[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 38 (Monday, March 1, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S913-S914]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              Impeachment

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, earlier this month, actually for the 
first time in--earlier last month, I should say, in February, for the 
first time in our Nation's history, the Senate convened as a Court of 
Impeachment to try a former President for a high crime and misdemeanor.
  For 5 days, every Member of the Senate was here to hear presentations 
and arguments from an extraordinarily intelligent group of Congressmen 
and Congresswomen representing the House of Representatives. We also 
heard from counsel for former President Donald Trump. After listening 
to the compelling evidence presented by the House managers, I voted to 
convict President Trump for inciting the Capitol riots on January 6, 
and I will have a lot more to say about my vote to convict the former 
President in a later statement.

  Today, though, I am going to speak about the unique role I had in 
this historic trial as its Presiding Officer. It is unique in the 
history of the Senate, and I thought for my fellow Senators and, also, 
for historical purposes I would like you all to know some of my 
feelings.
  Now, I understand why some of my Republican friends were skeptical of 
a Democratic Senator presiding over the trial of a Republican former 
President. I noted the Constitution does not contemplate that the Chief 
Justice would preside over the impeachment trial of a former President, 
but I also note the impeachment process, no matter who presides, is 
inherently and often intensely divisive. Presidential impeachments have 
historically been partisan. Having a member of one particular party in 
the Chair presiding over the trial could understandably give some 
pause.
  Now, as my fellow Senators know, I did not ask, I did not seek to 
preside over this trial, but I am occupying the constitutional office 
of the President pro tempore, and because I am, it was incumbent upon 
me to do so. A Court of Impeachment is not a civil or a criminal court; 
it is a constitutional court. And the President pro tempore, as a 
constitutional officer, has historically presided over impeachment 
trials of non-Presidents. As President Trump's term had expired before 
the trial began, the responsibility to preside over this historic trial 
fell to me, as it would have anybody who would have been President pro 
tempore. I just happened to be.
  I was not going to shirk my duty. My staff and I spent hundreds of 
hours poring over the constitutional background of these trials. I read 
transcripts. I read everything. And what I found is, throughout our 
Nation's history, each President pro tempore has almost without 
exception belonged to a political party, and each has no doubt had 
their own personal and political views on the matters before the 
Senate. But when presiding over the Senate, as I go back through 
history, I see Presidents pro tempore have historically served as a 
neutral arbiter, issuing rulings where appropriate and preserving 
order. I consider holding the Office of the President pro tempore and 
the responsibilities that come with it as one of the highest honors but 
also one of the most serious responsibilities of my career here in the 
Senate.
  When presiding over an impeachment trial, the President pro tempore 
takes an additional--not just his regular role but an additional one to 
do impartial justice according to the Constitution and the laws. This 
is an oath that I take extraordinarily seriously.
  In fact, to demonstrate my commitment to preside over the trial with 
fairness and transparency, before the trial I wrote a letter to every 
single Senator and the parties to the trial. In it I made clear my 
intention and my solemn obligation was to conduct the trial with 
fairness to all. I committed to adhering to the Constitution and to 
applicable Senate rules, precedents, and governing resolutions.
  I committed to consulting with the Senate's esteemed and nonpartisan 
Parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, and I committed to being guided 
by Senate precedent should a motion or an objection or a request or an 
application be put before me. I reiterated that any decision I made--
any decision I made--from the Chair would be subject to the review of 
the full Senate--every Democratic Senator, every Republican Senator, 
every Independent Senator. And I stated I would put any matter before 
the entire Senate in the first instance where appropriate in light of 
the precedents and practices of the Senate, giving all Senators an 
equal say in resolving the issue at the outset. I also informed all 
Senators, though, that I would enforce the Senate rules, and I would 
enforce the precedent governing decorum and do what I could to ensure 
the trial reflected the best traditions of the Senate.
  Now, with the trial behind us, I believe I made good on those 
commitments. My job wasn't to shape the trial or to direct or slant it 
in any particular way but to make sure the rules were followed, the 
proceedings were fair to all parties, consistent with the will of the 
whole Senate, and I believe it was.

[[Page S914]]

  I did my best. I followed the advice of the Parliamentarian and 
enforced our rules and precedents. Where objections were raised, they 
were ultimately resolved without a vote challenging the rulings I made 
from the Chair.
  While I never faced this situation, before the start of the trial I 
had decided--and I had informed the Parliamentarian of my decision--
that should a ruling of mine be appealed, I would abstain from voting 
as a Senator on the question of whether to sustain my own ruling. Now, 
I know from the Constitution and the practices and the rules of the 
Senate, the Presiding Officer is fully empowered to do so--to vote--and 
it happens routinely during legislative sessions. But in going back 
through all the hundreds of pages--the thousands of pages--I could not 
find a historical precedent for Presiding Officers doing so during 
impeachment trials, and I was determined to strictly adhere to 
precedent, even if it limited my authority as a Senator in this 
instance.

  Now I would note that, on two occasions during the trial, I felt it 
was necessary to remind counsel--and I did, as did Chief Justice 
Roberts during President Trump's first trial--to refrain from using 
language that was not conducive to civil discourse. On the final day of 
the trial, when it got a little bit heated, I was prepared to do so in 
stronger terms, if needed. Yet, during closing arguments, I believe 
neither side gave me reason to do so.
  Now, like those who presided over the three prior Presidential 
impeachment trials in our history, I understood each of my decisions 
was important historically and would become important precedents to 
guide those who preside over trials in the future, just as I had read 
and studied the precedents of past trials.
  Since the conclusion of the trial, both Republican and Democratic 
Senators have thanked me for being fair, and I appreciate that greatly. 
I may have had a prominent role for this historic trial, but I was 
committed to not shaping it in any way. I just wanted to give voice to 
our institution's precedents and rules and to otherwise let the Senate 
determine the trial's structure and direction, to let each side present 
its case, and let the chips fall where they may, but let the Senate do 
its job.
  I have now had the opportunity to sit as a judge and juror in 
numerous impeachment trials, including three trials of Presidents. All 
were historic moments for the Senate and this country.
  I hold no illusion that the Senate was at its best for every moment 
of every trial, but each has nonetheless increased my respect for our 
system of government and our Constitution.
  I was proud to uphold my oath as a Senator and as a Presiding 
Officer, my oath to do impartial justice according to our Constitution 
and the laws during last month's trial. There are some things I 
consider far more important than allegiance to any person or political 
party, and my commitment to the Constitution and this great institution 
of the Senate are listed high among them.
  I have felt from the first day I came here that the Senate can be and 
should be the conscience of the Nation. I wanted to help make sure that 
conscience was upheld, and I appreciate the fact that my colleagues 
elected me President pro tempore and gave me this opportunity.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.