[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 25, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1144-S1152]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              IMPEACHMENT

  Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, the country is deeply divided on 
multiple issues right now. The impeachment trial is both a symptom of 
our times and another example of our division. At the beginning of our 
Nation, we did not have an impeachment inquiry of a President for 
almost 100 years with the partisan impeachment of Andrew Johnson. After 
more than 100 years, another impeachment inquiry was conducted when the 
House began a formal impeachment inquiry into President Nixon in an 
overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 410-4. Within a period of weeks, 
President Nixon resigned before he was formally impeached. Then, just 
over two decades later, President Clinton was impeached by the House, 
on another mostly partisan vote leading to a partisan acquittal in the 
Senate.
  This season of our history has been referred to as the Age of 
Investigations and the Age of Impeachment. We have had multiple special 
counsels since 1974 over multiple topics. This is more than just 
oversight; it has been a unique time in American history when the 
politics of the moment have driven rapid calls for investigation and 
impeachment. Over the past 3 years, the House of Representatives has 
voted four times to open an impeachment inquiry: once in 2017, once in 
2018, and twice in 2019. Only the second vote in 2019 actually passed 
and began a formal inquiry.
  The Mueller investigation that consumed most of 2018 and 2019 
answered many questions about Russian attacks on our voting systems--
although no votes were changed--but it was also a $32 million 
investigation that took more than 2 years of America's attention. For 
the last 4 months the country has been consumed with impeachment 
hearings and investigations. The first rumors of issues with Ukraine 
arose August 28 when POLITICO published a story about U.S. foreign aid 
being slow-walked for Ukraine, and then on September 18 when the 
Washington Post published a story about a whistleblower report that 
claimed President Trump pressured an unnamed foreign head of state to 
do an investigation for his campaign.
  Within days of the Washington Post story on September 24, Speaker 
Pelosi announced that the House would begin hearings to impeach the 
President, which led to the formal House vote to open the impeachment 
inquiry on October 31 and then a vote to impeach the President on 
December 18. But after the partisan vote to impeach the President, 
Speaker Pelosi held the Articles of Impeachment for a month before 
turning them over to the Senate, which began the formal trial of the 
President of the United States on January 16, 2020. After hearing hours 
of arguments from both House managers and the President's legal defense 
team and Senators asking 180 questions to both sides, the trial 
concluded February 5, 2020.
  There are key dates to know:
  April 21, 2019, President Zelensky is elected President of Ukraine.
  May 21, President Zelensky sworn in. After the ceremony, President 
Zelensky abolishes Parliament and calls for quick snap elections on 
July 21.
  July 21, Ukrainian Parliamentary elections. President Zelensky's 
party wins a huge majority.
  July 25, President Trump calls President Zelensky to congratulate him 
and his party.
  August 12, An unnamed whistleblower working in the U.S. intelligence

[[Page S1145]]

community filed a complaint that he had heard from others that the 
President of the United States had tried to pressure President Zelensky 
of Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden on an 
official phone call July 25, 2019.
  August 26, the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community 
declares the whistleblower report ``an urgent matter'' and asks for its 
release within 7 days. The Justice Department looks over the report and 
notes that although it was written by a person in the intelligence 
community, it is not related to intelligence matters, so it does not 
fall within the Inspector General's jurisdiction and it is forwarded on 
to the Department of Justice for review.
  August 28, POLITICO publishes a story that the annual military aid 
for Ukraine is currently being slow-walked.
  September 9, the Inspector General contacts the House Intelligence 
Committee to let them know that he has not been able to release the 
whistleblower report to their committee.
  September 13, the House Intelligence Committee subpoenas the 
whistleblower report.
  September 18, the Washington Post prints a story with ``unnamed 
sources'' that there is a whistleblower report about the President 
talking with a foreign leader about a campaign matter.
  September 24, the House began an informal impeachment inquiry after 
Speaker Pelosi announced it at a press conference in the U.S. Capitol.
  September 25, President Trump released the official unredacted ``read 
out'' of the phone call with President Zelensky from July 25.
  September 26, the whistleblower report is declassified and released 
publicly.
  October 31, the House formally votes along party lines for an 
impeachment inquiry.
  December 18, the House votes to impeach the President with two 
articles--abuse of Power and obstruction of congress
  January 15, Speaker Pelosi releases the Articles of Impeachment to 
the Senate.
  January 16, Senate trial on impeachment begins.
  February 5, Senate trial concludes with acquittal on both articles.
  Ukraine became independent in 1991 when it broke away from the Soviet 
Union, but the Ukrainians have faced constant pressure from Russia ever 
since. In 2014 Ukraine forced out its pro-Russia President, and Moscow 
retaliated by taking over Crimea--and stealing the Ukrainian Navy--then 
rolling tanks into eastern Ukraine and taking all of eastern Ukraine by 
force. Russian and Ukrainian troops continue to fight every day in 
eastern Ukraine.
  The people of Ukraine face an aggressive Russia on the east and 
pervasive Soviet era corruption throughout the government and the 
business community. President Trump met the previous President of 
Ukraine in 2017 to talk about other countries helping Ukraine with 
greater military support funds and to ask how Ukraine could address 
corruption on a wider scale. The two Presidents also spoke about lethal 
aid--allowing the Ukrainians to buy sniper rifles, anti-tank Javelin 
missiles, and other lethal supplies--to help them fight the invading 
Russians. The United States also started sending a couple hundred 
American troops to train Ukrainian soldiers in the far west of Ukraine.
  On April 21, 2019, President Zelensky was overwhelmingly elected as 
the new President of Ukraine. He was a sitcom actor/comedian who had no 
political experience but was well known for his television show in 
which he played the part of a corruption-fighting teacher who was 
elected as President of Ukraine. His television popularity helped him 
win the election, but when he was sworn in on May 21, he was relatively 
unknown to most of the world.
  On the same day as his inauguration, May 21, President Zelensky 
abolished Parliament and called for snap elections to put his party in 
power. With a new President in place and parliamentary elections in 
Ukraine coming, starting in June of 2019, the President ordered foreign 
aid to Ukraine to be held until the end of the fiscal year, but 
agencies were informed that they should do all the preliminary work 
needed before the aid was sent, so it would be ready to release at a 
moment's notice. The leadership in Ukraine was not notified that there 
was a hold on their foreign aid.
  The new Parliament was elected on July 21, and President Zelensky's 
party won by a landslide. By mid-August, the new Parliament was working 
on anti-corruption efforts and trying to establish a high court on 
corruption, which they put in place September 5, 2019. There was a 
tremendous amount of uncertainty in the early days of the new 
administration, but by mid-August there was clear evidence of actual 
change in a country that desperately needed a new direction from its 
corrupt past.
  On July 25, when President Trump called President Zelensky, the 
President congratulated President Zelensky for the big win in 
Parliament and talked about ``burden-sharing''--other nations also 
paying their share of support for Ukraine. The two Presidents talked 
about their disapproval of the previous mbassadors to each other's 
countries. But instead of following all the staff preparation notes 
written by Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, the National Security Council 
staffer assigned to Ukraine, and just talking about ``corruption'' in 
general, the President brought up a question about Ukraine and the 2016 
election interference, which I will note below. President Zelensky also 
brought up to President Trump that his staff was planning to meet with 
Rudy Giuliani, President Trump's personal attorney, in the coming days, 
which led to a conversation about Joe Biden and the firing of the 
previous prosecutor in Ukraine.
  After the call, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman contacted an attorney at 
the National Security Council to express his ``policy concerns'' about 
the call. It is interesting to note that Lieutenant Colonel Vindman's 
boss, Tim Morrison, was also on the call, but he did not see any 
problems or concerns with the call according to his own testimony in 
the House impeachment inquiry. Within a month, a whistleblower filed a 
report about the call, saying he heard about the call secondhand and 
was concerned about the implications of a conversation about elections 
on a head-of-state call. To keep the July 25th call in context with 
other news, the day before it took place July 24 Robert Mueller had 
testified before Congress as the last official act to close down the 
2\1/2\ year Mueller investigation and clear the President and his 
campaign team of any further accusation of election interference.
  During the impeachment trial in the Senate, the House managers 
repeated over and over that the President was planning to cheat 
``again'' on the next election, but the final conclusion of the Mueller 
report was that ``ultimately, the investigation did not establish that 
the (Trump) Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian 
government in its election-interference activities.''
  This is especially notable because for years a rumor circulated that 
Ukraine was part of the 2016 election interference and that someone in 
Ukraine was hiding the Democratic National Committee, DNC, server that 
was hacked by the Russians in 2016. As the conspiracy theory goes, it 
was actually the Ukrainians who hacked the DNC, not the Russians. This 
is the ``Crowdstrike'' theory that President Trump asked President 
Zelensky to help solve during the call.
  Agencies of the U.S. intelligence community have stated over and over 
that they did not believe that Ukraine was involved in the Russian 
election interference from 2016. I personally agree with the 
intelligence community assessment but Rudy Giuliani and multiple others 
around President Trump believed there was a secret plan in 2016 to hurt 
President Trump's election from Ukraine. This accusation was amplified 
by bits of truth, including that the Ukrainian Ambassador to the United 
States wrote an editorial in support of Hillary Clinton in 2016 right 
before the election, and several other Ukrainian officials publicly 
spoke out against Candidate Trump in 2016.
  There is nothing illegal about a foreign nation speaking out for or 
against a Presidential candidate, whether Hillary Clinton or Donald 
Trump in 2016 or anyone else in the future. It may not be wise to take 
sides before an election, but it is not illegal. Just because some 
Ukrainian officials took sides

[[Page S1146]]

does not mean that the whole Ukrainian Government worked on a cyber 
attack on our elections. But since this rumor had persisted, and it was 
a new administration now in Ukraine, President Trump asked President 
Zelensky to help clear up the facts if he could. That is certainly not 
illegal or improper, and it is certainly not something that could help 
the President in the 2020 election, especially since the 2016 Russian 
election accusation had just been closed the day before.
  The 2016 ``Crowdstrike'' theory is the issue that President Trump 
asked President Zelensky to ``do us a favor'' about, not the Bidens or 
Burisma. During the July 25 call after the question about 
``Crowdstrike,'' President Zelensky mentioned to President Trump that 
one of his advisers would be meeting with Rudy Giuliani soon. Then, 
President Trump affirmed that meeting and encouraged them to talk about 
the Biden investigation and the firing of the Ukrainian prosecutor.
  That may seem out of the blue, but in Washington, D.C., that week, 
the city was buzzing about a Washington Post article that had been 
written 3 days before July 22, 2019--detailing Hunter Biden's giant 
salary--$83,000 per month--for doing essentially nothing for a corrupt 
Ukrainian natural gas company and how it undercut Vice President 
Biden's message on corruption.
  It is important to get the context of that week to understand the 
context of the phone call that day. I have no doubt that the story was 
just as big of news in Kiev, Ukraine, as it was in Washington, D.C., 
that week. President Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, had been 
in and out of Ukraine since November 2018, meeting with government 
officials and trying to find out more about the ``Crowdstrike'' theory 
or any other Ukrainian connection to the 2016 election. During that 
time, Rudy Giuliani met several former prosecutors from Ukraine who 
blamed their departure on Vice President Biden. It is clear that Rudy 
Giuliani was working to gain information about both of these issues in 
his capacity as President Trump's private attorney.
  It is not criminal for Rudy Giuliani to work on opposition research 
for a Presidential campaign or to work on behalf of his client to clear 
his name from any issues related to the 2016 campaign, which he had 
done since November 2018. Some have stated that since this was 
``foreign information,'' it is illegal. That is absolutely not true. In 
fact, Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee in 2016 
paid a British citizen, Christopher Steele, to work his contacts in 
Russia to create the now debunked ``Steele Dossier,'' which the FBI 
used to open its investigation into President Trump, leading directly 
to the appointment of Special Counsel Mueller. That dossier was 
opposition research done in Russia by a British citizen, paid for by 
the Clinton campaign team. Their opposition research was not illegal, 
but the use and abuse of that document by the FBI to start an 
investigation was certainly inappropriate and is most likely illegal. 
But the FBI warrant issue is still being investigated by the ongoing 
Durham probe.
  During the July 25, 2019, call, President Zelensky brought up the 
issue of Rudy Giuliani, and President Trump replied to his statement. 
You can argue that President Trump should not have discussed the issue 
with President Zelensky when he brought it up, but it is certainly not 
illegal or impeachable to talk about it, especially when there are 
serious questions about Hunter Biden's work with Burisma. That is not a 
conservative conspiracy theory; the issue of Hunter Biden's employment 
in Ukraine was a problem for years at the State Department. It had been 
raised to Vice President Biden when he was still in office. Every State 
Department official interviewed for the Trump impeachment investigation 
noted that at best it was a clear conflict of interest, and it was the 
center of a huge story on corruption in the Washington Post on July 22, 
2019. It had the appearance of high-level corruption by using a well-
placed family member on the board of a known corrupt gas company in 
Ukraine to shelter it from prosecutors. Hunter Biden had only resigned 
from the Burisma board a few months before the July 25 phone call, just 
prior to when his dad announced his run for the Presidency in 2019.
  After the July 25 phone call, Attorney General Barr did not have any 
followup meetings or calls with Ukrainian officials. Rudy Giuliani did 
have additional conversations with Ukrainian officials, which are legal 
to do since he is a private attorney representing the President.

 Text of July 25, 2019 Phone Call Between Presidents Trump and Zelensky

       The President: Congratulations on a great victory. We all 
     watched from the United States and you did a terrific job. 
     The way you came from behind, somebody who wasn't given much 
     of a chance, and you ended up winning easily. It's a 
     fantastic achievement. Congratulations.
       President Zelensky: You are absolutely right Mr. President. 
     We did win big and we worked hard for this. We worked a lot 
     but I would like to confess to you that I had an opportunity 
     to learn from you. We used quite a few of your skills and 
     knowledge and were able to use it as an example for our 
     elections and yes it is true that these were unique 
     elections. We were in a unique situation that we were able to 
     achieve a unique success. I'm able to tell you the following; 
     the first time you called me to congratulate me when I won my 
     presidential election, and the second time you are now 
     calling me when my party won the parliamentary election. I 
     think I should run more often so you can call me more often 
     and we can talk over the phone more often.
       The President: (laughter) That's a very good idea. I think 
     your country is very happy about that.
       President Zelensky: Well yes, to tell you the truth, we are 
     trying to work hard because we wanted to drain the swamp here 
     in our country. We brought in many many new people. Not the 
     old politicians, not the typical politicians, because we want 
     to have a new format and a new type of government. You are a 
     great teacher for us and in that.
       The President: Well it is very nice of you to say that. I 
     will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of 
     effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European 
     countries are doing and they should be helping you more than 
     they are. Germany does almost nothing for you. All they do is 
     talk and I think it's something that you should really ask 
     them about. When I was speaking to Angela Merkel she talks 
     Ukraine, but she doesn't do anything. A lot of the European 
     countries are the same way so I think it's something you want 
     to look at but the United States has been very very good to 
     Ukraine. I wouldn't say that it's reciprocal necessarily 
     because things are happening that are not good but the United 
     States has been very very good to Ukraine.
       President Zelensky: Yes you are absolutely right. Not only 
     100%, but actually 1000% and I can tell you the following; I 
     did talk to Angela Merkel and I did meet with her I also met 
     and talked with Macron and I told them that they are not 
     doing quite as much as they need to be doing on the issues 
     with the sanctions. They are not enforcing the sanctions. 
     They are not working as much as they should work for Ukraine. 
     It turns out that even though logically, the European Union 
     should be our biggest partner but technically the United 
     States is a much bigger partner than the European Union and 
     I'm very grateful to you for that because the United States 
     is doing quite a lot for Ukraine. Much more than the European 
     Union especially when we are talking about sanctions against 
     the Russian Federation. I would also like to thank you for 
     your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to 
     continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are 
     almost. ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for 
     defense purposes.
       The President: I would like you to do us a favor though 
     because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows 
     a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened 
     with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike. 
     I guess you have one of your wealthy people . . . The server, 
     they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went 
     on, the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself 
     with some of the same people. I would like to have the 
     Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you 
     to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole 
     nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named 
     Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a 
     lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's 
     very important that you do it if that's possible.
       President Zelensky: Yes it is very important for me and 
     everything that you just mentioned earlier. For me as a 
     President, it is very important and we are open for any 
     future cooperation. We are ready to open a new page on 
     cooperation in relations between the United States and 
     Ukraine. For that purpose, I just recalled our ambassador 
     from United States and he will be replaced by a very 
     competent and very experienced ambassador who will work 
     hard on making sure that our two nations are getting 
     closer. I would also like and hope to see him having your 
     trust and your confidence and have personal relations with 
     you so we can cooperate even more so. I will personally 
     tell you that one of my assistants spoke with Mr. Giuliani 
     just recently and we are hoping very much that Mr. 
     Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will 
     meet once he comes to Ukraine. I just wanted to assure you 
     once again that you have nobody but friends

[[Page S1147]]

     around us. I will make sure that I surround myself with 
     the best and most experienced people. I also wanted to 
     tell you that we are friends. We are great friends and you 
     Mr. President have friends in our country so we can 
     continue our strategic partnership. I also plan to 
     surround myself with great people and in addition to that 
     investigation, I guarantee as the President of Ukraine 
     that all the investigations will be done openly and 
     candidly. That I can assure you.
       The President: Good because I heard you had a prosecutor 
     who was very good and he was shut down and that's really 
     unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they 
     shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad 
     people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He 
     was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would 
     like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with 
     the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening 
     and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that 
     would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, 
     the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with 
     in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know 
     that. The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's 
     son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people 
     want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the 
     Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging 
     that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it . 
     . . It sounds horrible to me.
       President Zelensky: I wanted to tell you about the 
     prosecutor. First of all, I understand and I'm knowledgeable 
     about the situation. Since we have won the absolute majority 
     in our Parliament, the next prosecutor general will be 100% 
     my person, my candidate, who will be approved, by the 
     parliament and will start as a new prosecutor in September. 
     He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the 
     company that you mentioned in this issue. The issue of the 
     investigation of the case is actually the issue of making 
     sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and 
     will work on the investigation of the case. On top of that, I 
     would kindly ask you if you have any additional information 
     that you can provide to us, it would be very helpful for the 
     investigation to make sure that we administer justice in our 
     country with regard to the Ambassador to the United States 
     from Ukraine as far as I recall her name was Ivanovich. It 
     was great that you were the first one who told me that she 
     was a bad ambassador because I agree with you 100%. Her 
     attitude towards me was far from the best as she admired the 
     previous President and she was on his side. She would not 
     accept me as a new President well enough.
       The President: Well, she's going to go through some things. 
     I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going 
     to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the 
     bottom of it. I'm sure you will figure it out. I heard the 
     prosecutor was treated very badly and he was a very fair 
     prosecutor so good luck with everything. Your economy is 
     going to get better and better I predict. You have a lot of 
     assets. It's a great country. I have many Ukrainian friends, 
     they're incredible people.
       President Zelensky: I would like to tell you that I also 
     have quite a few Ukrainian friends that live in the United 
     States. Actually last time I traveled to the United States, I 
     stayed in New York near Central Park and I stayed at the 
     Trump Tower. I will talk to them and I hope to see them again 
     in the future. I also wanted to thank you for your invitation 
     to visit the United States, specifically Washington DC. On 
     the other hand, I also want to ensure you that we will be 
     very serious about the case and will work on the 
     investigation. As to the economy, there is much potential for 
     our two countries and one of the issues that is very 
     important for Ukraine is energy independence. I believe we 
     can be very successful and cooperating on energy independence 
     with United States. We are already working on cooperation. We 
     are buying American oil but I am very hopeful for a future 
     meeting. We will have more time and more opportunities to 
     discuss these opportunities and get to know each other 
     better. I would like to thank you very much for your support.
       The President: Good. Well, thank you very much and I 
     appreciate that. I will tell Rudy and Attorney General Barr 
     to call. Thank you. Whenever you would like to come to the 
     White House, feel free to call. Give us a date and we'll work 
     that out. I look forward to seeing you. President Zelensky: 
     Thank you very much. I would be very happy to come and would 
     be happy to meet with you personally and get to know you 
     better. I am looking forward to our meeting and I also would 
     like to invite you to visit Ukraine and come to the city of 
     Kyiv which is a beautiful city. We have a beautiful country 
     which would welcome you. On the other hand, I believe that on 
     September 1 we will be in Poland and we can meet in Poland 
     hopefully. After that, it might be a very good idea for you 
     to travel to Ukraine. We can either take my plane and go to 
     Ukraine or we can take your plane, which is probably much 
     better than mine.
       The President: Okay, we can work that out. I look forward 
     to seeing you in Washington and maybe in Poland because I 
     think we are going to be there at that time. President 
     Zelensky: Thank you very much Mr. President.
       The President: Congratulations on a fantastic job you've 
     done. The whole world was watching. I'm not sure it was so 
     much of an upset but congratulations.
       President Zelensky: Thank you Mr. President bye-bye.

  Based on a whistleblower report about the July 25 call, the House 
Intelligence Committee subpoenaed the report on September 13 and 
started its impeachment inquiry on September 24.
  In the Senate impeachment trial, House managers stated their belief 
that the President had carried out a ``scheme to cheat in the 2020 
election'' by withholding financial aid to Ukraine and withholding a 
White House meeting with the new President of Ukraine in exchange for 
Ukraine announcing it would investigate Joe Biden, Burisma, and 2016 
election interference.
  Let's discuss the facts of both.


                          White House Meeting

  There is no question that President Trump had offered a White House 
meeting to President Zelensky three times: once in May on a phone call 
after President Zelensky won his election, once in June in a letter, 
and finally in the July 25 call after President Zelensky's party won 
the parliamentary elections. But Tim Morrison--State Department 
official called as a witness by the House--also testified that they 
were working on heads-of-state meetings with 12 other heads of state 
during that same time period. Many nations were trying to line up 
meetings in the White House during the summer of 2019.
  During the July 25 call, President Zelensky offered to instead move 
their meeting from a White House meeting to a face-to-face meeting in 
Warsaw, Poland, when they would both be there on September 1, 2019. The 
Presidents agreed, and planning began on the meeting in August. By 
August 22, the meeting planning was in full swing, as noted by emails 
in the House hearing's evidence. However, Hurricane Dorian slammed into 
the United States in the hours leading up to the September 1 meeting, 
causing a last-minute shift to the Vice President traveling to Poland 
so the President could stay in the United States to monitor hurricane 
relief.
  We know that Vice President Pence met face-to-face with President 
Zelensky, and they spoke about other nations paying their fair share to 
help Ukraine and the issue of corruption across Ukraine. We know from 
the preparation materials and the meeting notes themselves that during 
the meeting the Vice President did not bring up or discuss the issue of 
Burisma, Joe Biden, or any other campaign conversation with President 
Zelensky.
  The White House found the next available time when President Trump 
and President Zelensky would both be in the same place at the same time 
to set up a face-to-face meeting: September 25 at the U.N. Assembly in 
New York. That meeting was set up, and it took place as scheduled.
  In the Senate impeachment trial, the House managers maintained that 
only a White House meeting was sufficient and that it was being 
withheld, but the facts show that President Zelensky himself floated 
the idea of a meeting in Poland and that the meeting was not barred or 
withheld.
  In the early months of President Zelensky's term, there was a great 
deal of concern about him, his staff, and his plans because he was an 
unknown political figure. Until more was known about him, it was 
entirely appropriate to show caution in coordinating a meeting, but 
once his nationwide anti-corruption efforts began in August, it was 
clear that face-to-face meetings were planned and carried out.
  There was no withholding of a face-to-face meeting with President 
Trump and President Zelensky. There cannot be a quid pro quo if the 
meeting was not withheld from Ukrainian officials.
  The House managers claimed that there was a secret plot to ``extort'' 
or ``bribe'' the leadership of Ukraine to investigate Hunter Biden in 
exchange for around $400 million of U.S. aid. The aid was State 
Department and foreign military aid that had been provided for the past 
4 years, since Ukraine had been in a war with Russia.

  After the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014 and its occupation of 
Crimea and the Donbas region in eastern Ukraine, the United States 
started sending aid to help the Ukrainian Government. Congress allowed 
lethal and non-lethal aid to support Ukraine, but during the previous 
administration, only non-lethal aid was sent. Under

[[Page S1148]]

President Trump's administration, it was determined that the United 
States would give the leadership of Ukraine lethal aid to help them 
fight off Russian tanks, which was President Zelensky's reference to 
``javelins'' in the July 25 phone call and his gratitude to President 
Trump for allowing those tank killing rockets to flow to Ukraine.
  To be clear, the theory of funds being withheld from Ukraine in 
exchange for an investigation does not originate from the July 25 call 
read-out. There is nothing in the text of the call that threatens the 
withholding of funds in exchange for an investigation.
  The theory originates from the fact that aid was held back by the 
Office of Management and Budget, headed by the President's Acting Chief 
of Staff, Mick Mulvaney, and the ``presumption'' of U.S. Ambassador to 
the European Union, Gordon Sondland, that the aid must have been held 
because of the President's desire to get the Biden investigation done, 
since the President's attorney, Rudy Giuliani, was working to find out 
more about the Biden investigation.
  Ambassador Sondland told multiple people about his theory, but when 
he finally called President Trump and asked him directly about it, the 
President responded that he did not have any quid pro quo; he just 
wanted the President of Ukraine to do what he ran on and ``do the right 
thing.'' Obviously, people who assume the worst about President Trump 
take this as a secret message that there actually was a quid pro quo, 
but the most important fact is that Ambassador Sondland did not read it 
that way after his call with the President. Ambassador Sondland 
believed that the President was serious. Unfortunately, the White House 
Counsel was never allowed to cross examine Ambassador Sondland during 
the House investigation to get the facts about who he talked to and why 
he came to believe for a while that there was an effort to push for 
investigations in exchange for money.
  During the Senate trial, I listened closely to the facts surrounding 
the withholding of aid money to Ukraine. This was by far the most 
serious charge against the President. Two key questions had to be 
answered for me: Why was the aid held, and why was the aid released? 
There was no question the aid was held for a of couple months. The 
question was why?
  Statements from the House witnesses during the House impeachment 
inquiry answered the two key questions: The aid was held because there 
was a legitimate concern about the new President of Ukraine and his 
administration in the early days of his Presidency and the aid was 
released on time when the new Ukrainian Parliament starting passing 
anti-corruption laws in August and after Vice President Pence sat down 
face to face with President Zelensky on September 1 in Poland to 
discuss their progress on corruption.
  We should not lose track of what was happening in Ukraine in 2019. A 
new President was elected who was a TV actor with no political 
experience and no record on how he would handle Russia or the issue of 
widespread national corruption in Ukraine. He ran on a platform of 
anti-corruption at all levels, but no one knew how he would govern. His 
campaign was funded by a Ukrainian oligarch who owned a major media 
outlet, and one of his first advisers was the former attorney for that 
oligarch.
  I personally spoke to many of the State Department officials in 
Ukraine in May of 2019 and heard their concerns about the new 
government. Then, newly elected President Zelensky used his power to 
dissolve their Parliament the day he was sworn in and called for ``snap 
elections'' in which the vast majority of the newly elected leaders 
were from his newly formed party. To our State Department and the White 
House, this was either a really a good sign or a really bad sign. 
Either Ukraine was about to take a major change for the better with new 
leadership, or this new young leader was about to assume real 
centralized power. No one knew for certain in May, June, and July of 
2019. Within a few weeks in August, the new Parliament got to work 
passing anti-corruption laws and making significant changes in their 
accountability and for the country. This was a very good sign.
  When Vice President Pence met face to face with President Zelensky 
September 1, both sides had confidence the country was taking a new 
direction. On September 10 Vice President Pence and Senator Rob Portman 
met with President Trump to tell him about the progress that had been 
made, and both advised lifting the hold on aid. The aid was lifted the 
next day, September 11. No investigation into Hunter Biden or Burisma 
was ever done by Ukraine, and no part of the U.S. Department of Justice 
was ever involved in any investigation of Hunter Biden or Burisma.
  Although the aid was frozen in June, there was no public announcement 
of the hold, as explained by the White House Counsel, to keep this from 
becoming a public issue while the White House monitored the progress 
and status of the transition in Ukraine.
  On August 27, POLITICO published an article that noted that the 
foreign aid had been held by the United States. This caused President 
Zelensky's office to reach out to the State Department and ask why. 
During the House impeachment proceedings, four of the House witnesses--
Ambassador Voelker, Ambassador Sondland, Ambassador Taylor, and Tim 
Morrison--all testified that the Ukrainian leadership learned about the 
temporary hold in aid after the POLITICO article was published.
  The issue of the hold was also the first question from President 
Zelensky to Vice President Pence when they met on September 1 in 
Poland. The idea that the leadership in Ukraine had pressure placed on 
them to do an investigation fails the most essential test. Did the 
leadership of Ukraine even know that the aid was being held? The answer 
from multiple American and Ukrainian leaders was no, they did not know 
there was a hold on the aid from the White House. You cannot have 
pressure to act on an investigation if they did not even know the aid 
was being held.
  It is interesting to note, when I researched the records of past 
foreign aid payment dates and times to Ukraine, I found the 2019 aid 
was in line with the date the 2016, 2017, and 2018 aid was sent. The 
vast majority of the military aid to Ukraine was obligated in August or 
September for the past 4 years. Although the aid was ready to go out 
the door a couple months earlier in 2019, it was certainly not late, 
based on the record of the previous 3 years. In fact, the State 
Department aid was obligated September 30 in 2019, but it was obligated 
September 28 in 2018. As quoted by the Ukrainian Minister of Defense, 
``The aid was held such a short time, we did not even notice.''
  During the 2 days of question-and-answer time, I asked a specific 
question related to this issue because I felt it was important to get 
the context of the aid, since there had been so much made of the issue 
during the trial. Here is the full text of my question to the White 
House Counsel:

       House Managers have described any delay in military aid and 
     state department funds to Ukraine in 2019 as a cause to 
     believe there was a secret scheme or quid pro quo by the 
     President. In 2019, 86% of the DOD funds were obligated to 
     Ukraine in September, but in 2018, 67% of the funds were 
     obligated in September and in 2017, 73% of the funds were 
     obligated in September. In the State Department, the funds 
     were obligated September 30 in 2019, but they were obligated 
     September 28 in 2018. Each year, the vast majority of the 
     funds were obligated in the final month or days of the fiscal 
     year. Question: Was there a national security risk to Ukraine 
     or the United States from the funds going out late in 
     September in the two previous years? Did it weaken our 
     relationship with Ukraine because the vast majority of our 
     aid was released in September each of the last three years?

  In response to my question, White House Counsel detailed the fact 
that military aid from the United States was not for immediate use. It 
was designed to help the Ukrainian military buy materials for the next 
year, so it was common for the aid to be obligated at the end of the 
fiscal year--September 30--and it was also common for some money to be 
left unobligated and carried over into the next fiscal year, as it was 
in 2019.
  While it is easy to create an intricate story on the hold placed on 
foreign aid to Ukraine, it is also clear that President Trump has 
temporarily held foreign aid from multiple countries over the past 2 
years, including: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Honduras, Guatemala, El 
Salvador, Lebanon, and others. There is no question that a President 
can withhold aid for a short period of

[[Page S1149]]

time, but it must be released by September 30, the end of the fiscal 
year, which it was in this instance.
  Article I, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution grants the U.S. House 
of Representatives ``the sole power of impeachment,'' while article I, 
section 3 states that ``the Senate shall have the sole power to try all 
impeachments.''
  The Constitution is clear that the House does not control the Senate 
process and the Senate does not control the House process; however, 
during the impeachment trial of President Trump, the House tried 
repeatedly to dictate to the Senate how it should conduct its trial.
  The ``sole power to try'' means laying out rules for the trial, 
including when and if to call additional witnesses or request more 
documents.
  In addition to laying out roles and responsibilities for impeachment, 
our Constitution also provides basic rights for the accused. The Fifth 
Amendment ensures due process. However, the receipt of due process is 
not contingent upon waiving another right, like immunity or executive 
privilege. But that is exactly what the House tried to force President 
Trump to do.
  The President is not above the law, but neither is the House of 
Representatives. If there was a question as to the scope and proper use 
of the President's right to assert immunity or executive privilege 
regarding conversations he had with his closest advisers, that question 
is proper for a court to determine, not Congress, and surely not the 
House on its own accord. To put this in constitutional terms, the 
legislative branch cannot prevent the executive branch from having 
access to the judicial branch. The House wanted to move quickly and 
prevent the President from ever going to court to resolve any issue. 
That has never been done for a good reason, the separation of powers. 
In previous legal battles with the President, it has taken months to 
resolve critical issues, like Bush v. Gore in 2000 or even in the 
Clinton impeachment trial, when the House took 2 months to resolve an 
issue with witnesses in court. It does not have to drag on for years.
  The House also wanted the Chief Justice of the United States to 
``rule on'' any issue quickly instead of allowing the President to go 
through the courts. This would have created a new judicial executive 
branch by putting all the judicial power of the nation in one person, 
not in the judicial branch, as is stated in the Constitution. It would 
have also ignored the text of the Constitution where it notes that the 
Chief Justice ``presides'' in the court of impeachment, not 
``decides.'' The sole power of impeachment is in the Senate, not the 
Senate plus the one Justice. The Chief Justice keeps the trial moving 
along, based on the rules of the trial, but he or she is not a decider 
of fact; that is reserved to the Senate. The House managers wanted to 
ignore that part of the Constitution to move the trial faster for 
expedience. We cannot ignore the Constitution or create bad precedent, 
no matter which party is being tried for impeachment.
  Further, the Sixth Amendment guarantees that the accused has the 
ability to both confront the witnesses against him and to have the 
assistance of counsel. The majority of the impeachment inquiry in the 
House was done without a meaningful opportunity for the President to 
participate, and administration witnesses were denied the ability to 
have counsel present for depositions.
  The Constitution lays out a clear separation of powers but 
importantly also provides a system of checks and balances. For 
something as important as impeachment, it is imperative that the 
process be one that is squarely within the bounds of the Constitution 
and is one that the American people can trust. Unfortunately, the 
process undertaken by the House to impeach President Trump falls wildly 
short of the standards put in place by our Founders.
  Article II, section 4 of the Constitution states that ``the 
President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, 
shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, 
treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.''
  During the trial of President Trump, there was a lot of conversation 
about what constitutes a ``high crime'' or ``misdemeanor.'' Notably, 
the House did not charge the President with any crimes; rather, the 
House chose to impeach the President for ``abuse of power'' and 
``obstruction of Congress.''
  The House theoretically could have chosen to file Articles of 
Impeachment for crimes such as bribery, extortion, solicitation of 
interference in an election, or violations of the Impoundments Clause 
Act. For any of these crimes, the House would have had to prove 
specific elements of each. Since they couldn't prove any of those 
crimes, they chose to charge the President with abuse of power. As was 
noted in the trial, 40 Presidents have faced accusation of abuse of 
power, going back as far as George Washington.
  The abuse of power charge for President Trump was based on 
allegations that he improperly withheld aid to Ukraine and conditioned 
a meeting with President Zelensky at the White House in exchange for an 
investigation into former Vice President Biden and his son Hunter. Over 
the course of the last 4 months, we heard the term ``quid pro quo'' 
used over and over again, but the facts do not show criminal quid pro 
quo. As previously mentioned, President Zelensky asked to meet with 
President Trump in Poland, and that meeting was set up. Further, while 
the aid to Ukraine was delayed, it wasn't delayed more than it had been 
the previous 2 years, and the aid was released without an 
investigation--or even an announcement of one--into the Biden's.
  The second Article of Impeachment, obstruction of Congress, had an 
even weaker constitutional foundation. The investigation was announced 
September 24 did not officially begin until October 31. The impeachment 
vote in the House was December 18. This very short time table and the 
accusation that the President refused to follow the law, honor the 
courts, and that he acted like a ``King'' did not meet even the most 
basic constitutional standards for justice.
  For example, during the Mueller investigation, the President's team 
fully cooperated with the investigation that included over 2,000 
subpoenas and 500 witnesses, including the President's Chief of Staff, 
multiple Cabinet officials, and many lower level officials who were all 
made available. It was clear throughout the investigation that the 
President did not like or agree with the Mueller investigation, but he 
also fully cooperated with every subpoena, each witness, and every 
document. In fact, they released over a million pages of documents to 
the Mueller team.
  President Trump also made his disagreement with the courts very clear 
on issues like the census, whether travel restrictions can be put in 
place to ensure national security, or whether particular funds can be 
used to secure our southern border. But each time the President lost in 
court, his administration complied with orders from the judiciary. That 
is how our system of government is supposed to work.
  When disagreements happen between the legislative branch and the 
judicial branch, they usually lead to resolution, not impeachment. The 
Fast and Furious investigation, which lasted more than 3 years in the 
Obama administration, led to a vote in the House to hold then-Attorney 
General Eric Holder in contempt, but it never led to an impeachment 
inquiry, even though there was a clear and consistent refusal to 
cooperate with Congress or turn over key documents for 3 years.
  In this case, the accusation that President Trump ignored subpoenas 
or refused to follow the law is not correct. The President's team made 
it very clear that they would cooperate during the impeachment inquiry 
with properly authorized and issued subpoenas, but the House refused to 
issue subpoenas that were consistent with the law to seek resolution 
for documents and witnesses. The House was focused on speed, not legal 
process.
  The House, in a rush to impeachment last fall, issued multiple 
subpoenas for documents and testimony before the House had given 
authority to the committees to issue subpoenas for an impeachment 
inquiry, which happened October 31. Since there was no authority to 
issue the subpoenas, they were not duly authorized. The House also 
demanded testimony from the President's inner circle without working 
through the legal questions, and the House demanded executive agency 
witnesses appear without allowing them to bring agency counsel with 
them. All of those

[[Page S1150]]

issues created very real legal and constitutional problems. Agency 
individuals have always been allowed to have legal counsel with them 
when they are deposed, except this time.
  As a Member of Congress, I cannot demand the President turn over 
documents or give testimony in any fashion that I would prefer just 
because I have oversight responsibilities. In the same way, the 
President or other executive branch officials cannot demand I turn over 
my notes or provide my staff for testimony without going through the 
courts and gaining a legal subpoena. Congress has vigorously and 
rightfully protected its rights from unwarranted investigations from 
any President and Presidents have done the same. But in all cases, the 
law must be followed and the proper process must be pursued to get the 
information in a legal way.
  From the very first moments of the Senate trial, the House managers 
fought for additional witnesses and documents from the President. Their 
argument and justification for the second Article of Impeachment 
centered on the White House's refusal to turn over documents and make 
every witness available without going through the normal legal process.
  Per the resolution adopted by the Senate, the House record was part 
of the trial record. The Senate had the testimony of the witnesses the 
House chose to question as part of the overall information of the 
trial. The House already had 28,000 pages of documents that were part 
of the evidence they submitted to the Senate, although, the House 
managers admitted during the Senate impeachment trial that they still 
have not released all of the documents and witness testimony that they 
had gathered in their investigation to the White House Counsel or to 
the Senate. We do not fully know why the House held back some of its 
witness testimony and released others.
  The House witness testimony was used extensively in the Senate trial.
  These are the witnesses who testified live or via video in the House 
and Senate Impeachment: David Holmes, Political Counselor, U.S. Embassy 
Ukraine, State Department; Dr. Fiona Hill, White House Advisor, 
National Security Council; David Hale, Under Secretary for Political 
Affairs, State Department; Laura Cooper, Deputy Assistant Secretary of 
Defense; Gordon Sondland, U.S. Ambassador to the European Union; Tim 
Morison, Former White House Adviser; Kurt Voelker, Former Special Envoy 
for Ukraine; LTC Alexander Vindman, National Security Council; Jennifer 
Williams, aide to the Vice President; Marie Yovanovitch, Former 
Ambassador to Ukraine; George Kent, Deputy Assistant Secretary of 
State; Bill Taylor, Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine.

  The House managers repeated over and over that additional witnesses 
would only take a week to depose, which is a clearly false statement. 
New witnesses took longer than a week to depose in the House inquiry; 
clearly it would take just as long or longer in a Senate trial. The 
remaining ``wish list'' of witnesses all had clear issues that needed 
to be resolved in the courts, which would take a couple of months to 
resolve, which is why the House managers did not push for their 
testimony in the House impeachment process. They valued speed more than 
legal process.
  House managers repeatedly stated that witnesses only took a week to 
depose in the Clinton Senate impeachment trial, but they know that 
during the Clinton Senate trial, all three called witnesses previously 
deposed in the House inquiry or in the grand jury investigation, and 
all issues of executive privilege had already been decided through the 
courts. There were no new witnesses in the Senate trial of President 
Clinton. Also, the Clinton White House had already had the opportunity 
to cross-examine witnesses or the investigators in the Clinton 
impeachment inquiry. This time, the Trump White House had been denied 
that right. So, if new witnesses would be added for the Senate trial, 
the White House should have the right to also cross-examine the 
previous House witnesses they had been denied the right to cross 
examine in the past. This would all take much longer than a week, and 
the House managers knew that.
  During the Clinton impeachment trial in the Senate, there were no 
additional documents requested, only previously deposed witnesses. The 
House managers did not go through the legal process to get documents, 
like the Mueller investigation had done, so all of the new document 
requests from the House managers would take at least 3 to 5 weeks to 
complete, once a legal subpoena is delivered. It takes time to search 
all databases, review the documents for classified materials, determine 
any legal issues, and release them to the investigation. Once the 
documents are turned over, both legal teams need time to review the 
documents. Again, the House managers knew these facts, but they 
continued to repeat over and over that it would only take a week to get 
all the documents.
  The first question for the Senate trial was, do we have enough 
evidence and testimony to answer the questions the House presented in 
their Articles of Impeachment? If the answer is yes, then we do not 
need additional witnesses or documents. If the answer is no, then we do 
need additional information. There were many leaks and newspaper 
stories during the trial designed to push the Senate to vote to ask for 
more testimony, but that did not change the primary question. We 
already knew from evidence that there was no quid pro quo, no Ukrainian 
investigations, and no withholding of a public meeting with President 
Trump.
  The New York Times story on January 26 and again on January 31 are 
clear examples of an attempt to bring doubt on the information and 
witness testimony. Both stories stated that someone had read the 
pending John Bolton book manuscript and that in the book, Bolton stated 
that President Trump had talked about investigations in exchange for 
aid funding for Ukraine. The New York Times also wrote that the book 
would state that Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and White House 
Counsel Pat Cipollone were also a part of the scheme. I looked at both 
stories closely and noticed that the reporters had not read the 
manuscripts or quoted the manuscripts; they were reports from someone 
who stated that they had read the manuscripts. Both stories took 
significant liberties to describe the intent in the manuscripts, but 
the reporter had apparently also not spoken to John Bolton.
  On January 23, 2020, the National Security Council lawyers sent a 
letter to the legal team handling the book publishing for John Bolton 
to inform him that the manuscript contained some classified information 
and it would need have some edits before publication in March. Then, on 
January 26, the New York Times published a story that someone had 
leaked some of the details of the book, but they had not released the 
actual manuscript. While I am interested in seeing the actual 
manuscript, I am also very aware that this selective leak was designed 
by the New York Times and whoever leaked the information to influence 
the ongoing trial.
  It was clear from the earliest days of the trial that the House had a 
clear political strategy as well as a courtroom strategy. During the 
trial. I had the responsibility to hear the facts but also to separate 
the politics from the facts. Politically, it was best for the House to 
move as quickly as possible through impeachment so that vulnerable 
Democratic Members could vote for impeachment and then move quickly to 
other topics. But since the Presidential election is in full swing, it 
was politically better for Democrats to make the Senate trial move as 
slow as possible to hurt the President during the campaign. That 
explains why the House did not take the time to formally request 
documents or testimony from many individuals; they needed to move fast 
and try to force the Senate to move slowly. It also explained why the 
House passed impeachment on a party line vote, then held the Articles 
of Impeachment for a month before delivering them to the Senate to 
start the trial. The House managers said repeatedly that the evidence 
was clear and that they had proved their case, but if that was true, 
why would the Senate need to call additional witnesses? I think the 
reason is that the witness process was about delay, more than facts.
  The facts do not support the accusation in the Trump impeachment, and 
it certainly did not need to come to this moment of national division. 
While it was clear that the House managers

[[Page S1151]]

wanted to drag the trial on for months in the Senate, through the 
primary election season, their case consisted of hypothetical story 
lines and ``presumptions'' more than facts that warrant the removal of 
a President. This does not meet what Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 
65 described as the ``due weight'' for the arguments.
  But impeachment has certainly created the division in our society 
that Alexander Hamilton predicted. Over 200 years ago he wrote, ``The 
prosecution [of impeachments], will seldom fail to agitate the passions 
of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less 
friendly or inimical to the accused.'' This has been an incredibly 
divisive season in our Nation. It is not about one person; it is about 
all of us. We individually choose how we handle disagreements with 
family, friends, and people on the other side of particular issues. Our 
government represents us, so it is up to us to model for our government 
how to handle disagreements.
  We are now past impeachment, and it is time to work on the issues 
that matter most to the American people. As we move forward, every 
American should speak out on the issues that are important to them and 
the voices that speak for their point of view. But we should remember 
that we have much more in common than we have that divides us. It is my 
hope that our Nation does not go through a season like this again for a 
very long time and that we can move past this age of impeachment to an 
age of oversight and accountability.
  I appreciate all the engagement with our office during the 
impeachment proceedings. We had thousands of calls and emails over the 
past month. We had hundreds of thousands of views on the nightly 
Facebook Live updates each day during the trial. While not every 
Oklahoman agrees with every decision I make on behalf of our State, I 
am grateful most choose to be respectful in expressing their points of 
view. At the end of the day, we are Oklahomans. We may not all agree on 
each issue, but we can be respectful of each other in our disagreement.
  I am honored to serve our State and Nation. We have many important 
issues to address in the coming days I pray we can work on them 
together for the future of our State and Nation.
  Mr. TILLIS. Madam President, during the impeachment trial, this 
Chamber considered the evidence and heard the arguments presented by 
the House managers and White House Counsel. During the 12 days of the 
impeachment trial, the Senate heard from the House managers for nearly 
22 hours, and we heard from the White House Counsel for nearly 12 
hours. This was followed by 180 questions asked and answered over 2 
days, concluding with closing arguments by the House managers and White 
House Counsel.
  Ultimately, there were two questions the Senate had to answer when 
considering the Articles of Impeachment.
  The first question, for the near-term, is should the President be 
removed from office?
  The second question, for the long-term health of our Nation, is 
whether we should allow the impeachment process to be weaponized and 
used by a majority in the House to settle partisan political scores?
  My answers to both questions are a resounding no.
  That is why I voted against both Articles of Impeachment.
  While my Democratic colleagues operated under the presumption of 
guilt, even if one is to assume the worst, the reality is the 
allegations against President Trump were neither criminal nor 
impeachable. They did not come close to meeting the standard of 
treason, bribery, or high crimes or misdemeanors set by our Founding 
Fathers.
  It is remarkable to read the Federalist Papers and appreciate their 
clairvoyance. Federalist 65, written by Alexander Hamilton, was 
frequently quoted throughout these proceedings, and for good reason. 
Hamilton's warnings to this body of using impeachment as a partisan 
device were borne out. Hamilton wrote that impeachment:

       [W]ill seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole 
     community, and to divide it into parties more or less 
     friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will 
     connect itself with the pre-existing factions . . . 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.

  By placing the impeachment power within the House and Senate, 
Hamilton acknowledged that power may wind up in the hands of ``the 
leaders or tools of the most cunning or the most numerous faction,'' 
which may ``hardly be expected to possess the requisite neutrality 
towards those whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny.'' It is 
because of this remarkable power that Hamilton argued the Senate had 
been granted the power to try impeachments because the Senate is more 
likely to preserve ``the necessary impartiality between the INDIVIDUAL 
accused, and the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, HIS ACCUSERS?''
  It is important to note that the Speaker of the House previously 
warned about the dangers of a politically motivated impeachment effort, 
stating in March 2019 that ``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.''
  History has proven that warning to be true. One only needs to compare 
the dramatically different outcomes between the Nixon impeachment 
inquiry, which resulted in resignation, and the Clinton impeachment 
process, which resulted in acquittal.
  The Speaker's warning rings as true today as it did when she said it 
nearly 1 year ago. Unfortunately, the House majority ignored this 
warning, electing to lead a distinctly partisan process from beginning 
to end, based on a political timeline.
  It began when the House majority refused to provide the President 
with basic due process rights for 71 of the 78 days of the formal House 
impeachment inquiry. The House majority also refused to provide proper 
rights to the minority, whose requests for an equal number of witnesses 
was denied.
  It is no wonder why House Resolution 660, which permitted an 
impeachment inquiry, and House Resolution 755, the Articles of 
Impeachment against President Trump, failed to receive a single vote 
from the minority. In fact, the only thing that was bipartisan was the 
opposition to the articles.
  The House majority presented a weak and completely partisan case for 
impeachment to the Senate. This is why the House managers attempted to 
convince the Senate to endorse its particular views of separation of 
powers, essentially asking the Senate to do the House's job where it 
failed: to make a compelling case for the President's removal.
  This is yet another area Hamilton addressed. In Federalist 66, 
Hamilton outlined the differing roles and responsibilities between the 
House and Senate on impeachment, casting the House as the accusers and 
the Senate as the judges:

       The division of them between the two branches of the 
     legislature, assigning to one the right of accusing, to the 
     other the right of judging, avoids the inconvenience of 
     making the same persons both accusers and judges; and guards 
     against the danger of persecution, from the prevalency of a 
     factious spirit in either of those branches. As the 
     concurrence of two thirds of the Senate will be requisite to 
     a condemnation, the security to innocence, from this 
     additional circumstance, will be as complete as itself can 
     desire.

  By dividing the power to accuse and the power to judge, the Founding 
Founders further recognized the procedural nature of this process. 
Appropriate procedure would serve to protect the Executive from the 
designs of a partisan faction in the House and would ensure that 
removal was not just desirable, but truly necessary.
  In this instance, removal was absolutely unnecessary, even if it was 
desirable to the whims of some in the House majority since the day the 
President was inaugurated in 2017.
  This addresses the answer to the second question I posed on whether 
the Senate will allow the impeachment process to become the new normal.
  It would create a dangerous precedent in which the House actively 
seeks opportunities to open impeachment inquires to politically weaken 
and potentially remove the President of the opposing party.
  Impeachment is the most powerful tool the Founding Fathers gave to us 
to defend against Executive misconduct, but it should never be abused. 
It should never be used to settle political scores, and it should never 
be used

[[Page S1152]]

as an effort to deny the American people the right to decide the 
President's fate at the ballot box.
  To transform impeachment into a partisan political weapon is to 
diminish and undermine its critical constitutional role.
  Despite the factions which formed during this impeachment trial, I 
remain optimistic about the direction of our Nation. For all the bitter 
partisan emotions this impeachment process has enflamed, this Congress 
now has the opportunity to move on and focus on forging consensus to 
conduct the business of the American people. Congress has recently 
demonstrated this ability--enacting historic criminal justice reform, 
agreeing on reforms to improve the delivery of healthcare to our brave 
veterans, and approving a fair and free trade deal with America's two 
largest economic partners, producing a win for American workers and 
consumers.
  I hope, when the record is written of this impeachment, that history 
will say that the Senate ultimately retained the high bar which must be 
met to remove a President, that the Senate rejected the temptation to 
normalize the impeachment process for partisan political gain, and that 
Congress turned the page following the President's acquittal to 
prioritize the needs of the American people and, in turn, solve the 
most pressing challenges facing our great Nation.

                          ____________________