not require proof of any crime

       Impeachment for ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' under 
     Article II of the U.S. Constitution does not require proof 
     that a president violated any criminal law. The phrase ``high 
     Crimes and Misdemeanors'' is a term of art consciously 
     adopted by the drafters of the American constitution from 
     Great Britain. Beginning in 1386, the term was frequently 
     used by Parliament to describe the wide variety of conduct, 
     much of it non-criminal abuses of official power, for which 
     British officials were impeached.
       The phrase ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' was introduced 
     into the American constitution by George Mason, who explained 
     the necessity for expanding impeachment beyond ``treason and 
     bribery'' by drawing his colleagues' attention to the ongoing 
     parliamentary impeachment trial of Warren Hastings. Hastings 
     was charged with a long list of abuses of power that his 
     articles of impeachment labeled ``high crimes and 
     misdemeanors,'' but which even his chief prosecutor, Edmund 
     Burke, admitted were not prosecutable crimes. On George 
     Mason's motion, the Philadelphia convention wrote into our 
     constitution the same phrase Parliament used to describe 
     Hastings' non-criminal misconduct.
       No convention delegate ever suggested that impeachment be 
     limited to violations of criminal law. Multiple founders 
     emphasized the need for impeachment to extend to plainly non-
     criminal conduct. For example, James Madison and George 
     Nicholas said that abuses of the pardon power should be 
     impeachable. Edmund Randolph believed that violation of the 
     foreign emoluments clause would be.
       Thus, Alexander Hamilton's famous observation in Federalist 
     65 that impeachable offenses ``are of a nature which may with 
     peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate 
     chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself'' 
     was not merely an advocate's rhetorical flourish, but a well-
     informed description of the shared understanding of those who 
     wrote and ratified the Constitution.
       Since ratification, one senator and multiple judges have 
     been impeached for non-criminal behavior. The first federal 
     official impeached, convicted, and removed for ``high crimes 
     and misdemeanors'' was Judge John Pickering, whose offenses 
     were making bad legal rulings, being drunk on the bench, and 
     taking the name of the Supreme Being in vain.
       Among presidents, the tenth and eleventh articles of 
     impeachment against President Andrew Johnson charged non-
     criminal misconduct. The first and second articles of 
     impeachment against President Richard Nixon approved by the 
     House Judiciary Committee allege both criminal and non-
     criminal conduct, and the third alleges non-criminal 
     obstruction of Congress. Indeed, the Nixon House Judiciary 
     Committee issued a report in which it specifically rejected 
     the contention that impeachable conduct must be criminal.
       The consensus of scholarly opinion is that impeachable 
     conduct does not require proof of crime.


      abuse of power is an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor

       It has been suggested that abuse of power is not an 
     impeachable high crime and misdemeanor. The reverse is true. 
     The British Parliament invented impeachment as a legislative 
     counterweight to abuses of power by the Crown and its 
     ministers. The American Framers inserted impeachment into our 
     constitution primarily out of concern about presidential 
     abuse of power. They inserted the phrase ``high crimes and 
     misdemeanors'' into the definition of impeachable conduct in 
     order to cover non-criminal abuses of power of the type 
     charged against Warren Hastings.
       As Edmund Randolph observed at the Constitutional 
     Convention, ``the propriety of impeachments was a favorite 
     principle with him'' because ``[t]he Executive will have 
     great opportunities of abusing his power.'' In Federalist 65, 
     Hamilton defined ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' as ``those 
     offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, 
     in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public 
     trust.''
       This understanding has often been expressed in the ensuing 
     centuries. For example, in 1926, the House voted to impeach 
     U.S. District Judge George English. The Judiciary Committee 
     report on the matter reviewed the authorities and concluded:
       Thus, an official may be impeached for offenses of a 
     political character and for gross betrayal of public 
     interests. Also, for abuses or betrayals of trusts, for 
     inexcusable negligence of duty [or] for the tyrannical abuse 
     of power.
       Two of the three prior presidential impeachment crises have 
     involved charges of abuse of power. The eleventh article of 
     impeachment against President Andrew Johnson alleged that he 
     abused his power by attempting to prevent implementation of 
     reconstruction legislation passed by Congress in March 1867, 
     and thus violated Article II, Section 3, of the constitution 
     by failing to ``take care that the laws be faithfully 
     executed.'' The second article of impeachment against Richard 
     Nixon charged a litany of abuses of presidential power, 
     including ``interfering with agencies of the Executive 
     Branch.''
       Even if no precedent existed, the constitutional logic of 
     impeachment for abuse of presidential power is plain. The 
     president is granted wide powers under the constitution. The 
     framers recognized that a great many misuses of those powers 
     might violate no law, but nonetheless pose immense danger to 
     the constitutional order. They consciously rejected the idea 
     that periodic elections were a sufficient protection against 
     this danger and inserted impeachment as a remedy.
       The consensus of scholarly opinion is that abuse of power 
     is an impeachable ``high crime and misdemeanor.''


  A PRESIDENT MAY NOT ABUSE HIS POWERS OF OFFICE TO SECURE HIS OWN RE-
                                ELECTION

       Finally, one of President Trump's attorneys has suggested 
     that so long as a president believes his re-election is in 
     the public interest, ``if a president did something that he 
     believes will help get him elected, in the public interest, 
     that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in his 
     impeachment.'' It is true that merely because a president 
     makes a policy choice he believes will have beneficial 
     political effects, that choice is not necessarily 
     impeachable. However, if a President employs his powers in a 
     way that cannot reasonably be explained except as a means of 
     promoting his own reelection, the president's private 
     conviction that his maintenance of power is for the greater 
     good does not insulate him from impeachment. To accept such a 
     view would be to give the president carte blanche to corrupt 
     American electoral democracy.
       Distinguishing between minor misuses of presidential 
     authority and grave abuses requiring impeachment and removal 
     is not an exact science. That is why the Constitution assigns 
     the task, not to a court, but to Congress, relying upon its 
     collective wisdom to assess whether a president has committed 
     a ``high crime and misdemeanor'' requiring his conviction and 
     removal.


                              SIGNATORIES

       Frank O. Bowman, III; Michael Gerhardt; Laurence H. Tribe; 
     Brenda Wineapple; Timothy Naftali; Neal Kumar Katyal; Pamela 
     S. Karlan; Noah Feldman; Jack M. Balkin; David A. Strauss; 
     Martha Minow; Geoffrey R. Stone; Walter Dellinger; Charles 
     Fried; Erwin Chemerinsky.
       Paul Butler; Ralph G. Steinhardt; Dawn Johnsen; Sanford 
     Levinson; John Mikhail; Michael C. Dorf; Julie R. O'Sullivan; 
     Girardeau A. Spann; Richard Primus; Corey Brettschneider; 
     Victoria Nourse; Robin West; Abbe Smith; James V. Feinerman; 
     Jane M. Spinak, Esq.
       Peter L. Strauss; Jeffrey Fagan; Ira C. Lupu; David C. 
     Vladeck; Eric M. Freedman; Carol L. Chomsky; Jennifer Taub; 
     Naomi R. Cahn; Stephen I. Vladeck; Jed Shugerman; Ilya Somin; 
     Michael Diamond; Paul Litton; Charles G. Geyh; Prof. Joshua 
     Schwartz.
       Alan B. Morrison; Deborah Epstein; Dale A. Whitman; Rodney 
     J. Uphoff; Barry Friedman; Greer Donley; Justin Levitt; 
     Barbara A. Atwood; Daniel J. Steinbock; Samantha Buckingham; 
     Maxwell Stearns; Lauren E. Willis; Kirsten Matoy Carlson; 
     Steven Alan Childress; Liz Ryan Cole.
       Florence Wagman Roisman; Margo Kaplan; Mark A. Graber; 
     Sally Goldfarb; Carli N. Conklin; Kandice Johnson; Jeffrey O. 
     Cooper; John Lande; Mary M. Beck; Benjamin G. Davis; Randy 
     Diamond; Melanie DeRousse; Gerald S. Dickinson; Laura Rovner; 
     J. Amy Dillard; Martha Albertson Fineman; Nancy Ota; Ann F. 
     Thomas.
       Prof. Dr. Jennifer A. Drobac; Cynthia Matson Adams; Denise 
     Platfoot Lacey, Esq.; David A. Fischer; Ann E. Freedman; 
     Michael A. Middleton; S. David Mitchell; Lance Gable; Julie 
     Goldscheid; Stuart Green; Alan K. Chen; Christopher 
     Hawthorne.
       Joshua Aaron Jones, JD, LL.M.; David R. Katner; Nicole B. 
     Godfrey; Stefan H. Krieger; Sarah Lamdan; Laurie L. Levenson; 
     Ann E. Tweedy; Caroline Mala Corbin; Nicole K. McConlogue; 
     David S. Cohen; Perry Dane; Stephen Meili.
       James May; Nancy Ota; Catherine J. Ross; April Dawson; 
     Professor Laura J. Hines; Jane C. Murphy; John T. Nockleby; 
     Professor Nancy Levit; Jonathan Oberman; Michele Gilman; 
     Katherine A. Perez; Stephen Loffredo; William D. Rich.
       Joyce Saltalamachia; Dveera Segal; Liz Ryan Cole; Ann 
     Shalleck; Kate Shaw; Earl Singleton; Keith Werhan; Mary B. 
     Culbert; Robert Calhoun; Christine Minhee; Nancy Chi 
     Cantalupo; Professor Steven Zeidman; Kathleen Kim; Professor 
     Lisa Kelly; Alan Saltzman.
       Prof. Karl Manheim; Jeffrey M. Feldman; Leah M Litman; 
     Elliott Milstein; Prof. Deborah A Ramirez; Stacy Hawkins; 
     Jeffrey T.

[[Page S905]]

     Renz; Mary Crossley; Barbara S. Barron; Ira P. Robbins; Clark 
     B. Lombardi, JD, PhD; Penny M. Venetis; Michael Lawrence; 
     Joanna L. Grossman; Theo Liebmann.
       Paul L. Tractenberg; Mikah K. Thompson; Professor Vernon 
     Valentine Palmer; Barbara Stark; Anya Bernstein; Ruti Teitel; 
     William D. Araiza; Lauren Gilbert, Esq.; Christopher E. 
     Czerwonka; James May; Kimberly West-Faulcon; Natalie Gomez-
     Velez; Phyllis Goldfarb; Rachel Van Cleave; Arnold Rochvarg; 
     Lindsey Webb.
       Ethan J. Leib; Carlton F.W. Larson; Natalie M. Chin; Heidi 
     K. Brown; Elizabeth McCormick; Bernard P. Perlmutter, Esq.; 
     Robert St. Martin Westley; John Burkoff; David Rudenstine; 
     Inge M. Van der Cruysse; James Levin; Babe Howell; Robert 
     Knowles; Yvonne Lindgren; Mae Kuykendall.
       Marie A. Failinger; Katherine Mattes; Rebecca L. Brown; 
     David B. Cruz; Christoph Henkel; Jim Rowan; Elizabeth B. 
     Cooper; Debra Bechtel; Cornell Clayton; Paul Barron; Allie 
     Robbins; Wanda M. Temm; Jean C. Love; Rosemary Salomone; 
     Rachel Vorspan; Beryl Blaustone.
       Susan Etta Keller; Tom I. Romero, II J.D., Ph.D.; Prof. Dr. 
     Frank Emmert, LL.M., FCIArb; Kiel Brennan-Marquez; Marcy 
     Strauss; David A. Harris; Catherine M. Grosso; Lissa Griffin; 
     Steven Mulroy; William W. Berry III; Richard D. Friedman; 
     Anthony M. Dillof; Leslie Rose; Arthur B. Lafrance; Pamela R. 
     Metzger.
       Eric J. Miller; Marianne Wesson; Stephen F. Smith; 
     Professor Mark A. Dotson; Donna Coker; Janet Dolgin; Lynda G. 
     Dodd, J.D., Ph.D.; David B. Wexler; Prof. Deborah A Ramirez; 
     Ric Simmons; Matthew R. Hall; Miriam R. Albert; Jennifer A. 
     Gundlach; Michael M. O'Hear.
       Robert Westley; Lolita Buckner Inniss; Margie Paris; Amy T. 
     Campbell; Prof. Bruce A. Boyer; Fabio Arcila, Jr.; Michael L. 
     Perlin, Esq.; Vincent M. Southerland; Robert M. Sanger; 
     Cynthia Godsoe; Caren Morrison; Daniel JH Greenwood; Paula C. 
     Johnson; Michael H. Hoffheimer.
       Jenia I. Turner; Ben Trachtenberg; Catherine Powell; Ruth-
     Arlene W. Howe; Charisa Kiyo Smith, Esq.; Dana Alicia 
     Thompson; Mark C. Modak-Truran, J.D., Ph.D.; Professor Irma 
     S. Russell; Nicholas W. Allard; Sarah E. Ricks; Daniel 
     Farber; M. Isabel Medina; Evan Caminker; Miguel Schor; Nina 
     Chernoff.
       Rashmi Goel; Barbara Ann White; Monica Eppinger; Jimmy 
     Gurule; Odeana R. Neal; Gabriel J. Chin; Margaret Montoya, 
     J.D.; Anil Kalhan; Rebecca K. Stewart; Anthony Paul Farley; 
     Sahar Aziz; Jaya Ramji-Nogales; Amy Widman; Perry Dane; Maya 
     Manian.
       Amanda Leiter; Paula Galowitz; Jesse A. Goldner; Anthony 
     Paul Farley; Elizabeth Nevins; Rick Wilson; Prof. Jonathan 
     Askin; James R. Maxeiner; Genevieve Byrne; Daniel L. Hatcher; 
     Fred B. Brown; Joseph Pileri; David Jaros; Mark N. Aaronson.
       Sonia Gipson Rankin; Richard C. Reuben; Sam Erman; Katy 
     Ramsey; Janet M. Calvo; R. Wilson Freyermuth; Sarah Helene 
     Duggin; Danaya C. Wright; Charles S. Bobis; Kim D. Ricardo; 
     James Gray Pope; Chuck Henson; George W. Conk, M.A., J.D.

  Mr. DURBIN. Yet a verdict of acquittal by the Senate blesses the 
professor's torturous reasoning. An acquittal verdict would also give 
President Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani a pat on the back to 
continue his global escapades, harassing American Ambassadors whose 
service he distrusts, and lounging at European cigar bars with an 
entourage of post-Soviet amigos.
  More than anything, a verdict of acquittal says a majority of the 
Senate believes this President is above the law and cannot be held 
accountable for conduct abusing the powers of his office. And make no 
mistake, this President believes that is true.
  On July 23--2 days before his phone call with President Zelensky--
President Trump spoke to a group of young supporters and he said: ``I 
have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as 
president.''
  This is the dangerous principle that President Trump and his lawyers 
are asking us, with a verdict of acquittal, to accept. Under the oath I 
have sworn, I cannot.
  What does it say of this Congress and our Nation that in 3 years, we 
have become so anesthetized to outrage that, for a majority in this 
Senate, there is nothing--nothing--this President can do or say that 
rises to the level of blushworthy, let alone impeachable?
  Nearly 6 years ago, I traveled to Ukraine with a bipartisan group of 
Senate colleagues led by John McCain. It was one of John's whirlwind 
visits where we crammed 5 days' worth of meetings into 48 hours. We 
arrived in Kyiv on March 14, 2014. It was bitterly cold. Ukrainians had 
just ousted a corrupt, Russian-backed leader who looted the national 
treasury and hollowed out their nation's military. They had done so by 
taking to the streets, risking their lives for democracy and a better 
future. More than 100 ordinary citizens in Kyiv had been killed by 
security forces of the old government simply because they were 
protesting for democracy.
  Seeing Ukraine in a fragile democratic transition, Vladimir Putin 
pounced on them, ordered an invasion and occupied Crimea. Putin and his 
thinly disguised Russian thugs were on the verge of seizing Donetsk in 
the east.
  I asked the Prime Minister what Ukraine needed to defend itself. He 
said:

       Everything. We don't have anything that floats, flies or 
     runs.

  Many may not appreciate how devastating Russia's war on Ukraine has 
been to that struggling young democracy. Their costly battle with 
Russia was for a principle that is really basic to America's national 
security as well.
  In a country with one-eighth of our population, more Ukrainian troops 
have died defending Ukraine from Russia than American troops have 
perished in Afghanistan.
  During the months President Trump illegally withheld military aid, as 
many as two dozen Ukrainian soldiers were killed in battle. By 
withholding security aid from Ukraine for President Trump's personal 
political benefit, he endangered the security of a fragile democracy.
  Can there be any deeper betrayal of a President's responsibility than 
to endanger our national security and the security of an ally for his 
own personal political gain?
  And to those of my colleagues who describe the President's conduct as 
merely ``inappropriate,'' I disagree. Disparaging John McCain's service 
to our country is disgusting and inappropriate. What this President has 
done to Ukraine crosses that line. It is impeachable.
  I will close by remembering two public servants who, like us, were 
called by history to judge a President. Tom Railsback passed away as 
this impeachment proceeding began. He was 2 days shy of his 88th 
birthday. I knew Tom. I considered him a friend.
  In 1974, Tom was a Republican Congressman from Moline, IL, and a 
member of the House Judiciary Committee. He regarded President Nixon as 
a political friend. He believed that Richard Nixon had achieved much 
for America, including the opening of the door to China.
  After studying the Watergate evidence closely, Congressman Railsback 
came to believe that Richard Nixon had violated the Constitution. When 
President Nixon refused to turn over records and recordings requested 
by Congress, Tom Railsback took to the House floor to say: ``If the 
Congress doesn't get the material we think we need and then votes to 
exonerate, we'll be regarded as a paper tiger.''
  When he voted to impeach President Nixon, Tom believed it was 
probably the end of his career, but he was elected four more times. To 
his dying day, Tom Railsback was proud of his vote. He voted for his 
country above his party.
  Bill Cohen--also a Republican--was a freshman Congressman at the time 
and a member of the House Judiciary Committee. He studied the evidence 
with Tom Railsback and then worked with him to draft Articles of 
Impeachment.
  Bill Cohen received death threats, and he thought his votes to 
impeach President Nixon would be the end of his political career. But 
he went on to a distinguished career in the House, three terms in the 
Senate, and served as Secretary of Defense.
  Listen to what Bill Cohen said recently of President's Trump's 
actions:

       This is presidential conduct that you want to be ashamed 
     of. He is corrupting institutions, politicizing the military, 
     and acts like he is THE law.

  And then Cohen added:

       If [the President's conduct] is acceptable, we really don't 
     have a Republic as we've known it any more.

  May I respectfully say to my Senate colleagues, Ben Franklin warned 
us of this day.
  I will vote guilty on both Articles of Impeachment against President 
Donald John Trump, on article I abuse of power and article II 
obstruction of Congress. But at this moment of high constitutional 
drama, I hope my last words can be a personal appeal to my Senate 
colleagues.
  Last night, many of us attended a State of the Union Address which 
was as emotionally charged as any I have

[[Page S906]]

ever attended. As divided as our Nation may be and as divided as the 
Senate may be, we should remember America has weathered greater storms 
than this impeachment and our current political standoff.
  It was Abraham Lincoln, in the darkness of our worst storm, who 
called on us ``to strive on to finish the work we are in, to work to 
bind the nation's wounds.''
  After this vote and after this day, those of us who are entrusted 
with this high office must each do our part to work to bind the wounds 
of our divided nation. I hope we can leave this Chamber with that 
common resolve.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, let me just begin with a note of optimism. 
You are going to get to pick the next President, not a bunch of 
politicians driven by sour grapes. I don't say that lightly. I didn't 
vote for President Trump. I voted for somebody I wouldn't know if they 
walked in the door. But I accepted the fact that he won. That has been 
hard for a lot of people to do. And it is not like I am above the 
President being investigated.
  I supported the Mueller investigation. I had Democratic colleagues 
come to me and say: We are afraid he is going to fire Mueller. Will you 
stand with us to make sure Mueller can complete his investigation? And 
I did--2 years, $32 million, FBI agents, subpoenas, you name it. The 
verdict is in. What did we find? Nothing. I thought that would be it.
  But it is never enough when it comes to President Trump. This sham 
process is the low point in the Senate for me. If you think you have 
done the country a good service by legitimizing this impeachment 
process, what you have done is unleashed the partisan forces of Hell. 
This is sour grapes.
  They impeached the President of the United States in 78 days. You 
cannot get a parking ticket, if you contested it, in 78 days. They gave 
out souvenir pens when it was over.
  If you can't see through that, your hatred of Donald Trump has 
blinded you to the obvious. This is not about protecting the country; 
this is about destroying the President.
  There are no rules when it comes to Donald Trump. Everybody in 
America can confront the witnesses against them, except Donald Trump. 
Everybody in America can call witnesses on their behalf, except 
President Trump. Everybody in America can introduce evidence, except 
for President Trump. He is not above the law, but you put him below the 
law. In the process of impeaching this President, you have made it 
almost impossible for future Presidents to do their job.
  In 78 days, you took due process, as we have come to know it in 
America, and threw it in the garbage can. This is the first impeachment 
in the history of the country driven by politicians.
  The Nixon impeachment had outside counsel, Watergate prosecutors. The 
Clinton impeachment had Ken Starr, who looked at President Clinton for 
years before he brought it to Congress. The Mueller investigation went 
on for 2 years. I trusted Bob Mueller. And when he rendered his 
verdict, it broke your heart. And you can't let it go.
  The only way this is going to end permanently is for the President to 
get reelected. And he will.
  So as to abuse of Congress, it is a wholesale assault on the 
Presidency; it is abandoning every sense of fairness that every 
American has come to expect in their own lives; it is driven by blind 
partisanship and hatred of the man himself. And they wanted to do it in 
78 days. Why? Because they wanted to impeach him before the election. I 
am not making this up. They said that.
  The reason the President never was allowed to go to court and 
challenge the subpoenas that were never issued is because the House 
managers understood it might take time. President Clinton and President 
Nixon were allowed to go to article III court and contest the House's 
action. That was denied this President because it would get in the way 
of impeaching him before the election.
  And you send this crap over here, and you are OK with it, my 
Democratic colleagues. You are OK with the idea that the President was 
denied his day in court, and you were going to rule on executive 
privilege as a political body. You are willing to deal out the article 
III court because you hate Trump that much.
  What you have done is you have weakened the institution of the 
Presidency. Be careful what you wish for because it is going to come 
back your way.
  Abuse of Congress should be entitled ``abuse of power by the 
Congress.'' If you think Adam Schiff is trying to get to the truth, I 
have a bridge I want to sell you. These people hate Trump's guts. They 
rammed it through the House in a way you couldn't get a parking ticket, 
and they achieved their goal of impeaching him before the election.
  The Senate is going to achieve its goal of acquitting him in 
February. The American people are going to get to decide in November 
whom they want to be their President.
  Acquittal will happen in about 2 hours; exoneration comes when 
President Trump gets reelected because the people of the United States 
are fed up with this crap. But the damage you have done will be long-
lasting.
  Abuse of power. You are impeaching the President of the United States 
for suspending foreign aid for a short period of time that they 
eventually received ahead of schedule to leverage an investigation that 
never happened. You are going to remove the President of the United 
States for suspending foreign aid to leverage an investigation of a 
political opponent that never occurred. The Ukrainians did not know of 
the suspension until September. They didn't feel any pressure. If you 
are OK with Joe Biden and Hunter Biden doing what they did, it says 
more about you than it does anything else. The point of the abuse of 
power article is that you made it almost impossible now for any 
President to pick up the phone, if all of us can assume the worst and 
impeach somebody based on this objective standard. He was talking about 
corruption in the Ukraine with a past President.

  And the Bidens' conduct in the Ukraine undercut our ability to 
effectively deal with corruption by allowing his son to receive $3 
million from the most corrupt gas company in the Ukraine. Can you 
imagine how the Ukrainian Parliamentarian must have felt to be lectured 
by Joe Biden about ending sweetheart deals?
  What you have done is impeached the President of the United States 
and willing to remove him because he suspended foreign aid for 40 days 
to leverage an investigation that never occurred.
  And to my good friend Dick Durbin, Donald Trump has done more to help 
the Ukrainian people than Barack Obama did in his entire 8 years. If 
you are looking for somebody to help the Ukrainian people fight the 
Russians, how about giving them some weapons?
  This is a sham. This is a farce. This is disgusting. This is an 
affront to President Trump as a person. It is a threat to the office. 
It will end soon. There is going to be an overwhelming rejection of 
both articles. We are going to pick up the pieces and try to go 
forward.
  But I can say this without any hesitation: I worry about the future 
of the Presidency after what has happened here. Ladies and gentlemen, 
you will come to regret this whole process.
  And to those who have those pens, I hope you will understand history 
will judge those pens as a souvenir of shame.
  Mr. President, this is my second Presidential impeachment. My first 
was as a House manager for the impeachment of President Clinton. I 
believe President Clinton corruptly interfered in a lawsuit filed 
against him by a private citizen alleging sexual assault and 
misconduct. It was clear to me that President Clinton tampered with the 
evidence, suborned perjury, and tried to deny Paula Jones her day in 
court. I believed then and continue to believe now that these criminal 
acts against a private citizen by President Clinton were wholly 
unacceptable and should have cost him his job. However, at the end of 
the Clinton impeachment, I accepted the conclusions of the Senate and 
said that a cloud had been removed from the Presidency, and it was time 
to move on.
  During the Clinton impeachment, I voted against one Article of 
Impeachment that related to lying under oath regarding his sexual 
relationship with

[[Page S907]]

Monica Lewinsky. While the conduct covered by that article was 
inappropriate, to have made such conduct impeachable would have done 
grave damage to the Presidency by failing to recognize that, in the 
future, the office will be occupied by flawed human beings. It was 
obvious to me that President Clinton's lying under oath about his 
relationship with Monica Lewinsky, while wrong, was not a high crime or 
misdemeanor and that many people in similar circumstances would be 
inclined to lie to protect themselves and their families.
  As to the impeachment of President Trump, I feel compelled to condemn 
the impeachment process used in the House because I believe it was 
devoid of basic, fundamental due process. The process used in the House 
for this impeachment was unlike that used for Presidents Nixon or 
Clinton. This impeachment was completed within 78 days and had a spirit 
of partisanship and revenge that if accepted by the Senate will lead to 
the weaponization of impeachment against future presidents.
  President Trump was entirely shut out of the evidence gathering stage 
in the House Intelligence Committee, denied the right to counsel, and 
the right to cross-examine and call witnesses. Moreover, the great 
volume of evidence gathered against President Trump by the House 
Intelligence Committee consists of inadmissible hearsay. The House 
Judiciary Committee impeachment hearings were, for lack of a better 
term, a sham. And most importantly, the House managers admitted the 
reason that neither the House Intelligence Committee nor the House 
Judiciary Committee sought testimony in the House from President 
Trump's closest advisers, including former National Security Adviser 
John Bolton, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and Acting Chief of Staff 
Mick Mulvaney, is because it would have required the House to go to 
court, impeding their desire to impeach the President before the 
election. It was a calculated decision to deal article III courts out 
of President Trump's impeachment inquiry due to a political timetable. 
The Senate must send a clear message that this can never, ever happen 
again.
  As to the substance of the allegations against President Trump, the 
abuse of power charge as defined by the House is vague, does not allege 
criminal misconduct, and requires the Senate to engage in a subjective 
analysis of the President's motives and actions. The House managers 
argued to the Senate that the sole and exclusive purpose of freezing 
aid to Ukraine was for the private, political benefit of President 
Trump. It is clear to me that there is ample evidence--much more than a 
mere scintilla--that the actions of Hunter Biden and Vice President 
Biden were inappropriate and undercut American foreign policy.
  Moreover, there was evidence in the record that officials in Ukraine 
were actively speaking against Candidate Trump and were pulling for 
former Secretary of State Clinton. Based on the overwhelming amount of 
evidence of inappropriate behavior by the Bidens and statements by 
State Department officials about certain Ukrainians' beliefs that one 
American candidate would be better than the other, I found it eminently 
reasonable for the President to be concerned about Ukraine corruption, 
election interference, and the behavior of Vice President Biden and his 
son Hunter. It is hard to believe that Vice President Biden was an 
effective messenger for reform efforts in Ukraine while his son Hunter 
was receiving $3 million from Burisma, one of Ukraine's most corrupt 
companies.
  As Professor Dershowitz described, there are three buckets for 
examining allegations of corrupt motive or action with regards to 
impeachment. The first is where there is clearly only a public, 
national benefit, as in the analogy of freezing aid to Israel unless it 
stops building new settlements. The second is the mixed motive category 
in which there is a public benefit--in this case, the public benefit of 
exposing the Bidens' conduct in the Ukrainian energy sector--and the 
possibility of a personal, political benefit as well. The third is 
where there is clearly a pure corrupt motive, as when there is a 
pecuniary or financial benefit, an allegation that has not been made 
against President Trump.
  It is obvious to me that, after the Mueller report, President Trump 
viewed the House impeachment inquiry as a gross double standard when it 
comes to investigations. The House launched an investigation into his 
phone call with President Zelensky while at the same time the House 
showed no interest in the actions of Vice President Biden and Hunter 
Biden. The President, in my view, was justified in asking the 
Ukrainians to look into the circumstances surrounding the firing of 
Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, who was investigating 
Burisma, and whether his termination benefited Hunter Biden and 
Burisma.
  It is clear to me that the phone call focused on burden-sharing, 
corruption, and election interference in an appropriate manner. The 
most vexing question was how the President was supposed to deal with 
these legitimate concerns. The House managers in one moment suggest 
that President Trump could not have asked the Attorney General to 
investigate these concerns because that would be equivalent to 
President Trump asking for an investigation of a political rival. But 
in the next moment, the House managers declare that the proper way for 
President Trump to have dealt with those allegations would have been to 
ask the Attorney General to investigate. They cannot have it both ways. 
I believe that it is fair to criticize President Trump's overreliance 
on his private attorney, Rudy Giuliani, to investigate alleged 
corruption and conflicts of interest regarding the Bidens and Burisma. 
However, I do not find this remotely an impeachable offense, and it 
would be beneficial for the country as a whole to find ways to deal 
with such matters in the future.
  Assuming the facts in the light most favorable to the House managers, 
that for a period of time the aid was suspended by President Trump to 
get Ukraine to investigate the Bidens and election interference, I find 
both articles fail as nonimpeachable offenses. I find this to be the 
case even if we assume the New York Times article about Mr. Bolton is 
accurate. The Ukrainians received the military aid and did not open the 
requested investigation.

  The abuse of power Article of Impeachment is beyond vague and 
requires a subjective analysis that no Senator should have to engage 
in. It also represents an existential threat to the Presidency. 
Moreover, the obstruction of Congress article is literally impeaching 
the President because he chose to follow the advice of White House 
counsel and the Department of Justice and he was willing to use 
constitutional privileges in a manner consistent with every other 
President. This article must be soundly rejected, not only in this 
case, but in the future. Whether one likes President Trump or not, he 
is the President with privileges attached to his office.
  The House of Representatives, I believe, abused their authority by 
rushing this impeachment and putting the Senate in the position of 
having to play the role of an article III court. The long term effect 
of this practice would be to neuter the Presidency, making the office 
of the President only as strong as the House will allow.
  The allegations contained in this impeachment are not what the 
Framers had in mind as high crimes or misdemeanors. The Framers, in my 
view, envisioned serious, criminal-like misconduct that would shake the 
foundation of the American constitutional system. The Nixon impeachment 
had broad bipartisan support once the facts became known. The Clinton 
impeachment started with bipartisan support in the House and ended with 
bipartisan support in the Senate, even though it fell well short of the 
two-thirds vote requirement to remove the President. In the case of 
President Trump, this impeachment started as a partisan affair with 
bipartisan rejection of the Articles of Impeachment in the House and, 
if not rejected in the Senate, will lead to impeachment as almost an 
inevitability, as future Presidents will be subject to the partisan 
whims of the House in any given moment.
  My decision to vote not guilty on both Articles of Impeachment, I 
hope, will be seen as a rejection of what the House did and how they 
did it. I firmly believe that article III courts have a role in the 
impeachment process and that, to remove a President from office, the 
conduct has to be of a nature

[[Page S908]]

that would shake the very foundation of our constitutional system. The 
impeachment of President Trump was driven by a level of partisanship 
and ends justify the means behavior that the American people have 
rejected. The best way to end this matter is to allow the American 
people to vote for or against President Trump in November, not to 
remove him from the ballot.
  These Articles of Impeachment must be soundly rejected by the Senate 
because they represent an assault on the Presidency itself and the 
weaponization of impeachment as a political tool. They must fail for a 
variety of reasons. First, the conduct being alleged by House managers 
is that there was a temporary suspension on military assistance to 
Ukraine, which was eventually received ahead of schedule to leverage an 
investigation that never occurred. This is not the constitutional 
earthquake the Founders had in mind regarding bribery, treason, or 
other high crimes and misdemeanors. Second, the articles as drafted do 
not allege any semblance of a crime and require the Senate to make a 
subjective analysis of the President's motives. Third, the record is 
abundant with evidence that the President had legitimate concerns about 
corruption, election interference emanating from the Ukraine, and that 
Vice President Biden and his son undercut U.S. efforts to reform 
corruption inside Ukraine.
  The second article, alleging obstruction of Congress, is literally 
punishing the President for exercising the legal rights available to 
all Presidents as part of our constitutional structure. This article 
must fail because the House chose their impeachment path based on a 
political timetable of impeaching the President before Christmas to set 
up an election year trial in the Senate. The Senate must reject the 
theory offered by the House managers with regard to obstruction of 
Congress; to do otherwise would allow the House in the future to deal 
article III courts out of the impeachment process and give the House 
complete control over the impeachment field in a way that denies 
fundamental fairness.
  Because it took the House 78 days from start to finish to impeach the 
President of the United States and, during its fact-gathering process, 
the House denied the President the right to counsel, to cross-examine 
witnesses against him, and the ability to introduce evidence on his 
behalf, the Senate must reject both Articles of Impeachment.
  I am compelled to vote not guilty, to ensure impeachment will not 
become the new normal.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, the Articles of Impeachment before us 
charged President Donald John Trump with offenses against the 
Constitution and the American people.
  The first Article of Impeachment charges that President Trump abused 
the Office of the Presidency by soliciting the interference of a 
foreign power, Ukraine, to benefit himself in the 2020 election. The 
President asked a foreign leader to ``do us a favor''--``us'' meaning 
him--and investigate his political opponents.
  In order to elicit these political investigations, President Trump 
withheld a White House meeting and hundreds of millions of dollars in 
military assistance from an ally at war with Russia. There is extensive 
documentation in the record proving this quid pro quo and the corrupt 
motive behind it. The facts are not seriously in dispute. In fact, 
several Republican Senators admitted they believe the President 
committed this offense with varying degrees of ``inappropriate,'' 
``wrong,'' ``shameful.'' Almost all Republicans will argue, however, 
that this reprehensible conduct does not rise to the level of an 
impeachable offense.
  The Founders could not have been clearer. William Davie, a delegate 
to the Constitutional Convention, deemed impeachment ``an essential 
security,'' lest the President ``spare no efforts or means whatever to 
get himself reelected.''
  James Madison offered a specific list of impeachable offenses during 
a debate in Independence Hall:
  A President ``might lose his capacity'' or embezzle public funds.
  ``A despicable soul might even succumb to bribes while in office.''
  Madison then arrived at what he believed was the worst conduct a 
President could engage in: the President could ``betray his trust to 
foreign powers,'' which would be ``fatal to the Republic.'' Those are 
Madison's words.
  When I studied the Constitution and the Federalist Papers in high 
school, admittedly, I was skeptical of George Washington's warning that 
``foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican 
government.'' It seemed so far-fetched. Who would dare? But the 
foresight and wisdom of the Founders endure. Madison was right. 
Washington was right.
  There is no greater subversion of our democracy than for powers 
outside of our borders to determine elections within them. If Americans 
believe that they don't determine their Senator, their Governor, their 
President, but, rather, some foreign potentate does, that is the 
beginning of the end of democracy.
  For a foreign country to attempt such a thing on its own is 
contemptible. For an American President to deliberately solicit such a 
thing--to blackmail a foreign country into helping him win an 
election--is unforgivable.
  Does this rise to the level of an impeachable offense? Of course it 
does. Of course it does. The term ``high crimes'' derives from English 
law. ``Crimes'' were committed between subjects of the monarchy. ``High 
crimes'' were committed against the Crown itself. The Framers did not 
design a monarchy; they designed a democracy, a nation where the people 
were King. High crimes are those committed against the entire people of 
the United States.
  The President sought to cheat the people out of a free and fair 
election. How could such an offense not be deemed a high crime--a crime 
against the people? As one constitutional scholar in the House 
Judiciary hearings testified: ``If this is not impeachable, nothing 
is.'' I agree.
  I judge that President Trump is guilty of the first Article of 
Impeachment.
  The second Article of Impeachment is equally straightforward. Once 
the President realized he got caught, he tried to cover it up. The 
President asserted blanket immunity. He categorically defied 
congressional subpoenas, ordered his aides not to testify, and withheld 
the production of relevant documents.
  Even President Nixon, author of the most infamous Presidential 
coverup in history, permitted his aides to testify in Congress in the 
Watergate investigation. The idea that the Trump administration was 
properly invoking the various rights and privileges of the Presidency 
is nonsense. At each stage of the House inquiry, the administration 
conjured up a different bad-faith justification for evading 
accountability. There is no circumstance under which the administration 
would have complied.

  When I asked the President's counsel twice to name one document or 
one witness the President provided to Congress, they could not answer. 
It cannot be that the President, by dint of legal shamelessness, can 
escape scrutiny entirely.
  Once again, the facts are not in dispute, but some have sought to 
portray the second Article of Impeachment as somehow less important 
than the first. It is not. The second Article of Impeachment is 
necessary if Congress is to ever hold a President accountable--again, 
Democratic or Republican. The consequences of sanctioning such 
categorical obstruction of Congress will be far-reaching, and they will 
be irreparable.
  I judge that President Trump is guilty of the second Article of 
Impeachment.
  The Senate should convict President Trump, remove him from the 
Presidency, and disqualify him from holding future office. The guilt of 
the President on these charges is so obvious that here, again, several 
Republican Senators admit that the House has proved its case.
  So instead of maintaining the President's innocence, the President's 
counsel ultimately told the Senate that even if the President did what 
he was accused of, it is not impeachable. This has taken the form of an 
escalating series of Dershowitzian arguments, including ``Abuse of 
power is not an impeachable offense''; ``The President

[[Page S909]]

can't be impeached for noncriminal conduct, but he also can't be 
indicted for criminal conduct''; ``If a President believes his own 
reelection is essential to the Nation, then a quid pro quo is not 
corrupt.'' These are the excuses of a child caught in a lie.
  Each explanation is more outlandish and desperate than the last. It 
would be laughable if not for the fact that the cumulative effect of 
these arguments would render not just this President but all Presidents 
immune from impeachment and therefore above the law.
  Several Members of this Chamber said that even if the President is 
guilty and even if it is impeachable, the Senate still shouldn't 
convict the President because there is an election coming up--as if the 
Framers forgot about elections when they wrote the impeachment clause. 
If the Founders believed that even when a President is guilty of an 
impeachable offense, the next election should decide his fate, they 
never would have included an impeachment clause in the Constitution. 
That much is obvious.
  Alone, each of the defenses advanced by the President's counsel comes 
close to being preposterous. Together, they are as dangerous to the 
Republic as this President--a fig leaf so large as to excuse any 
Presidential misconduct. Unable to defend the President, arguments were 
found to make him a King.
  Let future generations know that only a fraction of the Senate 
swallowed these fantasies. The rest of us condemn them to the ash heap 
of history and the derision of first-year law students everywhere.
  We are only the third Senate in history to sit as a Court of 
Impeachment for the President. The task we were given was not easy, but 
the Framers gave the Senate this responsibility because they could not 
imagine any other body capable of it. They considered others, but they 
entrusted it to us, and the Senate failed. The Republican caucus 
trained its outrage not on the conduct of the President but on the 
impeachment process in the House, deriding--falsely--an alleged lack of 
fairness and thoroughness.
  The conjured outrage was so blinding that the Republican majority 
ended up guilty of the very sins it falsely accused the House of 
committing. It conducted the least fair, least thorough, most rushed 
impeachment trial in the history of this country.
  A simple majority of Senators denied the Senate's right to examine 
relevant evidence, to call witnesses, to review documents, and to 
properly try the impeachment of the President, making this the first 
impeachment trial in history that heard from no witnesses. A simple 
majority of Senators, in deference to and most likely in fear of the 
President of their party, perpetrated a great miscarriage of justice in 
the trial of President Trump. As a result, the verdict of this kangaroo 
court will be meaningless.
  By refusing the facts, by refusing witnesses and documents, the 
Republican majority has placed a giant asterisk--the asterisk of a sham 
trial--next to the acquittal of President Trump, written in permanent 
ink. Acquittal and an unfair trial with this giant asterisk--the 
asterisk of a sham trial--are worth nothing at all to President Trump 
or to anybody else.
  No doubt, the President will boast he received total exoneration, but 
we know better. We know this wasn't a trial by any stretch of the 
definition. And the American people know it, too.
  We have heard a lot about the Framers over the past several weeks, 
about the impeachment clause they forged, the separation of powers they 
wrought, the conduct they most feared in our chief magistrate. But 
there is something the Founders considered even more fundamental to our 
Republic: truth. The Founders had seen and studied societies governed 
by the iron fist of tyrants and the divine right of Kings, but none by 
argument, rational thinking, facts, and debate.
  Hamilton said the American people would determine ``whether societies 
of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from 
reflection and choice, or . . . forever destined to depend on accident 
and force.'' And what an astonishing thing the Founders did. They 
placed a bet with long odds. They believed that ``reflection and 
choice'' would make us capable of self-government; that we wouldn't 
agree on everything, but at least we could agree on a common baseline 
of fact and of truth. They wrote a Constitution with the remarkable 
idea that even the most powerful person in our country was not above 
the law and could be put on trial. A trial--a place where you seek 
truth. The faith our Founders placed in us makes the failure of this 
Senate even more damning.

  Our Nation was founded on the idea of truth, but there was no truth 
here. The Republican majority couldn't let truth into this trial. The 
Republican majority refused to get the evidence because they were 
afraid of what it might show.
  Our Nation was founded on the idea of truth, but in order to 
countenance this President, you have to ignore the truth. The 
Republicans walk through the halls with their heads down. They didn't 
see the tweet. They can't respond to everything he says. They hope he 
learned his lesson this time. Yes, maybe, this time, he learned his 
lesson.
  Our Nation was founded on truth, but in order to excuse this 
President, you have to willfully ignore the truth and indulge in the 
President's conspiracy theories: Millions of people voted illegally. 
The deep state is out to get him. Ukraine interfered in our elections. 
You must attempt to normalize his behavior. Obama did it, too, they 
falsely claim. The Democrats are just as bad.
  Our Nation was founded on the idea of truth, but this President is 
such a menace--so contemptuous of every virtue, so dishonorable, so 
dishonest--that you must ignore--indeed, sacrifice--the truth to 
maintain his favor.
  The trial of this President--its failure--reflects the central 
challenge of this Presidency and, maybe, the central challenge of this 
time in our democracy. You cannot be on the side of this President and 
be on the side of truth, and if we are to survive as a nation, we must 
choose truth because, if the truth doesn't matter, if the news you 
don't like is fake, if cheating in an election is acceptable, if 
everyone is as wicked as the wickedest among us, then hope for the 
future is lost.
  The eyes of the Nation are upon this Senate, and what they see will 
strike doubt in the heart of even the most ardent patriot.
  The House managers established that the President abused the great 
power of his office to try to cheat in an election, and the Senate 
majority is poised to look the other way.
  So I direct my final message not to the House managers, not even to 
my fellow Senators, but to the American people. My message is simple: 
Don't lose hope. There is justice in this world and truth and right. I 
believe that. I wouldn't be in this government if I didn't. Somehow, in 
ways we can't predict, with God's mysterious hand guiding us, truth and 
right will prevail.
  There have been dark periods in our history, but we always overcome. 
The Senate's opening prayer yesterday was Amos 5:24: Let justice roll 
down like water, righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.
  The long arc of the moral universe, my fellow Americans, does bend 
toward justice. America does change for the better but not on its own. 
It took millions of Americans hundreds of years to make this country 
what it is today--Americans of every age and color and creed who 
marched and protested, who stood up and sat in; Americans who died 
while defending this democracy, this beautiful democracy, in its 
darkest hours.
  On Memorial Day in 1884, Oliver Wendell Holmes told his war-weary 
audience: ``[W]hether [one] accepts from Fortune her spade, and will 
look downward and dig, or from Aspiration her axe and cord, and will 
scale the ice, the one and only success which it is [yours] to command 
is to bring to [your] work a mighty heart.''
  I have confidence that Americans of a different generation--our 
generation--will bring to our work a mighty heart to fight for what is 
right, to fight for the truth, and never, never lose faith.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the U.S. Senate was made for moments 
like this. The Framers predicted that factional fever might dominate 
House majorities from time to time. They knew the country would need a 
firewall

[[Page S910]]

to keep partisan flames from scorching our Republic. So they created 
the Senate--out of ``necessity,'' James Madison wrote, ``of some stable 
institution in the government.''
  Today, we will fulfill this founding purpose. We will reject this 
incoherent case that comes nowhere near--nowhere near--justifying the 
first Presidential removal in history. This partisan impeachment will 
end today, but I fear the threat to our institutions may not because 
this episode is one symptom of something much deeper.
  In the last 3 years, the opposition to this President has come to 
revolve around a truly dangerous concept. Leaders in the opposite party 
increasingly argue that, if our institutions don't produce the outcomes 
they like, our institutions themselves must be broken. One side has 
decided that defeat simply means the whole system is broken, that we 
must literally tear up the rules and write new ones.
  Normally, when a party loses an election, it accepts defeat. It 
reflects and retools--but not this time.
  Within months, Secretary Clinton was suggesting her defeat was 
invalid. She called our President ``illegitimate.'' A former President 
falsely claimed: ``[President] Trump didn't actually win.'' ``He lost 
the election,'' a former President said. Members of Congress have used 
similar rhetoric--a disinformation campaign, weakening confidence in 
our democracy.
  The very real issue of foreign election interference was abused to 
fuel conspiracy theories. For years, prominent voices said there had 
been a secret conspiracy between the President's campaign and a foreign 
government, but when the Mueller investigation and the Senate 
Intelligence Committee debunked that, the delegitimizing endeavor 
didn't stop. It didn't stop.
  Remember what Chairman Schiff said here on the floor? He suggested 
that if the American people reelect President Trump in November that 
the election will be presumptively invalid as well. That was Chairman 
Schiff, on this floor, saying, if the American people reelect President 
Trump this November, the election will be presumptively invalid as 
well.
  So they still don't accept the American voters' last decision, and 
now they are preparing to reject the voters' next decision if they 
don't like the outcome--not only the last decision but the next 
decision. Heads, we win. Tails, you cheated. And who can trust our 
democracy anyway, they say?
  This kind of talk creates more fear and division than our foreign 
adversaries could achieve in their wildest dreams. As Dr. Hill 
testified, our adversaries seek to ``divide us against each other, 
degrade our institutions, and destroy the faith of the American people 
in our democracy.'' As she noted, if Americans become ``consumed by 
partisan rancor,'' we can easily do that work for them.
  The architects of this impeachment claimed they were defending norms 
and traditions. In reality, it was an assault on both.
  First, the House attacked its own precedents on fairness and due 
process and by rushing to use the impeachment power as a political 
weapon of first resort. Then their articles attacked the Office of the 
Presidency. Then they attacked the Senate and called us 
``treacherous.'' Then the far left tried to impugn the Chief Justice 
for remaining neutral during the trial.
  Now, for the final act, the Speaker of the House is trying to steal 
the Senate's sole power to render a verdict. The Speaker says she will 
just refuse to accept this acquittal. The Speaker of the House of 
Representatives says she refuses to accept this acquittal--whatever 
that means. Perhaps she will tear up the verdict like she tore up the 
State of the Union Address.
  So I would ask my distinguished colleagues across the aisle: Is this 
really--really--where you want to go? The President isn't the 
President? An acquittal isn't an acquittal? Attack institutions until 
they get their way? Even my colleagues who may not agree with this 
President must see the insanity of this logic. It is like saying you 
are so worried about a bull in a china shop that you want to bulldoze 
the china shop to chase it out.
  Here is the most troubling part. There is no sign this attack on our 
institutions will end here. In recent months, Democratic Presidential 
candidates and Senate leaders have toyed with killing the filibuster so 
that the Senate could approve radical changes with less deliberation 
and less persuasion.
  Several of our colleagues sent an extraordinary brief to the Supreme 
Court, threatening political retribution if the Justices did not decide 
a case the way they wanted.
  We have seen proposals to turn the FEC--the regulator of elections 
and political speech--into a partisan body for the first time ever.
  All of these things signal a toxic temptation to stop debating policy 
within our great American governing traditions and, instead, declare 
war on the traditions themselves--a war on the traditions themselves.
  So, colleagues, with whatever policy differences we may have, we 
should all agree this is precisely the kind of recklessness the Senate 
was created to stop. The response to losing one election cannot be to 
attack the Office of the Presidency. The response to losing several 
elections cannot be to threaten the electoral college. The response to 
losing a court case cannot be to threaten the judiciary. The response 
to losing a vote cannot be to threaten the Senate.
  We simply cannot let factional fever break our institutions. It must 
work the other way, as Madison and Hamilton intended. The institutions 
must break the fever rather than the other way around.
  The Framers built the Senate to keep temporary rage from doing 
permanent damage to our Republic.
  The Framers built the Senate to keep temporary rage from doing 
permanent damage to our Republic. That is what we will do when we end 
this precedent-breaking impeachment.
  I hope we will look back on this vote and say this was the day the 
fever began to break.
  I hope we will not say this was just the beginning.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as Senators, we cast a lot of votes 
throughout our tenure in this body. I have cast over 13,200 of them. 
Each vote is important. A vote to convict or acquit the President of 
the United States on charges of impeachment is one of the most 
important votes a Senator could ever cast. Until this week, such a vote 
has only taken place twice since the founding of our Republic.
  The President has been accused of committing ``high Crimes and 
Misdemeanors'' for requesting that a foreign leader launch an anti-
corruption investigation into his potential political opponent and 
obstructing Congress's subsequent inquiry into his actions. For such 
conduct, the House of Representatives asks this body to remove the 
President from office and prohibit him from ever again serving in a 
position of public trust. As both a judge and juror, this Senator asks 
first whether the conduct alleged rises to the level of an offense that 
unquestionably demands removal. If it does, I ask whether the House has 
proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the conduct actually occurred. 
The House's case clearly fails on the first of those questions. 
Accordingly, I will vote not guilty on both articles.
  The President's request, taken at face value, is not impeachable 
conduct. A President is not prohibited by law or any other restriction 
from engaging the assistance of a foreign ally in an anti-corruption 
investigation. The House attempts to cure this defect by suggesting 
that the President's subjective motive--political advantage--is enough 
to turn an otherwise unimpeachable act into one that demands permanent 
removal from office. I will not lend my vote in support of such an 
unnecessary and irreversible break from the Constitution's clear 
standard for impeachment.
  The Senate is an institution of precedent. We are informed and often 
guided, especially in times like this, by history and the actions of 
our predecessors. While we look to history, however, we must be mindful 
of the reality that our choices make history, for better or for worse. 
What we say and do here necessarily becomes part of the roadmap for 
future Presidential impeachments and their consideration by this body. 
These days, that reality can be difficult to keep front and center. 
Partisan fervor to convict or acquit a President of the United States 
who has been impeached can lead to cut corners, overheated rhetoric, 
and rushed

[[Page S911]]

results. We are each bound by the special oath we take while sitting as 
a Court of Impeachment to ``do impartial justice according to the 
Constitution and laws.'' But as President pro tempore, I recognize we 
must also do justice to the Senate as an institution and to the 
Republic that it serves.
  This trial began with a full and fair opportunity to debate and amend 
the rules that would guide our process. The Senate considered and voted 
on 11 separate amendments to the resolution, over the span of nearly 13 
hours. Consistent with precedent, the Senate adopted a resolution to 
allow the same length of time for opening arguments and questions as 
was agreed to unanimously in 1999 during the Clinton impeachment trial. 
Consistent with precedent, the Senate agreed to table the issue of 
witnesses and additional evidence until after the conclusion of 
questions from Members. Consistent with precedent, the Senate engaged 
in a robust and open debate on the necessity of calling witnesses and 
pursuing additional evidence. We heard nearly 24 hours of presentation 
from the House managers, nearly 12 hours of presentation from the 
President's counsel, and we engaged in 16 hours of questioning to both 
sides.
  Up to today, the Senate has sat as a Court of Impeachment for a 
combined total of over 70 hours. The Senate did not and does not cut 
corners, nor can the final vote be credibly called a rushed result or 
anything less than the product of a fair and judicious process. Future 
generations, if faced with the toxic turmoil of impeachment, will be 
better served by the precedent we followed and the example we set in 
this Chamber. I cannot in good conscience say the same of the articles 
before us today.
  I have said since the beginning of this unfortunate episode that the 
House's articles don't, on their face, appear to allege anything 
satisfying the Constitution's clear requirement of ``Treason, Bribery, 
or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' Yet I took my role as a juror 
seriously. I committed to hear the evidence in the record and to 
reflect on the arguments made. After 9 days of presentation and 
questions and after fully considering the record as presented to the 
Senate, I am convinced that what the House is asking us to do is not 
only constitutionally flawed but dangerously unprecedented.
  The House's first article, impeaching the President for ``abuse of 
power,'' rests on objectively legal conduct. Until Congress legislates 
otherwise, a President is well within his or her legal and 
constitutional authority, as the head of state, to request that a 
foreign leader assist with an anti-corruption investigation falling 
outside of the jurisdiction of our domestic law enforcement 
authorities. Short of political blowback, there is also nothing in the 
law that prohibits a President from conditioning his or her official 
acts upon the agreement by the foreign leader to carry out such an 
investigation.
  In an attempt to cure this fundamental defect in its charge, the 
House's ``abuse of power'' article sets out an impermissibly flexible 
and vague standard to justify removing the Chief Executive from office. 
As the House's trial brief and presentation demonstrated, its theory of 
the case rests entirely on the President's subjective motive for 
carrying out objectively permissible conduct. For two reasons, this 
cannot be sustained.
  First, the House would seemingly have the Senate believe that motive 
by itself is sufficient to prove the illegality of an action. House 
managers repeatedly described the President's ``corrupt motive'' as 
grounds for removal from office. But this flips basic concepts in our 
justice system upside down and represents an unprecedented expansion of 
the scope of the impeachment authority. With limited exception, motive 
is offered in court to show that the defendant on trial is the one who 
most likely committed the illegal act that has been charged. Jealously 
might compel one neighbor to steal something from the other. But a 
court doesn't convict the defendant for a crime of jealousy. Second, 
let's assume, however, that motive could be grounds for impeachment and 
removal. The House offers no limiting principle or clear standard 
whatsoever of what motives are permissible. Under such an amorphous 
standard, future Houses would be empowered to impeach Presidents for 
taking lawful action for what the House considers to be the wrong 
reasons.
  The House also gives no aid to this institution or to our successors 
on whether impeachment should rest on proving a single, ``corrupt'' 
motive or whether mixed motive suffices under their theory for removing 
a President from office. In its trial brief presented to the Senate, 
the House asserts that there is ``no credible alternative explanation'' 
for the President's alleged conduct. This formulation, in the House's 
own brief, necessarily implies that the presence of a credible 
alternative explanation for the President's conduct would defeat the 
``abuse of power'' theory. But once the Senate heard the President's 
counsel's presentation, the House changed its tune. Even a credible 
alternative explanation--or multiple benign motives--shouldn't stop 
this body from removing the President, so long as one ``corrupt'' 
motive is in the mix. This apparent shift in trial strategy seems less 
indicative of a cohesive theory and more reflective of an ``impeach-by-
any-means-necessary'' mindset. But reshaping their own standard mid-
trial only served to undercut their initial arguments.
  Simply asserting at least 63 times, as the House managers did, during 
the trial that their evidence was ``overwhelming'' and that the 
President's guilt was proven does not make the underlying allegations 
accurate or prove an impeachable offense. Even in the midst of 
questions and answers, after opening arguments had concluded, the House 
managers started repeating the terms ``bribery'' and ``extortion'' on 
the floor of the Senate, while neither appears anywhere in the House's 
articles. These are serious, statutory crimes that have specific 
elements of proof; they shouldn't be casually used as window dressing 
to inflame the jury. And the House's attempts to shoehorn those charges 
into their articles is itself a due process violation.
  It is not the Senate's job to read into the House's articles what the 
House failed or didn't see fit to incorporate itself. No more so is it 
the job of a judge to read nonexistent provisions into legislation that 
Congress passes and the President signs. Articles of Impeachment should 
not be moving targets.
  The Senate, accordingly, doesn't need to resolve today the question 
of whether a criminal violation is necessary for a President's conduct 
to be impeachable. The text of the Constitution and the Framers' clear 
intent to limit the scope of the impeachment power counsels in favor of 
such a brightline rule. And until this episode, no President has been 
impeached on charges that didn't include a violation of established 
law. Indeed, the only Presidential impeachments considered by this body 
included alleged violations of laws, and both resulted in acquittals. 
But the stated ambiguities surrounding the House's ``abuse of power'' 
theory, acknowledged even by the House managers, give this Senator 
reason enough to vote not guilty. If we are to lower the bar of 
impeachment, we better be clear on where the bar is being set.
  The President himself, however, should not conclude from my vote that 
I think his conduct was above reproach. He alone knows what his motives 
were. The President has a duty to the American people to root out 
corruption no matter who is implicated. And running for office does not 
make one immune from scrutiny. But the President's request was poorly 
timed and poorly executed, and he should have taken better care to 
avoid even the mere appearance of impropriety. Had he done so, this 
impeachment saga might have been avoided altogether. It is clear that 
many of the President's opponents had plans to impeach him from the day 
he took office. But the President didn't have to give them this 
pretense.
  The House's second article, impeaching the President for 
``obstruction of Congress,'' is equally unprecedented as grounds for 
removal from office and patently frivolous. It purports that, if the 
President claims constitutional privileges against Congress, 
``threatens'' to litigate, or otherwise fails to immediately give up 
the goods, he or she must be removed from office.
  I know a thing or two about obstruction by the executive branch under

[[Page S912]]

both Democrat and Republican administrations. Congressional oversight--
rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse--is central to my role as a Senator 
representing Iowa taxpayers and has been for 40 years. If there is 
anything as sure as death and taxes, it is Federal agencies resisting 
Congress' efforts to look behind the curtain. In the face of 
obstruction, I don't retreat. I go to work. I use the tools the 
Constitution provides to this institution. I withhold consent on 
nominees until I get an honest answer to an oversight request. I work 
with my colleagues to exercise Congress's power of the purse. And when 
necessary, I take the administration to court. That is the very core of 
checks and balances. For years, I fought the Obama administration to 
obtain documents related to Operation Fast and Furious. I spent years 
seeking answers and records from the Obama administration during my 
investigation into Secretary Clinton's mishandling of highly classified 
information.
  Under the House's ``obstruction of Congress'' standard, should 
President Obama have been impeached for his failure to waive privileges 
during the course of my and other committees' oversight investigations? 
We fought President Obama on this for 3 years in the courts, and we 
still didn't end up with all we asked for. We never heard a peep from 
the Democrats then. So the hypocrisy here by the House Democrats is on 
full display.
  When I face unprecedented obstruction, I don't agitate to impeach. 
Rather, my office aggressively negotiates, in good faith, with the 
executive branch. We discuss the scope of questions and document 
requests. We discuss the intent of the inquiry to provide context for 
the requested documents. We build an airtight case and demand 
cooperation. Negotiations are difficult. They take time.
  In the case before us, the House issued a series of requests and 
subpoenas to individuals within the White House and throughout the 
administration. But it did so rather early in its inquiry. The House 
learned of the whistleblower complaint in September, issued subpoenas 
for records in October, and impeached the President by December, 4 
months from opening the inquiry to impeachment for ``obstruction.'' As 
one who can speak from experience, that is unreasonable and doesn't 
allow an investigation to appropriately and reasonably run its course. 
That timeline makes clear to me that the House majority really had one 
goal in mind: to impeach the President at all costs, no matter what the 
facts and the law might say. Most importantly, the House failed to 
exhaust all legal remedies to enforce its requests and subpoenas. When 
challenged to stand up for the legality of its requests in court, the 
investigating committee simply retreated. Yet, now, the House accuses 
the Senate of aiding and abetting a coverup, if we don't finish their 
job for them. The evidence is ``overwhelming,'' yet the Senate must 
entertain more witnesses and gather more records that the House chose 
to forgo.
  The House's failure to proceed with their investigation in an 
orderly, reasonable, good-faith manner has created fundamental flaws in 
its own case. They skipped basic steps. It is not the job of the Senate 
to fix the fundamental flaws that directly result from the House's 
failure to do its job. The House may cower to defend its own authority, 
but it will not extort and demean this body into cleaning up a mess of 
the House's own making.
  For the myriad ways in which the House failed to exercise the 
fundamentals of oversight, for the terrible new precedent the House 
wants us to endorse, and for the risk of future generations taking it 
up as the standard, I will vote not guilty on the obstruction article.
  Now, there has been much discussion and debate about the 
whistleblower whose complaint framed the House's inquiry in this case. 
I have worked for and with whistleblowers for more than 30 years. They 
shed light on waste, fraud, and abuse that ought to be fixed and that 
the public ought to know about, all frequently at great personal cost. 
Whistleblowers are patriots, and they are heroes. I believed that in 
the 1980s. I believe it today. I have sponsored, cosponsored, and 
otherwise strongly supported numerous laws designed to strengthen 
whistleblowers protections. I have reminded agencies of the 
whistleblowers' rights to speak with us and of their protection under 
the law for doing so. And this is how it works. Of course, it is much 
better to have firsthand information because it is more reliable. 
However, whether it is firsthand information or secondhand, it is 
possible to conduct a thorough investigation of a whistleblower's 
claims and respect his or her request for confidentiality.
  As I said in October of last year, attempts by anyone in government 
or the media to ``out'' a whistleblower just to sell an article or 
score a political point is not helpful. It undermines the spirit and 
purpose of the whistleblower protection laws. I remember very well the 
rabid, public lashing experienced by the brave whistleblowers who came 
to me about the Obama administration's Operation Fast and Furious. 
President Obama's Justice Department worked overtime to discredit them 
and tarnish their good names in the press, all to protect an operation 
that it tried to keep hidden from Congress and the American people, and 
that resulted in the death of an American Border Patrol agent. That was 
not the treatment those whistleblowers deserved. It is not the 
treatment any whistleblower deserves, who comes forward in good faith, 
to report what he or she truly believes is waste, fraud, or abuse.
  But whistleblower claims require careful evaluation and follow up, 
particularly because their initial claim frames your inquiry and forms 
the basis for further fact finding. The questions you ask and the 
documents and witnesses you seek all start there. Any investigator 
worth their salt will tell you that part of the investigative process 
involving a whistleblower, or indeed any witness, requires the 
investigator to evaluate that individual's claim and credibility. It is 
standard procedure. So we talk to the whistleblowers, we meet with them 
when possible, we look at their documents. We keep them confidential 
from potential retaliators, but not from the folks who need to speak 
with them to do their jobs. When whistleblowers bring to us significant 
cases of bipartisan interest, where we have initially evaluated their 
claim and credibility and determined that the claim merits additional 
follow up, we also frequently work closely with the other side to look 
into those claims.
  We have done many bipartisan investigations of whistleblowers' claims 
over the years and hopefully will continue to do so. We trust the other 
side to respect the whistleblower's confidence as well and treat the 
investigation seriously. We have also worked with many witnesses in 
investigations who want to maintain low profiles and who request 
additional security measures to come and speak with us. We are flexible 
on location. We have the Capitol Police. We have SCIFs. We have 
interviewed witnesses in both classified and unclassified settings. We 
are willing to work with those witnesses to make them comfortable and 
to ensure they are in a setting that allows them to share sensitive 
information with us.
  I know the House committees, particularly the oversight committees, 
have all taken that course themselves. They routinely work with 
whistleblowers too. Both sides understand how to talk to whistleblowers 
and how to respect their role and confidentiality. So why no efforts 
were taken in this case to go through these very basic, bipartisan 
steps is baffling. I do not under any circumstances support reprisal or 
efforts to throw stones without facts. But neither do I support efforts 
to skirt basic fundamental investigative procedures to try and learn 
those facts. I fear that, to achieve its desired ends, the House 
weaponized and politicized whistleblowers and whistleblower reporting 
for purely partisan purposes. I hope that the damage done from all 
sides to these decades-long efforts will be short lived.
  Finally, throughout my time on the Judiciary Committee, including as 
chairman, I have made it a priority to hold judicial nominees to a 
standard of restraint and fidelity to the law. As judges in the Court 
of Impeachment, we too should be mindful of those factors which counsel 
restraint in this matter.
  To start, these articles came to the Senate as the product of a 
flawed, unprecedented and partisan process. For

[[Page S913]]

71 of the 78 days of the House's expedited impeachment inquiry, the 
President was not permitted to take part or have agency counsel 
present. Many of the rights traditionally afforded to the minority 
party in impeachment proceedings were altered or withheld. And an 
authorizing vote by the full House didn't occur until 4 weeks after 
hearings had already begun. When the articles themselves were put to a 
vote by the full House, just in time for Christmas, the only 
bipartisanship we saw was in opposition. Moreover, the Iowa caucuses 
have already occurred. The 2020 Presidential election is well underway. 
Yet we are being asked to remove the incumbent from the ballot, based 
on Articles of Impeachment supported by only one party in Congress. 
Taken together, the Senate should take no part in endorsing the 
dangerous new precedent this would set for future impeachments.
  With more than 28,000 pages of evidence, 17 witnesses, and over 70 
hours of open, transparent consideration by the Senate, I believe the 
American people are more than adequately prepared to decide for 
themselves the fate of this President in November. This decision 
belongs to them.
  When the Chief Justice spoke up at the start of this trial to defuse 
some rising emotions, he challenged both sides addressing the Chamber 
to ``remember where they are.'' We, too, should remember where we are. 
The U.S. Senate has ably served the American people through trying 
times. These are trying times. And when this trial adjourns, the cloud 
of impeachment may not so quickly depart. But if there is any 
institution best equipped to help bridge the divide and once again 
achieve our common goals, it is this one.
  Let's get back to work for the People.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the question before us is incredibly 
serious, but it is also more than a little absurd. We are sitting as a 
court, exercising the sole power to try impeachments, entrusted to us 
by the Framers. The President of the United States has been charged 
with high crimes--a constitutional charge of abuse of power that 
includes in its text each of the elements of criminal bribery. The 
President's lawyers have complained all week about the absence of sworn 
testimony from officials with first-hand knowledge of the President's 
actions and intent. They claim not to know when the President froze the 
aid. They falsely claim there is no evidence the President withheld the 
aid in exchange for his political errand--announcing an investigation 
into his political rival. And yet whenever the President's counsels 
have pled ignorance or claimed a lack of evidence, they ask not that we 
pursue the truth; they ask instead that we look away.
  The Senate simply cannot look away. In the 220 years this body has 
served as a constitutional court of impeachment, we have never refused 
to look at critical evidence sitting in front of us. We have never 
raced to a pre-ordained verdict while deliberately avoiding the truth 
or evaluating plainly critical evidence.
  And when I say ``sitting in front of us,'' I mean that literally. 
Just this morning, we learned that Pat Cipollone, lead counsel for the 
President, along with Rudy Giuliani and Mick Mulvaney, was part of a 
meeting where President Trump directed John Bolton to ``ensure 
[President] Zelensky would meet with Mr. Giuliani.'' A meeting with the 
President's personal lawyer is not subject to executive privilege; and 
a meeting with Bolton and Mulvaney is not subject to attorney-client 
privilege. And this afternoon we received a proffer from Lev Parnas's 
attorney, claiming that Pamas could provide us with testimony 
implicating several cabinet officials and members of Congress in the 
President's scheme. I cannot say whether that is credible, but 
shouldn't he at least be heard and cross-examined? The Senate cannot 
turn a blind eye to such directly relevant evidence.
  This slipshod process reminds me of another trial. That was the trial 
of Alice in Wonderland. In that trial, the accusation was read, and the 
King immediately said to the jury, ``Consider your verdict.'' But even 
in that case it was acknowledged that ``There's a great deal to come 
before that,'' and the first witness was called. With apologies to 
Lewis Carroll, surely the United States Senate can at least match the 
rigorous criminal procedure of Wonderland?
  The oath that each of us swore just two weeks ago requires that we do 
``impartial justice.'' Reasonable people can disagree about what that 
means, but every single time this body has sat as a court--every single 
time--it has heard from witnesses and weighed sworn testimony. We have 
never been denied the opportunity to hear from critical witnesses with 
firsthand information. During the Johnson trial, this court heard live 
testimony from 41 witnesses, including private counsel for the 
President and a cabinet secretary. During the Clinton trial, three 
witnesses were deposed and we considered the grand jury testimony of 
the President's chief of staff, deputy chief of staff, and White House 
Counsel--plus the grand jury testimony of the President himself. 
``Impartial justice'' cannot mean burying our collective heads in the 
sand, and preventing relevant, probative testimony from being taken.
  Briefly, I also want to address the arguments made against calling 
witnesses. The President has said that ``Witnesses are up to the House, 
not up to the Senate.'' But the Senate has never been, and should not 
be now, limited to the House record. The Senate's constitutional 
obligation to try impeachments stands independent of the House's 
obligation. The Constitution does not allow the House's action or 
inaction to limit the evidence and testimony the Senate can and must 
consider. The last time we sat as a court we heard from 26 witnesses in 
total, including 17 who had not testified before the House. Seventeen.
  Some have also said that calling witnesses like John Bolton would 
leave us tangled up in an endless court battle over executive 
privilege. Not so. The Senate alone has the ``sole Power to try all 
Impeachments,'' and the Chief Justice reminded us just a few years ago 
in Zivotofsky v. Clinton that Article III courts cannot hear cases 
``where there `is a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of 
the issue to a coordinate political department.' '' And in Walter Nixon 
v. United States, the Supreme Court expressly ruled out ``[j]udicial 
involvement in impeachment proceedings, even if only for purposes of 
judicial review.''
  Moreover, and more simply, executive privilege cannot prevent 
testimony from a private citizen like Bolton who is willing to testify. 
And, in any event, the President has almost certainly waived any claim 
to privilege by endlessly tweeting and talking to the media about his 
conversations with Bolton. The Senate is not helpless. We are the only 
court with jurisdiction. We can and should resolve these questions.
  Let us conduct this trial with the seriousness it deserves--
consistent with Senate precedent, the overwhelming expectations of the 
American people, and how every other trial across the country is 
conducted every single day.
  As Senators, we are here to debate and vote on difficult questions. I 
understand this may be a difficult question politically--but it is 
nowhere close to a difficult question under the law or common sense. I 
do not believe for one second that any of us sought public office to 
become an accomplice to what can only be described as a cover-up. As 
the Chief Justice has reminded us, we have the privilege of serving in 
the world's greatest deliberative body. So let's actually deliberate.
  But if we adopt the rule--rejected even in Wonderland--of verdict 
first, witnesses later, be assured those witnesses will eventually 
follow. Whether through FOIA, journalism, or book releases, the 
American people will learn the truth, likely sooner rather than later. 
Maybe even over the upcoming weekend. What will they think of a Senate 
that went to such extraordinary lengths--ignoring 220 years of 
precedent, any notions of fairness or respect for facts, and indeed 
ignoring our duties to the Constitution itself--to keep the truth 
buried?
  A vote to preclude witnesses will embolden this President to further 
demean the Congress, this Senate, and the balance of power so carefully 
established by the Framers in the Constitution. It will ratify the 
President's shell game of telling the House it should sue to enforce 
its subpoenas, and then telling courts that the House has no standing 
to do so. Just today, after a week

[[Page S914]]

of his counsel arguing that the President cannot be impeached for 
failing to respond to House subpoenas, the Justice Department argued in 
court that the House can use its impeachment power to enforce its 
subpoenas. It is up to all 100 of us to put a stop to this nonsense.
  I have served in this body for 45 years. It is not often we face 
votes like this--votes that will leave a significant mark on history, 
and will shape our constitutional ability to serve as a check against 
presidents for generations to come. I pray the Senate is worthy of this 
responsibility, and of this moment. I fear the repercussions if it is 
not.
  I will vote to hear from witnesses. With deep respect, I ask my 
fellow senators to do the same.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the trial of 
President Trump.
  After information from more than a dozen witnesses, over a hundred 
questions, and days of oral arguments, I believe the House failed to 
prove its case for the two Articles of Impeachment. The House's story 
relies on too much speculation, guessing games and repetition. It fails 
to hold up under scrutiny. The House claims to have proven its case, 
but insists on more evidence. It was the House's responsibility to 
ensure it had developed a complete record of the evidence it needed to 
make its case, and it is not up to the Senate to start the process over 
again.
  There were contradictions in the House's case from the very 
beginning. The House counted on repetition to make its claims seem 
true, but often didn't provide the underlying evidence. For example, 
the House managers relied on telephone records for timing, but 
speculated on the content of the calls.
  The House managers claimed the President wanted to influence an 
election, but it is difficult to see how the House's rush to bring this 
case in such a haphazard manner is nothing more than an attempt to 
influence the 2020 election. The House managers asked the Senate to do 
additional witnesses in 1 week, which could mean the Senate would 
essentially have to start the trial all over.
  I not only can't call their efforts adequate, I have to say they have 
been entirely inadequate. Consequently, I did not vote for more 
witnesses or more evidence and will vote to acquit the President on 
both counts.
  I hope we can learn from everything we do, especially in regard to 
impeachment. The animosity toward President Trump is unprecedented, and 
I believe it is the reason we have ended up where we are today. I 
believe we should give each newly elected President a chance to show 
what he or she can do. We should provide them the opportunity to prove 
themselves and demonstrate our faith in our country and its leadership.
  We have to give the President an opportunity to lead or even to fail. 
Unfortunately, President Trump was promised an impeachment from the day 
he was elected, before he even took his oath of office. On the day of 
his inauguration, before any official act, there were riots where, and 
I quote from the New York Times, ``protesters threw rocks and bricks at 
police officers, set a car on fire and shattered storefront windows.'' 
I have never seen that kind of conduct before stemming from the result 
of our democratic process. I hope to never see it again.
  The obstruction continued as President Trump's nominations were held 
up in an unprecedented way. This obstruction kept the new President 
from getting his key people in place. The few nominations approved had 
to work with career or hold-over staff from the previous 
administration. We have read in news articles that some of those 
staffers not only disliked their new bosses, but they tried to actively 
undercut their policies. Sometimes they even delayed or used inaction 
or gave adverse advice. These types of tactics were used to put blame 
on their boss and on President Trump, and that ultimately hurt our 
country, too.
  Again, almost immediately after the election came the call for 
investigations, ending with the appointment of Special Counsel Robert 
Mueller. This investigation went on for almost 2 years. When the 
Mueller investigation didn't yield the desired results, the President's 
detractors returned to the continuing cry for an impeachment. The 
volume and pitch increased even as the 2020 election got closer.
  Eventually, the House of Representatives found its latest accusation. 
Yet, not willing to conduct a thorough impeachment investigation and 
wanting to reach a foregone conclusion as the election year approached, 
the House of Representatives hurried its investigation so it would be 
done before Christmas and the Senate would be forced to address these 
articles as a new year started. Ironically, after all that rushing and 
taking shortcuts, the House delayed sending the articles to the Senate 
until the new year. All of this was just the latest example of the 
efforts to block President Trump's agenda.
  I have now served in two Presidential impeachment trials, one during 
my first term and this one in my last. I have never underestimated the 
responsibility of the task at hand or forgotten the oaths I took to 
uphold the Constitution. There are few duties senators will face as 
grave as deciding the fate of the President of the United States, but 
just like 21 years ago, this decision is about country, not politics. 
These experiences have helped refine my views, which I will now share.
  Our Forefathers did well setting the trial in the Senate where it 
takes a \2/3\ majority, currently 67 votes, to convict. They could see 
the difficulty it would bring to the Nation if impeachment could easily 
be convicted by a slight majority. Even though it is not the law, I 
would counsel the House not to impeach without at least a \3/5\ vote in 
their own body, and that should include some number from the minority 
party.
  I have also come to believe that impeachment should be primarily 
about a criminal activity. Impeachment is inherently undemocratic 
because it reverses an election, so in election years, the bar for 
considering impeachment and removal goes even higher. Ultimately, the 
American people should and will have the final say.
  The House of Representatives must also be sure to complete its 
investigation. It shouldn't send the Senate impeachment charges and 
then expect the Senate to continue gathering more evidence. The House 
should subpoena witnesses and deal with defense claims such as 
privilege, even if that means going through the judicial process rather 
than placing such a burden on the Senate.
  The House cannot simply rely on repetition of possibilities of 
violations, no matter how many times stated, to make their accusations 
true. A complete investigation means the investigators don't rush to 
judgment, don't speculate about the content of calls, and don't rely on 
repetition of accusations about the content of such calls as a 
substitute for seeking the truth.
  During the initial investigation, witnesses should have already been 
deposed by both sides before it comes to the Senate. The President's 
counsel must be allowed to cross-examine all persons deposed by the 
House. Then, and only then, can any of the witnesses be called to 
testify at the Senate trial. The House investigation has to be 
complete.
  Finally, I would call for our outside institutions to also think 
about how they contribute to the well-being of our country. I have 
often said that conflict sells. It might even increase sales to 
consumers of news for both parties, but I fear that we are all treating 
this like a sport, speculating which team will win and which will lose. 
I suspect that some venomous statements about this process have ended 
some friendships and strained some families. In the end, if we lose 
faith in our institutions, our friends and our families, we will all 
lose.
  We desperately need more civility. That is simply being nice to each 
other. My mom said, ``Bad behavior is inexcusable.'' It violates the 
Golden Rule as revised by my mom, ``Do what's right. Do your best. 
Treat others as THEY wish to be treated.'' One of the first movies I 
saw was the now-ancient animated picture, ``Bambi.'' I am reminded of 
the little rabbit saying, ``My Mom always says, if you can't say 
something nice, don't say anything at all!'' I believe we all agree on 
at least 80 percent of most issues, but the trend seems to be shifting 
to concentrate on the other 20 percent we don't agree on. That 20 
percent causes divisiveness, opposition, venomous harsh words, and 
anger.

[[Page S915]]

  Too often, it feels like our Nation is only becoming more divided, 
more hostile. I do not believe that our country will ever be able to 
successfully tackle our looming problems if we continue down this road. 
As we move forward from this chapter in our Nation's history, I hope 
that we will focus more on our shared goals that can help our Nation, 
and not the issues that drive us apart.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, in my 25 years representing North Carolina 
in Congress, I have cast thousands of votes, each with its own 
significance. The ones that weigh most heavily are those that send our 
men and women in uniform into armed conflict. Those are the votes I 
spend the most time debating before casting--first and foremost because 
of the human cost involved but secondly because they hold the power to 
irrevocably set the course of American history.
  With similar consideration, I have taken a sober and deliberate 
approach to the impeachment proceedings of the last few weeks, 
conscious of my constitutional responsibility to serve as an impartial 
juror.
  As the investigative body, the House has charged President Trump with 
abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The Senate's role is to 
determine whether the House has proven its case beyond a reasonable 
doubt and whether, if true, these charges rise to the level of removing 
the President from office.
  After listening to more than 70 hours of arguments from the House 
managers and the President's counsel, I have concluded that the House 
has not provided the Senate with a compelling reason for taking the 
unprecedented and destabilizing step of removing the President from 
office.
  In my role as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I have 
visited countries all over the world. What separates the United States 
from every other nation on Earth is our predictable, peaceful 
transitions of power. Every 4 years, Americans cast their ballots with 
the confidence their vote will be counted and the knowledge that both 
winners and losers will abide by the results.
  To remove a U.S. President from office, for the first time in 
history, on anything less than overwhelming evidence of ``Treason, 
Bribery, or High Crimes and Misdemeanors'' would effectively overturn 
the will of the American people.
  As the Speaker said last year, ``Impeachment is so divisive to the 
country that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming 
and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path, because it 
divides the country.''
  I believe the Speaker was correct in her assessment. A year later, 
however, the House went down that exact path, choosing to conduct a 
highly partisan impeachment inquiry, with underwhelming evidence, in a 
deeply flawed process.
  The House had ample opportunity to pursue the answers to its inquiry 
in order to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. They chose not 
to do so. Instead, investigators followed an arbitrary, self-imposed 
timeline dictated by political, rather than substantive, concerns.
  For example, the House did not attempt to compel certain witnesses to 
testify because doing so would have meant confronting issues of 
executive privilege and immunity. They argued navigating executive 
privilege--something every administration lays claim to--may have 
caused some level of delays and involved the courts.
  At the time, the House justified their decision by claiming the issue 
was too important, too urgent, for any delays. Yet, after the House 
voted on the Articles of Impeachment, the Speaker waited 4 full weeks 
before transmitting the articles to the Senate. Those were weeks the 
House could have spent furthering its inquiry, had it not rushed the 
process. Instead, without a hint of irony, House leadership attempted 
to use that time to pressure the Senate into gathering the very witness 
testimony their own investigators chose not to pursue.
  Additionally, in drafting the Articles of Impeachment, the House 
stated President Trump committed ``Criminal bribery and honest services 
wire fraud,'' two crimes that carry penalties under our Criminal Code. 
Inexplicably, the House chose not to include those alleged criminal 
misdeeds in the articles sent to the Senate, much less argue them in 
front of this body.
  At every turn, it appears the House made decisions not based on the 
pursuit of justice but on politics. When due process threatened to slow 
down the march forward, they took shortcuts. When evidence was too 
complicated to obtain or an accusation did not carry weight, the House 
created new, flimsy standards on the fly, hoping public pressure would 
sway Senate jurors in lieu of facts.
  The Founding Fathers who crafted our modern impeachment mechanism 
predicted this moment, and warned against a solely partisan and 
politically motivated process.
  In Federalist 65, Alexander Hamilton wrote, ``In many cases 
[impeachment] will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and 
will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and 
interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will 
always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more 
by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations 
of innocence or guilt.''
  Hamilton believed impeachment was a necessary tool but one to be used 
when the evidence of wrongdoing was so overwhelming, it elevated the 
process above partiality and partisanship. The House has failed to meet 
that standard.
  The Founders also warned against using impeachment as recourse for 
management or policy disagreements with the President.
  Prior to America's founding, impeachment had been used for centuries 
in England as a measure to reprimand crown-appointed officials and 
landed gentry. At the time, it included the vague charge of 
``maladministration,'' as well.
  During the Constitutional Convention in 1787, George Mason moved to 
add ``maladministration'' to the U.S. Constitution's list of 
impeachable offenses, asking: ``Why is the provision restrained to 
Treason & bribery only? Treason as defined in the Constitution will not 
reach many great and dangerous offences. Attempts to subvert the 
Constitution may not be Treason as above defined.''
  I submit for this body James Madison's response: ``So vague a term 
will be equivalent to a tenure during the pleasure of the Senate.''
  Madison knew that impeachment based purely on disagreements about 
governance would turn the U.S. Congress into a parliamentary body, akin 
to those tumultuous coalitions in Europe, which could recall a 
President on little more than a whim. To do so would subordinate the 
Executive to the Congress, rather than delineating its role as a 
coequal branch of our Federal Government. And with political winds 
changing as frequently then as they do now, he saw that every President 
could theoretically be thus impeached on fractious and uncertain terms.
  In a functioning democracy, the President cannot serve at ``the 
pleasure of Senate.'' He must serve at the pleasure of the people.
  Gouverneur Morris supported Madison's argument, adding at the time: 
``An election every four years will prevent maladministration.''
  Thus ``maladministration'' was not made an impeachable offense in 
America, expressly because we have the recourse of free and fair 
elections.
  I bring up this story for two reasons. First, the Founder's decision 
signals to me they felt strongly that an impeachable offense must be a 
crime akin to treason, bribery, or an act equally serious, as defined 
in the Criminal Code. Second, this story tells me the Founders believed 
anything that does not meet the Constitutional threshold should be 
navigated through the electoral process.
  By that standard, I do not believe the Articles of Impeachment 
presented to the Senate rise to the level of removal from office, nor 
do I believe House managers succeeded in making the case incumbent upon 
them to prove. Given the weak underpinnings of the articles themselves 
and the House's partisan process, it would be an error to remove the 
President mere months before a national election; therefore, I have 
concluded I will vote to acquit President Donald J. Trump on both 
articles of impeachment.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, today is a somber day for our country.

[[Page S916]]

As Senators, we are here as representatives of the American people. It 
is our duty, as we each swore to do when we took our oath of office, to 
support and defend the Constitution. We also took an oath, as judges 
and jurors in this proceeding, to pursue ``impartial justice'' as we 
consider these articles--including the serious charge that the 
President of the United States leveraged the power of his office for 
his own personal gain.
  Those are the oaths that the Framers set out for us in the 
Constitution, to guide the Senate in its oversight responsibilities. 
The Framers believed that the legislative branch was best positioned to 
provide a check on the Executive. They envisioned that the separation 
of powers would allow each branch of government to oversee the other. 
They also knew, based on their experience living under the British 
monarchy, that someday a President might corrupt the powers of the 
office. William Davie from North Carolina was particularly concerned 
that a President could abuse his office by sparing ``no efforts or 
means whatever to get himself reelected.''
  So the Framers put in place a standard that would cover a range of 
Presidential misconduct, settling on: ``Treason, Bribery, or other high 
Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' As Alexander Hamilton explained in 
Federalist 65, the phrase was intended to cover the ``abuse or 
violation of some public trust'' and ``injuries done immediately to 
society itself.'' The Framers designed a remedy for this public harm: 
removal from public office. So now we are here as judge and jury to try 
the case and to evaluate whether the President's acts have violated the 
public trust and injured our democracy.
  I am concerned of course that the Senate has decided that we must 
make this decision without all the facts. With a 51 to 49 vote, the 
senate blocked the opportunity to call witnesses with firsthand 
knowledge or to get relevant documents. Fairness means evidence--it 
means documents, and it means witnesses. In every past impeachment 
trial in the Senate, in this body's entire 231-year history, there have 
been witnesses. There is no reason why the Senate should not have 
called people to testify who have firsthand knowledge of the 
President's conduct, especially if, as some of my colleagues have 
suggested, you believe the facts are in dispute.
  During the question period, I asked about the impeachment of Judge 
Porteous in 2010. I joined several of my colleagues in serving on the 
trial committee. We heard from 26 witnesses in the Senate, 17 of whom 
were new witnesses who had not previously testified in the House. What 
possible reason could there be for allowing 26 witnesses in a judicial 
impeachment trial and zero in a President's trial? How can we consider 
this a fair trial if we are not even willing to try and get to the 
truth?
  We do not even have to try and find it. John Bolton has firsthand 
knowledge about central facts in this case, and he said he would comply 
with a subpoena from the Senate. We also know there are documents that 
could verify testimony presented in the House, like records of emails 
sent between administration officials in the days after the July 25 
call. We cannot ignore this evidence--we have a constitutional duty to 
consider it.
  And since this trial began, new evidence has continued to emerge. One 
way or another, the truth is going to come out. I believe that history 
will remember that the majority in this body did not seek out the 
evidence and instead decided that the President's alleged corrupt acts 
did not even require a closer look.
  But even without firsthand accounts and without primary documents, 
the House managers have presented a compelling case. I was particularly 
interested in the evidence that the managers presented showing that the 
President's conduct put our national security at risk by jeopardizing 
our support for Ukraine.
  Protecting Ukraine's fragile democracy has been a bipartisan 
priority. I went to Ukraine with the late Senator John McCain and 
Senator Lindsey Graham right after the 2016 election to make clear that 
the United States would continue to support our ally Ukraine in the 
face of Russian aggression--that we will stand up for democracy. As the 
House managers stressed, it is in our national security interest to 
strengthen Ukraine's democracy. The United States has 60,000 troops 
stationed in Europe, and thousands of Ukrainians have died fighting 
Russian forces and their proxies.
  Our Nation's support for Ukraine is critically needed. Ukraine is at 
the frontline of Russian aggression, and since the Russians invaded 
Crimea in 2014, the United States has provided over $1.5 billion in 
aid. Russia is watching everything we do. So this summer, as a new 
Ukrainian President prepared to lead his country and address the war 
with Russia, it was critical that President Trump showed the world that 
we stand with Ukraine. Instead, President Trump decided to withhold 
military security assistance and to deny the Ukrainian President an 
Oval Office meeting. In doing so, he jeopardized our national security 
interests and put the Ukrainians in danger. But worse yet, he did so to 
benefit himself.
  Testimony from the 17 current and former officials from the 
President's administration made it clear that the President leveraged 
the power of his office to pressure Ukraine to announce an 
investigation into his political rival. These brave public servants 
defied the President's order and agreed to testify about what happened 
despite the risks to their careers. Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine 
Marie Yovanovitch showed particular courage, testifying before the 
House even as the President disparaged her on Twitter. And I will never 
forget when Lieutenant Colonel Vindman testified and sent a message to 
his immigrant father, saying, ``Don't worry Dad, I will be fine for 
telling the truth.''
  As Manager Schiff said, in our country ``right matters.'' What is 
right and wrong under our Constitution does not turn on whether or not 
you like the President. It is not about whether the disregard for its 
boundaries furthers policies that you agree or disagree with. It is 
about whether it remains true that in our country, right matters. 
Through his actions, the President compromised the security of our ally 
Ukraine, invited foreign interference in our elections, and undermined 
the integrity of our democratic process--conduct that I believe the 
Framers would see as an abuse of power and violation of his oath of 
office.
  The Articles of Impeachment include a second charge: that the 
President used the powers of his office to prevent Congress from 
investigating his actions and attempted to place himself above the law.
  Unlike any President before him, President Trump categorically 
refused to comply with any requests from Congress. Even President Nixon 
directed ``all the president's men'' to comply with congressional 
requests. Despite that history, President Trump directed every member 
of his administration not to comply with requests to testify and also 
directed the executive branch not to release a single document.
  The President's refusal to respect the Congress's authority is a 
direct threat to the separation of powers. The Constitution gives the 
House the ``sole power of impeachment,'' a tool of last resort to 
provide a check on the president. By refusing to cooperate, the 
President is attempting to erase the Congress's constitutional power 
and to prevent the American people from learning of his misconduct. As 
we discussed during our questions, the President is asserting that his 
aides have absolute immunity, a proposition that Federal courts have 
consistently rejected. Manager Demings warned, ``absolute power 
corrupts absolutely.''
  But this President has taken many steps to place himself above the 
law. This administration has taken the position that a sitting 
President cannot be indicted or prosecuted. This President has argued 
that he is immune from State and criminal investigations. And now we 
are being asked to say that the Constitution's check on a President's 
power, as set out by the Framers, cannot prevent a President from 
abusing his power and covering it up.
  During the trial, we have heard this directly from the President's 
defense. In the words of Alan Dershowitz, ``If a president does 
something which he believes will help him get elected--in the public 
interest--that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in 
impeachment.'' These echo the words of

[[Page S917]]

an impeached President, Richard Nixon, who said: ``When the president 
does it, that means it is not illegal.'' We cannot accept that 
conclusion. In this country the President is not King, the law is King. 
But if the Senate looks past the President's defiance of Congress, we 
will forever undermine our status as a coequal branch and undermine the 
rule of law.
  So as we consider these Articles of Impeachment, I ask my colleagues 
to think about the consequences. Our system, designed by the Framers 
232 years ago, is one not of absolute power but of power through and by 
the people. We are, in some ways, faced with the same question the 
Founders faced when they made the fateful decision to challenge the 
unchecked power of a King.
  When signing the Declaration of Independence, John Hancock signed his 
name large and said, ``There must be no pulling different ways. We must 
all hang together.'' Benjamin Franklin replied, ``Yes, we must, indeed, 
all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.''
  We have the opportunity today to stand together and say that the 
Constitution, that these United States, are stronger than our enemies, 
foreign and domestic, and we, together, are stronger than a President 
who would corrupt our democracy with an abuse of power and an attempt 
to deny the rights of a coequal branch of government. We do not have to 
agree on everything today or tomorrow or a year from now, but surely we 
can agree on the same basic principles: that this is a government of 
laws, not of men-and women; that in this country, no one is above the 
law. If we can agree on that much, then I submit to my colleagues that 
the choice before us is clear.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, an impeachment trial of a sitting 
President of the United States is not a matter to be taken lightly. A 
President should not and must not be impeached because of political 
disagreements or policy differences. That is what elections are for. 
Instead, an impeachment trial occurs when a President violates the oath 
he or she swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
  Therefore, there are two questions for me to answer as a juror in the 
impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump: whether President Trump 
is guilty of abusing his power as President for his own political gain 
and whether he obstructed Congress in their investigation of him.
  The first Article of Impeachment charges President Trump with abuse 
of power when he ``solicited the interference of a foreign government, 
Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election.'' Based on 
the evidence I heard during the Senate trial, Trump ``corruptly 
solicited'' an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and 
his son in order to benefit his own reelection chances. To increase the 
pressure on Ukraine, President Trump then withheld approximately $400 
million in military aid from Ukraine. Finally, according to the 
charges, even when Trump's scheme to withhold aid was made public, he 
``persisted in openly and corruptly urging and soliciting Ukraine to 
undertake investigations for his personal political benefit.'' So on 
this first Article of Impeachment, it is my view that the President is 
clearly guilty.
  The second Article of Impeachment asserts that Trump obstructed 
Congress in its investigation of Trump's abuse of power, stating that 
Trump ``has directed the unprecedented, categorical, and indiscriminate 
defiance of subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives pursuant 
to its `sole Power of Impeachment.' '' According to the warped logic of 
the arguments presented by the President's counsel, there are almost no 
legal bounds to anything a President can do so long as it benefits his 
own reelection. If a President cannot be investigated criminally or by 
Congress while in office, then he or she would be effectively above the 
law. President Trump, who raised absurd legal arguments to hide his 
actions and obstruct Congress, is clearly guilty here as well.
  Now, frankly, while the House of Representatives passed two Articles 
of Impeachment, President Trump could have been impeached for more than 
just that.
  For example, it seems clear that Donald Trump has violated both the 
domestic and foreign emoluments clauses. In other words, it appears 
Trump has used the Federal Government over and over to benefit himself 
financially.
  In 2018 alone, Trump's organization made over $40 million in profit 
just from his Trump hotel in DC alone. And foreign governments, 
including lobbying firms connected to the Saudi Arabian Government, 
have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars at that hotel. That appears 
to be corruption, pure and simple.
  In addition, as we all know, there is significant evidence that 
Donald Trump committed obstruction of justice with regard to the Robert 
Mueller investigation by, among other actions, firing the FBI Director, 
James Comey.
  One of the difficulties of dealing with President Trump and his 
administration is that we cannot trust his words. He is a pathological 
liar who, according to media research, has lied thousands of times 
since he was elected. During the trial, I posed a question to the House 
impeachment managers: Given that the media has documented President 
Trump's thousands of lies while in office--more than 16,200 as of 
January 20, 2020--why would we be expected to believe that anything 
President Trump says has credibility? The answer is that, sadly, we 
cannot.
  Sadly, we now have a President who sees himself as above the law and 
is either ignorant or indifferent to the Constitution. And we have a 
President who clearly committed impeachable offenses.
  The evidence of Trump's guilt is so overwhelming that the Republican 
Party, for the first time in the history of Presidential impeachment, 
obstructed testimony from witnesses--even willing witnesses. It defies 
basic common sense that in a trial to determine whether the President 
of the United States is above the law, the Senate would not hear from 
the people who could speak directly to President Trump's behavior and 
motive. Leader Mitch McConnell's handling of this trial, unfortunately, 
was nothing more than a political act.
  Yet this impeachment trial is about more than just the charges 
against President Trump. What this impeachment vote will decide is 
whether we believe that the President, any President, is above the law.
  Last week, Alan Dershowitz, one of President Trump's lawyers, argued 
to the Senate that a President cannot be impeached for any actions he 
or she takes that are intended to benefit their own reelection. That is 
truly an extraordinary and unconstitutional assertion. If Trump is 
acquitted, I fear the repercussions of this argument would do grave 
damage to the rule of law in our country.
  Imagine what such a precedent would allow an incumbent president to 
get away with for the sake of their own reelection. Hacking an 
opponent's email using government resources? Soliciting election 
interference from China? Under this argument, what would stop a 
President from withholding infrastructure or education funding to a 
given State to pressure elected officials into helping the President 
politically?
  Let me be clear: Republicans will set a dangerous and lawless 
precedent if they vote to acquit President Trump. A Republican 
acquittal of Donald Trump won't just mean that the current President is 
above the law; it will give a green light to all future Presidents to 
disregard the law so long as it benefits their reelection.
  It gives me no pleasure to conclude that President Donald Trump is 
guilty of the offenses laid out in the two Articles of Impeachment. I 
will vote to convict on both counts. But my greater concern is if 
Republicans acquit President Trump by undercutting the very rule of 
law. That will truly be remembered as a sad and dangerous moment in the 
history of our country.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the House Articles 
of Impeachment against President Donald Trump.
  In 1999, then-Senator Joe Biden of Delaware asked the following 
question during the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton: ``[D]o 
these actions rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors 
necessary to justify the most obviously antidemocratic act the Senate 
can engage in--overturning an election by convicting the president?'' 
He answered his own question by voting against removing President 
Clinton from office.

[[Page S918]]

  It is this constitutionally grounded framework--articulated well by 
Vice President Biden--that guided my review of President Trump's 
impeachment and, ultimately, my decision to oppose his removal.
  House Democrats' impeachment articles allege that President Trump 
briefly paused aid and withheld a White House meeting with Ukraine's 
President to pressure Ukraine into investigating two publicly reported 
corruption matters. The first matter was possible Ukrainian 
interference in our 2016 election. The second was Vice President 
Biden's role in firing the controversial Ukrainian prosecutor 
investigating a company on whose board Vice President Biden's son sat. 
When House Democrats demanded witnesses and documents concerning the 
President's conduct, he invoked constitutional rights and resisted 
their demands.
  The President's actions were not ``perfect.'' Some were 
inappropriate. But the question before the Senate is not whether his 
actions were perfect; it is whether they constitute impeachable 
offenses that justify removing a sitting President from office for the 
first time and forbidding him from seeking office again.
  Let's consider the case against President Trump: obstruction of 
Congress and abuse of power. On obstruction, House Democrats allege the 
President lacked ``lawful cause or excuse'' to resist their subpoenas. 
This ignores that his resistance was based on constitutionally grounded 
legal defenses and immunities that are consistent with longstanding 
positions taken by administrations of both parties. Instead of 
negotiating a resolution or litigating in court, House Democrats rushed 
to impeach. But as House Democrats noted during President Clinton's 
impeachment, a President's defense of his legal and constitutional 
rights and responsibilities is not an impeachable offense.
  House Democrats separately allege President Trump abused his power by 
conditioning a White House meeting and the release of aid on Ukraine 
agreeing to pursue corruption investigations. Their case rests entirely 
on the faulty claim that the only possible motive for his actions was 
his personal political gain. In fact, there are also legitimate 
national interests for seeking investigations into apparent corruption, 
especially when taxpayer dollars are involved.
  Here is what ultimately occurred: President Trump met with Ukraine's 
President, and the aid was released after a brief pause. These actions 
happened without Ukraine announcing or conducting investigations. The 
idea that President Trump committed an impeachable offense by meeting 
with Ukraine's President at the United Nations in New York instead of 
Washington, DC is absurd. Moreover, the pause in aid did not hinder 
Ukraine's ability to combat Russia. In fact, as witnesses in the House 
impeachment proceedings stated, U.S. policy in support of Ukraine is 
stronger under President Trump than under President Obama.
  Even if House Democrats' presumptions about President Trump's motives 
are true, additional witnesses in the Senate, beyond the 17 witnesses 
who testified in the House impeachment proceedings, are unnecessary 
because the President's actions do not rise to the level of removing 
him from office, nor do they warrant the societal upheaval that would 
result from his removal from office and the ballot months before an 
election. Our country is already far too divided and this would only 
make matters worse.
  As Vice President Biden also stated during President Clinton's 
impeachment trial, ``[t]here is no question the Constitution sets the 
bar for impeachment very high.'' A President can only be impeached and 
removed for ``Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and 
Misdemeanors.'' While there is debate about the precise meaning of 
``other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,'' it is clear that impeachable 
conduct must be comparable to the serious offenses of treason and 
bribery.
  The Constitution sets the impeachment bar so high for good reasons. 
Removing a President from office and forbidding him from seeking future 
office overturns the results of the last election and denies Americans 
the right to vote for him in the next one. The Senate's impeachment 
power essentially allows 67 Senators to substitute their judgment for 
the judgment of millions of Americans.
  The framework Vice President Biden articulated in 1999 for judging an 
impeachment was right then, and it is right now. President Trump's 
conduct does not meet the very high bar required to justify overturning 
the election, removing him from office, and kicking him off the ballot 
in an election that has already begun. In November, the American people 
will decide for themselves whether President Trump should stay in 
office. In our democratic system, that is the way it should be.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, voting to find the President guilty in the 
Senate is not simply a finding of wrongdoing; it is a vote to remove a 
President from office for the first time in the 243-year history of our 
Republic.
  When they decided to include impeachment in the Constitution, the 
Framers understood how disruptive and traumatic it would be. As 
Alexander Hamilton warned, impeachment will ``agitate the passions of 
the whole community.''
  This is why they decided to require the support of two-thirds of the 
Senate to remove a President we serve as a guardrail against partisan 
impeachment and against removal of a President without broad public 
support.
  Leaders in both parties previously recognized that impeachment must 
be bipartisan and must enjoy broad public support. In fact, as recently 
as March of last year, Manager Adam Schiff said there would be ``little 
to be gained by putting the country through'' the ``wrenching 
experience'' of a partisan impeachment. Yet, only a few months later, a 
partisan impeachment is exactly what the House produced. This meant two 
Articles of Impeachment whose true purpose was not to protect the 
Nation but, rather, to, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, stain the 
President's record because ``he has been impeached forever'' and ``they 
can never erase that.''
  It now falls upon this Senate to take up what the House produced and 
faithfully execute our duties under the Constitution of the United 
States.
  Why does impeachment exist?
  As manager Jerry Nadler reminded us last week, removal is not a 
punishment for a crime, nor is removal supposed to be a way to hold 
Presidents accountable; that is what elections are for. The sole 
purpose of this extraordinary power to remove the one person entrusted 
with all of the powers of an entire branch of government is to provide 
a last-resort remedy to protect the country. That is why Hamilton wrote 
that in these trials our decisions should be pursuing ``the public 
good.''
  Even before the trial, I announced that, for me, the question would 
not just be whether the President's actions were wrong but ultimately 
whether what he did was removable. The two are not the same. It is 
possible for an offense to meet a standard of impeachment and yet not 
be in the best interest of the country to remove a President from 
office.
  To answer this question, the first step was to ask whether it would 
serve the public good to remove the President, even if the managers had 
proven every allegation they made. It was not difficult to answer that 
question on the charge of obstruction of congress. The President 
availed himself of legal defenses and constitutional privileges on the 
advice of his legal counsel. He has taken a position identical to that 
of every other administration in the last 50 years. That is not an 
impeachable offense, much less a removable one.
  Negotiations with Congress and enforcement in the courts, not 
impeachment, should be the front-line recourse when Congress and the 
President disagree on the separation of powers. But here, the House 
failed to go to court because, as Manager Schiff admitted, they did not 
want to go through a yearlong exercise to get the information they 
wanted. Ironically, they now demand that the Senate go through this 
very long exercise they themselves decided to avoid.
  On the first Article of Impeachment, I reject the argument that abuse 
of power can never constitute grounds for removal unless a crime or a 
crime-like action is alleged. However, even if the House managers had 
been able to prove every allegation made in article I,

[[Page S919]]

would it be in the interest of the Nation to remove the President? 
Answering this question requires a political judgment--one that takes 
into account both the severity of the wrongdoing they allege and the 
impact removal would have on the Nation.
  I disagree with the House Managers' argument that, if we find the 
allegations they have made are true, failing to remove the President 
leaves us with no remedy to constrain this or future Presidents. 
Congress and the courts have multiple ways by which to constrain the 
power of the Executive. And ultimately, voters themselves can hold the 
President accountable in an election, including the one just 9 months 
from now.
  I also considered removal in the context of the bitter divisions and 
deep polarization our country currently faces. The removal of the 
President--especially one based on a narrowly voted impeachment, 
supported by one political party and opposed by another and without 
broad public support--would, as Manager Nadler warned over two decades 
ago, ``produce divisiveness and bitterness'' that will threaten our 
Nation for decades. Can anyone doubt that at least half of the country 
would view his removal as illegitimate--as nothing short of a coup 
d'etat? It is difficult to conceive of any scheme Putin could undertake 
that would undermine confidence in our democracy more than removal 
would.
  I also reject the argument that unless we call new witnesses, this is 
not a fair trial. First, they cannot argue that fairness demands we 
seek witnesses they did little to pursue. Second, even if new witnesses 
would testify to the truth of the allegations made, these allegations, 
even if they had been able to prove them, would not warrant the 
President's removal.
  This high bar I have set is not new for me. In 2014, I rejected calls 
to pursue impeachment of President Obama, noting that he ``has two 
years left in his term,'' and, instead of pursuing impeachment, we 
should use existing tools at our disposal to ``limit the amount of 
damage he's doing to our economy and our national security.''
  Senator Patrick Leahy, the President pro tempore emeritus, once 
warned, ``[A] partisan impeachment cannot command the respect of the 
American people. It is no more valid than a stolen election.'' His 
words are more true today than when he said them two decades ago. We 
should heed his advice.
  I will not vote to remove the President because doing so would 
inflict extraordinary and potentially irreparable damage to our already 
divided Nation.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am glad that this unfortunate chapter 
in American history is over. The strength of our Republic lies in the 
fact that, more often than not, we settle our political differences at 
the ballot box, not on the streets or battlefield and not through 
impeachment.
  Just last year, Speaker Pelosi said that any impeachment ``would have 
to be so clearly bipartisan in terms of acceptance of it.'' And in 
1998, Representative Nadler, currently a House impeachment manager, 
said, ``There must never be . . . an impeachment substantially 
supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by 
the other . . . Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would 
produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come . 
. .''
  And yet, that is exactly what House Democrats passed. I truly wish 
Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Nadler, and their House colleagues would have 
followed their own advice.
  As I listened to the House managers' closing arguments, I jotted down 
adjectives describing the case they were making: angry, disingenuous, 
hyperbolic, sanctimonious, distorted--if not outright dishonest--and 
overstated; they were making a mountain out of a molehill.
  Congressman Schiff and the other House managers are not stupid. They 
had to know that their insults and accusations--that the President had 
threatened to put our heads on a pike, that the Senate was on trial, 
that we would be part of the coverup if we didn't cave to their demand 
for witnesses--would not sway Republican Senators. No, they had another 
goal in mind. They were using impeachment and their public offices to 
accomplish the very thing they accused President Trump of doing, 
interfering in the 2020 election.
  Impeachment should be reserved for the most serious of offenses where 
the risk to our democracy simply cannot wait for the voters' next 
decision. That was not the case here.
  Instead, the greater damage to our democracy would be to ratify a 
highly partisan House impeachment process that lacked due process and 
sought to impose a duty on the Senate to repair the House's flawed 
product. Caving to House managers' demands would have set a dangerous 
precedent and dramatically altered the constitutional order, further 
weaponizing impeachment and encouraging more of them.
  Now that the trial is over, I sincerely hope everyone involved has 
renewed appreciation for the genius of our Founding Fathers and for the 
separation of powers they incorporated into the U.S. Constitution. I 
also hope all the players in this national travesty go forward with a 
greater sense of humility and recognition of the limits the 
Constitution places on their respective offices.
  I am concerned about the divisiveness and bitterness that Chairman 
Nadler warned us about. We are a divided nation, and it often seems the 
lines are only hardening and growing farther apart. But hope lies in 
finding what binds us together--our love of freedom, our faith, our 
families.
  We serve those who elect us. It is appropriate and necessary to 
engage in discussion and debate to sway public opinion, but in the end, 
it is essential that we rely upon, respect, and accept the public's 
electoral decisions.
  In addition, I ask unanimous consent that my November 18, 2019, 
letter to Congressmen Nunes and Jordan, and the January 22, 2020, Real 
Clear Investigations article written by Paul Sperry be printed in the 
Record following my remarks.
  The November 18, 2019, letter responds to Nunes' and Jordan's request 
to provide information regarding my firsthand knowledge of events 
regarding Ukraine that were relevant to the impeachment inquiry. The 
January 22, 2020, article was referenced in my question to the House 
managers and counsel to the President during the 16-hour question and 
answer phase of the impeachment trial. Specifically, that question 
asked: ``Recent reporting described two NSC staff holdovers from the 
Obama administration attending an `all hands' meeting of NSC staff held 
about two weeks into the Trump administration and talking loudly enough 
to be overheard saying, `we need to do everything we can to take out 
the president.' On July 26, 2019, the House Intelligence Committee 
hired one of those individuals, Sean Misko. The report further 
describes relationships between Misko, Lt. Col. Vindman, and the 
alleged whistleblower. Why did your committee hire Sean Misko the day 
after the phone call between Presidents Trump and Zelensky, and what 
role has he played throughout your committee's investigation?''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     Hon. Jim Jordan,
     Ranking Member,
     Committee on Oversight and Reform.
     Hon. Devin Nunes,
     Ranking Member, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
       Dear Congressman Jordan and Congressman Nunes: I am writing 
     in response to the request of Ranking Members Nunes and 
     Jordan to provide my first-hand information and resulting 
     perspective on events relevant to the House impeachment 
     inquiry of President Trump. It is being written in the middle 
     of that inquiry--after most of the depositions have been 
     given behind closed doors, but before all the public hearings 
     have been held.
       I view this impeachment inquiry as a continuation of a 
     concerted, and possibly coordinated, effort to sabotage the 
     Trump administration that probably began in earnest the day 
     after the 2016 presidential election. The latest evidence of 
     this comes with the reporting of a Jan. 30, 2017 tweet (10 
     days after Trump's inauguration) by one of the 
     whistleblower's attorneys, Mark Zaid: ``#coup has started. 
     First of many steps. #rebellion. #impeachment will follow 
     ultimately.''
       But even prior to the 2016 election, the FBI's 
     investigation and exoneration of former Secretary of State 
     Hillary Clinton, combined with Fusion GPS' solicitation and 
     dissemination of the Steele dossier--and the FBI's 
     counterintelligence investigation based on that dossier--laid 
     the groundwork for future sabotage. As a result, my first-
     hand knowledge and involvement in this

[[Page S920]]

     saga began with the revelation that former Secretary of State 
     Hillary Clinton kept a private e-mail server.
       I have been chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland 
     Security and Governmental Affairs (HSGAC) since January 2015. 
     In addition to its homeland security portfolio, the committee 
     also is charged with general oversight of the federal 
     government. Its legislative jurisdiction includes federal 
     records. So when the full extent of Clinton's use of a 
     private server became apparent in March 2015, HSGAC initiated 
     an oversight investigation.
       Although many questions remain unanswered from that 
     scandal, investigations resulting from it by a number of 
     committees, reporters and agencies have revealed multiple 
     facts and episodes that are similar to aspects of the latest 
     effort to find grounds for impeachment. In particular, the 
     political bias revealed in the Strzok/Page texts, use of the 
     discredited Steele dossier to initiate and sustain the FBI's 
     counterintelligence investigation and FISA warrants, and 
     leaks to the media that created the false narrative of Trump 
     campaign collusion with Russia all fit a pattern and indicate 
     a game plan that I suspect has been implemented once again. 
     It is from this viewpoint that I report my specific 
     involvement in the events related to Ukraine and the 
     impeachment inquiry.
       I also am chairman of the Subcommittee on Europe and 
     Regional Security Cooperation of the Senate Foreign Relations 
     Committee. I have made six separate trips to Ukraine starting 
     in April 2011. Most recently, I led two separate Senate 
     resolutions calling for a strong U.S. and NATO response to 
     Russian military action against Ukraine's navy in the Kerch 
     Strait. I traveled to Ukraine to attend president-elect 
     Volodymyr Zelensky's inauguration held on May 20, and again 
     on Sept. 5 with U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy to meet with Zelensky 
     and other Ukrainian leaders.
       Following the Orange Revolution, and even more so after the 
     Maidan protests, the Revolution of Dignity, and Russia's 
     illegal annexation of Crimea and invasion of eastern Ukraine, 
     support for the people of Ukraine has been strong within 
     Congress and in both the Obama and Trump administrations. 
     There was also universal recognition and concern regarding 
     the level of corruption that was endemic throughout Ukraine. 
     In 2015, Congress overwhelmingly authorized $300 million of 
     security assistance to Ukraine, of which $50 million was to 
     be available only for lethal defensive weaponry. The Obama 
     administration never supplied the authorized lethal defensive 
     weaponry, but President Trump did.
       Zelensky won a strong mandate--73%--from the Ukrainian 
     public to fight corruption. His inauguration date was set on 
     very short notice, which made attending it a scheduling 
     challenge for members of Congress who wanted to go to show 
     support. As a result, I was the only member of Congress 
     joining the executive branch's inaugural delegation led by 
     Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Special Envoy Kurt Volker, U.S. 
     Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, and Lt. 
     Col. Alexander Vindman, representing the National Security 
     Council. I arrived the evening before the inauguration and, 
     after attending a country briefing provided by U.S. embassy 
     staff the next morning, May 20, went to the inauguration, a 
     luncheon following the inauguration, and a delegation meeting 
     with Zelensky and his advisers.
       The main purpose of my attendance was to demonstrate and 
     express my support and that of the U.S. Congress for Zelensky 
     and the people of Ukraine. In addition, the delegation 
     repeatedly stressed the importance of fulfilling the election 
     mandate to fight corruption, and also discussed the priority 
     of Ukraine obtaining sufficient inventories of gas prior to 
     winter.
       Two specific points made during the meetings stand out in 
     my memory as being relevant.
       The first occurred during the country briefing. I had just 
     finished making the point that supporting Ukraine was 
     essential because it was ground zero in our geopolitical 
     competition with Russia. I was surprised when Vindman 
     responded to my point. He stated that it was the position of 
     the NSC that our relationship with Ukraine should be kept 
     separate from our geopolitical competition with Russia. My 
     blunt response was, ``How in the world is that even 
     possible?''
       I do not know if Vindman accurately stated the NSC's 
     position, whether President Trump shared that viewpoint, or 
     whether Vindman was really just expressing his own view. I 
     raise this point because I believe that a significant number 
     of bureaucrats and staff members within the executive branch 
     have never accepted President Trump as legitimate and resent 
     his unorthodox style and his intrusion onto their ``turf.'' 
     They react by leaking to the press and participating in the 
     ongoing effort to sabotage his policies and, if possible, 
     remove him from office. It is entirely possible that Vindman 
     fits this profile.
       Quotes from the transcript of Vindman's opening remarks and 
     his deposition reinforce this point and deserve to be 
     highlighted. Vindman testified that an ``alternative 
     narrative'' pushed by the president's personal attorney, Rudy 
     Giuliani, was ``inconsistent with the consensus views of 
     the'' relevant federal agencies and was ``undermining the 
     consensus policy.''
       Vindman's testimony, together with other witnesses' use of 
     similar terms such as ``our policy,'' ``stated policy,'' and 
     ``long-standing policy'' lend further credence to the point 
     I'm making. Whether you agree with President Trump or not, it 
     should be acknowledged that the Constitution vests the power 
     of conducting foreign policy with the duly elected president. 
     American foreign policy is what the president determines it 
     to be, not what the ``consensus'' of unelected foreign policy 
     bureaucrats wants it to be. If any bureaucrats disagree with 
     the president, they should use their powers of persuasion 
     within their legal chain of command to get the president to 
     agree with their viewpoint. In the end, if they are unable to 
     carry out the policy of the president, they should resign. 
     They should not seek to undermine the policy by leaking to 
     people outside their chain of command.
       The other noteworthy recollection involves how Perry 
     conveyed the delegation concern over rumors that Zelensky was 
     going to appoint Andriy Bohdan, the lawyer for oligarch Igor 
     Kolomoisky, as his chief of staff. The delegation viewed 
     Bohdan's rumored appointment to be contrary to the goal of 
     fighting corruption and maintaining U.S. support. Without 
     naming ``Bohdan, Secretary Perry made U.S. concerns very 
     clear in his remarks to Zelensky.
       Shortly thereafter, ignoring U.S. advice, Zelensky did 
     appoint Bohdan as his chief of staff. This was not viewed as 
     good news, but I gave my advice on how to publicly react in a 
     text to Sondland on May 22: ``Best case scenario on COS: 
     Right now Zelensky needs someone he can trust. I'm not a fan 
     of lawyers, but they do represent all kinds of people. Maybe 
     this guy is a patriot. He certainly understands the 
     corruption of the oligarchs. Could be the perfect guy to 
     advise Zelensky on how to deal with them. Zelensky knows why 
     he got elected For now, I think we express our concerns, but 
     give Zelensky the benefit of the doubt. Also let him know 
     everyone in the U.S. will be watching VERY closely.''
       At the suggestion of Sondland, the delegation (Perry, 
     Volker, Sondland and me) proposed a meeting with President 
     Trump in the Oval Office. The purpose of the meeting was to 
     brief the president on what we learned at the inauguration, 
     and convey our impressions of Zelensky and the current 
     political climate in Ukraine. The delegation uniformly was 
     impressed with Zelensky, understood the difficult challenges 
     he faced, and went into the meeting hoping to obtain 
     President Trump's strong support for Zelensky and the people 
     of Ukraine. Our specific goals were to obtain a commitment 
     from President Trump to invite Zelensky to meet in the Oval 
     Office, to appoint a U.S. ambassador to Ukraine who would 
     have strong bipartisan support, and to have President Trump 
     publicly voice his support.
       Our Oval Office meeting took place on May 23. The four 
     members of the delegation sat lined up in front of President 
     Trump's desk. Because we were all directly facing the 
     president, I do not know who else was in attendance sitting 
     or standing behind us. I can't speak for the others, but I 
     was very surprised by President Trump's reaction to our 
     report and requests.
       He expressed strong reservations about supporting Ukraine. 
     He made it crystal clear that he viewed Ukraine as a 
     thoroughly corrupt country both generally and, specifically, 
     regarding rumored meddling in the 2016 election. Volker 
     summed up this attitude in his testimony by quoting the 
     president as saying, ``They are all corrupt. They are all 
     terrible people. . . . I don't want to spend any time with 
     that.'' I do not recall President Trump ever explicitly 
     mentioning the names Burisma or Biden, but it was obvious he 
     was aware of rumors that corrupt actors in Ukraine might have 
     played a part in helping create the false Russia collusion 
     narrative.
       Of the four-person delegation, I was the only one who did 
     not work for the president. As a result, I was in a better 
     position to push back on the president's viewpoint and 
     attempt to persuade him to change it. I acknowledged that he 
     was correct regarding endemic corruption. I said that we 
     weren't asking him to support corrupt oligarchs and 
     politicians but to support the Ukrainian people who had given 
     Zelensky a strong mandate to fight corruption. I also made 
     the point that he and Zelensky had much in common. Both were 
     complete outsiders who face strong resistance from entrenched 
     interests both within and outside government. Zelensky would 
     need much help in fulfilling his mandate, and America's 
     support was crucial.
       It was obvious that his viewpoint and reservations were 
     strongly held, and that we would have a significant sales job 
     ahead of us getting him to change his mind. I specifically 
     asked him to keep his viewpoint and reservations private and 
     not to express them publicly until he had a chance to meet 
     Zelensky. He agreed to do so, but he also added that he 
     wanted Zelensky to know exactly how he felt about the 
     corruption in Ukraine prior to any future meeting. I used 
     that directive in my Sept. 5 meeting with Zelensky in 
     Ukraine.
       One final point regarding the May 23 meeting: I am aware 
     that Sondland has testified that President Trump also 
     directed the delegation to work with Rudy Giuliani. I have no 
     recollection of the president saying that during the meeting. 
     It is entirely possible he did, but because I do not work for 
     the president, if made, that comment simply did not register 
     with me. I also remember Sondland staying behind to talk to 
     the president as the rest of the delegation left the Oval 
     Office.
       I continued to meet in my Senate office with 
     representatives from Ukraine: on June

[[Page S921]]

     13 with members of the Ukrainian Parliament's Foreign Affairs 
     Committee; on July 11 with Ukraine's ambassador to the U.S. 
     and secretary of Ukraine's National Security and Defense 
     Council, Oleksandr Danyliuk; and again on July 31 with 
     Ukraine's ambassador to the U.S., Valeriy Chaly. At no time 
     during those meetings did anyone from Ukraine raise the issue 
     of the withholding of military aid or express concerns 
     regarding pressure being applied by the president or his 
     administration.
       During Congress' August recess, my staff worked with the 
     State Department and others in the administration to plan a 
     trip to Europe during the week of Sept. 2 with Senator Murphy 
     to include Russia, Serbia, Kosovo and Ukraine. On or around 
     Aug. 26, we were informed that our requests for visas into 
     Russia were denied. On either Aug. 28 or 29, I became aware 
     of the fact that $250 million of military aid was being 
     withheld. This news would obviously impact my trip and 
     discussions with Zelensky.
       Sondland had texted me on Aug. 26 remarking on the Russian 
     visa denial. I replied on Aug. 30, apologizing for my tardy 
     response and requesting a call to discuss Ukraine. We 
     scheduled a call for sometime between 12:30 p.m. and 1:30 
     p.m. that same day. I called Sondland and asked what he knew 
     about the hold on military support. I did not memorialize the 
     conversation in any way, and my memory of exactly what 
     Sondland told me is far from perfect. I was hoping that his 
     testimony before the House would help jog my memory, but he 
     seems to have an even fuzzier recollection of that call than 
     I do.
       The most salient point of the call involved Sondland 
     describing an arrangement where, if Ukraine did something to 
     demonstrate its serious intention to fight corruption and 
     possibly help determine what involvement operatives in 
     Ukraine might have had during the 2016 U.S. presidential 
     campaign, then Trump would release the hold on military 
     support.
       I have stated that I winced when that arrangement was 
     described to me. I felt U.S. support for Ukraine was 
     essential, particularly with Zelensky's new and inexperienced 
     administration facing an aggressive Vladimir Putin. I feared 
     any sign of reduced U.S. support could prompt Putin to 
     demonstrate even more aggression, and because I was convinced 
     Zelensky was sincere in his desire to fight corruption, this 
     was no time to be withholding aid for any reason. It was the 
     time to show maximum strength and resolve.
       I next put in a call request for National Security Adviser 
     John Bolton, and spoke with him on Aug. 31. I believe he 
     greed with my position on providing military assistance, and 
     he suggested I speak with both the vice president and 
     president. I requested calls with both, but was not able to 
     schedule a call with Vice President Pence. President Trump 
     called me that same day.
       The purpose of the call was to inform President Trump of my 
     upcoming trip to Ukraine and to try to persuade him to 
     authorize me to tell Zelensky that the hold would be lifted 
     on military aid. The president was not prepared to lift the 
     hold, and he was consistent in the reasons he cited. He 
     reminded me how thoroughly corrupt Ukraine was and again 
     conveyed his frustration that Europe doesn't do its fair 
     share of providing military aid. He specifically cited the 
     sort of conversation he would have with Angela Merkel, 
     chancellor of Germany. To paraphrase President Trump: ``Ron, 
     I talk to Angela and ask her, `Why don't you fund these 
     things,' and she tells me, `Because we know you will.' We're 
     schmucks. Ron. We're schmucks.''
       I acknowledged the corruption in Ukraine, and I did not 
     dispute the fact that Europe could and should provide more 
     military support. But I pointed out that Germany was opposed 
     to providing Ukraine lethal defensive weaponry and simply 
     would not do so. As a result, if we wanted to deter Russia 
     from further aggression, it was up to the U.S. to provide it.
       I had two additional counterarguments. First, I wasn't 
     suggesting we support the oligarchs and other corrupt 
     Ukrainians. Our support would be for the courageous 
     Ukrainians who had overthrown Putin's puppet, Viktor 
     Yanukovich, and delivered a remarkable 73% mandate in 
     electing Zelensky to fight corruption. Second, I argued that 
     withholding the support looked horrible politically in that 
     it could be used to bolster the ``Trump is soft on Russia'' 
     mantra.
       It was only after he reiterated his reasons for not giving 
     me the authority to tell Zelensky the support would be 
     released that I asked him about whether there was some kind 
     of arrangement where Ukraine would take some action and the 
     hold would be lifted. Without hesitation, President Trump 
     immediately denied such an arrangement existed. As reported 
     in the Wall Street Journal, I quoted the president as saying, 
     ``(Expletive deleted)--No way. I would never do that. Who 
     told you that?'' I have accurately characterized his reaction 
     as adamant, vehement and angry--there was more than one 
     expletive that I have deleted.
       Based on his reaction, I felt more than a little guilty 
     even asking him the question, much less telling him I heard 
     it from Sondland. He seemed even more annoyed by that, and 
     asked me, ``Who is that guy''? I interpreted that not as a 
     literal question--the president did know whom Sondland was--
     but rather as a sign that the president did not know him 
     well. I replied by saying, ``I thought he was your buddy from 
     the real estate business.'' The president replied by saying 
     he barely knew him.
       After discussing Ukraine, we talked about other unrelated 
     matters. Finally, the president said he had to go because he 
     had a hurricane to deal with. He wrapped up the conversation 
     referring back to my request to release the hold on military 
     support for Ukraine by saying something like, ``Ron, I 
     understand your position. We're reviewing it now, and you'll 
     probably like my final decision.''
       On Tuesday, Sept. 3, I had a short follow up call with 
     Bolton to discuss my upcoming trip to Ukraine, Serbia and 
     Kosovo. I do not recall discussing anything in particular 
     that relates to the current impeachment inquiry on that call.
       We arrived in Kyiv on Sept. 4, joining Taylor and Murphy 
     for a full day of meetings on Sept. 5 with embassy staff, 
     members of the new Ukrainian administration, and Zelensky, 
     who was accompanied by some of his top advisers. We also 
     attended the opening proceedings of the Ukrainian High Anti-
     Corruption Court. The meetings reinforced our belief that 
     Zelensky and his team were serious about fulfilling his 
     mandate--to paraphrase the way he described it in his speech 
     at the High Anti-Corruption Court--to not only fight 
     corruption but to defeat it.
       The meeting with Zelensky started with him requesting we 
     dispense with the usual diplomatic opening and get right to 
     the issue on everyone's mind, the hold being placed on 
     military support.
       He asked if any of us knew the current status. Because I 
     had just spoken to President Trump, I fielded his question 
     and conveyed the two reasons the president told me for his 
     hold. I explained that I had tried to persuade the president 
     to authorize me to announce the hold was released but that I 
     was unsuccessful.
       As much as Zelensky was concerned about losing the military 
     aid, he was even more concerned about the signal that would 
     send. I shared his concern. I suggested that in our public 
     statements we first emphasize the universal support that the 
     U.S. Congress has shown--and will continue to show--for the 
     Ukrainian people. Second, we should minimize the significance 
     of the hold on military aid as simply a timing issue coming a 
     few weeks before the end of our federal fiscal year. Even if 
     President Trump and the deficit hawks within his 
     administration decided not to obligate funding for the 
     current fiscal year, Congress would make sure he had no 
     option in the next fiscal year--which then was only a few 
     weeks away. I also made the point that Murphy was on the 
     Appropriations Committee and could lead the charge on 
     funding.
       Murphy made the additional point that one of the most 
     valuable assets Ukraine possesses is bipartisan congressional 
     support. He warned Zelensky not to respond to requests from 
     American political actors or he would risk losing Ukraine's 
     bipartisan support. I did not comment on this issue that 
     Murphy raised.
       Instead, I began discussing a possible meeting with 
     President Trump. I viewed a meeting between the two 
     presidents as crucial for overcoming President Trump's 
     reservations and securing full U.S. support. It was at this 
     point that President Trump's May 23 directive came into play.
       I prefaced my comment to Zelensky by saying, ``Let me go 
     out on a limb here. Are you or any of your advisers aware of 
     the inaugural delegation's May 23 meeting in the Oval Office 
     following your inauguration?'' No one admitted they were, so 
     I pressed on. ``The reason I bring up that meeting is that I 
     don't want you caught off-guard if President Trump reacts to 
     you the same way he reacted to the delegation's request for 
     support for Ukraine.''
       I told the group that President Trump explicitly told the 
     delegation that he wanted to make sure Zelensky knew exactly 
     how he felt about Ukraine before any meeting took place. To 
     repeat Volker's quote of President Trump: ``They are all 
     corrupt. They are all terrible people. . . . I don't want to 
     spend any time with that.'' That was the general attitude 
     toward Ukraine that I felt President Trump directed us to 
     convey. Since I did not have Volker's quote to use at the 
     time, I tried to portray that strongly held attitude and 
     reiterated the reasons President Trump consistently gave me 
     for his reservations regarding Ukraine: endemic corruption 
     and inadequate European support.
       I also conveyed the counterarguments I used 
     (unsuccessfully) to persuade the president to lift his hold: 
     (1) We would be supporting the people of Ukraine, not corrupt 
     oligarchs, and (2) withholding military support was not 
     politically smart. Although I recognized how this next point 
     would be problematic, I also suggested any public statement 
     Zelensky could make asking for greater support from Europe 
     would probably be viewed favorably by President Trump.
       Finally, I commented on how excellent Zelensky's English 
     was and encouraged him to use English as much as possible in 
     a future meeting with President Trump. With a smile on his 
     face, he replied, ``But Senator Johnson, you don't realize 
     how beautiful my Ukrainian is.'' I jokingly conceded the 
     point by saying I was not able to distinguish his Ukrainian 
     from his Russian.
       This was a very open, frank, and supportive discussion. 
     There was no reason for

[[Page S922]]

     anyone on either side not to be completely honest or to 
     withhold any concerns. At no time during this meeting--or any 
     other meeting on this trip--was there any mention by Zelensky 
     or any Ukrainian that they were feeling pressure to do 
     anything in return for the military aid, not even after 
     Murphy warned them about getting involved in the 2020 
     election--which would have been the perfect time to discuss 
     any pressure.
       Following the meeting with Zelensky and his advisers, 
     Murphy and I met with the Ukrainian press outside the 
     presidential office building. Our primary message was that we 
     were in Kyiv to demonstrate our strong bipartisan support for 
     the people of Ukraine. We were very encouraged by our 
     meetings with Zelensky and other members of his new 
     government in their commitment to fulfill their electoral 
     mandate to fight and defeat corruption. When the issue of 
     military support was raised, I provided the response I 
     suggested above: I described it as a timing issue at the end 
     of a fiscal year and said that, regardless of what decision 
     President Trump made on the fiscal year 2019 funding, I was 
     confident Congress would restore the funding in fiscal year 
     2020. In other words: Don't mistake a budget issue for a 
     change in America's strong support for the people of Ukraine.
       Congress came back into session on Sept. 9. During a vote 
     early in the week, I approached one of the co-chairs of the 
     Senate Ukraine Caucus, U.S. Sen. Richard Durbin. I briefly 
     described our trip to Ukraine and the concerns Zelensky and 
     his advisers had over the hold on military support. According 
     to press reports, Senator Durbin stated that was the first 
     time he was made aware of the hold. I went on to describe how 
     I tried to minimize the impact of that hold by assuring 
     Ukrainians that Congress could restore the funding in fiscal 
     year 2020. I encouraged Durbin, as I had encouraged Murphy, 
     to use his membership on the Senate Appropriations Committee 
     to restore the funding.
       Also according to a press report, leading up to a Sept. 12 
     defense appropriation committee markup, Durbin offered an 
     amendment to restore funding. On Sept. 11, the administration 
     announced that the hold had been lifted. I think it is 
     important to note the hold was lifted only 14 days after its 
     existence became publicly known, and 55 days after the hold 
     apparently had been placed.
       On Friday, Oct. 4, I saw news reports of text messages that 
     Volker had supplied the House of Representatives as part of 
     his testimony. The texts discussed a possible press release 
     that Zelensky might issue to help persuade President Trump to 
     offer an Oval Office meeting. Up to that point, I had 
     publicly disclosed only the first part of my Aug. 31 phone 
     call with President Trump, where I lobbied him to release the 
     military aid and he provided his consistent reasons for not 
     doing so: corruption and inadequate European support.
       Earlier in the week, I had given a phone interview with 
     Siobhan Hughes of the Wall Street Journal regarding my 
     involvement with Ukraine. With the disclosure of the Volker 
     texts, I felt it was important to go on the record with the 
     next part of my Aug. 31 call with President Trump: his 
     denial. I had not previously disclosed this because I could 
     not precisely recall what Sondland had told me on Aug. 30, 
     and what I had conveyed to President Trump, regarding action 
     Ukraine would take before military aid would be released. To 
     the best of my recollection, the action described by Sondland 
     on Aug. 30 involved a demonstration that the new Ukrainian 
     government was serious about fighting corruption--something 
     like the appointment of a prosecutor general with high 
     integrity.
       I called Hughes Friday morning, Oct. 4, to update my 
     interview. It was a relatively lengthy interview, almost 30 
     minutes, as I attempted to put a rather complex set of events 
     into context. Toward the tail end of that interview, Hughes 
     said, ``It almost sounds like, the way you see it, Gordon was 
     kind of freelancing and he took it upon himself to do 
     something that the president hadn't exactly blessed, as you 
     see it.'' I replied, ``That's a possibility, but I don't know 
     that. Let's face it: The president can't have his fingers in 
     everything. He can't be stage-managing everything, so you 
     have members of his administration trying to create good 
     policy.''
       To my knowledge, most members of the administration and 
     Congress dealing with the issues involving Ukraine disagreed 
     with President Trump's attitude and approach toward Ukraine. 
     Many who had the opportunity and ability to influence the 
     president attempted to change his mind. I see nothing wrong 
     with U.S. officials working with Ukrainian officials to 
     demonstrate Ukraine's commitment to reform in order to change 
     President Trump's attitude and gain his support.
       Nor is it wrong for administration staff to use their 
     powers of persuasion within their chain of command to 
     influence policy. What is wrong is for people who work for, 
     and at the pleasure of, the president to believe they set 
     U.S. foreign policy instead of the duly elected president 
     doing so. It also would be wrong for those individuals to 
     step outside their chain of command--or established 
     whistleblower procedures--to undermine the president's 
     policy. If those working for the president don't feel they 
     can implement the president's policies in good conscience, 
     they should follow Gen. James Mattis' example and resign. If 
     they choose to do so, they can then take their disagreements 
     to the public. That would be the proper and high-integrity 
     course of action.
       This impeachment effort has done a great deal of damage to 
     our democracy. The release of transcripts of discussions 
     between the president of the United States and another world 
     leader sets a terrible precedent that will deter and limit 
     candid conversations between the president and world leaders 
     from now on. The weakening of executive privilege will also 
     limit the extent to which presidential advisers will feel 
     comfortable providing ``out of the box'' and other frank 
     counsel in the future.
       In my role as chairman of the Senate's primary oversight 
     committee, I strongly believe in and support whistleblower 
     protections. But in that role, I am also aware that not all 
     whistleblowers are created equal. Not every whistleblower has 
     purely altruistic motives. Some have personal axes to grind 
     against a superior or co-workers. Others might have a 
     political ax to grind.
       The Intelligence Community Inspector General acknowledges 
     the whistleblower in this instance exhibits some measure of 
     ``an arguable political bias.'' The whistleblower' s 
     selection of attorney Mark Zaid lends credence to the ICIG's 
     assessment, given Zaid's tweet that mentions coup, rebellion 
     and impeachment only 10 days after Trump's inauguration.
       If the whistleblower's intention was to improve and 
     solidify the relationship between the U.S. and Ukraine, he or 
     she failed miserably. Instead, the result has been to 
     publicize and highlight the president's deeply held 
     reservations toward Ukraine that the whistleblower felt were 
     so damaging to our relationship with Ukraine and to U.S. 
     national security. The dispute over policy was being resolved 
     between the two branches of government before the 
     whistleblower complaint was made public. All the complaint 
     has accomplished is to fuel the House's impeachment desire 
     (which I believe was the real motivation), and damage our 
     democracy as described above.
       America faces enormous challenges at home and abroad. My 
     oversight efforts have persuaded me there has been a 
     concerted effort, probably beginning the day after the 
     November 2016 election, to sabotage and undermine President 
     Trump and his administration. President Trump, his 
     supporters, and the American public have a legitimate and 
     understandable desire to know if wrongdoing occurred directed 
     toward influencing the 2016 election or sabotaging Trump's 
     administration. The American public also has a right to know 
     if no wrongdoing occurred. The sooner we get answers to the 
     many unanswered questions, the sooner we can attempt to heal 
     our severely divided nation and turn our attention to the 
     many daunting challenges America faces.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Ron Johnson,
     United States Senator.
                                  ____


             [From RealClearInvestigations, Jan. 22, 2019]

 Whistleblower Was Overheard in '17 Discussing With Ally How To Remove 
                                 Trump

                            (By Paul Sperry)

       Barely two weeks after Donald Trump took office, Eric 
     Ciaramella--the CIA analyst whose name was recently linked in 
     a tweet by the president and mentioned by lawmakers as the 
     anonymous ``whistleblower'' who touched off Trump's 
     impeachment--was overheard in the White House discussing with 
     another staffer how to remove the newly elected president 
     from office, according to former colleagues.
       Sources told RealClearInvestigations the staffer with whom 
     Ciaramella was speaking was Sean Misko. Both were Obama 
     administration holdovers working in the Trump White House on 
     foreign policy and national security issues. And both 
     expressed anger over Trump's new ``America First'' foreign 
     policy, a sea change from President Obama's approach to 
     international affairs.
       ``Just days after he was sworn in they were already talking 
     about trying to get rid of him,'' said a White House 
     colleague who overheard their conversation.
       ``They weren't just bent on subverting his agenda,'' the 
     former official added. ``They were plotting to actually have 
     him removed from office.''
       Misko left the White House last summer to join House 
     impeachment manager Adam Schiff's committee, where sources 
     say he offered ``guidance'' to the whistleblower, who has 
     been officially identified only as an intelligence officer in 
     a complaint against Trump filed under whistleblower laws. 
     Misko then helped run the impeachment inquiry based on that 
     complaint as a top investigator for congressional Democrats.
       The probe culminated in Trump's impeachment last month on a 
     party-line vote in the House of Representatives. Schiff and 
     other House Democrats last week delivered the articles of 
     impeachment to the Senate, and are now pressing the case for 
     his removal during the trial, which began Tuesday.
       The coordination between the official believed to be the 
     whistleblower and a key Democratic staffer, details of which 
     are disclosed here for the first time, undercuts the 
     narrative that impeachment developed spontaneously out of the 
     ``patriotism'' of an ``apolitical civil servant.''
       Two former co-workers said they overheard Ciaramella and 
     Misko, dose friends and Democrats held over from the Obama 
     administration, discussing how to ``take out,'' or remove, 
     the new president from office within days of Trump's 
     inauguration. These co-workers said the president's 
     controversial Ukraine phone call in July 2019 provided the

[[Page S923]]

     pretext they and their Democratic allies had been looking 
     for.
       ``They didn't like his policies,'' another former White 
     House official said. ``They had a political vendetta against 
     him from Day One.''
       Their efforts were part of a larger pattern of coordination 
     to build a case for impeachment, involving Democratic leaders 
     as well as anti-Trump figures both inside and outside of 
     government.
       All unnamed sources for this article spoke only on 
     condition that they not be further identified or described. 
     Although strong evidence points to Ciaramella as the 
     government employee who lodged the whistleblower complaint, 
     he has not been officially identified as such. As a result, 
     this article makes a distinction between public information 
     released about the unnamed whistleblower/CIA analyst and 
     specific information about Ciaramella.
       Democrats based their impeachment case on the whistleblower 
     complaint, which alleges that President Trump sought to help 
     his re-election campaign by demanding that Ukraine's leader 
     investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son 
     Hunter in exchange for military aid. Yet Schiff, who heads 
     the House Intelligence Committee, and other Democrats have 
     insisted on keeping the identity of the whistleblower secret, 
     citing concern for his safety, while arguing that his 
     testimony no longer matters because other witnesses and 
     documents have ``corroborated'' what he alleged in his 
     complaint about the Ukraine call.
       Republicans have fought unsuccessfully to call him as a 
     witness, arguing that his motivations and associations are 
     relevant--and that the president has the same due-process 
     right to confront his accuser as any other American.
       The whistleblower's candor is also being called into 
     question. It turns out that the CIA operative failed to 
     report his contacts with Schiff's office to the intelligence 
     community's inspector general who fielded his whistleblower 
     complaint. He withheld the information both in interviews 
     with the inspector general, Michael Atkinson, and in writing, 
     according to impeachment committee investigators. The 
     whistleblower form he filled out required him to disclose 
     whether he had ``contacted other entities''--including 
     ``members of Congress.'' But he left that section blank on 
     the disclosure form he signed.
       The investigators say that details about how the 
     whistleblower consulted with Schiff's staff and perhaps 
     misled Atkinson about those interactions are contained in the 
     transcript of a closed-door briefing Atkinson gave to the 
     House Intelligence Committee last October. However, Schiff 
     has sealed the transcript from public view. It is the only 
     impeachment witness transcript out of 18 that he has not 
     released.
       Schiff has classified the document ``Secret,'' preventing 
     Republicans who attended the Atkinson briefing from quoting 
     from it. Even impeachment investigators cannot view it 
     outside a highly secured room, known as a ``SCIF,'' in the 
     basement of the Capitol. Members must first get permission 
     from Schiff, and they are forbidden from bringing phones into 
     the SCIF or from taking notes from the document.
       While the identity of the whistleblower remains 
     unconfirmed, at least officially, Trump recently retweeted a 
     message naming Ciaramella, while Republican Sen. Rand Paul 
     and Rep. Louie Gohmert of the House Judiciary Committee have 
     publicly demanded that Ciaramella testify about his role in 
     the whistleblower complaint.
       During last year's closed-door House depositions of 
     impeachment witnesses, Ciaramella's name was invoked in 
     heated discussions about the whistleblower, as 
     RealClearInvestigations first reported Oct. 30, and has 
     appeared in at least one testimony transcript. Congressional 
     Republicans complain Schiff and his staff counsel have 
     redacted his name from other documents.
       Lawyers representing the whistleblower have neither 
     confirmed nor denied that Ciaramella is their client. In 
     November, after Donald Trump Jr. named Ciaramella and cited 
     RCI's story in a series of tweets, however, they sent a 
     ``cease and desist'' letter to the White House demanding 
     Trump and his ``surrogates'' stop ``attacking'' him. And just 
     as the whistleblower complaint was made public in September, 
     Ciaramella's social media postings and profiles were scrubbed 
     from the Internet.


                        `Take Out' the President

       An Obama holdover and registered Democrat, Ciaramella in 
     early 2017 expressed hostility toward the newly elected 
     president during White House meetings, his co-workers said in 
     interviews with RealClearInvestigations. They added that 
     Ciaramella sought to have Trump removed from office long 
     before the filing of the whistleblower complaint.
       At the time, the CIA operative worked on loan to the White 
     House as a top Ukrainian analyst in the National Security 
     Council, where he had previously served as an adviser on 
     Ukraine to Vice President Biden. The whistleblower complaint 
     cites Biden, alleging that Trump demanded Ukraine's newly 
     elected leader investigate him and his son ``to help the 
     president's 2020 reelection bid.''
       Two NSC co-workers told RCI that they overheard Ciaramella 
     and Misko--who was also working at the NSC as an analyst--
     making anti-Trump remarks to each other while attending a 
     staff-wide NSC meeting called by then-National Security 
     Adviser Michael Flynn, where they sat together in the south 
     auditorium of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, part 
     of the White House complex.
       The ``all hands'' meeting, held about two weeks into the 
     new administration, was attended by hundreds of NSC 
     employees.
       ``They were popping off about how they were going to remove 
     Trump from office. No joke,'' said one ex-colleague, who 
     spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive 
     matters.
       A military staffer detailed to the NSC, who was seated 
     directly in front of Ciaramella and Misko during the meeting, 
     confirmed hearing them talk about toppling Trump during their 
     private conversation, which the source said lasted about one 
     minute. The crowd was preparing to get up to leave the room 
     at the time.
       ``After Flynn briefed [the staff] about what `America 
     first' foreign policy means, Ciaramella turned to Misko and 
     commented, 'We need to take him out,' '' the staffer 
     recalled. ``And Misko replied, `Yeah, we need to do 
     everything we can to take out the president.' ''
       Added the military detailee, who spoke on condition of 
     anonymity: ``By `taking him out,' they meant removing him 
     from office by any means necessary. They were triggered by 
     Trump's and Flynn's vision for the world. This was the first 
     `all hands' [staff meeting] where they got to see Trump's 
     national security team, and they were huffing and puffing 
     throughout the briefing any time Flynn said something they 
     didn't like about `America First.' ''
       He said he also overheard Ciaramella telling Misko, 
     referring to Trump, `We can't let him enact this foreign 
     policy.' ''
       Alarmed by their conversation, the military staffer 
     immediately reported what he heard to his superiors.
       ``It was so shocking that they were so blatant and 
     outspoken about their opinion,'' he recalled. ``They weren't 
     shouting it, but they didn't seem to feel the need to hide 
     it.''
       The co-workers didn't think much more about the incident.
       ``We just thought they were wacky,'' the first source said. 
     ``Little did we know.''
       Neither Ciaramella nor Misko could be reached for comment.
       A CIA alumnus, Misko had previously assisted Biden's top 
     national security aide Jake Sullivan. Former NSC staffers 
     said Misko was Ciaramella's closest and most trusted ally in 
     the Trump White House.
       ``Eric and Sean were very tight and spent nearly two years 
     together at the NSC,'' said a former supervisor who requested 
     anonymity. ``Both of them were paranoid about Trump.''
       ``They were thick as thieves,'' added the first NSC source. 
     ``They sat next to each other and complained about Trump all 
     the time. They were buddies. They weren't just colleagues. 
     They were buddies outside the White House.''
       The February 2017 incident wasn't the only time the pair 
     exhibited open hostility toward the president. During the 
     following months, both were accused internally of leaking 
     negative information about Trump to the media.
       But Trump's controversial call to the new president of 
     Ukraine this past summer--in which he asked the foreign 
     leader for help with domestic investigations involving the 
     Obama administration, including Biden--gave them the opening 
     they were looking for.
       A mutual ally in the National Security Council who was one 
     of the White House officials authorized to listen in on 
     Trump's July 25 conversation with Ukraine's president leaked 
     it to Ciaramella the next day--July 26--according to former 
     NSC co-workers and congressional sources. The friend, 
     Ukraine-born Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, held Ciaramella's 
     old position at the NSC as director for Ukraine. Although 
     Ciaramella had left the White House to return to the CIA in 
     mid-2017, the two officials continued to collaborate through 
     interagency meetings.
       Vindman leaked what he'd heard to Ciaramella by phone that 
     afternoon, the sources said. In their conversation, which 
     lasted a few minutes, he described Trump's call as ``crazy,'' 
     and speculated he had ``committed a criminal act.'' Neither 
     reviewed the transcript of the call before the White House 
     released it months later.
       NSC co-workers said that Vindman, like Ciaramella, openly 
     expressed his disdain for Trump whose foreign policy was 
     often at odds with the recommendations of ``the 
     interagency''--a network of agency working groups comprised 
     of intelligence bureaucrats, experts and diplomats who 
     regularly meet to craft and coordinate policy positions 
     inside the federal government.
       Before he was detailed to the White House, Vindman served 
     in the U.S. Army, where he once received a reprimand from a 
     superior officer for badmouthing and ridiculing America in 
     front of Russian soldiers his unit was training with during a 
     joint 2012 exercise in Germany.
       His commanding officer, Army Lt. Col. Jim Hickman, 
     complained that Vindman, then a major, ``was apologetic of 
     American culture, laughed about Americans not being educated 
     or worldly and really talked up Obama and globalism to the 
     point of [It being] uncomfortable.''
       ``Vindman was a partisan Democrat at least as far back as 
     2012,'' Hickman, now retired, asserted. ``Do not let the 
     uniform fool you. He is a political activist in uniform.''
       Attempts to reach Vindman through his lawyer were 
     unsuccessful.

[[Page S924]]

       July 26 was also the day that Schiff hired Misko to head up 
     the investigation of Trump, congressional employment records 
     show. Misko, in turn, secretly huddled with the whistleblower 
     prior to filing his Aug. 12 complaint, according to multiple 
     congressional sources, and shared what he told him with 
     Schiff, who initially denied the contacts before press 
     accounts revealed them.
       Schiff's office has also denied helping the whistleblower 
     prepare his complaint, while rejecting a Republican subpoena 
     for documents relating to it. But Capitol Hill veterans and 
     federal whistleblower experts are suspicious of that account.
       Fred Fleitz, who fielded a number of whistleblower 
     complaints from the intelligence community as a former senior 
     House Intelligence Committee staff member, said it was 
     obvious that the CIA analyst had received coaching in writing 
     the nine-page whistleblower report.
       ``From my experience, such an extremely polished 
     whistleblowing complaint is unheard of,'' Fleitz, also a 
     former CIA analyst, said. ``He appears to have collaborated 
     in drafting his complaint with partisan House Intelligence 
     Committee members and staff.''
       Fleitz, who recently served as chief of staff to former 
     National Security Adviser John Bolton, said the complaint 
     appears to have been tailored to buttress an impeachment 
     charge of soliciting the ``interference'' of a foreign 
     government in the election.
       And the whistleblower's unsupported allegation became the 
     foundation for Democrats' first article of impeachment 
     against the president. It even adopts the language used by 
     the CIA analyst in his complaint, which Fleitz said reads 
     more like ``a political document.''


                              Outside Help

       After providing the outlines of his complaint to Schiff's 
     staff, the CIA analyst was referred to whistleblower attorney 
     Andrew Bakaj by a mutual friend ``who is an attorney and 
     expert in national security law,'' according to the 
     Washington Post, which did not identify the go-between.
       A former CIA officer, Bakaj had worked with Ciaramella at 
     the spy agency. They have even more in common: like the 33-
     year-old Ciaramella, the 37-year-old Bakaj is a Connecticut 
     native who has spent time in Ukraine. He's also contributed 
     money to Biden's presidential campaign and once worked for 
     former Sen. Hillary Clinton. He's also briefed the 
     intelligence panel Schiff chairs.
       Bakaj brought in another whistleblower lawyer, Mark Zaid, 
     to help on the case. A Democratic donor and a politically 
     active anti-Trump advocate, Zaid was willing to help 
     represent the CIA analyst. On Jan. 30, 2017, around the same 
     time former colleagues say they overheard Ciaramella and 
     Misko conspiring to take Trump out, Zaid tweeted that a 
     ``coup has started'' and that ``impeachment will follow 
     ultimately.''
       Neither Bakaj nor Zaid responded to requests for an 
     interview.
       It's not clear who the mutual friend and national security 
     attorney was whom the analyst turned to for additional help 
     after meeting with Schiff's staff. But people familiar with 
     the matter say that former Justice Department national 
     security lawyer David Laufman involved himself early on in 
     the whistleblower case.
       Also a former CIA officer, Laufman was promoted by the 
     Obama administration to run counterintelligence cases, 
     including the high-profile investigations of Clinton's 
     classified emails and the Trump campaign's alleged ties to 
     Russia. Laufman sat in on Clinton's July 2016 FBI interview. 
     He also signed off on the wiretapping of a Trump campaign 
     adviser, which the Department of Justice inspector general 
     determined was conducted under false pretenses involving 
     doctored emails, suppression of exculpatory evidence, and 
     other malfeasance. Laufman's office was implicated in a 
     report detailing the surveillance misconduct.
       Laufman could not be reached for comment.
       Laufman and Zaid are old friends who have worked together 
     on legal matters in the past. ``I would not hesitate to join 
     forces with him on complicated cases,'' Zaid said of Laufman 
     in a recommendation posted on his LinkedIn page.
       Laufman recently defended Zaid on Twitter after Trump 
     blasted Zaid for advocating a ``coup'' against him. ``These 
     attacks on Mark Zaid's patriotism are baseless, irresponsible 
     and dangerous,'' Laufman tweeted. ``Mark is an ardent 
     advocate for his clients.''
       After the CIA analyst was coached on how to file a 
     complaint under Intelligence Community whistleblower 
     protections, he was steered to another Obama holdover--former 
     Justice Department attorney-turned-inspector general Michael 
     Atkinson, who facilitated the processing of his complaint, 
     despite numerous red flags raised by career Justice 
     Department lawyers who reviewed it.
       The department's Office of Legal Counsel that the complaint 
     involved ``foreign diplomacy,'' not intelligence, contained 
     ``hearsay'' evidence based on ``secondhand'' information, and 
     did not meet the definition of an ``urgent concern'' that 
     needed to be reported to Congress. Still, Atkinson worked 
     closely with Schiff to pressure the White House to make the 
     complaint public.
       Fleitz said cloaking the CIA analyst in the whistleblower 
     statute provided him cover from public scrutiny. By making 
     him anonymous, he was able to hide his background and 
     motives. Filing the complaint with the IC inspector general, 
     moreover, gave him added protections against reprisals, while 
     letting him disclose classified information. If he had filed 
     directly with Congress, it could not have made the complaint 
     public due to classified concerns. But a complaint referred 
     by the IG to Congress gave it more latitude over what it 
     could make public.


                      Omitted Contacts With Schiff

       The whistleblower complaint was publicly released Sept. 26 
     after a barrage of letters and a subpoena from Schiff, along 
     with a flood of leaks to the media.
       However, the whistleblower did not disclose to Atkinson 
     that he had briefed Schiff's office about his complaint 
     before filing it with the inspector general. He was required 
     on forms to list any other agencies he had contacted, 
     including Congress. But he omitted those contacts and other 
     material facts from his disclosure. He also appears to have 
     misled Atkinson on Aug. 12, when on a separate form he 
     stated: ``I reserve the option to exercise my legal right to 
     contact the committees directly,'' when he had already 
     contacted Schiff's committee weeks prior to making the 
     statement.
       ``The whistleblower made statements to the inspector 
     general under the penalty of perjury that were not true or 
     correct,'' said Rep. John Ratcliffe, a Republican member of 
     the House Intelligence Committee.
       Ratcliffe said Atkinson appeared unconcerned after the New 
     York Times revealed in early October that Schiff's office had 
     privately consulted with the CIA analyst before he filed his 
     complaint, contradicting Schiff's initial denials. Ratcliffe 
     told RealClearlnvestigations that in closed door testimony on 
     Oct. 4, ``I asked IG Atkinson about his `investigation' into 
     the contacts between Schiff's staff and the person who later 
     became the whistleblower.'' But he said Atkinson claimed that 
     he had not investigated them because he had only just learned 
     about them in the media.
       On Oct. 8, after more media reports revealed the whistle 
     blower and Schiff's staff had concealed their contacts with 
     each other, the whistleblower called Atkinson's office to try 
     to explain why he made false statements in writing and 
     verbally, transgressions that could be punishable with a fine 
     of up to $10,000, imprisonment for up five years, or both, 
     according to the federal form he signed under penalty of 
     perjury.
       In his clarification to the inspector general, the 
     whistleblower acknowledged for the first time reaching out to 
     Schiff's staff before filing the complaint, according to an 
     investigative report filed later that month by Atkinson.
       ``The whistleblower got caught,'' Ratcliffe said. ``The 
     whistleblower made false statements. The whistleblower got 
     caught with Chairman Schiff.''
       He says the truth about what happened is documented on 
     pages 53-73 of the transcript of Atkinson's eight-hour 
     testimony. Except that Schiff refuses to release it.
       ``The transcript is classified `Secret' so Schiff can 
     prevent you from seeing the answers to my questions,'' 
     Ratcliffe told RCI.
       Atkinson replaced Charles McCullough as the intelligence 
     community's IG. McCullough is now a partner in the same law 
     firm for which Bakaj and Zaid work. McCullough formerly 
     reported directly to Obama's National Intelligence Director, 
     James Clapper, one of Trump's biggest critics in the 
     intelligence community and a regular agitator for his 
     impeachment on CNN.


                        Hidden Political Agenda?

       Atkinson also repeatedly refused to answer Senate 
     Intelligence Committee questions about the political bias of 
     the whistleblower. Republican members of the panel called his 
     Sept. 26 testimony ``evasive.'' Senate investigators say they 
     are seeking all records generated from Atkinson's 
     ``preliminary review'' of the whistleblower's complaint, 
     including evidence and ``indicia'' of the whistleblower's 
     ``political bias'' in favor of Biden.
       Republicans point out that Atkinson was the top national 
     security lawyer in the Obama Justice Department when it was 
     investigating Trump campaign aides and Trump himself in 2016 
     and 2017. He worked closely with Laufman, the department's 
     former counterintelligence section chief who's now aligned 
     with the whistleblower's attorneys. Also, Atkinson served as 
     senior counsel to Mary McCord, the senior Justice official 
     appointed by Obama who helped oversee the FBI's Russia 
     ``collusion'' probe, and who personally pressured the White 
     House to fire then National Security Adviser Flynn. She and 
     Atkinson worked together on the Russia case. Closing the 
     circle tighter, McCord was Laufman's boss at Justice.
       As it happens, all three are now involved in the 
     whistleblower case or the impeachment process.
       After leaving the department, McCord joined the stable of 
     attorneys Democrats recruited last year to help impeach 
     Trump. She is listed as a top outside counsel for the House 
     in key legal battles tied to impeachment, including trying to 
     convince federal judges to unblock White House witnesses and 
     documents.
       ``Michael Atkinson is a key anti-Trump conspirator who 
     played a central role in transforming the `whistleblower' 
     complaint into the current impeachment proceedings,'' said 
     Bill Marshall, a senior investigator for Judicial Watch, the 
     conservative government watchdog group that is suing the 
     Justice Department for Atkinson's internal communications 
     regarding impeachment.

[[Page S925]]

       Atkinson's office declined comment.


                       Another `Co-Conspirator'?

       During closed-door depositions taken in the impeachment 
     inquiry, Ciaramella's confederate Misko was observed handing 
     notes to Schiff's lead counsel for the impeachment inquiry, 
     Daniel Goldman--another Obama Justice attorney and a major 
     Democratic donor--as he asked questions of Trump 
     administration witnesses, officials with direct knowledge of 
     the proceedings told RealClear Investigations. Misko also was 
     observed sitting on the dais behind Democratic members during 
     last month's publicly broadcast joint impeachment committee 
     hearings.
       Another Schiff recruit believed to part of the clandestine 
     political operation against Trump is Abby Grace, who also 
     worked closely with Ciaramella at the NSC, both before and 
     after Trump was elected. During the Obama administration, 
     Grace was an assistant to Obama national security aide Ben 
     Rhodes.
       Last February, Schiff recruited this other White House 
     friend of the whistleblower to work as an impeachment 
     investigator. Grace is listed alongside Sean Misko as senior 
     staffers in the House Intelligence Committee's ``The Trump-
     Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report'' published last month.
       Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert, who served on one of the 
     House impeachment panels, singled out Grace and Misko as 
     Ciaramella's ``co-conspirators'' in a recent House floor 
     speech arguing for their testimony.``These people are at the 
     heart of everything about this whole Ukrainian hoax,'' 
     Gohmert said. ``We need to be able to talk to these people.''
       A Schiff spokesman dismissed Gohmert's allegation.
       ``These allegations about our dedicated and professional 
     staff members are patently false and are based off false 
     smears from a congressional staffer with a personal vendetta 
     from a previous job,'' said Patrick Boland, spokesman for the 
     House Intelligence Committee. ``It's shocking that members of 
     Congress would repeat them and other false conspiracy 
     theories, rather than focusing on the facts of the 
     president's misconduct.''
       Boland declined to identify ``the congressional staffer 
     with a personal vendetta.''
       Schiff has maintained in open hearings and interviews that 
     he did not personally speak with the whistleblower and still 
     does not even know his identity, which would mean the 
     intelligence panel's senior staff has withheld his name from 
     their chairman for almost six months. Still, he insists that 
     he knows that the CIA analyst has ``acted in good faith,'' as 
     well as ``appropriately and lawfully.''
       The CIA declined comment. But the agency reportedly has 
     taken security measures to protect the analyst, who has 
     continued to work on issues relating to Russia and Ukraine 
     and participate in interagency meetings.

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a 
statement I prepared concerning the impeachment trial be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          Senator Richard Blumenthal--Statement for the Record


                 impeachment trial of donald john trump

       The case for impeachment presented by the House managers is 
     overwhelming. Donald Trump held taxpayer-funded military aid 
     hostage from an ally at war while demanding a personal, 
     political favor. He tried to cheat, got caught, and worked 
     hard to cover it up. His actions constitute a shocking, 
     corrupt abuse of power and betrayal of his oath of office. 
     Just as a sheriff cannot delay responding to calls for help 
     until the callers endorse his re-election, the President is 
     not entitled to withhold vital military assistance from a 
     foreign ally until they announce an investigation to smear 
     his political rival. The proof shows precisely the type of 
     corruption that the Framers sought to prevent through the 
     Impeachment Clause, including foreign interference in our 
     election.
       Two further points are significant. First, the President is 
     guilty of the crime of bribery, which is specifically listed 
     in the Constitution as a grounds for impeachment.\1\ Second, 
     the President's unprecedented campaign to obstruct the 
     impeachment inquiry compels us to conclude that the evidence 
     he is hiding would provide further proof of his guilt.
     I. The President committed the federal crime of bribery
       There is no question--based on the original meaning of the 
     Constitution, the elaboration of the impeachment clause in 
     the Federalist Papers, historical precedent, and common 
     sense--that the President need not violate a provision of any 
     criminal code in order to warrant removal from office.\2\ The 
     President's argument that he must violate ``established law'' 
     to be impeached would be laughable if its implications were 
     not so dangerous.
       But there is no reasonable doubt that the President has 
     violated established law. The Constitution specifically 
     states that a President who commits bribery should be 
     impeached.\3\ The evidence before us establishes that 
     President Trump has committed the crime of bribery as it 
     existed at the time of the framers and now. Therefore, even 
     using the President's own standard, the Senate has no choice 
     but to convict.
       The evidence shows that the President solicited 
     interference in the 2020 election for his own benefit by 
     pressuring Ukraine to announce an investigation into his 
     political opponents in return for releasing nearly $400 
     million in taxpayer-funded military aid Ukraine desperately 
     needed, as well as a meeting with President Zelensky at the 
     White House. He sought, indeed demanded, a personal benefit 
     in exchange for an official act.
       Section 201 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code criminalizes 
     ``bribery of public officials and witnesses.'' A public 
     official is guilty under this section when they seek 
     ``anything of value'' in exchange for any ``official act'' 
     and do so with corrupt intent. The code even specifies that 
     punishment for this crime may include disqualification ``from 
     holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the 
     United States.'' \4\

     A. The requested investigations constitute ``things of value''

       The investigations that President Trump requested into his 
     political enemies and to undermine claims that Russia 
     illegally helped him get elected are clearly ``things of 
     value.'' \5\ By all accounts, he was obsessed with them. 
     According to multiple reports, Trump cared more about the 
     investigations than he did about defending Ukraine from 
     Russia. Ambassador Gordon Sondland even testified that the 
     President ``doesn't give a s**t'' about Ukraine and only 
     cares about ``big stuff'' like the announcement of the 
     investigations he requested.\6\
       Courts have consistently applied a broad and subjective 
     understanding of the phrase ``anything of value.'' All that 
     matters is that the bribe had value in the eyes of the 
     official accepting or soliciting it. The Second Circuit has 
     determined that ``anything of value'' includes stock that, 
     although it had no commercial value at the time, had 
     subjective value to the defendant.\7\ Similarly, the Sixth 
     Circuit held that loans that a public official would have 
     been otherwise unable to receive were ``thing[s] of value.'' 
     \8\ The Eighth Circuit has similarly emphasized that 
     ``anything of value'' should be interpreted ``broadly'' and 
     ``subjectively.'' \9\
       Further, the ``thing'' need not be tangible, and it need 
     not be immediately available. For example, the Sixth Circuit 
     held that a promise of ``future employment'' is a thing of 
     value.\10\ A D.C. district court found that travel and 
     entrance to various events that Tyson Foods gave to the 
     Agriculture Secretary's girlfriend counted as things of 
     value, despite the fact that they were not given directly to 
     the Secretary and were not tangible items.\11\ Campaign 
     contributions also count as ``things of value,'' even 
     contributions made to Super PACs, despite Supreme Court 
     precedent holding that independent expenditures do not have 
     sufficient value to candidates to justify placing limits on 
     them.\12\ In other contexts, the courts have interpreted the 
     phrase ``thing of value'' to encompass a tip about the 
     whereabouts of a witness,\13\ information about government 
     informants,\14\ and the testimony of a government 
     witness.\15\ The courts have roundly rejected the proposition 
     that this phrase ``covers only things having commercial 
     value;'' intangibles, including information itself, can 
     certainly be a ``thing of value.'' \16\ The relevant inquiry 
     is not the objective value of the thing offered, but 
     ``whether the donee placed any value on the intangible 
     gifts.'' \17\
       Here, President Trump clearly placed value on the 
     announcement of investigations. During the July 25 phone 
     call, Trump stated that it was ``very important'' that 
     Zelensky open these investigations.\18\ Over several months, 
     Trump and Rudy Giuliani had made repeated public statements 
     about how important they thought the investigations were. 
     Since at least April, 2017, President Trump has been publicly 
     promoting the debunked conspiracy theory that a California-
     based cybersecurity company, CrowdStrike, worked with the 
     Democratic National Committee to fabricate evidence that 
     Russia interfered in the 2016 election and hide the proof of 
     their actions in Ukraine. Rudy Giuliani, the President's 
     personal attorney, has been promoting a conspiracy theory 
     about Joe and Hunter Biden since at least January, 2019.\19\ 
     Days after Zelensky was elected, Trump stated on air that he 
     would be directing Attorney General Barr to ``look into'' the 
     CrowdStrike conspiracy theory.\20\ In May, 2019, Rudy 
     Giuliani, with the knowledge and consent of President Trump 
     and acting on the President's behalf,\21\ planned to travel 
     to Ukraine to ask for these investigations, which he said 
     would be ``very, very helpful to my client, and may turn out 
     to be helpful to my government.'' \22\ On July 10, top 
     Ukrainian officials met with Energy Secretary Perry, John 
     Bolton, Kurt Volker, and Ambassador Sondland at the White 
     House where Sondland made clear that an official White House 
     visit with Zelensky was important to the President.\23\
       Further, the electoral value to President Trump of 
     investigations that would smear Joe Biden and the DNC while 
     casting doubt on Russian interference in the 2016 election is 
     obvious. President Trump was elected in a shocking and narrow 
     victory after polls showed him trailing his opponent until 
     officials announced that she was under investigation.\24\ The 
     announcement of an investigation into his political opponents 
     clearly had tremendous value to him personally.
       The President's counsels claim that Trump demanded 
     investigations of his political rival as part of a perfectly 
     legitimate anti-

[[Page S926]]

     corruption effort. In short, they want the Senate to leave 
     our common sense at the door. At least four undisputed facts 
     decisively disprove the claim that President Trump's actions 
     were motivated by the public interest and not his own.
       First, as one of my colleagues has put it,\25\ it ``strains 
     credulity'' to suggest that President Trump was pursuing the 
     public interest and not his political benefit when the only 
     corruption investigations he could think to demand involved 
     his political opponents.\26\ President Trump's counsel have 
     claimed throughout this trial that the President believed 
     corruption in Ukraine to be widespread. Yet he did not 
     suggest a single investigation or programmatic action other 
     than the two investigations of his political rivals.
       Second, President Trump did not actually want Ukraine to 
     conduct the investigations he only wanted Zelensky to 
     announce them.\27\ If he really did want to get to the bottom 
     of a legitimate concern, a public announcement of the 
     investigation would not further that interest. Any good 
     investigator knows that, if you actually want to get to the 
     truth, you do not prematurely tip off the subject of the 
     investigation. Indeed, federal prosecutors are instructed to 
     not even ``respond to questions about the existence of an 
     ongoing investigation or comment on its nature or progress 
     before charges are publicly filed.'' \28\ While announcing 
     the investigations could only harm any legitimate law 
     enforcement objective, it would obviously benefit President 
     Trump's political goals.
       Third, President Trump never sought the investigations 
     through ordinary, official channels, or if he did seek them 
     the Justice Department declined to pursue them. If President 
     Trump wanted bona fide investigations, as opposed to 
     politically-motivated announcements, he would have charged 
     the Department of Justice with conducting an official 
     investigation, and the Department would have sought 
     cooperation from the Ukrainian government through the U.S.-
     Ukraine Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT). Legitimate 
     requests made pursuant to an MLAT allow DOJ to take 
     testimony, obtain records, locate persons, serve documents, 
     transfer persons into U.S. custody, execute searches and 
     seizures, freeze assets, and engage in any other lawful 
     actions that the state can take.\29\ Trump claims that he 
     just wanted to root out criminality and corruption. But he 
     did not ask domestic U.S. law enforcement to look into the 
     matter; to date, there is no criminal investigation of Hunter 
     Biden. Instead, Trump tried to coerce a foreign government to 
     investigate a U.S. citizen without any formal coordination 
     with the U.S. Justice Department. In other words, there was 
     not a sufficient basis for a bona fide, domestic criminal 
     investigation, so Trump had to go elsewhere. The fact that 
     Trump asked a foreign government to investigate Hunter Biden 
     is not evidence that he cared about corruption; it is 
     evidence that he was engaged in corruption.
       In fact, Ukraine ultimately resisted President Trump's 
     requests for investigations precisely because the President 
     had failed to rely on the usual channels used to prevent 
     political interference with law enforcement.\30\ If Trump 
     actually wanted a legitimate investigation, and wanted to 
     ensure that DOJ would be privy to relevant information, he 
     would have sought formal assistance through the U.S.-Ukraine 
     MLAT. DOJ has confirmed that he did no such thing.\31\ 
     Instead, President Trump acted through his personal attorney, 
     Rudy Giuliani, a man who made clear that he was duty bound to 
     pursue his boss's personal interests and not those of the 
     public.\32\ The only reasonable explanation for the 
     President's decision to completely bypass the Justice 
     Department is that he knew that his conspiracy theories could 
     not withstand scrutiny and he set out to circumvent law 
     enforcement officials. They were solely intended to serve 
     Trump's personal, political interests.
       Finally, as the American Intelligence Community has 
     unanimously concluded,\33\ the CrowdStrike conspiracy is not 
     supported by any evidence. It is difficult to fathom how 
     propagating Russian-generated propaganda that implicates 
     American public figures and companies is in the national 
     interest of the United States. Even if his motives were 
     mixed, and he cared peripherally about corruption generally, 
     his predominant goal was to smear a political opponent.

B. The release of the hold on military aid and the promised White House 
                   visit constitute ``official acts''

       The two acts the President agreed to perform--releasing the 
     hold on military aid and setting up an official White House 
     meeting with Zelensky--constitute ``official acts.'' The 
     bribery statute defines ``official act'' broadly to include 
     ``any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, 
     suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be 
     pending, or which may by law be brought before any public 
     official, in such official's official capacity, or in such 
     official's place of trust or profit.'' \34\ Military 
     assistance and an official White House visit were within his 
     control only because of his tenure in elective office. In 
     fact, both receiving foreign dignitaries and providing 
     foreign assistance are in the President's official, 
     constitutional job description.\35\
       Actions authorized by statute, such as the ones President 
     Trump took here, are particularly clear examples of official 
     acts.\36\ Congress has specifically authorized, and 
     circumscribed, the President's ability to award military 
     assistance to foreign countries. This process has been 
     codified since the early 1960s, and there is an enormous 
     federal apparatus devoted to evaluating the needs of foreign 
     nations, how those needs intersect with legitimate U.S. 
     foreign policy interests, and how to award foreign aid in 
     line with those interests.\37\ Further, when the President 
     placed a hold on the aid, he was acting on behalf of the 
     United States, not in his personal capacity. It defies reason 
     to argue that the President's decision to award, or fail to 
     execute, a foreign aid determination is not an ``official 
     act'' under the bribery statute.
       Similarly, an official White House meeting is an ``official 
     act'' because the President is specifically ``assigned by 
     law'' \38\--in both the Constitution and numerous statutes--
     with receiving representatives from foreign governments.\39\ 
     Indeed, the authority to receive ambassadors and recognize 
     foreign governments is considered so core to the office of 
     the President that the Supreme Court has struck down statutes 
     that interfere with it.\40\

            C. The President corruptly sought a quid pro quo

       President Trump made an agreement with the specific intent 
     to be influenced in his decision whether to lift the hold on 
     the military aid and to host a White House meeting. In United 
     States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of California, the Supreme 
     Court held that a bribe made or solicited ``in return for'' 
     an official act entails an exchange, a quid pro quo.\41\ In a 
     seminal case, the D.C. Circuit reasoned that the term 
     ``corruptly'' means that the official act would not be 
     undertaken (or undertaken in a particular way) without the 
     thing of value.\42\
       Department of Justice guidance on the issue, citing the 
     standard jury instructions that numerous courts have upheld, 
     indicates that ``corruptly'' denotes ``nothing more than . . 
     . acting `with bad purpose' to achieve some unlawful end.'' 
     \43\ The guidance further explains that, ordinarily, this 
     ``bad purpose'' is ``a hope or expectation of either 
     financial gain or other benefit to one's self, or some aid or 
     profit or benefit to another.''\44\ In other words, the 
     intent merely to be influenced in the way prohibited by the 
     bribery statute itself is sufficient to find that the 
     defendant acted ``corruptly.''
       Further, the Supreme Court unanimously held in 2016 that 
     the quid pro quo demand ``need not be explicit,'' the 
     official ``need not specify the means that he will use to 
     perform his end of the bargain,'' nor must the official 
     actually intend to follow through for a prosecutor to succeed 
     in making her case that the defendant is guilty of 
     bribery.\45\ In a Seventh Circuit case, the court made clear 
     that the context of a communication can be determinative: 
     evidence of a quid pro quo can emerge from ``the often 
     clandestine atmosphere of corruption with a simple wink and a 
     nod if the surrounding circumstances make it clear that 
     something of value will pass to a public official if he takes 
     improper, or withholds proper, action.'' \46\ While the 
     defendant in that case never made an explicit offer and never 
     relayed a specific amount of money, the court nonetheless 
     upheld his conviction for bribery.\47\
       Trump's actions clearly qualify as a quid pro quo. Less 
     than a month prior to this phone call, President Trump had 
     put a hold on hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid 
     to Ukraine and had previously set in motion, but not 
     committed to, an official White House visit with Ukraine's 
     new president, Volodomyr Zelensky. When Trump and Zelensky 
     spoke on July 25, Trump set the terms of the conversation by 
     making clear that he felt Ukraine owed him for America's 
     generosity. And as soon as Zelensky mentioned that Ukraine 
     was interested in receiving American anti-tank missiles, the 
     President immediately stated that he would like Zelensky to 
     ``do us a favor though,'' and explicitly asked Zelensky to 
     investigate the Biden conspiracy theory and alleged Ukrainian 
     interference in the 2016 election. As soon as Zelensky 
     appeared to agree to open the requested investigations, Trump 
     almost immediately assured the Ukrainian President that 
     ``whenever you would like to come to the White House, feel 
     free to call.'' \48\ Text messages sent by Special Envoy 
     Volker indicate that it had also been made clear to the 
     Ukrainians prior to the call that the official White House 
     visit was also conditioned upon Zelensky complying with 
     Trump's request for these investigations.\49\ Gordon 
     Sondland, the American ambassador to the EU, testified that 
     the President's proposal to lift the hold in exchange for the 
     investigations was as clear as ``two plus two equals four.'' 
     \50\ Trump's acting Chief of Staff, Mick Mulvaney, confessed 
     during a press conference that there was a quid pro quo 
     exchange and suggested that the public should just ``get over 
     it.'' \51\
       The implication of Trump's message to Zelensky on the July 
     25 phone call is that Trump would not lift the hold or have 
     the White House meeting unless Zelensky opened the requested 
     investigations. The obvious political value to the President 
     of opening these investigations constitutes sufficient 
     grounds for a jury to determine that he had a ``bad motive'' 
     in making this request. Trump is guilty of quid pro quo 
     bribery.

                 D. Trump's defenses are not persuasive

       Trump attempts to absolve his behavior by arguing that his 
     subjective intent is irrelevant to whether he committed an 
     impeachable offense, that there is no quid pro quo because 
     Ukraine never announced the infamous investigations, and 
     that, even if he did commit a quid pro quo, he cannot be 
     impeached

[[Page S927]]

     because the articles do not accuse him of bribery. Even 
     setting aside that these defenses ignore the fact that Trump 
     still has not held a White House meeting with Zelensky, these 
     arguments are wholly unpersuasive in their own right.

           1. Trump's subjective intent is eminently relevant

       Trump claims that his subjective intent is irrelevant; that 
     he cannot be impeached based on the reasons for which he 
     sought the investigations.\52\ This argument is specious for 
     at least three reasons. First, the two offenses that the 
     Constitution explicitly mentions as requiring removal from 
     office--treason and bribery--hinge on the subjective reasons 
     that the official acted. If the Commander-in-Chief orders the 
     military to take certain actions with the purpose of 
     benefiting an enemy of the United States, then the President 
     has committed treason, even if the President generally has 
     the authority to command the armed forces. If the President 
     vetoes a law because someone has paid him a large bribe, then 
     he has committed bribery, even if the President generally has 
     the authority to veto laws. When we are prohibited from 
     scrutinizing the President's reasons for acting, we lose the 
     ability to protect our democracy from tyrants and traitors.
       Second, the President maintains that he needs to have 
     violated ``established law'' in order to be impeached.\53\ 
     Using the President's own standard, then, in evaluating 
     whether he violated the federal bribery statute, we must 
     evaluate whether he acted with corrupt intent. If the 
     President wants to be scrutinized using the standards of the 
     federal criminal code, then he must concede that his 
     subjective intent is at issue.
       Third, even if Trump had other reasons for releasing the 
     aid, it was still a crime for him to even ask for the 
     investigations. Section 201(c) of Title 18 prohibits public 
     officials from demanding anything of value ``for or because 
     of any official act.'' \54\ The courts have been clear that 
     even if the official act ``might have been done without'' the 
     bribe, the defendant is still guilty under section 
     201(c).\55\ Even if Trump never actually intended to maintain 
     a hold on the aid, even if he decided to release the aid for 
     entirely legitimate reasons, the fact that he requested the 
     investigations as a ``favor'' \56\--because of how generous 
     the President was in agreeing to conduct a White House visit 
     or lifting the hold on the military aid--means that the 
     President committed a crime.
       Even if a legislator would have voted for a piece of 
     legislation because he thinks it is in the public interest, 
     he still commits bribery if he takes a payoff to do it. As 
     the courts have made clear, an illegal bribe under this 
     section may take the form of ``a reward [. . .] for a past 
     act that has already been taken.'' \57\ Thus, the fact that 
     the President continued to ask for the investigations after 
     the hold was finally released \58\ does not absolve him; it 
     further incriminates him.

     2. Trump completed his crime the moment he solicited the bribe

       It is undisputed that the President, either directly or 
     indirectly, demanded investigations into Joe Biden and a 
     conspiracy theory involving the Democratic National 
     Committee. The President's only response is that he cannot be 
     liable because he did not receive what he requested. Under 
     federal law, however, a corrupt official need not receive the 
     benefit he demands or perform the official acts in question; 
     ``it is enough that the official agreed to do so.'' \59\ It 
     is the solicitation of a private benefit in and of itself 
     that constitutes the crime.\60\ All a prosecutor would have 
     to demonstrate is that the President made an agreement or 
     offer to exchange official acts for a thing of value.
       We know from the memorandum of the July 25 phone call, from 
     Volker and Sondland's texts, and from Sondland's testimony 
     that Trump had agreed to lift the hold and conduct the White 
     House meeting in exchange for the investigations.\61\ We also 
     know that there is additional evidence out there that speaks 
     to the President's communications--both directly and through 
     his agents--with Ukraine regarding his illegal scheme. We 
     know, at the very least, of the existence of diplomatic 
     cables from the Ukrainian embassy about the hold on the 
     military assistance and communications with the State 
     Department about the hold.\62\ The head of the agency that 
     placed the hold on the military assistance has refused to 
     respond to a lawful subpoena, under the instruction of the 
     White House.\63\ As discussed below, when a party fails to 
     produce or obstructs access to relevant evidence, that 
     failure ``gives rise to an inference that the evidence is 
     unfavorable to him.'' \64\ In this case, although the 
     evidence already presented proves the crime of bribery, the 
     Senate should infer that the evidence that the executive 
     branch has hidden about these communications would provide 
     further evidence that Trump agreed to this illicit exchange.

3. Senators must convict if they conclude that the President committed 
the crime of bribery, whether or not the term `bribery' appears in the 
                                articles

       The first article of impeachment accuses the President of 
     ``corruptly solicit[ing]'' the public announcement of 
     investigations that were in his ``personal political 
     benefit,'' in exchange for ``two official acts.'' \65\ In 
     response to questions from Senators, Trump's counsel has 
     argued that because the article did not explicitly refer to 
     the crime of bribery, Trump was provided inadequate notice. 
     This argument is absurd.
       Trump has received plenty of notice that he stands accused 
     of bribery. Trump's actions, as described in the article, 
     clearly align with the elements of the federal crime of 
     bribery: he solicited a thing of value in exchange for 
     official acts and did so with corrupt intent.\66\ Further, 
     the House Judiciary Committee report adeptly explained why 
     the President is guilty of bribery under the criminal 
     code.\67\ Lawmakers have been discussing the President's 
     misdeeds in terms of bribery for months now.\68\ His lack of 
     a defense is due not to lack of notice but to lack of facts.
       The historical record confirms the common sense notion that 
     the articles need not name specific crimes. In 1974, the 
     House Judiciary Committee approved three articles of 
     impeachment against President Nixon, none of which referenced 
     any provisions of any criminal code.\69\ Many of my 
     colleagues were presented with similarly drafted articles of 
     impeachment against Judge Porteous in 2010. In that instance, 
     the House adopted four articles of impeachment, none of which 
     explicitly referenced the criminal code.\70\ The first 
     article described conduct that amounts to bribery--claiming 
     that Judge Porteous ``solicited and accepted things of 
     value'' in exchange for ruling in favor of a particular 
     party--but never used the term ``bribe'' or mentioned the 
     federal bribery statute.\71\ The Senate unanimously convicted 
     Judge Porteous on this article and voted to forever 
     disqualify him from holding office.\72\ No one seriously 
     entertained the notice argument then, and there is no good 
     reason to do so now. This bad faith defense is a red herring, 
     and we must not let it distract us from the issue before us: 
     the President's crimes.
       Trump's claim that he cannot be removed for a crime unless 
     the crime is specifically mentioned in the articles of 
     impeachment--coupled with his claim that there must be proof 
     of a crime--is simply untenable. By Trump's flawed logic, if 
     he had been impeached for ``shooting someone on Fifth 
     Avenue,'' he could not be removed for ``murder'' unless that 
     word was specifically included in the articles. We have not 
     been called to sit in judgment of the House of 
     Representatives' diction; we sit in judgment of the 
     President's actions--carefully and precisely described in the 
     articles of impeachment as a clear-cut case of bribery.

   II. The President's unprecedented campaign to obstruct access to 
 relevant evidence compels us to conclude that the evidence is against 
                                  him.

       The House of Representatives has made a very strong case 
     that the President's refusal to engage in any way with their 
     investigation is unlawful and constitutionally offensive. But 
     make no mistake--this conflict is more than a dispute between 
     the branches of government. The House of Representatives and 
     a number of Senators have raised the alarm bells not for our 
     own sake, but because when the President hides from Congress, 
     he hides from the American people. The separation of powers 
     does not exist to benefit members of Congress; it exists to 
     curb the excesses of enormously powerful government 
     officials.
       Throughout this entire ordeal--from the moment the call 
     transcript was improperly placed on a classified server \73\ 
     to the time when Trump threatened to unlawfully assert 
     executive privilege over any testimony requested by the 
     Senate \74\--the President has sought to keep his illegal 
     scheme secret from the very people the scheme was designed to 
     manipulate: the American electorate.
       Indeed, the withholding of aid itself was concealed, unlike 
     with other similar pauses or suspensions of military 
     assistance.
       The law and historical precedent are clear--when the 
     President stifles Congress' investigative authority, whether 
     during an impeachment inquiry or when Congress is exercising 
     its broader mandate to investigate the executive branch, he 
     has exceeded the bounds of the law. Because Trump has flouted 
     congressional inquiry in such a brazen and unhinged manner, 
     this violation alone requires us to vote to remove him from 
     office.
       Separately, this egregious campaign of obfuscation 
     strengthens the case against the President for abuse of 
     power. As a matter of law, when a party to a case improperly 
     withholds relevant evidence, courts can instruct juries to 
     make an adverse inference--to assume that the evidence would 
     be unfavorable to the withholding party. In this case, Trump 
     has withheld every single piece of evidence that the House 
     requested. The facts before us confirm the underlying logic 
     of the adverse inference rule--that when a party hides 
     something, it is because they have something to hide. 
     Applying that rule here, the already overwhelming evidence 
     against Trump becomes an avalanche.

 A. Trump's obstruction requires us to infer that all the evidence is 
 against him, which only strengthens the case for removal for abuse of 
                                 power

       It is a long-established rule of law that when a party 
     ``has relevant evidence within his control which he fails to 
     produce, that failure gives rise to an inference that the 
     evidence is unfavorable to him.'' \75\ Importantly, this rule 
     applies even in the absence of a subpoena and, in fact, ``the 
     willingness of a party to defy a subpoena in order to 
     suppress the evidence strengthens the force of the 
     preexisting inference,'' because in that scenario ``it can 
     hardly be doubted he has some good reason for his 
     insistence on suppression.'' \76\ Indeed, the courts have 
     recognized that the adverse inference rule is essential to

[[Page S928]]

     prevent intransigent parties from abusing ``costly and 
     time consuming'' court proceedings to subvert their legal 
     duty to produce relevant evidence.\77\ The Supreme Court 
     has specifically applied this rule against a party who 
     selectively provided weak evidence and failed to allow 
     those persons with the most relevant knowledge to testify, 
     noting that ``the production of weak evidence when strong 
     is available can lead only to the conclusion that the 
     strong would have been adverse.'' \78\ As the Court put 
     it, in circumstances like this, ``silence then becomes 
     evidence of the most convincing character.'' \79\
       We know that the Trump administration has relevant evidence 
     that it refuses to produce. As an initial matter, the 
     President has failed to comply with a single request from the 
     House of Representatives, and, following the President's 
     orders, the White House, the office of the Vice President, 
     the Office of Management and Budget, the State Department, 
     the Department of Defense, and the Department of Energy 
     refused to produce a single document in response to 71 
     specific requests issued by the House of Representatives.\80\
       But we also know of specific pieces of evidence that go to 
     the heart of the House's case and that Trump is concealing. 
     Mark Sandy testified that in August, OMB produced a 
     memorandum recommending that the President's hold on the 
     Ukraine military assistance be released.\81\ William Taylor 
     testified that on August 29, he sent a first person cable to 
     Secretary Pompeo, relaying his concerns about the ``folly I 
     saw in withholding military aid to Ukraine at a time when 
     hostilities were still active in the east and when Russia was 
     watching closely to gauge the level of American support for 
     the Ukrainian Government.'' \82\ Mr. Taylor also testified 
     that he had exchanged WhatsApp messages with Ambassadors 
     Volker and Sondland as well as with Ukrainian officials. The 
     White House has refused to release any of these documents. We 
     therefore must infer that they demonstrate that there was no 
     interagency process to review the best use of the funds--that 
     this rationale was pre-textual.
       The White House maintains that Ukraine was not even aware 
     of the hold on the military assistance until after it was 
     reported on publicly. But we have testimony to the contrary--
     testimony that includes reference to specific documents that 
     the President is withholding. Laura K. Cooper, the American 
     deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine and 
     Eurasia, testified that her staff received two emails on July 
     25th that directly undermine Trump's claim. The first, 
     received at 2:31 PM, stated that the Ukrainian embassy was 
     asking about the security assistance. The second, received at 
     4:25 PM, stated that the Ukrainian embassy knew that the 
     foreign military financing assistance had been held up.\83\ 
     At the behest of President Trump, the State Department has 
     not released these emails. Unless and until the 
     administration produces these documents and any others 
     bearing on when Ukraine first learned about the hold, we 
     should assume that they demonstrate that Ukraine knew about 
     the hold when Trump spoke to Zelensky on July 25.

B. The evidence that has emerged despite Trump's intransigence has only 
                     bolstered the case against him

       Based on the above analysis alone, the Senate is more than 
     entitled to infer that the mountain of evidence that Trump is 
     withholding would demonstrate his guilt. But two further 
     points compel us to make such an inference. First, Trump 
     confessed on national television to having ``all the 
     materials'' and bragged about how he had kept them from 
     Congress.\84\ We cannot let this gleeful boast stand without 
     inferring that the materials in question speak to Trump's 
     guilt.
       Second, as the House managers repeatedly cautioned us would 
     happen, the evidence that Trump has been hiding has started 
     to come out. And each newly revealed tape or record has been 
     unfavorable to the President's case. The assumption that the 
     law compels us to make about the contents of these 
     materials--that they demonstrate the President's guilt--is 
     confirmed each and every time they come out into the light. 
     Most damning has been the leak of a draft of John Bolton's 
     forthcoming book, which confirms that the President ``told 
     his national security adviser in August that he wanted to 
     continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to 
     Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into 
     Democrats including the Bidens,'' as well as details about 
     the involvement of various senior cabinet officials in 
     Trump's illegal scheme.\85\ And this is only the most recent 
     revelation in a rapidly growing series of records that have 
     come to light. On January 14, 2020, Lev Parnas, a former 
     associate of Rudy Giuliani, released documents which 
     demonstrate both that the President was orchestrating a deal 
     to get Zelensky to ``announce that the Biden case will be 
     investigated,'' and that Marie Yovanovitch was the subject of 
     an illegal intimidation campaign.\86\ On January 25, 2020, a 
     tape from April, 2018 was publicly released of a private 
     dinner with top donors where Trump is heard yelling: ``Get 
     rid of her! Get her out tomorrow. I don't care. Get her out 
     tomorrow. Take her out. Okay? Do it,'' in reference to 
     Ambassador Yovanovitch.\87\ The President is also heard 
     specifically asking how long Ukraine would last in a war 
     against Russia absent U.S. support--in other words, inquiring 
     how much Ukraine is at the mercy of the United States.\88\ 
     Not only does this tape provide further evidence of a 
     coordinated campaign against the Ambassador; it also 
     undermines ``earlier defenses by the White House that Trump 
     wasn't aware of what was taking place in the early phase of 
     the Ukraine affair.'' \89\ This tape suggests that Trump not 
     only knew about the Ukraine affair, but also that ``he may 
     have been directing events'' as early as April 2018.\90\
       The steady drip of damning evidence leaking from the 
     President's associates, combined with Trump's own public 
     confession to concealing relevant evidence, compels us to 
     conclude what the law already instructs us to infer: that the 
     mountain of evidence Trump is hiding proves his guilt.
     Conclusion
       It is clear to me that Trump is guilty of bribery and that 
     his campaign to obstruct any investigation into his 
     wrongdoing only strengthens the case against him. Trump's 
     actions require us to vote to remove him from office. When 
     the Framers included the impeachment power in the 
     Constitution, they knew that there would be a presidential 
     election every four years--and they also knew that this was 
     an insufficient check against a President who abuses the 
     power of his office to cheat his way to re-election. Trump's 
     misdeeds are a case study in the need for impeachment.
       Throughout the impeachment trial, I have been moved by the 
     grave moral purpose that the Senate is charged with 
     pursuing--of sustaining America as an idea, of our 
     Constitution as a living document that gives substance to our 
     identity as the world's leading democracy. As we sit in 
     judgment of a President who has demonstrated nothing but 
     contempt for our laws and our values, history sits in 
     judgment of the Senate. By failing to remove Trump from 
     office, we will have failed our country.


                                ENDNOTES

       1. U.S. Const. art. II. Sec. 4 (``The President [. . .] 
     shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and 
     Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and 
     Misdemeanors'').
       2. See generally, Jared P. Cole & Todd Garvey, Cong. Res. 
     Serv., R44260, Impeachment and Removal (2015); see also Paul 
     Leblanc, Democrats Play 1999 Video of Lindsey Graham Talking 
     About Impeachment to Bolster Case Against Trump, CNN, Jan. 
     23, 2020, available at https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/23/
politics/impeachment-managers-lindsey-graham-video/index.html 
     (quoting then-Representative Graham's statement during the 
     Clinton impeachment that an impeachable offense ``[d]oesn't 
     even have to be a crime. It's just when you start using your 
     office and you're acting in a way that hurts people, you have 
     committed a high crime''); Steven J. Harper, Why Did Alan 
     Dershowitz Say Yes to Trump?, N.Y. Times, Jan. 22, 2020, 
     available at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/22/opinion/alan-
dershowitz-impeachment.html (quoting Alan Dershowitz's 1998 
     comments regarding the Clinton impeachment that ``[i]t 
     certainly doesn't have to be a crime if you have somebody who 
     completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses 
     trust and who poses great danger to our liberty. You don't 
     need a technical crime. We look at their acts of state. We 
     look at how they conduct the foreign policy. We look at 
     whether they try to subvert the Constitution'').
       3. U.S. Const. art. II Sec. 4.
       4. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 201(b).
       5. The President does not contest that he is a ``public 
     official,'' and the law confirms that it would be foolish to 
     claim otherwise. The courts have found that a wide array of 
     officials are subject to the bribery statute: from a cook at 
     a federal prison, U.S. v. Baymon, 312 F. 3d 725, 728 (5th 
     Cir. 2002), to a private in the United States army, U.S. v. 
     Kidd, 734 F. 2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 1984), to a housing 
     eligibility technician employed by an independent public 
     corporation, U.S. v. Hang, 75 F. 3d 1275, 1280 (8th Cir. 
     1996). It would defy reason to argue that a cook at a federal 
     prison is a public official but the President of the United 
     States is not.
       6. Tom Porter, Ambassador Sondland Said Trump Doesn't `Give 
     a S--' about Ukraine Except When it Benefits Him Personally, 
     Official Testifies, Business Insider, Nov. 19, 2019, 
     available at https://www.businessinsider.com/sondland-said-
trump-doesnt-give-a-s-about-ukraine-official-2019-11. This 
     attitude to Ukraine is amplified by a statement made by 
     Secretary of State Pompeo, who has refused to testify before 
     the House of Representatives, when he recently asked a NPR 
     political reporter whether she thought Americans gave a 
     [expletive] about Ukraine. Mary Louise Kelly, Encore: NPR's 
     Full Interview with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, NPR, Jan. 
     25, 2020, available at https://www.npr.org/2020/01/25/
799470712/encore-nprs-full-interview-with-secretary-of-state-
mike-pompeo.
       7. United States v. Williams, 705. F2d. 603, 602-23 (2d 
     Cir. 1983) (``Corruption of office occurs when the 
     officeholder agrees to misuse his office in the expectation 
     of gain, whether or not he has correctly assessed the worth 
     of the bribe.'').
       8. U.S. v. Gorman, 807 F.2d 1299, 1304-05 (6th Cir. 1986) 
     (explaining that ``anything of value'' should be ``broadly 
     construed'' with a ``focus . . . on the value which the 
     defendant subjectively attaches to the items received'').
       9. U.S. v. Renzi, 769 F.3d 731, 744 (8th Cir. 2014) (citing 
     Williams and Gorman in explaining importance of subjective 
     test for ``anything of value'').

[[Page S929]]

  

       10. Gorman, 807 F. 2d 1299 at 1299.
       11. Williams, 7 F. Supp. 2d 40 at 52-51.
       12. U.S. v. Menendez, 132 F. Supp. 3d 635 (D.N.J. 2015); 
     see Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 558 U.S. 310, 
     357 (2010) (``The absence of prearrangement and coordination 
     of an expenditure with the candidate or his agent [. . .] 
     undermines the value of the expenditure to the candidate,'' 
     and therefore the government was not justified in placing 
     limits on independent expenditures.)(internal citations and 
     quotations omitted).
       13. U.S. v. Sheker, 618 F. 2d 607, 609 (9th Cir. 1980);
       14. U.S. v. Girard, 601 F. 2d 69, 70 (2d Cir. 1979).
       15. U.S. v. Zouras, 497 F. 2d 1115, 1121 (7th Cir. 1974).
       16. Sheker, 618 F. 2d at 609.
       17. U.S. v. Williams, D.D.C.1998, 7 F.Supp.2d 40, vacated 
     in part 240 F.3d 35, 345 U.S.App.D.C. 111 (emphasis added).
       18. Memorandum of Telephone Conversation: Telephone 
     Conversation with President Zelensky of Ukraine 3 (July 25, 
     2019).
       19. Ryan Lucas, House Committees Subpoena Rudy Giuliani in 
     Impeachment Inquiry, NPR, Oct. 1, 2019, available at https://
www.npr.org/2019/10/01/765986709/house-committees-subpoenae-
rudy-giuliani-in-impeachment-inquiry.
       20. Tamara Keith, Trump, Ukraine and the Path to the 
     Impeachment Inquiry: A Timeline, NPR, Oct. 12, 2019, 
     available at https://www.npr.org/2019/10/12/768935251/trump-
ukraine-and-the-path-to-the-impeachment-inquiry-a-timeline.
       21.Ichael Biesecker, Mary Clare Jalonick & Eric Tucker, 
     Giuliani Associate Names Trump, Pence, More in Ukraine Plan, 
     Associated Press, Jan. 17, 2020, available at https://
apnews.com/708b81d4c77 038eb0b751c 30f72ff315 (quoting letter 
     from Giuliani requesting a meeting with Zelensky ``as 
     personal counsel to President Trump and with his knowledge 
     and consent'').
       22. Kenneth P. Vogel, Rudy Giuliani Plans Ukraine Trip to 
     Push for Inquiries that Could Help Trump, N.Y. Times, May 9, 
     2019, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/us/
politics/giuliani-ukraine-trump.html.
       23. See Keith, Trump, supra n. 23.
       24. Amy Chozick & Patrick Healy, `This Changes Everything': 
     Donald Trump Exults as Hillary Clinton's Team Scrambles, N.Y. 
     Times, Oct. 28, 2016, available at https://www.nytimes.com/
2016/10/29/us/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton.html.
       25. Benjamin Wood, Mitt Romney Says Everybody Knows It `Is 
     Wrong' to Ask a Foreign Government to Probe a Political 
     Rival, Salt Lake Tribune, Oct. 11, 2019, available at https:/
     /www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2019/10/10/mitt-romney-says-he-
 hasnt/. Sen. Romney made this statement in regard to Trump's 
     request, made live on national television, that China 
     investigate the Bidens. But the logic of the Senator's claim 
     applies with equal force to Trump's demand that Ukraine 
     investigate the Bidens.
       26.hile CrowdStrike is not actually a Trump political 
     opponent, Trump was accusing them of conspiring with the 
     Democratic National Committee and did not suggest any illegal 
     conduct on their part unrelated to President Trump's 
     political past and future.
       27. Zach Beauchamp, Trump Didn't Want an Investigation into 
     Biden. He Wanted a Political Show., Vox, Nov. 20, 2019, 
     available at https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/11/
20/20974201/gordon-sondland-impeachment-hearing-testimony-
biden-show-trump.
       28. See United States Attorneys' Manual 1-7.400--Disclosure 
     of Information Concerning Ongoing Criminal, Civil, or 
     Administrative Investigations, 1997 WL 1944080. Only in 
     special circumstances are U.S. attorneys permitted to make 
     public statements about ongoing investigations, such as when 
     necessary to ensure public safety.
       29. Treaty of Mutual Legal Assistance, Ukraine-U.S., art. 1 
     cl.2, July 22, 1998, T.I.A.S. No. 12978.
       30. The Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report: Report 
     for the H. Perm. Select Comm. On Intelligence Pursuant to H. 
     Res. 660 in Consultation with the H. Comm. On Oversight and 
     Reform and the H. Comm. On Foreign Affairs at 122, 116th 
     Cong. (2019).
       31. Department of Justice, Statement, Sept. 25, 2019 (``The 
     President has not asked the Attorney General to contact 
     Ukraine--on this or any other matter. The Attorney General 
     has not communicated with Ukraine--on this or any other 
     subject.'')
       32. See Kenneth P. Vogel, Rudy Giuliani Plans Ukraine Trip 
     to Push for Inquiries that Could Help Trump, N.Y. Times, May 
     9, 2019, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/us/
politics/giuliani-ukraine-trump.html (quoting Giuliani, in 
     response to questions about his travel to Ukraine, noting 
     that ``this isn't foreign policy--I'm asking them to do an 
     investigation [. . .] because that information will be very, 
     very helpful to my client [Donald Trump], and may turn out to 
     be helpful to my government.'') (emphasis added).
       33. Miles Parks & Brian Naylor, Trump Did `Nothing Wrong,' 
     His Legal Team Says in First Day of Impeachment Defense, NPR, 
     Jan. 25, 2020, available at https://www.npr.org/2020/01/25/
797321065/president-trumps-legal-team-to-begin-impeachment-
defense?utm-source= twitter.com&utm-term=nprnews &utm-
     campaign= npr&utm-medium= social (``American intelligence 
     agencies have been unanimous in their assessment that it was 
     Russia that interfered in the last presidential race'').
       34. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 201(a)(3).
       35. See U.S. Const. art. II Sec. 2 (The President ``shall 
     receive ambassadors and other public ministers,''); 
     Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 576 U.S. 1, 135 S. 
     Ct. 2076, 2086 (2015)(the Reception Clause ``assigns the 
     President means to effect recognition on his own 
     initiative'').
       36. Cf. U.S. v. Birdsall, 233 U.S. 223, 231 (1914) ([I]t is 
     sufficient that [the act] was governed by a lawful 
     requirement of the executive department under whose authority 
     the officer was acting; and such requirement need not have 
     been prescribed by a written rule or regulation, but might 
     also be found in an established usage which constituted the 
     common law of the department.'').
       37. See Marian L. Lawson & Emily M. Morgenstern, Cong. Res. 
     Serv., R40213, Foreign Aid: An Introduction to U.S. Programs 
     and Policy (2019).
       38. McDonnell v. U.S., 136 S. Ct. 2355, 2373. The meetings 
     that the Court considered in McDonnell are not comparable. 
     Nowhere in Virginia's constitution or statutes is the 
     governor tasked with arranging meetings, hosting parties, or 
     engaging in unofficial conversations with other government 
     officials. The Court took issue with a jury instruction which 
     stated that an official act need not have been taken 
     ``pursuant to responsibilities explicitly assigned by law,'' 
     whereas the President's actions here clearly are assigned by 
     law.
       39. See U.S. Const. art. II Sec. 2 (The President ``shall 
     receive ambassadors and other public ministers''); 
     Zivotofsky, 135 S. Ct. at 2086 (2015)(the Reception Clause 
     ``assigns the President means to effect recognition on his 
     own intiative''); 22 U.S.C. Sec. 2754; 22 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 2311(a).
       40. See Zivotofsky 135 S. Ct. at 2096.
       41. 526 U.S. 398, 404 (1999).
       42. U.S. v. Brewster, 506 F. 2d 62, 71 (D.C. Cir. 1974). In 
     contrast, with a bribe under 201(c), the thing of value need 
     not be a reason that the official performed the act at all. 
     See infra 14-15.
       43. Department Of Justice, Criminal Resource Manual, 834. 
     Intent Of The Parties, available at https://www.justice.gov/
jm/criminal-resource-manual-834-intent-parties.
       44. Id.
       45. McDonnell, 136 S. Ct. at 2371.
       46. United States v. Synowiec, 333 F. 3d 786, 789 (7th Cir. 
     2003).
       47. Id. at 789-90.
       48. Memorandum of Telephone Conversation, supra n. 21 at 5.
       49. Charlie Savage & Josh Williams, Read the Text Messages 
     Between U.S. and Ukrainian Officials, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 4, 
     2019, available at https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/
10/04/us/politics/ukraine-text-messages-volker.html.
       50. Lisa Mascare, Mary Clare Jalonick & Eric Tucker, Watch: 
     Ambassador Gordon Sondland Testifies Trump Directed Ukraine 
     Quid Pro Quo, Associated Press, Nov. 19, 2019, available at 
     https://www.wgbh.org/news/national-news/2019/11/19/watch-
live-eu-ambassador-gordon-sondland-2-others-testify-on-day-4-
of-impeachment-hearings.
       51. Jessica Taylor, `Get Over It': Politics is Part of 
     Foreign Policy, Mulvaney Says, NPR, Oct. 17, 2019, available 
     at https://www.npr.org/2019/10/17/770979659/watch-white-
house-holds-now-rare-press-briefing-amid-impeachment-syria-
 conflicts.
       52. See Trial Memorandum of President Donald J. Trump at 
     27-28 (Jan. 20, 2020) (rebutting ``radical claim that a 
     President can be impeached and removed from office solely for 
     doing something he is allowed to do, if he did it for the 
     `wrong' subjective reasons [. . .] By eliminating any 
     requirement for wrongful conduct, House Democrats have tried 
     to make thinking the wrong thoughts an impeachable offense'') 
     (emphasis in original).
       53. As discussed supra pp. 1-2, it is eminently clear that 
     the President need not have violated ``established law'' in 
     order to have committed an impeachable offense.
       54. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 201(c).
       55. Brewster, 506 F. 2d at 72.
       56. Memorandum of Telephone Conversation, supra n. 21 at 3.
       57. Sun-Diamond Growers, 526 U.S. at 404.
       58. See Kevin Breuninger, Trump Says China Should 
     Investigate the Bidens, Doubles Down on Ukraine Probe, CNBC, 
     Oct. 3, 2019, available at https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/03/
trump-calls-for-ukraine-china-to-investigate-the-bidens.html 
     (quoting President Trump, in response to question about what 
     he wanted Ukraine to do, stating that ``[i]f they were honest 
     about it, they would start a major investigation into the 
     Bidens'').
       59. McDonnell v. U.S. 136 S. Ct. 2355, 2371 (2016).
       60. Id. at 2370-71 (2016); see also United States v. 
     Hawkins, 37 F. Supp. 3d 964 (N.D. Ill. 2014), aff'd in part, 
     vacated in part on other grounds, remanded, 2015 WL 309520 
     (7th Cir. 2015)(``What is required to make the act corrupt is 
     not an intent to take a specific action, but the holding out 
     of the performance of the duties of one's office for 
     sale.'').
       61. See supra pp. 12-13.
       62. Andrew E. Kramer, Ukraine Knew of Aid Freeze in July, 
     Says Ex-Top Official in Kyiv, N.Y. Times, Dec. 3, 2019, 
     available at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/03/world/europe/
ukraine-impeachment-military-aid.html; Transcript: Laura 
     Cooper and David Hale's Nov. 20 Testimony to House 
     Intelligence Committee, Washington Post, Nov. 20, 2019, 
     https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/11/20/
transcript-laura-cooper-david-hales-nov-testimony-house-
intelligence-committee/. Any statement to the contrary by 
     Zelensky is not reliable for the simple reason that Ukraine's 
     future depends on remaining in Trump's good graces. As 
     Catherine Croft, who testified that the Ukrainians knew about 
     the hold much earlier than

[[Page S930]]

     she expected to, stated, the Ukrainians did not want the hold 
     publicized because it ``would be a really big deal in 
     Ukraine, and an expression of declining U.S. support for 
     Ukraine.'' Charlotte Butash, Summary of Catherine Croft's 
     Deposition Testimony, Lawfare, Nov. 16, 2019, available at 
     lawfareblog.com/summary-catherine-crofts-deposition-
     testimony.
       63. Peter Baker, Mulvaney Will Defy House Impeachment 
     Subpoena, N.Y. Times, Nov. 12, 2019, available at https://
www.nytimes.com/2019/11/12/us/politics/mulvaney-impeachment-
subpoena.html.
       64. Interstate Circuit v. U.S., 306 U.S. 208, 226 (1939); 
     see infra Part II.
       65. H. Res. 755, 116th Cong. Sec. 1 (2019).
       66. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 201(b); see supra pp. 2-13.
       67. See Report of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 
     Impeachment of Donald John Trump, President of the United 
     States at 120-26, 116th Cong. (2019).
       68. See Patricia Zengerle, Karen Freifeld & Richard Cowan, 
     Pelso Says Trump Has Admitted to Bribery as Impeachment Probe 
     Intensifies, Reuters, Nov. 14, 2019, available at https://
www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment/pelosi-says-
trump-has-admitted-to-bribery-as-impeachment-probe-
intensifies-idUSKBN1XO1HD; Jessica Taylor, Rep. Adam Schiff: 
     Trump's Potentially Impeachable Offenses Include Bribery, 
     NPR, Nov. 12, 2019, available at https://www.npr.org/2019/11/
12/778380499/rep-adam-schiff-trumps-potentially-impeachable-
offenses-include-bribery (explaining that Rep. Schiff 
     believes ``there's a clear argument to be made that Trump 
     committed `bribery' and `high crimes and misdemeanors'--both 
     explicitly outlined in the Constitution as impeachable 
     offenses--when pressuring the Ukrainian government to 
     investigate former Vice President Joe Biden's son in exchange 
     for long-promised military aid''); Sean Collins, A Republican 
     Memo Details the Party's Impeachment Inquiry Defenses. They 
     Aren't Very Strong, Vox, Nov. 12, 2019, available at https://
www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/11/12/20961073/trump-
impeachment-hearings-republican-testimony-strategy (quoting 
     Rep. Speier: ``[t]he president broke the law. He went on a 
     telephone call with the president of Ukraine and said `I have 
     a favor, though,' and then proceeded to ask for an 
     investigation of his rival. And this is a very strong case of 
     bribery'').
       69. H. Doc. No. 109-153, Jurisdictional History of the 
     Judiciary Committee: The Committee and Impeachment, at 124-
     27.
       70. See H. Res. 1031, 111th Cong. (2010).
       71. Id. at Sec. 1.
       72. Jennifer Steinhauer, Senate, for Just the 8th Time, 
     Votes to Oust a Federal Judge, N.Y. Times, Dec. 8, 2010, 
     available at https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/us/politics/
09judge.html.
       73. Carol D. Leonnig, Tom Hamburger, & Greg Miller, White 
     House Lawyer Moved Transcript of Trump Call to Classified 
     Server after Ukraine Adviser Raised Alarms, Washington Post, 
     Oct. 30, 2019, available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/
politics/white-house-lawyer-moved-transcript-of-trump-call-
to-classified-server-after-ukraine-adviser-raised-alarms/
2019/10/30/ba0fbdb6-fb4e-11e9-8190-6be4deb56e01_story.html.
       74. Jennifer Haberkorn, Trump Will Try to Block Bolton 
     Impeachment Testimony; Senate to Get Case Next Week, Pelosi 
     Says, L.A. Times, Jan. 10, 2020, available at https://
www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-01-10/pelosi-trump-
impeachment-case.
       75. International Union, United Auto., Aerospace and Agr. 
     Implement Workers of America (UAW) v. N.L.R.B., 459 F. 2d 
     1329, 1336 (D.C. Cir. 1972) (noting that ``this rule can be 
     traced as far back as 1722); United States v. Roberson, 233 
     F. 2d 517, 519 (5th Cir. 1956) (``Unquestionably the failure 
     of a defendant in a civil case to testify or offer other 
     evidence within his ability to produce and which would 
     explain or rebut a case made by the other side may, in a 
     proper case, be considered as a circumstance against him and 
     may raise a presumption that the evidence would not be 
     favorable to his position.'').
       76. International Union, 459 F. 2d at 1338 (emphasis 
     added).
       77. Id. at 1339.
       78. Interstate Circuit, 306 U.S. at 226.
       79. Id.
       80. Sharon Lafontaine, House Managers Asks: Where are the 
     Documents, N.Y. Times, Jan. 24, 2020, available at https://
www.nytimes.com/live/2020/impeachment-trial-live-01-24.
       81. Jeff Stein & Josh Dawsey, In New Legal Memo, White 
     House Budget Office Defends Withholding Aid to Ukraine, 
     Washington Post, Dec. 12, 2019, available at https://
www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-new-legal-memo-
white-house-budget-office-defends-withholding-aid-to-ukraine/
2019/12/11/0caa030e-1b95-11ea-826b-14ef38a0f45f_story.html.
       82. Jeremy Herb & Manu Raju, Top US Diplomat Said John 
     Bolton Opposed Call Between Trump and Ukrainian President, 
     CNN, Oct. 22, 2019, available at https://www.cnn.com/
politics/live-news/impeachment-inquiry-10-22-2019/
h_a1a8938b60cfd525c6768fd7dc207e6d.
       83. Transcript: Laura Cooper and David Hale's Nov. 20 
     Testimony to House Intelligence Committee, Washington Post, 
     Nov 20, 2019, available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/
politics/2019/11/20/transcript-laura-cooper-david-hales-nov-
testimony-house-intelligence-committee/.
       84. Peter Wade, Trump Brags About Concealing Impeachment 
     Evidence: We Have All the Material, They Don't, Rolling 
     Stone, Jan. 22, 2020, available at https://
www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-
impeachment-evidence-we-have-all-the-material-they-dont-
 941140/.
       85. Maggie Haberman & Michael S. Schmidt, Trump Tied 
     Ukraine Aid to Inquiries He Sought, Bolton Book Says, N.Y. 
     Times, Jan. 26, 2020, available at https://www.nytimes.com/
2020/01/26/us/politics/trump-bolton-book-ukraine.html.
       86. Greg Sargent, Four Big Takeaways from the Explosive Lev 
     Parnas Documents, Washington Post, Jan. 15, 2020, available 
     at https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/15/four-
big-takeaways-explosive-lev-parnas-documents/.
       87. Rosalind S. Helderman, Tom Hamburger & Josh Dawsey, 
     Listen: Trump Tells Associates to `Get Rid Of' U.S. 
     Ambassador to Ukraine, Washington Post, Jan. 25, 2020, 
     available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/
recording-of-trump-calling-for-yovanovitchs-ouster-appears-
to-corroborate-parnass-account/2020/01/24/77326098-3ed3-11ea-
baca-eb7ace0a3455_story.html.
       88. Josh Lederman, Trump Appears on Audio to Demand 
     Yovanovitch's Ouster Without Knowing Her Name, NBC News, Jan. 
     25, 2020, available at https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/
politics-news/trump-appears-audio-demand-yovanovitch-s-
ouster-without-knowing-her-n1123171.
       89. Philip Ewing, Trump Impeachment Recap: Dems Wrap With 
     Exhortation to Act, NPR, Jan. 24, 2020, available at https://
www.npr.org/2020/01/24/799426878/trump-impeachment-recap-
dems-wrap-with-exhortation-to-act.
       90. Id.

  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, when I was elected to serve in the U.S. 
Senate, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the 
United States. Every U.S. Senator takes the same oath. The Constitution 
makes clear that no one is above the law, not even the President of the 
United States.
  Over the past 2 weeks, the Senate has heard overwhelming evidence 
showing that the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, 
abused the power of his office to pressure the President of Ukraine to 
dig up dirt on a political rival to help President Trump in the next 
election. The President then executed an unprecedented campaign to 
cover up his actions, including a wholesale obstruction of Congress's 
effort to investigate his abuse of power.
  The Constitution gives the Senate the sole power to conduct 
impeachment trials. A fair trial is one in which Senators are allowed 
to see and hear all of the relevant information needed to evaluate the 
Articles of Impeachment, including relevant witnesses and documents. 
The American people expected and deserved a fair trial, but that is not 
what they got. Instead of engaging in a pursuit for the truth, Senate 
Republicans locked arms with the President and refused to subpoena a 
single witness or document. They even refused to allow the testimony of 
the President's former National Security Advisor, John Bolton, who 
possesses direct evidence related to the issues at the heart of the 
trial, even as more evidence continued to come to light and as Bolton 
repeatedly volunteered to share what he knows.
  This trial boils down to one word: corruption--the corruption of a 
President who has repeatedly put his interests ahead of the interests 
of the American people and violated the Constitution in the process; 
the corruption of this President's political appointees, including 
individuals like U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, 
who paid $1 million for an ambassadorship; the corruption running 
throughout our government that protects and defends the interests of 
the wealthy and powerful to the detriment of everyone else.
  Americans have a right to hear and see information that further 
exposes the gravity of the President's actions and the unprecedented 
steps he and his agents took to hide it from the American people. But 
more importantly, Americans deserve to know that the President of the 
United States is using the power of his office to work in the Nation's 
interest, not his own personal interest.
  I voted to convict and to remove the President from office in order 
to stand up to the corruption that has permeated this administration 
and that was on full display with President Trump's abuse of power and 
obstruction of Congress. I will continue to call out this corruption 
and fight to make this government work not just for the wealthy and 
well-connected but to make it work for everyone.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I swore an oath to defend the Constitution

[[Page S931]]

both as an officer in the U.S. Navy Reserve and as a U.S. Senator.
  At the beginning of the impeachment trial, I swore an oath to keep an 
open mind, listen carefully to the facts, and in the end deliver 
impartial justice.
  After carefully listening to the arguments presented by both House 
managers and the President's lawyers, I believe the facts are clear.
  President Trump stands accused by the House of Representatives of 
abusing his power in an attempt to extort a foreign government to 
announce a trumped up investigation into a political rival and thereby 
put his personal interest ahead of national security and the public 
trust.
  The President illegally withheld congressionally approved military 
aid to an ally at war with Russia and conditioned its release on 
Ukraine making an announcement the President could use to falsely 
discredit a likely political opponent.
  When the President's corrupt plan was brought to light, the White 
House engaged in a systematic and unprecedented effort to cover up the 
scheme.
  The President's complete refusal to cooperate with a constitutionally 
authorized investigation is unparalleled in American history.
  Despite the extraordinary efforts by the President to cover up the 
facts, the House managers made a convincing case.
  It is clear.
  The President's actions were not an effort to further official 
American foreign policy.
  The President was not working in the public interest.
  What the President did was wrong, unacceptable, and impeachable.
  I expected the President's lawyers to offer new eyewitness testimony 
from people with firsthand knowledge and offer new documents to defend 
the President, but that did not happen.
  It became very clear to me that the President's closest advisers 
could not speak to the President's innocence, and his lawyers did 
everything in their power to prevent them from testifying under oath.
  Witness testimony is the essence of a fair trial. It is what makes us 
a country committed to the rule of law.
  If you are accused of wrongdoing in America, you have every right to 
call witnesses in your defense, but you also don't have the right to 
stop the prosecution from calling a hostile witness or subpoenaing 
documents.
  No one in this country is above the law--no one--not even the 
President.
  If someone is accused of a crime and they have witnesses who could 
clear them of any wrongdoing, they would want those witnesses to 
testify. In fact, not only would they welcome it, they would insist on 
it.
  All we need to do is use our common sense. The fact that the 
President refuses to have his closest advisers testify tells me that he 
is afraid of what they will say.
  The President's conduct is unacceptable for any official, let alone 
the leader of our country.
  Our Nation's Founders feared unchecked and unlimited power by the 
President. They rebelled against an abusive monarch with unlimited 
power and instead created a republic that distributed power across 
different branches of government.
  They were careful students of history; they knew unchecked power 
would destroy a democratic republic.
  They were especially fearful of an unchecked Executive and 
specifically granted Congress the power of impeachment to check a 
President who thought of themselves as above the law.
  Two years ago, I had the privilege of participating in an annual 
bipartisan Senate tradition reading President George Washington's 
farewell address on the Senate floor.
  In that address, President Washington warned that unchecked power, 
the rise of partisan factions, and foreign influence, if left 
unchecked, would undermine our young Nation and allow for the rise of a 
demagogue.
  He warned that we could become so divided and so entrenched in the 
beliefs of our particular partisan group that ``cunning, ambitious and 
unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and 
to usurp for themselves the reins of government.''
  I am struck by the contrast of where we are today and where our 
Founders were more than 200 years ago.
  George Washington was the ultimate rock star of his time. He was 
beloved, and when he announced he would leave the Presidency and return 
to Mount Vernon, people begged him to stay.
  There was a call to make him a King, and he said no. He reminded 
folks that he had just fought against a monarch so that the American 
people could enjoy the liberties of a free people.
  George Washington, a man of integrity and an American hero, refused 
to be anointed King when it was offered to him by his adoring 
countrymen. He chose a republic over a monarchy.
  But tomorrow, by refusing to hold President Trump accountable for his 
abuses, Republicans in the Senate are offering him unbridled power 
without accountability, and he will gleefully seize that power.
  And when he does, our Republic will face an existential threat.
  A vote against the Articles of Impeachment will set a dangerous 
precedent and will be used by future Presidents to act with impunity.
  Given what we know, that the President abused the power of his office 
by attempting to extort a foreign government to interfere with an 
American election, that he willfully obstructed justice at every turn, 
and that his actions run counter to our Nation's most cherished and 
fundamental values, it is clear the President betrayed the trust the 
American public placed in him to fully execute his constitutional 
responsibilities.
  This betrayal is by definition a high crime and misdemeanor. If it 
does not rise to the level of impeachment and removal, I am not sure 
what would.
  The Senate has a constitutional responsibility to hold him 
accountable.
  If we do not stand up and defend our democracy during this fragile 
period, we will be allowing this President and future Presidents to 
have unchecked power.
  This is not what our Founders intended. The oath I swore to protect 
and defend the Constitution demands that I vote to preserve the future 
of our Republic. I will faithfully execute my oath and vote to hold 
this President accountable for his actions.
  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I will soon join a majority of the Senate 
in voting down the Articles of Impeachment brought against the 
President by his partisan opponents. The time has come to end a 
spectacle that has elevated the obsessions of Washington's political 
class over the concerns and interests of the American people.
  This round of impeachment is just the latest Democratic scheme to 
bring down the President. I say ``this round'' because House Democrats 
have tried to impeach President Trump at least four times--first, for 
being mean to football players; then for his transgender military 
policy; next for his immigration policy. And those are just the 
impeachment attempts. Along the way, Democrats also proclaimed that 
Robert Mueller would drive the President from office. Some even 
speculated that the Vice President and the Cabinet would invoke the 
25th amendment to seize power from the President--a theory that sounds 
more like resistance fan fiction than reality.
  What is behind this fanaticism? Simply put, the Democrats have never 
accepted that Donald Trump won the 2016 election, and they will never 
forgive him, either.
  It is time for the Democrats to get some perspective. They are 
claiming that we ought to impeach and remove a President from office 
for the first time in our history for briefly pausing aid to Ukraine 
and rescheduling a meeting with the Ukrainian President, allegedly in 
return for a corruption inquiry. But the aid was released after a few 
weeks and the meeting occurred, yet the inquiry did not--even though, I 
would add, it remains justified by the Biden family's obvious, glaring 
conflict of interest in Ukraine.
  Just how badly have the Democrats lost perspective? The House 
managers have argued that we ought to impeach and remove the President 
because his meeting with the Ukrainian President happened in New York, 
not Washington.
  When most Americans think about why a President ought to be impeached 
and removed from office for the first time in our history, I suspect 
that pausing aid to Ukraine for a few weeks is pretty far down the 
list. That is not exactly ``treason, bribery, or other

[[Page S932]]

high crimes and misdemeanors.'' And that is especially true when we are 
just months away from the election that will let Americans make their 
own choice. Indeed, Americans are already voting to select the 
President's Democratic challenger. Why not let the voters decide 
whether the President ought to be removed?
  The Democrats' real answer is that they are afraid they will lose 
again in 2020, so they designed impeachment to hurt the President 
before the election. As one Democratic congressman said last year, 
``I'm concerned that if we don't impeach this president, he will get 
reelected.'' Or, as minority leader Chuck Schumer claimed earlier this 
month, impeachment is a ``win-win'' for Democrats; either it will lead 
to the President's defeat or it will hurt enough Republican Senators in 
tough races to hand Democrats the majority. Or maybe both.
  The political purpose of impeachment was clear from the manner in 
which House Democrats conducted their proceedings. If impeachment was 
indeed the high-minded, somber affair that Speaker Nancy Pelosi 
claimed, House Democrats would have taken their time to get all the 
facts from all relevant witnesses. Instead, they barreled ahead with a 
slipshod and secretive process, denying the President's due-process 
rights, gathering testimony behind closed doors, leaking their findings 
selectively to the press, and ignoring constitutional concerns such as 
executive privilege.
  The impeachment vote itself contradicted the pretensions of House 
Democrats. Speaker Pelosi said last year that she wouldn't support 
impeachment unless there was something ``so compelling and overwhelming 
and bipartisan'' that it demanded a response. Likewise, Congressman 
Jerry Nadler said that the House had to ``persuade enough of the 
opposition party voters'' before it voted to impeach. Democrats failed 
on both counts. Indeed, the only bipartisan aspect of the whole 
proceeding is that both Republicans and Democrats voted against 
impeaching the president. Not a single Republican voted for either 
article of impeachment in the House, resulting in the first party-line 
impeachment of a President in our Nation's history.
  So instead of doing their work, House Democrats simply impeached the 
President and declared their job complete. Yet after piously declaring 
the urgency of this impeachment, they waited a month to send the 
articles over to the Senate. Maybe they had to wait for the gold-
encrusted souvenir pens to arrive for Speaker Pelosi's ``signing 
ceremony.''
  And once in the Senate, the political theater continued. The House 
Democrats repeatedly asserted a bizarre logical fallacy: their case was 
both ``overwhelming'' and in need of more evidence. Yet we heard from 
17 witnesses--all hand-selected by the House Democrats--and received 
more than 28,000 pages of documents. The House could have pursued more 
witnesses during its impeachment, yet it instead chose to rush ahead 
rather than subpoena those witnesses or litigate issues in Federal 
court. In fact, when one of the House's potential witnesses asked a 
Federal court to rule on the issue, the House withdrew its subpoena and 
asked to dismiss the case. The House Democrats complain that the courts 
would have taken too long. Yet they expected the Senate to delay our 
work to finish theirs. And in a final, remarkable stunt, Congressman 
Adam Schiff suggested that we depose witnesses--only his, of course, 
not the President's--with Chief Justice Roberts ruling on all questions 
of evidence and privilege, dragging him into this political spectacle.
  But the curtain will soon come down on this political theater. The 
Senate will perform the role intended for us by the Founders, of 
providing the ``cool and deliberate sense of the community,'' as it 
says in Federalist 63, over and against an inflamed and transient House 
majority. Were we to do otherwise, were the Senate to acquiesce to the 
House, this process might have dragged on for many weeks, even for 
months, shutting down the normal legislative business of Congress even 
longer than it already has.
  Even worse, by legitimizing the House's flawed, partisan impeachment, 
we would be setting a grave precedent for the future. Just consider how 
many times we heard about the impeachment trial of President Andrew 
Johnson during this trial. The Founders didn't intend impeachment as a 
tool to check the Executive over policy disagreements or out of 
political spite. And the House has never before used impeachment in 
this way, not when the Democrats claimed that President George W. Bush 
misled the country into the Iraq war or when President Barack Obama 
broke the law by releasing terrorists from Guantanamo Bay in return for 
the release of an American deserter, Bowe Bergdahl. Indeed, the 
Republican House did not impeach President Obama for, yes, withholding 
aid from Ukraine for 3 full years.
  No House in the future should lead the country down this path again. 
By refusing to do this House's dirty work, the Senate is stopping this 
dangerous precedent and preserving the Founders' understanding that 
Congress ought to restrain the executive through the many checks and 
balances still at our disposal. More fundamentally, we are preserving 
the most important check of all--an election. It is time to teach that 
lesson to this House and to all future Houses, of both parties.
  Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff have failed, but the American people 
lost. Now it is time to get back to doing the people's business.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the 
impeachment of Donald J. Trump.
  The Democratic House managers, who are prosecuting the case against 
the President, emphasized that history is watching. That is true. Every 
action taken by the House and the Senate during this impeachment sets a 
precedent for our country and our institutions of government, whether 
good or bad.
  For that reason, it is our job as Senators to look at the entire 
record of this proceeding--from what happened in the House to final 
arguments made here in the Senate. It is also our duty to look at the 
whole picture, the flawed process in the House, the purely partisan 
nature of the articles of impeachment, the President's actions that led 
to his impeachment, and the impact of all of this on our constitutional 
norms.
  Most importantly, we must weigh the impact on our Nation and on the 
legitimacy of our institutions of government, if the Senate were to 
agree with the House managers' demands to overturn the 2016 election 
and remove the President from the 2020 ballot. This has never happened 
in our country's 243-year history.
  It is also our job as Senators during an impeachment trial to be 
guided by ``a deep responsibility to future times.'' This is a quote 
from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, two centuries ago, but it 
couldn't be more relevant today. With this grave constitutional 
responsibility in mind, and considering the important factors listed 
above, I will vote to acquit the President on both charges brought 
against him.
  It may surprise some, but if you listened to all the witnesses in 
this trial and you examine the sweep of American history, one strong 
bipartisan point of consensus has emerged: Purely partisan impeachments 
are not in the country's best interest. In fact, they are a danger 
which the Framers of the Constitution clearly feared.
  Alexander Hamilton's warning from Federalist No. 65 bears repeating: 
``In many cases [impeachment] will connect itself with the pre-existing 
factions, and will inlist all their animosities, partialities, 
influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases 
there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be 
regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real 
demonstrations of innocence or guilt . . . Yet it ought not to be 
forgotten that the demon of faction will, at certain seasons, extend 
his sceptre over all numerous bodies of men.''
  The reason for this ``greatest danger'' is obvious: the weaponization 
of impeachment as a regular tool of partisan warfare will incapacitate 
our government, undermine the legitimacy of our institutions, and tear 
the country apart. Until this impeachment, our country's 
representatives largely understood this. During the Clinton 
impeachment--Democrats, including Minority Leader Schumer and House 
Managers Lofgren and Nadler, argued that a purely partisan impeachment 
would be ``divisive,'' ``lack the legitimacy of a national consensus,'' 
and

[[Page S933]]

``call into question the very legitimacy of our political 
institutions.''
  Less than a year ago, Speaker Pelosi said: ``Impeachment is so 
divisive to the country that unless there's something so compelling and 
overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path 
because it divides the country.''
  Yet here we are. Against the weight of bipartisan consensus and the 
wisdom of the Framers, the House still took this dramatic and 
consequential step, the first purely partisan impeachment in U.S. 
history. Only Democrats in the House voted to impeach the President, 
while a bipartisan group of House members opposed.
  This was done through rushed House proceedings that lacked the most 
basic due process procedures afforded Presidents Clinton and Nixon 
during their impeachment investigations. A significant portion of the 
House proceedings last fall took place in secret, where the President 
was not afforded counsel, the ability to call his own witnesses, or 
cross-examine those of the House Democrats. Certain testimonies from 
these secret hearings were then selectively leaked to a pro-impeachment 
press. This happened in America. In my view, it sounds like something 
more worthy of the Soviet Union, not the world's greatest 
constitutional republic.
  Yet here we are. A new precedent has been set in the House. When 
asked several times if these precedents and the partisan nature of this 
impeachment should concern us, the House managers dodged the questions, 
and my Senate colleagues, who in 1999 were so strongly and correctly 
and vocally against the dangers of purely partisan impeachments, have 
all gone silent.
  Perhaps it is too late. Perhaps the genie is now out of the bottle. 
Perhaps the danger that Hamilton so astutely predicted 232 years ago is 
upon us for good. I hope not. No one thinks that partisan impeachments 
every few years would be good for our great Nation.
  The Senate does not have to validate this House precedent, and a 
Senate focused on ``deep responsibility to future times'' shouldn't do 
so.
  In addition to unleashing the danger of purely partisan impeachments, 
the House's impeachment action and their arguments before the Senate, 
if ratified, have the potential to undermine other critical 
constitutional norms, such as the separation of powers and the 
independence of our judiciary.
  These traditions exist to implement the will of the people we 
represent and to protect their liberty. And yet so much of what has 
already been done in the House and what has now been argued in the 
Senate has little or no precedent in U.S. history, thereby threatening 
many of the constitutional safeguards that have served our country so 
well for over two centuries.
  Take, for example, the debate we recently had on whether to have the 
Senate seek additional evidence for this impeachment trial. The House 
Managers claim that, by not doing so, we are undermining a ``fair 
trial'' in the Senate. The irony of such a claim should not be lost on 
the American people.
  Throughout this trial, and in their briefs, the House managers have 
claimed dozens of times that they have ``overwhelming evidence'' on the 
current record to impeach the President, thereby undermining their own 
rationale for more evidence.
  And in terms of fairness, it is well documented that the Democratic 
leadership in the House just conducted the most rushed, partisan, and 
fundamentally unfair House impeachment proceedings in U.S. history.
  A Senate vote to pursue additional evidence and witnesses would have 
turned the article I constitutional impeachment responsibilities of the 
House and Senate on their heads. It would have required the Senate to 
do the House's impeachment investigatory work, even when the House 
affirmatively declined to seek additional evidence last fall, such as 
subpoenaing Ambassador John Bolton, because of Speaker Pelosi's 
artificial deadline to impeach the President by Christmas.
  A vote by the Senate to pursue additional evidence that the House 
consciously chose not to obtain would incentivize less thorough and 
more frequent partisan impeachments in the future, a danger that should 
concern us all.
  Another example of the House's attempt to erode long-standing 
constitutional norms is found in its second Article of Impeachment, 
obstruction of Congress. This article claims that the President 
committed an impeachable offence by resisting House subpoenas for 
witnesses and documents, even though the House didn't attempt to 
negotiate, accommodate, or litigate the President's asserted defenses, 
such as executive privilege and immunity, to provide such evidence.
  These defenses have been utilized by administrations, Democrat and 
Republican, for decades and go to the heart of the separation of powers 
within the article I and article II branches of the Federal Government 
and even implicate a defendant's right to vigorously defend oneself in 
court. Indeed, the Supreme Court acknowledged in United States v. Nixon 
that the President has the right to assert executive privilege.
  Nevertheless, the House managers argued that the mere assertion of 
these constitutional rights is an impeachable offense, in essence 
claiming the unilateral power to define the limits and scope of 
executive privilege, while simultaneously usurping that power from the 
courts, where it has existed for centuries.
  Indeed, the House managers even argued that merely asserting these 
defenses is evidence of guilt itself. This is a dangerous argument that 
demonstrates a lack of understanding of basic constitutional norms. As 
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brandeis stated in his famous dissent in 
Myers v. United States, ``The doctrine of the separation of powers was 
adopted by the convention of 1787 not to promote efficiency but to 
preclude the exercise of arbitrary power. The purpose was not to avoid 
friction, but, by means of the inevitable friction incident to the 
distribution of the governmental powers among three departments, to 
save the people from autocracy.'' If allowed to stand by the Senate, 
the implications of these House precedents for our Nation and the 
individual liberties of the people we represent are difficult to 
discern, but would be profound and likely very negative.
  Similarly concerning were the attempts, both subtle and not so 
subtle, to inject Chief Justice Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court into 
this trial. The smooth siren song of House Manager Schiff, casually 
inviting the Senate and Chief Justice into a constitutional labyrinth 
for which there may have been no exit, was a recurring theme of this 
trial.
  ``We have a perfectly good judge here,'' Schiff said over and over 
again, ``whom you all trust and have confidence in.'' Let him quickly 
decide all the weighty legal and constitutional issues before the 
Senate, the relevance of witnesses, claims of immunity and executive 
privilege, what House Manager Nadler described on day 1 of the trial as 
``executive privilege, and other nonsense.''
  Moreover, the Chief Justice could do this all within a week, Schiff 
told us. It all seemed so simple, rational, and efficient. But our 
Constitution doesn't work this way. The Chief Justice, in an 
impeachment of the President, sits as the Presiding Officer over the 
Senate, not as an article III judge. And while the Senate can delegate 
certain trial powers to him, it cannot delegate matters, such as a 
President's claims of executive privilege, over which the Senate itself 
does not have constitutional authority.
  The quick and efficient fix Schiff was tempting the Senate with might 
have ended up as a form of constitutional demolition. And as the trial 
proceeded, it became apparent that it was more than just claims of 
efficiency behind the invitation to draw the Chief Justice fully into 
the trial.
  There was something else afoot, a subtle and not so subtle attempt by 
some to attack the credibility and independence of the Chief Justice 
and the Court he leads. The junior Senator from Massachusetts' question 
for the House managers, which drew an audible gasp from those watching 
in the Senate after the Chief Justice read it, made this clear, when 
she asked about ``the loss of legitimacy of the Chief Justice, the 
Supreme Court, and the Constitution,'' so too did Minority Leader 
Schumer's parliamentary inquiry about the precedent from the 
impeachment of President Johnson 150 years ago, on the role of the 
Chief Justice in breaking ties on 50-50 votes in

[[Page S934]]

the Senate during Presidential impeachments. Chief Justice Roberts' 
cogent, historically accurate, and constitutionally, based answer to 
this inquiry will set an important precedent on this impeachment issue 
for generations to come.
  Perhaps it is all a coincidence, but as these attempts to diminish 
the Chief Justice's credibility by more fully dragging him into this 
impeachment trial were ongoing, much more harsh political ads directly 
attacking him in this regard were being launched across the country. 
Members of the Senate noticed, and we were not impressed.
  The independence of the Federal judiciary as established in our 
Constitution is a gift to our Nation that has taken centuries to 
develop. The overreach of the House managers and certain Democratic 
Senators seeking to undermine this essential constitutional norm was a 
disappointing and even dangerous aspect of this impeachment trial.
  When historians someday write about this divisive period of American 
history, they would do well to focus on these subtle and not so subtle 
attacks on the Chief Justice's credibility--and by extension the 
credibility of the Supreme Court--for it was clearly one of the 
important reasons why the Senate voted last week, 51 to 49, to no 
longer prolong the trial phase of this impeachment.
  The impeachment articles do not charge the President with a crime. 
Although there was much debate in the trial on whether this is 
required, it is undisputed that in all previous presidential 
impeachments--Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton--the President was charged 
with having violated a criminal statute. And there was little dispute 
that these charges were accurate. Lowering the bar to non-criminal 
offenses has set a new precedent. However, whether a crime is required 
is still debatable. Instead, the House impeachment charged the 
President with an abuse of power based on speculative interpretation of 
his intent.
  So what about the President's actions that were the primary focus of 
this impeachment trial and the basis of the House's first Article of 
Impeachment claim that he abused his power? The House managers argued 
that the President abused his power by taking actions that on their 
face appeared valid--withholding aid to a foreign country and 
investigating corruption--but were motivated by ``corrupt intent.''
  One significant problem with this argument is that it is vague and 
hinges on deciphering the President's intent and motives, a difficult 
feat because it is subjective and could be--and was indeed in this 
case--defined by a partisan House. Further, the House managers argue 
essentially that there could be no legitimate national interest in 
pursuing investigations into interference of the U.S. 2016 elections by 
Ukraine and corruption involving Burisma.
  I believe all Presidents have the right to investigate interference 
in U.S. elections and credible claims of corruption and conflicts of 
interest, particularly in countries where America sends significant 
amounts of foreign aid, like Ukraine, and where corruption is endemic, 
like Ukraine.
  Were the President's actions perfect? No. For example, despite having 
the authority to investigate corruption in Ukraine and with Burisma, I 
believe he should have requested such an investigation through more 
official and robust channels, such as pursuing cooperation through the 
U.S. Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty with Ukraine, with the Department 
of Justice in the lead. I also believe that the role of Mr. Giuliani 
has caused confusion and may have undermined the Trump administration's 
broader foreign policy goals with regard to Ukraine.
  But none of this even remotely rises to the level of an offense that 
merits removing the President from office. It is difficult to imagine a 
situation requiring a higher burden of proof. The radical and dangerous 
step that the House Democrats are proposing seems to have been lost in 
all of the noise.
  What they are asking the Senate to do is not just overturn the 
results of the 2016 election--nullifying the votes of millions of 
Americans--but to remove the President from the 2020 ballot, even as 
primary voting has begun across the country.
  Such a step, if ever realized, would do infinitely more damage to the 
legitimacy of our constitutional republic and political system than any 
mistake or error of judgment President Trump may have made.
  An impeachment trial is supposed to be the last resort to protect the 
American people against the highest crimes that undermine and threaten 
the foundations of our Republic, not to get rid of a President because 
a faction of one political party disagrees with the way he governs. 
That is what elections are for.
  I trust the Alaskan and American people, not House Democrats, with 
the monumental decision of choosing who should lead our Nation.
  And soon, they will decide, again, who should lead our Nation. In 
churches, libraries, and school cafeterias, the people all across the 
country will vote for who they want to represent them.
  And I am convinced that the American people will make their choices 
wisely.
  Let me conclude by saying a few words about where we should go from 
here.
  Right before this impeachment trial began, I was at an event in 
Wasilla, AK, where many of Alaska's military veterans attended. A proud 
veteran approached me with a simple but fervent request. ``Senator 
Sullivan,'' he said, ``Protect our Constitution.''
  So many of us, including me, have heard similar pleas over the past 
few months from the people we represent, but there was something about 
the way he said it, something in his eyes that truly got my attention. 
I realized that something was fear. That man, a brave Alaskan who had 
served in the military to protect our constitutional freedoms, was 
afraid that the country he knows and he loves was at risk. And I have 
to admit that I have had similar fears these past weeks.
  But I look around me, on this floor, and I continue to see hope for 
our Nation.
  I see my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--my friends--who 
are willing to work with me on so many issues to find solutions sorely 
needed for the country.
  And back home, I see my fellow Alaskans, some of them fearful, but 
also so hungry to do their part to help heal the divides.
  We should end this chapter, and we should take our cues from them, 
the people whose spirit and character guides this great Nation. They 
want us to protect our Constitution. They need us to work together to 
do that and address America's challenges.
  It's time to get back to the work Alaskans want the Congress to focus 
on: growing our economy, improving our infrastructure, rebuilding our 
military, cleaning up our oceans, lowering healthcare costs and drug 
prices, opening markets for our fishermen, and taking care of our most 
vulnerable in society like survivors of sexual assault and domestic 
violence and those struggling with addiction.
  That is what I am committed to do.
  Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, the decision I make today is not an 
easy one, nor should it be.
  I have approached this serious task with an open and impartial mind, 
as my trial oath required. I have studied the facts and the evidence of 
the case before me.
  I have been an attorney for over two decades, and I was the attorney 
general of Nevada for 8 years. And I keep coming back to what I learned 
in the courtroom. The law is a technical field, but it is also based on 
common sense.
  You don't have to study the law for years to know that stealing and 
cheating are wrong. It is one of the first things we learn in our 
formative years.
  And you don't have to be a law school professor to realize that a 
President should not be using the job the American people gave him to 
benefit himself personally.
  Abraham Lincoln reminded us that our Nation was founded on the 
essential idea of government ``of the people, by the people, for the 
people.''
  As I sat on the Senate floor thinking about President Lincoln and 
listening to the arguments in President Trump's impeachment trial, I 
thought of the awesome responsibility our Founding Fathers entrusted to 
each Senator.
  I also thought about all of the Nevadans I represent--those who voted 
for President Trump and those who did not. For those who did, I put 
myself in

[[Page S935]]

their shoes and considered how I would respond if the President were 
from my political party.
  The removal of a sitting President through impeachment is an 
extraordinary remedy. It rarely occurs, and no Senator should rush into 
it.
  Yet impeachment is a key part of our constitutional order. When our 
Founding Fathers designed the Office of the Presidency, the Framers of 
the Constitution had just gotten rid of a King, and they didn't want 
another one.
  They were afraid that the President might use his extensive powers 
for his own benefit.
  To prevent this, the Framers provided for impeachment by the House 
and trial by the Senate for ``treason, bribery, or other high crimes 
and misdemeanors.''
  They didn't have to do things this way. They could have left it up to 
the courts to hold the trial of a President accused of wrongdoing.
  But they wanted to make sure each branch of government could be a 
check on the other, which would bring balance to our system of 
government.
  And the Framers were specifically concerned with the idea of an all-
powerful Executive who might abuse his power and invite foreign 
interference in our elections.
  This concern is reflected in the Articles of Impeachment laid out by 
the House managers.
  Putting aside the biases I heard coming from both political parties, 
I focused on getting to the truth of the case--like any trial attorney.
  The truth in any case that I have been involved with starts with the 
facts.
  For 2 weeks I listened to the arguments presented by both sides, took 
notes, posed questions, and identified the facts that were supported 
and substantiated and those that were not.
  With a heavy heart and great sadness, I became convinced by the 
evidence that President Trump intentionally withheld security 
assistance and a coveted White House meeting to pressure Ukraine into 
helping him politically, even though Ukraine was defending itself from 
Russia.
  This wasn't an action ``of the people, by the people, for the 
people.''
  President Trump used the immense power of the U.S. Government not for 
the people but, rather, for himself.
  We know these facts from President Trump's own words in a phone call 
to Ukrainian President Zelensky in July and in statements to the press 
in October.
  We also know it through the testimony of 17 American officials--many 
of them appointed by the President himself.
  Those officials indicated that over the spring and summer of 2019, 
through both his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and through American 
diplomats, President Trump asked Ukraine to publicly announce 
investigations that would influence the 2020 elections in his favor.
  We also know through testimony provided during the House 
investigation that President Trump tried to pressure Ukraine to 
announce those investigations, first by conditioning a visit by 
President Zelensky to the White House on them and later by denying $391 
million in security assistance to Ukraine.
  Some of my colleagues don't dispute these facts.
  President Trump's actions interfere with the fundamental tenets of 
our Constitution. Citizens do not get to govern themselves if the 
officials who get elected seek their own benefit to the detriment of 
the public good.
  The Framers knew this. They were very aware that officials could 
leverage their office to benefit themselves.
  In Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton explained why we had the 
impeachment power in the first place: it was to respond to ``those 
offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other 
words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.''
  With the undisputed facts condemning the president, I listened to the 
President's counsel argue that the Articles of Impeachment were 
defective because abuse of power and obstruction of Congress are not 
crimes.
  However, many constitutional scholars soundly refuted this argument, 
and precedent supports them. The Impeachment Articles in President 
Nixon's case included abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
  During this impeachment investigation, the President blocked all 
members of his administration from testifying in response to 
congressional committee requests and withheld all documents.
  This action is absolutely unprecedented in American history. Even 
Presidents Nixon and Clinton allowed staff to testify to Congress 
during impeachment investigations and provided some documents.
  The executive branch has no blanket claim to secrecy. It works for 
the American people, as do Members of Congress.
  In the Senate, the President's counsel argued that the House 
investigators should have fought this wholesale obstruction in court. 
Yet at the same time, in a court down the street, other administration 
lawyers contended that the courts should stay out of disputes between 
Congress and the President.
  The President's counsel also argued that the American people should 
decide in the next election whether to remove President Trump for his 
actions. But if this were the standard, then the impeachment clause 
could only ever be utilized in the second term of a Presidency, when no 
upcoming election would preserve the country.
  Most importantly, isn't the impeachment clause pointless if a 
president can abuse his power in office and then completely refuse to 
comply with a House impeachment investigation and a Senate trial in 
order to delay until the next election?
  The Framers themselves actually argued about whether Americans could 
rely on elections to get rid of bad presidents. They decided that if 
they didn't put the impeachment power into the Constitution, a corrupt 
President would be willing to do anything to get himself reelected.
  James Madison said that without impeachment, a corrupt President 
``might be fatal to the Republic.''
  And through my oath of office as a Senator, I swore to protect not 
just Nevadans but also our great Republic.
  Our country, unfortunately, has never been more divided along party 
lines. It played out in the House impeachment investigation and in the 
Senate trial. The Senate rules for the trial were not written by all of 
the Senators with bipartisan input. Instead, they were written behind 
closed doors by one man in coordination with the President. In so 
doing, the Senate has abdicated its powerful check on the executive 
branch.
  Without this important check, I am concerned about what the President 
will do next to put our Republic in jeopardy.
  We have seen that President Trump is willing to violate our 
Constitution in order to get himself reelected. He has disrespected 
norms and worked to divide our country for his own political gain. He 
has undermined our standing in the world and put awesome pressure on 
foreign leaders to benefit himself, rather than to advance the 
interests of our country.
  I have also learned from this trial that the President is willing to 
take any action, including cheating in the next election, to serve his 
personal interest.
  No act in our country is more sacred and solemn for democracy than 
voting, and nothing in our system of government is more vital to the 
continued health of our democracy than its elections. No American 
should stand for foreign election interference, much less invite it.
  American elections are for Americans.
  That is why I cannot condone this President's actions by acquitting 
him.
  Finding the President guilty of abuse of power and obstruction of 
Congress marks a sad day for our country and not something I do with a 
light heart.
  But I was sent to Congress not just to fight for all Nevadans but 
also to fight for our children and their future. To leave them with a 
country that still believes in right and wrong, that exposes corruption 
in government and holds it accountable, that stands up to tyranny at 
home and abroad.
  In my view, President Trump has fallen far, far short of those lofty 
ideals and of the demands of our Constitution.
  That requires the rest of us, regardless of party, creed, or 
ethnicity, to work together all the more urgently to defend our 
democracy, our elections, and our national security.

[[Page S936]]

  I have faith in Americans because I have seen time and time again in 
Nevada our ability to come together and work with one another for our 
common good.
  America is more than just one person, and like President Lincoln's, 
my faith will always lie with the people.
  Ms. ROSEN. Mr. President, I didn't come to the Senate expecting to 
sit as a juror in an impeachment trial. I have participated in this 
trial with an open mind, determined to evaluate the President's actions 
outside of any partisan lens, and with a focus on my constitutional 
obligations. I listened to the arguments, took detailed notes, asked 
questions, and heard both sides answer questions from my colleagues. 
After thorough consideration, based on the evidence presented, sadly, I 
find I have no choice but to vote to remove the President from office.
  The first Article of Impeachment charges the President with abuse of 
power, specifically alleging that the President used the powers of his 
public office to obtain an improper political benefit. I can now 
conclude the evidence shows that this is exactly what the President did 
when he withheld critically important security assistance from Ukraine 
in order to persuade the Ukrainian Government to investigate his 
political rival. I understand that foreign policy involves 
negotiations, leveraging advantages, and using all the powers at our 
disposal to advance U.S. national security goals. But this was 
different. The President sent his personal attorney, whose obligation 
is to protect the personal interests of the President, not the United 
States, to meet and negotiate with foreign government officials from 
Ukraine to get damaging information about the President's rivals, 
culminating in the July 25 phone call between the U.S. and Ukrainian 
Presidents, during which the President made clear his intent to 
withhold aid until a political favor was completed. In doing so, the 
President put U.S. national security and a key alliance against Russian 
aggression at risk, all so he could benefit politically from the 
potential fallout from an investigation into a possible opponent.
  While I would like to hear more from witnesses and see the documents 
the administration is withholding, the evidence presented is compelling 
and not in doubt. The President withheld military aid in order to 
coerce an ally to help him politically. This is no mere policy 
disagreement; this is about whether the President negotiates with 
foreign governments on behalf of the United States; or on his own 
behalf. No elected official, regardless of party, should use public 
office to advance his or her personal interests, particularly to the 
detriment of U.S. national security, and in the case of the President 
of the United States, such conduct is particularly dangerous. As 
elected officials, we have no more important responsibility than 
ensuring our national security, and that includes protecting the Nation 
from future threats. The President's conduct here sets a dangerous 
precedent that must not be repeated in the future and requires a firm 
response by the representatives of the people. After hearing evidence 
that the President heldup congressionally approved military assistance 
to an ally fighting Russia in order to exact concessions from Ukraine 
that benefited him personally, we cannot trust the President to place 
national security over his own interests. It is therefore with sadness 
that I conclude that the President must be removed from office under 
article I and I will vote to convict him of abuse of power.
  With respect to the second Article of Impeachment charging 
obstruction of Congress, the President's behavior suggests that he 
believes he is above the law. Certainly, there may be documents and 
testimony that are subject to executive privilege or are confidential 
for some other reason. But here, the President directed every agency, 
office, and employee in the executive branch not to cooperate with the 
impeachment inquiry conducted by the U.S. House of Representatives. As 
a Member of Congress, I take my oversight role seriously. It is how we 
ensure transparency in government, so the people of Nevada can know how 
their tax dollars are spent and whether their elected officials are 
acting legally, ethically, and in their best interests. The President's 
refusal to negotiate in good faith with the House investigators over 
documents and testimony and instead to impede any investigation into 
his official conduct can only be characterized as blatant obstruction.
  More importantly, it suggests that he will continue to operate 
outside the law, and if he believes he can ignore lawful subpoenas from 
Congress, it will be impossible to hold him accountable. For these 
reasons, I will vote to convict the President of obstruction of 
Congress, as delineated in article II.
  Impeachment is a grave constitutional remedy, not a partisan 
exercise. To fulfill my constitutional role as a juror, I asked myself 
how I would view the evidence if it were any President accused of this 
conduct. Based on the facts and arguments presented, I conclude that no 
President of the United States, regardless of party, can trade 
congressionally approved and legally mandated military assistance for 
personal political favors. No one is above the law, not this President 
or the next President. Having exercised my constitutional duty, I will 
continue what I have been doing over the course of this trial and have 
done since I first came to Congress, to look past partisanship and 
develop commonsense, bipartisan solutions that help hard-working 
families in Nevada and across the country.

                          ____________________