[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 23 (Monday, February 8, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S566-S567]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              Impeachment

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, it has been more than a month since a 
violent mob stormed this building and attempted to disrupt the 
congressional certification of Presidential electors--the vote of those 
electors. Rather than a peaceful transition of power, some of the mob 
turned their grievances into violent action. But, again, that is the 
problem with mobs. No matter what the intentions were of those who were 
simply exercising their rights to free speech and free assembly, mobs 
invariably degenerate into the lowest common denominator.
  That element of the mob assaulted police officers, destroyed 
property, and trespassed in the halls of the U.S. Capitol. Some roamed 
these halls in search of Members of Congress against whom they actually 
threatened harm. And if not for the heroism of the men and women of the 
Capitol Police, the human cost would have likely been higher.
  The criminal acts of the mob were disgraceful and indefensible. 
Regardless of party or politics, there should be no disagreement on 
that most basic point. The people making up this mob came to Washington 
with the idea that the results of the 2020 election were not final. 
President Trump fed that fantasy by repeatedly claiming the election 
was stolen, even after he had exhausted all of his legal remedies in 
dozens and dozens of lawsuits. The President's actions were reckless. 
He should have known better than to stoke a flame he could not and did 
not control.
  But the events of January 6 are only part of the story, and it is the 
congressional response, including impeachment, that I now want to talk 
about. Simply put, this snap impeachment raises serious questions about 
fundamental fairness, due process, or, more accurately, a lack thereof. 
Unlike previous impeachments, there was no formal inquiry, no 
investigation, no hearings, no witnesses, no cross-examination, no 
nothing. We know impeachment is not like a traditional judicial 
proceeding. It is not a court of law. But it does make common sense--
and I think this was the direction we gave the House during the last 
impeachment trial--that it is the House's obligation to investigate, 
develop the evidence, and then charge, not the other way around.
  Historically, this has been true for impeachment proceedings. Each 
time, the House has conducted a full-scale investigation before a vote 
on the Articles of Impeachment. As I said, that was the case last year 
when the House spent months deposing witnesses, holding hearings, 
building a case against the President before ever announcing formal 
charges.
  But this time around, they took an entirely different approach. In 
attempting to justify this unprecedented departure from a fair and 
dignified proceeding, some of our Democratic friends claim that no 
evidence needs to be presented, saying that we were all witnesses to 
what happened on January 6 and that we can be jurors, witnesses, and, 
in the words of at least one Democratic Senator, victims all at the 
same time.
  This week, President Trump's defense team will have the opportunity 
to present its case, and I expect the lack of due process to be a major 
area of focus and rightfully so.
  Unfortunately, that is not the only problem with this impeachment 
trial. The Constitution requires the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme 
Court to preside over the impeachment trial of a President. But since 
this is the trial of a former President, a private citizen, someone who 
no longer holds office, Chief Justice Roberts will not be presiding. As 
a result, the senior Senator from Vermont will now serve as both a 
judge and a juror, in addition to being a witness, I presume, and, in 
the words of another Senator, a victim.
  I respect Senator Leahy, but the fact of the matter is, he cannot be 
an impartial arbiter. He has a conflict of interest. Following the 
House's impeachment vote, Senator Leahy called President Trump ``the 
greatest threat to the Constitution and t American democracy in a 
generation.'' He voted to convict Donald Trump during the last 
impeachment trial and apparently has already decided to do it again in 
this trial.

[[Page S567]]

  The fact of the matter is, no American, let alone a former President, 
should be tried before a juror who has already determined guilt or 
innocence and who also serves as a judge. I want to be abundantly 
clear, though, on one point. President Trump's words and actions 
leading up to the attack were reckless and wrong, but as we all know, 
the constitutional standard for impeachment isn't recklessness.
  Treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors--those are 
the offenses that the Constitution allows Congress to impeach and 
remove a President from office for violating or from committing, which 
brings us to one of the biggest concerns I have. Donald Trump is no 
longer President of the United States. He is a private citizen. Our 
Democratic colleagues moved so fast that they could impeach the 
President while he was in office but failed to transmit the Articles to 
the Senate until he became a private citizen.
  Legal experts have debated not only the constitutionality of trying a 
former President but also the wisdom of doing so, and I share concerns 
on both those fronts. I think this ill-timed impeachment trial sets a 
dangerous precedent for future former Presidents.
  As politicized as impeachment has become, it could become a 
reoccurring political exercise that would be toxic for our democracy. 
Prominent Democrats have warned about the dangers of using impeachment 
as a political weapon against an opposing party.
  During the impeachment inquiry of President Clinton, Senator Leahy 
himself counseled:

       A partisan impeachment cannot command the respect of the 
     American people. It is no more valid than a stolen election.

  I agree with him. The problem with one party using impeachment to 
exact political retribution on an opposing party's President at the end 
of his term or even after that President has left office seems quite 
obvious to me. It is political retribution.
  Depending on which party controls Congress and which occupies the 
White House, this could turn into a regular blemish on our democracy. 
Rather than focusing together on our future and a new administration, 
seeking common ground and unity, as President Biden has called for, 
such a precedent of trying a former President could create an endless 
feedback loop of recrimination.
  I think this is a dangerous and destructive path, and I would implore 
my colleagues on both sides to consider the long-term implications of 
this precedent. As Justice Story explained, the Framers saw the Senate 
as a tribunal, in his words, ``removed from popular power and passions 
. . . and from the more dangerous influence of mere party spirit,'' and 
was guided by ``a deep responsibility to future times.''
  So, as before, I don't take my role as a juror lightly, and I will 
reserve final judgment until both the House impeachment managers and 
President Trump's defense team have had the opportunity to present 
their cases. But I do think, indeed, I fear, we are skating on very 
thin ice and are in danger of inflicting great harm to our country by 
this rushed, unfair, and partisan proceeding. May God help us.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.