[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 26, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S140-S141]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              IMPEACHMENT

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, this impeachment is nothing more than a 
partisan exercise designed to further divide the country. Democrats 
claim to want to unify the country, but impeaching a former President, 
a private citizen, is the antithesis of unity.
  Democrats brazenly appointing a pro-impeachment Democrat to preside 
over the trial is not fair or impartial and hardly encourages any kind 
of unity in our country. No, unity is the opposite of this travesty we 
are about to witness.
  If we are about to try to impeach a President, where is the Chief 
Justice?
  If the accused is no longer President, where is the constitutional 
power to impeach him?
  Private citizens don't get impeached. Impeachment is for removal from 
office, and the accused here has already left office.
  Hyperpartisan Democrats are about to drag our great country down into 
the gutter of rancor and vitriol, the likes of which has never been 
seen in our Nation's history.
  Instead of doing the Nation's work, with their new majorities in the 
House, the Senate, and the executive branch, Democrats are wasting the 
Nation's time on a partisan vendetta against a man no longer in office. 
It is almost as if they have no ability to exist except in opposition 
to Donald Trump. Without him as their boogeyman, they might have to 
legislate and to actually convince Americans that their policy 
prescriptions are the right ones.
  Democrats are about to do something no self-respecting Senator has 
ever stooped to. Democrats are insisting the election is actually not 
over, and so they insist on regurgitating the bitterness of the 
election.
  This acrimony they are about to unleash has never before been tried. 
Why? Because calmer heads have typically prevailed in our history and 
allowed public opinion to cast blame where blame is deserved.
  This sham of an impeachment will ostensibly ask whether the President 
incited the reprehensible behavior and violence of January 6, when he 
said: ``I know everyone here will soon march to the Capitol to 
peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.''
  ``Peacefully and patriotically''--hardly words of violence.
  But what of Democrat words? What of Democrat incitement to violence?
  No Democrat will honestly ask whether Bernie Sanders incited the

[[Page S141]]

shooter that nearly killed   Steve Scalise and a volunteer coach. The 
shooter nearly pulled off a massacre--I was there--because he fervently 
believed the false and inflammatory rhetoric spewed by Bernie and other 
Democrats, such as: ``The Republican healthcare plan for the uninsured 
is that you die.''
  As this avowed Bernie supporter shot   Steve Scalise, nearly killing 
him, and shot one of our coaches and two or three of our staff, he 
screamed: ``This is for healthcare!''
  Ask me or anyone if that is incitement.
  No Democrat will ask whether Cory Booker incited violence when he 
called for his supporters to get ``up in the face of Congress 
people''--a very visual and specific incitement.
  No Democrat will ask whether Maxine Waters incited violence when she 
literally told her supporters: ``If you see a member of the Trump 
[administration] at a restaurant, [at] a department store, [at] a gas 
station, or any place, you create a crowd and you push back on them.'' 
Is that not incitement?
  My wife and I were pushed and surrounded and screamed at by this same 
type of mob that Maxine likes to inspire. It is terrifying to have a 
swarm of people threatening to kill you, cursing at you, and literally 
holding you hostage until police come to your rescue. That night we 
were assaulted by the crowd, I wasn't sure if we would survive even 
with the police protection. But no Democrat has ever considered 
impeaching Maxine for her violent rhetoric. In fact, Republicans, to 
our credit, have never once thought it legitimate to censure or impeach 
these Democrats.
  No Republican has sought to use a government to hold these Democrats 
responsible for Antifa and Black Lives Matter violence that has 
consumed our cities all summer, resulting in over $1 billion of 
destruction, looting, and property damage. Not one Republican said, 
``Oh, let's impeach the Democrats who are inciting this'' because it 
would be ridiculous.
  Many on the Democrat side of the aisle cheered them on. Kamala Harris 
famously offered to pay the bill for those who were arrested. I wonder 
if she will be brought up on charges of inciting violence for that now 
that she is Vice President. Should Kamala Harris be impeached for 
offering to pay for violent people to get out of jail who have been 
burning our cities down? No. No Republican has offered that because we 
are not going down the road the Democrats have decided, this low road 
of impeaching people for political speech.

  Should Republicans impeach the Democratic mayor of Seattle who 
incited and condoned violence by calling the armed takeover of part of 
her city ``a summer of love''? Did any Republicans try to impeach her?
  Then on June 8, the New York Post, citing U.S. Justice Department 
statistics, reported that more than 700 law enforcement officers were 
injured during the Antifa-Black Lives Matter riots. There were at least 
19 murders, including 77-year-old retired police officer David Dorn. 
Yet Democrats insist on applying a test of incitement to a Republican 
that they refuse to apply to themselves.
  I want the Democrats to raise their hands if they have ever given a 
speech that says ``Take back; fight for your country.'' Who hasn't used 
the word ``fight'' figuratively? And are we going to put every 
politician in jail? Are we going to impeach every politician who has 
used the word ``fight'' figuratively in a speech?
  Shame. Shame on these angry, unhinged partisans who are putting forth 
this sham impeachment, deranged by their hatred of the former 
President. Shame on those who seek blame and revenge and who choose to 
pervert a constitutional process while doing so.
  I want this body on record, every last person here: Is this how you 
think politics should be?
  Look, we have now got crazy partisans on the other side of the aisle 
trying to censor and remove two of the Republican Senators for their 
political position. Look, I disagreed. I don't think Congress should 
overturn the electoral college. But impeaching or censoring or 
expelling a Member of Congress you disagree with--is the truth so 
narrow that only you know the truth? We now have the media on your side 
saying there is only one set of facts, one set of truths, and you can 
only interpret it this way.
  Now we have seven Senators on the other side trying to expel, censor, 
or impugn two Senators on this side. I defend them, not because I 
defend their position--I disagreed with their position--but you can't 
impeach, censor, or expel people you disagree with. What is this coming 
to?
  In a few minutes, I will insist on a vote to affirm that this 
proceeding we are about to enter is unconstitutional, that impeachment 
of a private citizen is illegal and essentially a bill of attainder, 
and that no sense of fairness or due process would allow the judge in 
the proceeding to be a partisan Democrat already in favor of the 
impeachment.
  A sham this is. A travesty. A dark blot on the history of our 
country. I urge my colleagues to reconsider this kangaroo court and 
move forward to debate the great issues of our day.
  With that, I would like to relinquish the last moment or two of my 
time to the Senator of Wisconsin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I would like to first thank my colleague 
from Kentucky for his consistent, over the years--consistent fighting, 
I use that word--fighting for the Constitution. I truly appreciate it, 
and I appreciate his raising this constitutional point of order in an 
hour or so.
  The issue he raises is one of constitutionality versus 
unconstitutionality. I have been reading positions on both sides. I 
understand there are legitimate arguments on both sides of that 
question. But the fact is, 3 weeks ago, we came together in this body 
and we collectively decided that it was not wise, it was not smart--
regardless of the constitutionality or the ability for us to do so, it 
was not smart for Congress to overrule, overturn the wishes of voters 
and of States that certified the electors. We felt that was not wise.
  Again, in a couple of hours, we are going to be voting on--we won't 
be able to debate, which is why I am rising today or at this moment--we 
are going to debate whether a trial of someone who is no longer a 
President, no longer a civil servant, a private citizen, whether that 
is constitutional or not constitutional. Again, there are good 
arguments on both sides. Senators will vote differently and have 
justification for whatever side of that argument they take.
  What I would like my colleagues to consider when they decide how to 
vote on that is not the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of 
that; I want them to consider, is it wise? Will a trial of a former 
President, of a private citizen--will it heal? Will it unify? I think 
the answer is clearly it will not. A trial of a former President is 
simply vindictive. It will divide. It is like opening up a wound and 
throwing salt in it. That is not a healing process.
  Again, the question when we vote on this in a couple of hours, for 
every Senator, should be, Is it wise? Is it the right thing to do? I 
think from that standpoint, the choice is very clear: It will not heal. 
It will not unite.
  Let's put an end to this now. Let's dismiss this trial and rule it 
unconstitutional.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________