[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 14 (Monday, January 25, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S113-S114]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              IMPEACHMENT

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, as I announced on Friday, the 
Republican leader and I have come to an initial agreement about the 
timing of the impeachment trial of Donald Trump. This evening, managers 
appointed by the House of Representatives will deliver

[[Page S114]]

to the Senate the Article of Impeachment and will read the article here 
in the well of this Chamber.
  Tomorrow, Senators will be sworn in as judges and jurors in the 
impending trial, and the Senate will issue a summons to former 
President Trump. After that, both the House managers and the former 
President's counsel will have a period of time to draft their legal 
briefs, just as they did in previous trials. Once the briefs are 
drafted, presentations by the parties will commence the week of 
February 8.
  I want to thank the Republican leader for working with us to reach 
this agreement, which we believe is fair to both sides and will enable 
the Senate to conduct a timely and fair trial on the Article of 
Impeachment. The schedule will also allow us to continue the important 
work of the people, including confirming more members of President 
Biden's Cabinet.
  I want to be very clear about that last point. The Senate will 
conduct a timely and fair trial.
  I want to be very clear about that because some of my Republican 
colleagues have latched on to a fringe legal theory that the Senate 
does not have the constitutional power to hold the trial because Donald 
Trump is no longer in office. This argument has been roundly debunked 
by constitutional scholars from the left, right, and center. It defies 
precedent, historic practice, and basic common sense. It makes no sense 
whatsoever that a President--or any official--could commit a heinous 
crime against our country and then defeat Congress's impeachment powers 
by simply resigning so as to avoid accountability and a vote to 
disqualify them from future office.
  This is not merely a hypothetical situation. In 1876, President 
Grant's Secretary of War, William Belknap, implicated in a corruption 
scheme, literally raced to the White House to tender his resignation 
mere minutes before the House was set to vote on his impeachment. Then, 
as a matter of historical record, he burst into tears. Not only did the 
House move forward with the five impeachment articles against him, but 
a trial was then convened in the Senate.
  Of course, the question came up as to whether the Senate could try 
former officials, and guess what. The Senate voted as a Chamber that 
Mr. Belknap could be tried ``for acts done as Secretary of War, 
notwithstanding his resignation of said office.''
  Those are the words of the Senate vote in 1876.
  Mr. Belknap was ultimately acquitted, but the record is clear. The 
Senate has the power to try former officials, and the reasons are 
obvious. A President or any official, for example, could wait until 
their final 2 weeks in office to betray their country, knowing they 
could escape accountability or merely resign moments before the Senate 
decides to convict and disqualify them from future office. The theory 
that the Senate cannot try former officials would amount to a 
constitutional get-out-of-jail-free card for any President who commits 
an impeachable offense.
  Now, it is certainly appropriate for the Senate to take the 
resignation of an official into account. After all, the House decided 
not to impeach Richard Nixon because, in that sense, Nixon took some 
responsibility for his actions. But to state the obvious, President 
Trump did not resign. He has not demonstrated remorse. He has not even 
acknowledged his role in the events of January 6, and he has never 
disavowed the lies that were fed to the American people by him about 
who actually won the election.
  Just to put a final nail into the coffin of this ridiculous theory, I 
remind my colleagues, if a President is convicted on an Article of 
Impeachment, the Senate holds a separate vote on whether to bar them 
from future office. Once a President is convicted of an impeachment 
charge, they are removed from office. In other words, they become a 
former official. If we are to believe that the Senate can't hold former 
officials to account, then the Senate could never proceed to that 
second vote of disqualification, which is provided for in the 
Constitution, even for a sitting President.
  In saying this, I am expressing the view of legal scholars across the 
political spectrum. Stephen Vladeck, a prominent constitutional expert 
at the University of Texas, wrote in the New York Times that Donald 
Trump is the ``poster child'' for why the conviction of an ex-President 
is not just constitutionally permissible but necessary. More than 150 
legal scholars signed a letter last week forcefully stating that an 
impeachment trial of a former President is constitutional. Among the 
signatories, one of the cofounders of the Federalist Society, as well 
as one of President Reagan's Solicitors General, among other prominent 
conservatives.
  It is so obviously wrong to suggest that impeaching the President is 
unconstitutional--that impeaching a former President is 
unconstitutional. So why are some suggesting it?
  Well, there seems to be a desire on the political right to avoid 
passing judgment, one way or the other, on former President Trump and 
his role in fomenting the despicable attack on the Capitol on January 
6. There seems to be some hope that Republicans could oppose the former 
President's impeachment on process grounds, rather than grappling with 
his actual awful conduct.
  Let me be very clear. This is not going to fly. The trial is going to 
happen. It is certainly and clearly constitutional, and if the former 
President is convicted, there will be a vote to disqualify him from 
future office.
  There is only one question at stake--only one question that Senators 
of both parties will have to answer before God and their own 
conscience: Is former President Trump guilty of inciting an 
insurrection against the United States?
  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. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________