[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.
____________________