[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 38 (Monday, March 1, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S924-S950]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              IMPEACHMENT

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, just barely a year ago, I was here 
making a similar statement. Impeachment is one of the most solemn 
matters to come before the Senate, but I worry that it's also becoming 
a common occurrence.
  Before getting into the merits of this impeachment, it is important 
to reiterate that January 6 was a sad and tragic day for America. I 
hope we can all agree about that.
  What happened here at the Capitol was completely inexcusable. It was 
not a demonstration of any of our protected, inalienable rights. It was 
a direct, violent attack on our seat of government. Those who plowed 
over police barricades, assaulted law enforcement, and desecrated our 
monument to representative democracy flouted the rule of law and 
disgraced our Nation. Six people, including two U.S. Capitol Police 
officers, now lie dead in the wake of this assault. The perpetrators 
must be brought to justice, and I am glad to see that many such cases 
are progressing around the country.
  While the ultimate responsibility for this attack rests upon the 
shoulders of those who unlawfully entered the Capitol, everyone 
involved must take responsibility for their destructive actions that 
day, including the former President. As the leader of the Nation, all 
Presidents bear some responsibility for the actions that they inspire--
good or bad. Undoubtedly, then-President Trump displayed poor 
leadership in his words and actions. I do not defend those actions and 
my vote should not be read as a defense of those actions.
  I am a member of a Court of Impeachment. My job is to vote on the 
case brought by the House managers. I took an oath to render judgment 
on the Article of Impeachment sent to the Senate by the House of 
Representatives. We are confined to considering only the Articles 
charged and the facts presented.
  First and foremost, I don't think this impeachment is proper under 
the Constitution. This is the first time the Senate has tried a former 
President. Whether or not it can do so is a difficult question. The 
Constitution doesn't say in black and white ``Yes, the Senate can try a 
former President'' or ``No, it can't.'' In contrast, many State 
constitutions at the time of the founding specified that their 
legislatures could, so it's notable that our Federal charter did not. 
In order to answer this question it's therefore necessary to look at 
the text, structure, and history of the Constitution. That's what I 
have done. In the end, I do not think we have the ability to try a 
former President.
  I start always with the Constitution, which gives Congress the power 
of impeachment. As I mentioned, impeachment was a feature in many State 
constitutions at the time, and it came from a power enjoyed by the 
English Parliament.
  Impeachment in England was a powerful tool whereby Parliament could

[[Page S925]]

hold individuals accountable for actions against the government without 
having to rely on the King to enforce it. It applied not just to 
sitting government officials but also to former government officials 
and even to private individuals. It was not simply a way to remove 
government officials but a general method of punishing the enemies of 
Parliament, including with fines, jail time, or even death.
  This is not the system established by our Constitution. Our 
Constitution restricts the power of impeachment in two important ways. 
First, it says that Congress can't just impeach anyone: only the 
President, the Vice President, and ``all civil Officers of the United 
States'' can be impeached. It then restricts the penalties for 
impeachment to removal from office and disqualification.
  A former President is not in any of those three categories. He is not 
the President. In fact, the Constitution also specifies that when the 
President is impeached, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall 
preside over the trial. Chief Justice Roberts has not presided over 
this trial, thus making it clear that it is not the trial of a 
President. He is obviously not the Vice President. He is not a civil 
officer of the United States.
  Because he does not fall into any of these categories, I don't think 
that this trial was appropriate.
  Moving beyond the text of the Constitution, the history of the Senate 
confirms this. The U.S. Senate has never convicted a former official in 
an impeachment. The Senate has tried three individuals who were former 
officers--William Blount a former Senator in 1798; William Belknap a 
former Secretary of War, in 1876; and Robert Archibald an incumbent 
Commerce Court judge, in 1912, tried as well for conduct while a 
district judge). Belknap is the only executive branch member tried 
after leaving office. None was convicted for his prior conduct, 
Archibald was convicted on counts relating to his incumbent judicial 
service on the Commerce Court. In all three cases, the jurisdictional 
question loomed large at the trial and was cited as an important 
argument justifying the acquittals. In other words, Senate practice is 
consistent: It has never convicted a former official in an impeachment.
  Between the text of the Constitution and the consistent practice of 
the Senate, I'm convinced that this is not an appropriate use of our 
power. While I realize there are arguments on the other side from 
learned scholars, to me, they do not overcome these problems of text 
and history.
  That's why I voted twice to deal with this impeachment on 
jurisdictional grounds. But my position didn't prevail, with the 
majority Democrats voting in lockstep to proceed, and we went to trial. 
As I've said, even though I think this is inappropriate, I kept an open 
mind during the process, and I listened to both sides as they presented 
their evidence.
  The House managers tried to prove that President Trump incited an 
insurrection. That is a difficult argument to make. There were many 
other Articles over which they could have impeached President Trump, 
but this is what the House of Representatives chose. They didn't meet 
their burden.
  Before getting to the merits of the charge, I need to point out that 
this impeachment trial has not aligned with principles of due process 
of law. Other impeachments have involved significant fact-finding in 
the House, where proper legal formalities are followed, witnesses are 
heard from and cross-examined, and hard evidence is reviewed. Here 
there were no hearings in the House. The evidence presented was mostly 
video montages and news reports. We even had the unusual spectacle of 
voting to call witnesses for the first time as the trial was ending 
only to immediately reverse course and call none. Given the seriousness 
of the situation, I think we should expect better when the House 
exercises its constitutional duty of impeachment.
  This issue involves complicated legal questions. In our legal system, 
though, it is very difficult for speech to rise to the level of 
incitement. ``Incitement'' is a legal term of art. Usually it takes 
place in the context of incitement to violence. Incitement, in our 
legal system, doesn't mean ``encouraging'' violence or ``advocating'' 
violence or even ``espousing'' violence. It means intentionally causing 
likely violence. Because the Article of Impeachment uses the word 
``incitement,'' I need to evaluate President Trump's actions under the 
rubrics of the law of incitement, which were set out in the Supreme 
Court case of Brandenburg v. Ohio. In that case the Court held that 
incitement required speech that, first, encourages ``imminent lawless 
action'' and, second, ``is likely to incite or produce such action.'' 
In other words, in order to succeed, the House managers must have shown 
that President Trump's speech was intended to direct the crowd to 
assault the Capitol and that his language was also likely to have that 
effect.
  As I said before, what happened on January 6 was tragic. We can't let 
it happen again. But the House managers have not sufficiently 
demonstrated that President Trump's speech incited it. While I will 
have more to say about President Trump's conduct, the fact is that he 
said this: ``I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to 
the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices 
heard.'' That speech is not an incitement to immanent lawless action as 
established in the case law. I wish the crowd would have listened to 
him.
  Just because President Trump did not meet the definition of inciting 
insurrection does not mean that I think he behaved well.
  To be clear, I wanted President Trump to win in November. I gave over 
30 speeches on his behalf in Iowa the week before the election. He, 
like any politician, is entitled to seek redress in the courts to 
resolve election disputes. President Trump did just that, and there's 
nothing wrong with it. I supported the exercise of this right in the 
hopes that allowing the election challenge process to play out would 
remove all doubt about the outcome. The reality is, he lost. He brought 
over 60 lawsuits and lost all but 1 of them. He was not able to 
challenge enough votes to overcome President Biden's significant 
margins in key States. I wish it would have stopped there.
  It didn't. President Trump continued to argue that the election had 
been stolen even though the courts didn't back up his claims. He 
belittled and harassed elected officials across the country to get his 
way. He encouraged his own, loyal Vice President, Mike Pence, to take 
extraordinary and unconstitutional actions during the electoral college 
count. My vote in this impeachment does nothing to excuse or justify 
those actions. There's no doubt in my mind that President Trump's 
language was extreme, aggressive, and irresponsible.
  Unfortunately, others share the blame in polluting our political 
discourse with inflammatory and divisive language. As President Trump's 
attorneys showed, whatever we heard from President Trump, we had been 
hearing from Democrats for years. National Democrats, up to and 
including President Biden and Vice President Harris, have become 
regular purveyors of speech dismissing and even condoning violence. 
It's not surprising that when they talk about taking the ``fight'' to 
``the streets'' organizations like antifa actually take to the streets 
of our cities with shields and bats and fists, destroying lives and 
livelihoods.
  Yes, I think President Trump should have accepted President Biden's 
victory when it became clear he won. I think Secretary Clinton should 
have done the same thing in 2016. But as recently as 2019, she 
questioned the legitimacy of Trump's election, saying ``[Trump] knows 
he's an illegitimate president. I believe he understands that the many 
varying tactics they used, from voter suppression and voter purging to 
hacking to the false stories . . . there were just a bunch of different 
reasons why the election turned out like it did.''
  If there's one lesson I hope we all learn from not only last year but 
the last few years, it's that we all need to tone down the rhetoric. 
Whether it's the destructive riots we saw last summer or the assault on 
the Capitol, too many people think that politics really is just war by 
another name. To far too many people, our democracy isn't free people 
coming together to make life better for our communities. It's a street 
fight.
  We don't need to agree on everything. In fact, part of what makes our 
democracy great is that we don't agree on everything. But we do need to 
resolve these differences with debate and

[[Page S926]]

with elections, not with violence. Whether the violence comes from the 
left or the right, it's wrong. The same goes for speech that claims to 
define enemies by political views or affiliations.
  We're all Americans, always trying to form a more perfect union. We 
have more in common than what divides us. It's high time those of us 
who have been elected to serve lead by example. We can take the high 
road. We can tone down the rhetoric. We can be respectful even when we 
disagree strongly. If we don't, we'll be betraying the trust that the 
American people have placed in us, and we'll endanger the democracy and 
the freedom that so many of us have worked to preserve.
  These are difficult issues I have considered over the past week, but 
in the end, I am confident in what I think is the correct position. We 
do not have the authority to try a private citizen like former 
President Trump. Even if we did, he should have been accorded the 
protections of due process of law in his trial. And even if we assume 
he has been, the House managers still did not prove that he committed 
incitement to insurrection, the specific crime of which he stands 
accused. This does not excuse President Trump's conduct on and around 
January 6 of this year, it satisfies my oath as a U.S. Senator in this 
Court of Impeachment. I therefore voted to acquit.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have my opinion 
memorandum in the impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

    Opinion Memorandum of United States Senator John F. Reed in the 
            Impeachment Trial of President Donald John Trump


                              I. FINDINGS

       On January 13, 2021, the United States House of 
     Representatives passed House Resolution 24,\1\ ``Impeaching 
     Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high 
     crimes and misdemeanors.''
       Based on the evidence in the record, the arguments of the 
     House Impeachment Managers, and the arguments of President's 
     Counsel, I conclude as follows: Mr. Trump has violated his 
     oath to take care that the laws be faithfully executed and 
     has acted in a manner that is fundamentally incompatible with 
     the constitutional order. The House Impeachment Managers have 
     proven that Mr. Trump's incitement of insurrection amounts to 
     the constitutional standard of ``high Crimes and 
     Misdemeanors'' for which the remedy of conviction and 
     disqualification is warranted.


             II. THE CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT

       ``The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all 
     Impeachments.'' \2\ With these few words, the Framers of the 
     Constitution entrusted the Senate with the most awesome power 
     within a democratic society: whether to remove an impeached 
     president from office.
     A. High Crimes and Misdemeanors
       The Constitution states, ``The President, Vice President 
     and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed 
     from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, 
     Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' \3\
       ``Treason'' and ``Bribery'' are foundational impeachable 
     offenses. No more heinous example of an offense against the 
     constitutional order exists than betrayal of the nation to an 
     enemy or betrayal of duty for personal enrichment. A 
     President commits treason when he levies war against the 
     United States or gives comfort or aid to its enemies.\4\ As 
     the House Judiciary Committee explained, a President engages 
     in impeachable bribery when he ``offers, solicits, or accepts 
     something of personal value to influence his own official 
     actions.'' \5\
       In interpreting ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors,'' we must 
     not only look to the Federalist Papers and the records of the 
     Constitutional Convention, but also to the contemporary and 
     foundational writings on Impeachment available to the 
     Framers.
       Sir William Blackstone, whose influential Commentaries on 
     the Laws of England were published from 1765-1770, discussed 
     a classification of crimes he termed ``public wrongs, or 
     crimes and misdemeanors'' that he defined as breaches of the 
     public duty an individual owed to their entire community.\6\ 
     Blackstone viewed treason, murder, and robbery as ``public 
     wrongs,'' not only because they cause injury to individuals 
     but also because they ``strike at the very being of society. 
     '' \7\
       Richard Wooddeson, a legal scholar who began giving 
     lectures on English law in 1777, defined impeachable offenses 
     as misdeeds that fail to clearly fall under the jurisdiction 
     of ordinary tribunals. These wrongs were ``abuse[s] of high 
     offices of trust'' that damaged the commonwealth.\8\
       Much the same as Blackstone and Wooddeson, Alexander 
     Hamilton included the dual components of abuse of public 
     trust and national harm in his definition of impeachable 
     crimes and misdemeanors. In Federalist Paper No. 65, Hamilton 
     defined an impeachable offense as ``those offenses which 
     proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words 
     from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of 
     a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated 
     POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done 
     immediately to the society itself.'' \9\
     B. The Constitutional Debates
       Adding impressive support to these consistent views of the 
     meaning of the constitutional term, ``high Crimes and 
     Misdemeanors,'' is the history of the deliberations at the 
     Constitutional Convention.
       The convention delegates considered limiting Impeachment to 
     treason and bribery. However, they concluded that these 
     enumerated offenses alone could not anticipate every manner 
     of profound misconduct that a future president might engage 
     in.\10\ George Mason, a delegate from Virginia, declared that 
     ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' would be an apt way to 
     further capture ``great and dangerous offences'' or 
     ``[a]ttempts to subvert the Constitution.'' \11\
       This wording would also set the necessarily high threshold 
     for Impeachment that would be proportional to the severe 
     punishment of removing an elected official and 
     disqualification from holding future public office. Further 
     insight is provided by James Iredell, a delegate to the North 
     Carolina Convention that ratified the Constitution, who later 
     served as a Justice of the United States Supreme Court. 
     During the Convention debates, Iredell stated:

       The power of impeachment is given by this Constitution, to 
     bring great offenders to punishment . . . This power is 
     lodged in those who represent the great body of the people, 
     because the occasion for its exercise will arise from acts of 
     great injury to the community, and the objects of it may be 
     such as cannot be easily reached by an ordinary tribunal.\12\

       Iredell's understanding sustains the view that an 
     impeachable offense must cause ``great injury to the 
     community.'' Private wrongdoing, without a significant, 
     adverse effect upon the nation, cannot constitute an 
     impeachable offense. James Wilson, a delegate to the Federal 
     Constitutional Convention and, like Iredell, later a Supreme 
     Court Justice, wrote that Impeachments are ``proceedings of a 
     political nature . . . confined to political characters, to 
     political crimes and misdemeanors, and to political 
     punishments.'' \13\
       Later commentators expressed similar views. In 1833, 
     Justice Joseph Story quoted favorably from the scholarship of 
     William Rawle, who concluded that the ``legitimate causes of 
     impeachment . . . can have reference only to public 
     character, and official duty . . . In general, those 
     offenses, which may be committed equally by a private person, 
     as a public officer, are not the subject of impeachment.'' 
     \14\
       This line of reasoning is buttressed by the careful and 
     thoughtful work of the House of Representatives during the 
     Watergate proceedings. The Democratic staff of the House 
     Judiciary Committee concluded that, ``[b]ecause impeachment 
     of a President is a grave step for the nation, it is to be 
     predicated only upon conduct seriously incompatible with 
     either the constitutional form and principles of our 
     government or the proper performance of constitutional duties 
     of the presidential office.'' \15\
       The deliberations at the Constitutional Convention also 
     demonstrate a conscious movement to narrow the terminology as 
     a means of raising the threshold for the Impeachment process 
     to require an offense against the State.
       Early in the debate on the issue of presidential 
     Impeachment in July of 1787, it was suggested that 
     Impeachment and removal could be founded on a showing of 
     ``malpractice,'' ``neglect of duty,'' or ``corruption.'' \16\ 
     By September of 1787, the issue of presidential Impeachment 
     had been referred to the Committee of Eleven, which was 
     created to resolve the most contentious issues.
       The Committee of Eleven considered whether the grounds for 
     Impeachment should be ``treason or bribery.'' \17\ This was 
     significantly more restricted than the amorphous standard of 
     ``malpractice,'' too restricted, in fact, for some delegates. 
     George Mason objected and suggested that 
     ``maladministration'' be added to ``treason and bribery.'' 
     \18\ James Madison opposed this suggestion as being 
     ``equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate.'' 
     \19\ Mason responded by further refining his suggestion and 
     offered the term ``other high crimes and misdemeanors against 
     the State.'' \20\ The Mason language was a clear reference to 
     the English legal history of Impeachment. Mason's proposal 
     explicitly narrowed these offenses to those ``against the 
     State.'' The Convention itself further clarified the standard 
     by replacing ``State'' with the ``United States.'' \21\
       At the conclusion of the substantive deliberations on the 
     constitutional standard of Impeachment, it was obvious that 
     only serious offenses against the governmental system would 
     justify Impeachment and subsequent removal from office. 
     However, the Committee of Style applied the final stylistic 
     touches to the Constitution. This Committee had no authority 
     to alter the meaning of the carefully debated language and

[[Page S927]]

     could only impose a stylistic consistency through, among 
     other things, the elimination of redundancy. In its zeal to 
     streamline the text, the words ``against the United States'' 
     were eliminated as unnecessary to the meaning of the 
     passage.\22\
       The weight of both authoritative commentary and the history 
     of the Constitutional Convention combines to provide 
     convincing proof that the Impeachment process was reserved 
     for serious breaches of the constitutional order that 
     threaten the country in a direct and immediate manner.
     C. An Impeachable Offense is Not Limited to Criminal 
         Liability or a Defined Offense
       Article I, Section 3 of the United States Constitution 
     provides that ``Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not 
     extend further than to removal from Office, and 
     disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust 
     or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted 
     shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, 
     Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.'' \23\ As 
     Delegate James Wilson wrote, ``impeachments, and offenses and 
     offenders impeachable [do not come] within the sphere of 
     ordinary jurisprudence. They are founded on different 
     principles, are governed by different maxims, and are 
     directed to different objects: for this reason, the trial and 
     punishment of an offense on an impeachment, is no bar to a 
     trial and punishment of the same offence at common law.'' 
     \24\ The independence of the Impeachment process from the 
     prosecution of crimes underscores the function of Impeachment 
     as a means to remove a president from office, not only 
     because of criminal behavior, but because the president poses 
     a threat to the constitutional order. Criminal behavior is 
     not irrelevant to an Impeachment, but it only becomes 
     decisive if that behavior imperils the balance of powers 
     established in the Constitution.
       The assertion that an impeachable offense must be 
     predicated on a criminal act goes against the well-
     established consensus of the legal community. For example, 
     Mr. Trump's former Attorney General, William Barr, wrote in a 
     2018 memo to the Department of Justice (DOJ) when he was 
     still in private practice, that the President ``is answerable 
     for any abuses of discretion and is ultimately subject to the 
     judgment of Congress through the impeachment process [which] 
     means that the president is not the judge in his own cause.'' 
     \25\ As Mr. Barr makes clear, Impeachment does not need to be 
     based on a crime.
       Furthermore, any assertion that an impeachable offense must 
     involve the violation of an ``already known or established'' 
     law, even if not criminal, is not supported by the 
     constitutional record. In advocating for the inclusion of 
     Impeachment at the Constitutional Convention, James Madison 
     made the case that the country must be protected against any 
     number of abuses that a president could engage in and which 
     might cause permanent damage to the country. Madison wrote 
     that:

       [It was] indispensable that some provision should be made 
     for defending the Community [against] the incapacity, 
     negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate. The limitation 
     of the period of his service, was not a sufficient security[. 
     . .] He might pervert his administration into a scheme of 
     peculation or oppression. He might betray his trust to 
     foreign powers.\26\

       Confining Impeachment to criminal or even codified offenses 
     goes against the mainstream consensus on the meaning of 
     ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' and would fail to capture 
     the universe of harms to the constitutional order in which a 
     President could engage.
     D. Conclusion
       Authoritative commentary on, together with the structure 
     of, the Constitution makes it clear that the term, ``other 
     high Crimes and Misdemeanors,'' encompasses conduct that 
     involves the president in the impermissible exercise of the 
     powers of his office to upset the constitutional order. 
     Moreover, since the essence of Impeachment is removal from 
     office, rather than punishment for offenses, there is a 
     strong inference that the improper conduct must represent a 
     continuing threat to the American people and the 
     Constitution.


                         IV. STANDARD OF PROOF

       In an Impeachment trial, each Senator has the obligation to 
     establish the burden of proof he or she deems proper.\27\ The 
     Founding Fathers believed maximum discretion was critical for 
     Senators confronting the gravest of constitutional 
     choices.\28\ Differentiating Impeachment from criminal 
     trials, Alexander Hamilton argued, in Federalist Paper No. 
     65, that Impeachments ``can never be tied down by such strict 
     rules . . . as in common cases serve to limit the discretion 
     of courts in favor of personal security.'' \29\ In this 
     regard, Hamilton further distinguished Impeachment 
     proceedings from a criminal trial by stressing that an 
     impeached official would be subject to the established rules 
     of criminal prosecution after Impeachment.\30\
       However, what exact constitutional standard should be used 
     remains debatable. Practical concerns related to utilizing 
     the Impeachment power should be considered when determining 
     the standard of proof required. Too low of a standard may 
     lead to removal, even if significant doubts exist. A ``. . . 
     high `criminal' standard of proof could mean, in practice, 
     that a man could remain president whom every member of the 
     Senate believed to be guilty of corruption, just because his 
     guilt was not shown `beyond a reasonable doubt.' '' \31\
       When uncertain about the standard of proof to apply, it is 
     worth reviewing the writings of eminent scholars. In doing 
     so, I have found a closer approximation to what the standard 
     should be in many Impeachment trials as compared to those 
     used in general legal practice: `` `[o]verwhelming 
     preponderance of the evidence' . . .'' \32\ Yet, I believe 
     that the severity of removing a president of the United 
     States warrants an even higher bar. As such, a definition 
     slightly modified, but modeled on that proposed standard, is 
     more applicable: overwhelmingly clear and convincing 
     evidence. This standard more closely comports with historical 
     analysis of the Founders' desire to separate criminal law and 
     Impeachment and the arguments made by scholars, while 
     reflecting the serious constitutional harms alleged in the 
     Article of Impeachment before the Senate.


               V. CONSTITUTIONALITY OF IMPEACHMENT TRIAL

       The President's Counsel has argued that an Impeachment 
     trial conducted after a president leaves office is 
     unconstitutional. Specifically, they write, in their trial 
     brief, ``It is denied that the quoted provision [Article I, 
     Section 4] currently applies to the 45th President of the 
     United States since he is no longer `President'.'' \33\ The 
     President's Counsel hinge their argument on the wording of 
     Article II, Section 4, which reads, ``The President, Vice 
     President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall 
     be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, 
     Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' 
     The President's Counsel argue that since Mr. Trump is no 
     longer the president,

       ``[T]he clause `shall be removed from Office on Impeachment 
     for . . .' is impossible for the Senate to accomplish, and 
     thus the current proceeding before the Senate is void ab 
     initio as a legal nullity that runs patently contrary to the 
     plain language of the Constitution . . . Since removal from 
     office by the Senate of the President is a condition 
     precedent which must occur before, and jointly with, 
     `disqualification' to hold future office, the fact that the 
     Senate presently is unable to remove from office the 45th 
     President whose term has expired, means that Averment 1 is 
     therefore irrelevant to any matter before the Senate.'' \34\

       Such logic ignores the historical context in which the 
     Impeachment power was drafted, willfully misinterprets the 
     language of the Constitution, rejects the precedent set by 
     previous Senates, and promotes the dangerous concept of a 
     ``January Exception.'' \35\
       Impeachment was not a revolutionary concept at the time the 
     U.S. Constitution was drafted. The concept had long been part 
     of English political custom, which framed much of the 
     Founder's understanding of government.\36\ Indeed, Alexander 
     Hamilton explicitly stated in Federalist No. 65 that the 
     Impeachment power was borrowed from English political 
     history.\37\ Thus, we can understand the bounds of the 
     Impeachment power from precedents set in English political 
     history. Two examples from the 18th century are illustrative 
     of the impeachability of former officials. First, ``[i]n 
     1725, former Lord Chancellor Macclesfield was impeached and 
     convicted for acts of bribery committed during his tenure in 
     office.'' \38\ Second, at the time of the Philadelphia 
     Convention, Parliament was preparing to conduct an 
     Impeachment trial against Warren Hastings, the former 
     Governor General of Bengal. These proceedings commenced after 
     Hastings had retired from his office. ``The Framers were 
     acutely aware of the Hastings proceeding, with George Mason 
     raising it as an example during debate on the Impeachment 
     clauses.'' \39\ If the Framers had misgivings about 
     Impeachment of former officials, a concept that would have 
     been on the public mind given Mr. Hastings' impending 
     Impeachment trial, surely they would have clarified the 
     wording of the Impeachment power in the U.S. Constitution.
       The practice of impeaching former officers was also common 
     in the early state governments. ``Between 1776 and 1787, 10 
     of the newly independent states adopted constitutions that 
     included impeachment provisions. Five specifically permitted 
     late Impeachment; no state explicitly forbade it.'' \40\ 
     Moreover, some state constitutions only allowed the 
     Impeachment of former officials, meaning that future 
     disqualification from office was central to the very purpose 
     of Impeachment.\41\ For example, Thomas Jefferson underwent 
     an Impeachment inquiry in 1781 after his tenure as governor 
     ended.\42\ What purpose could such a late inquiry have except 
     to attempt to disqualify a former official from holding 
     office again in the future? The influence of the early state 
     constitutions on the drafting of the U.S. Constitution is 
     widely accepted. This influence no doubt extended to the 
     Framer's understanding of the Impeachment power as including 
     former officials.\43\
       Indeed, the language of the U.S. Constitution proves this 
     out. Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 states, ``The Senate 
     shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.'' That is, 
     the Senate has the power to conduct a trial for any 
     Impeachment commenced by the House of Representatives without 
     qualification regarding its timing. The House impeached Mr. 
     Trump, and it is now in the constitutional power of the 
     Senate to conduct an Impeachment trial. Article I further 
     outlines two possible penalties in any Impeachment trial: 
     removal and disqualification.

[[Page S928]]

     The Senate cannot exceed these penalties, nor are these 
     penalties necessarily linked by the language of the text. The 
     Senate has the power to remove a president without also 
     disqualifying him or her from future office. Likewise, legal 
     scholars assert that disqualification from office need not 
     follow removal from office.\44\ Such a reading would neuter 
     the ability of the Senate to disqualify officials from future 
     office upon their resignation. Hence, an official accused of 
     crimes against the political order could simply resign to 
     avoid punishment and potentially retake office in the future. 
     The Framers understood that the power of a demagogic 
     president extends beyond his tenure of office. The 
     disqualification component of the Impeachment power is the 
     constitutional method for addressing this dangerous 
     potentiality, for it establishes ``a perpetual ostracism from 
     the esteem and confidence, and honors and emoluments of his 
     country.'' \45\
       In accordance with English political history, the early 
     state constitutions, and the clear language of the U.S. 
     Constitution, the Senate has repeatedly asserted its right to 
     conduct an Impeachment trial of former government officials. 
     The first Impeachment trial concerned Senator William Blount 
     of Tennessee on the charge of conspiracy. After the Senate 
     expelled Blount from the body in July of 1797, the House 
     brought five articles of Impeachment against the former 
     senator in January of 1798 with the intention of 
     disqualifying him from holding office in the future.\46\ Most 
     scholars agree that the Senate dismissed the case on the 
     grounds that the Impeachment power does not extend to Members 
     of Congress.\47\ The Senate did not, however, dismiss the 
     case on the basis that Blount was a former official.\48\ The 
     Senate once again asserted its right to conduct an 
     Impeachment trial of a former official in the 1876 case of 
     ex-Secretary of War William Belknap. The House voted to 
     impeach Belknap after he resigned. The Senate then debated 
     the constitutionality of late impeachability before asserting 
     in a 37-29 vote that it had the power to try an ex-
     officer.\49\ Though Belknap was not ultimately convicted, the 
     Senate had decided that it had the power to convict and 
     disqualify an ex-official. Congress acted once more in the 
     1926 case of federal judge George English. The House of 
     Representatives chose not to further pursue Impeachment after 
     English's resignation, but the House Managers declared ``the 
     resignation of Judge English in no way affects the right of 
     the Senate, sitting as a court of impeachment, to hear and 
     determine [the case].'' \50\ Several Senators similarly 
     declared the jurisdiction of the Senate in the case of Judge 
     English.\51\ As these cases demonstrate, the Senate has 
     repeatedly declared its late-Impeachment powers, though it 
     has rarely chosen to purse Impeachment.\52\
       Finally, the denial of late impeachability promotes the 
     dangerous and unconstitutional idea of a ``January 
     Exception.'' One of the central concerns of the Framers was 
     the diffusion of power across branches in a system of checks 
     and balances to prevent any one branch, but particularly the 
     executive, from gaining too much power. Impeachment is the 
     last line of defense created to hold officials accountable 
     for their abuse of those powers. Hence the time between 
     election and inauguration is not a consequence-free period 
     for an outgoing president. A president who commits an 
     impeachable offense on the night before his term ends is 
     still accountable for those actions when he leaves the Oval 
     Office. After his term as president, John Quincy Adams 
     proclaimed, ``I hold myself, so long as I have the breath of 
     life in my body, amendable to impeachment by [the] House for 
     everything I did during the time I held any public office.'' 
     \53\ The Framers of the Constitution did not intend to grant 
     Mr. Trump a January reprieve from accountability. He must be 
     held accountable for his actions during the last weeks of his 
     presidency.


                            VI. DUE PROCESS

       The President's Counsel assert that the Impeachment inquiry 
     is defective because of a lack of due process protections for 
     Mr. Trump. However, the Constitution does not provide any 
     guidance about what procedures are proscribed in an 
     Impeachment trial. Article II, Section 3 states, ``The Senate 
     shall have the sole power to try all Impeachments.'' \54\ 
     Alexander Hamilton provides context to this in Federalist 
     Paper No. 65, saying that Impeachments ``can never be tied 
     down by such strict rules . . . as in common cases serve to 
     limit the discretion of courts in favor of personal 
     security.'' \55\
       Specifically, President's Counsel asserts that the Speaker 
     of the House purposefully held onto the Article of 
     Impeachment, passed by the House of Representatives, in order 
     to ensure that Mr. Trump's term would end before a Senate 
     trial commenced. However, at the time H. Res. 24 passed, the 
     Senate was in recess and not scheduled to return until 
     January 19th. The Senate Minority Leader urged the Senate 
     Majority Leader to bring the Senate back into session 
     immediately in order to receive the Article of Impeachment. 
     However, the Senate Majority Leader rejected this request, 
     meaning that even if the House of Representatives had tried 
     to send the Article to the Senate immediately after passage, 
     it would not have been considered until the Senate was back 
     in session.\56\
       President's Counsel also assert that the House of 
     Representatives did not provide proper due process because it 
     did not hold hearings on the Article of Impeachment. Manager 
     Lieu analogized the present facts to a case where crimes are 
     committed in plain view, and prosecutors do not have to spend 
     a prolonged time investigating before pressing charges.\57\ 
     In this case, the events in question--the ``Save America'' 
     rally, the Electoral Certification, and the ensuing 
     insurrection--were widely broadcast on television and in news 
     publications. Those who took part in the attack also 
     documented their participation over social media including on 
     Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube.\58\ In the aftermath of the 
     insurrection, participants were arrested and indicted for 
     their unlawful and violent actions, and their charging 
     documents were available to the public.\59\
       In addition, President's Counsel, throughout this case, has 
     conflated the requirements of an Impeachment proceeding with 
     that of a criminal case, where the Due Process Clause of the 
     Fifth Amendment applies. These claims are spurious at best. 
     As constitutional scholar Michael Gerhardt stated in regards 
     to Mr. Trump first Impeachment, ``First, the [Due Process] 
     clause does not apply because none of the interests protected 
     by the due process clause are being denied here--the 
     sanctions are removal and disqualification but not the 
     deprivation of life, liberty, or property, which the clause 
     protects. Second, even if due process applies, it has been 
     satisfied here: The minimal requirements of due process are 
     an impartial decision-maker and notice. The president has had 
     plenty of notice about the impeachment effort, and the 
     Constitution designates senators as the impartial decision-
     makers.'' \60\
       ``The Supreme Court has explained . . . that due process is 
     not a `technical conception with a fixed content unrelated to 
     time, place, and circumstances.' Instead, the concept is 
     `flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the 
     particular situation demands.' '' \61\ In an Impeachment, the 
     obligation of the Senate is to accord the president, as the 
     accused, the right to conduct his defense fairly, while 
     respecting the House of Representative's exclusive 
     constitutional prerogative to bring Articles of Impeachment. 
     At the core of the Senate's task is the fundamental 
     understanding that our system of laws recognizes the rights 
     of defendants and the responsibilities of the prosecution to 
     prove its case.
       Based on the above analysis, I find that there is 
     overwhelmingly clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Trump 
     was afforded due process in this Impeachment proceeding.


                    VII. INCITEMENT OF INSURRECTION

       House Resolution 24 alleges that, in the conduct of his 
     office, Mr. Trump incited an insurrection, in violation of 
     his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be 
     faithfully executed, and in subversion of the constitutional 
     order. I find that there is overwhelmingly clear and 
     convincing evidence that Mr. Trump committed impeachable 
     conduct. As I will further explain, Mr. Trump must be 
     convicted and disqualified from holding office for the 
     conduct described in H. Res. 24.
     A. Legal Standards for Incitement
       As explained in Section III, Congress is bound neither by 
     civil nor criminal law in determining whether an offense 
     meets the standard of ``high Crimes or Misdemeanors.'' 
     However, existing legal frameworks for ``incitement'' are 
     helpful for analyzing and putting Mr. Trump's words and 
     conduct into context.
       Black's Law Dictionary defines incitement generally as 
     ``the act or an instance of provoking, urging on, or stirring 
     up.'' \62\ Specifically in regards to criminal law, Black's 
     Law Dictionary defines incitement as ``the act of persuading 
     another person to commit a crime.'' \63\
       A group of constitutional law scholars explained that, for 
     the purposes of Impeachment, a determination of whether a 
     president's speech or conduct is protected must primarily 
     take into account whether a president's words are consistent 
     with the Constitution \64\ and the oath to ``faithfully 
     execute the office of President of the United States, and . . 
     . preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United 
     States.'' \65\ For example, if a president said ``I no longer 
     promise to support and defend the Constitution of the United 
     States'' or ``I no longer recognize Congress as a co-equal 
     branch of government,'' these statements would certainly be 
     inherently antithetical to the constitutional order that the 
     president swore to uphold. While these statements may be 
     lawful and protected by the Constitution in another context, 
     they would certainly be impeachable.
       Turning to the definition of ``insurrection'' itself, the 
     Corpus Juris Secundum defines it as ``the act of rising in 
     open resistance against established authority or government, 
     or as any open and active opposition of a number of persons 
     to the execution of the laws of the United States of so 
     formidable a character as to deny, for the time being, the 
     authority of the government, even though not accompanied by 
     bloodshed and not of sufficient magnitude to render success 
     probable.'' \66\
       Based on these sources, I will examine the following 
     questions, in order to determine whether Mr. Trump incited 
     his supporters to commit insurrection,
       (1) What was Mr. Trump's pattern of speech or conduct prior 
     to the January 6th ``Save America'' rally?
       (2) Did Mr. Trump foreseeably or recklessly solicit his 
     supporters to believe his election lies, and know that his 
     supporters would take action based on these lies?

[[Page S929]]

       (3) Did Mr. Trump's speech or conduct drive his supporters 
     to commit unlawful or violent acts on January 6th?
       (4) What steps did Mr. Trump take once the rioters had 
     breached the Capitol?
     B. Leading Up to January 6, 2021, Mr. Trump Propagated a 
         False Narrative that the Election Had Been Stolen and 
         Supported Violent Rhetoric
       To determine whether Mr. Trump engaged in incitement, it is 
     instructive to look at a timeline of Mr. Trump's statements, 
     direct acts, and actions taken at his behest, leading up to 
     January 6th.
       a. Statements and Conduct Regarding Voter Fraud Before the 
           2020 Election
       Even before the November 2020 election, Mr. Trump gave 
     credence to the idea that mass voter fraud would be 
     inevitable, and the only way he would lose was if the 
     election were stolen. For example, in July, Mr. Trump tweeted 
     ``With Universal Mail-In Voting (not Absentee Voting, which 
     is good), 2020 will be the most INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT 
     Election in history.'' \67\ At an August rally in Wisconsin, 
     Trump said ``The only way we're going to lose this election 
     is if the election is rigged, remember that . . . It's the 
     only way we're going to lose this election. So we have to be 
     very careful.'' \68\ In September, he told reporters, from 
     the White House lawn, ``I'm not sure that it [the election] 
     can be [honest], I don't know that it can be with this whole 
     situation, unsolicited ballots, they're unsolicited, millions 
     being sent to everybody.'' \69\
       Before the election took place, Mr. Trump also refused to 
     say whether he would accept the election results. In a July 
     interview with Chris Wallace, when asked directly whether he 
     would accept the results of the election, Trump said ``Look, 
     you--I have to see. No, I'm not going to just say yes.'' \70\ 
     In September, when asked by a reporter if he would commit to 
     a peaceful transfer of power, Mr. Trump implied that he would 
     not, saying ``Get rid of the ballots and you'll have a very 
     peaceful--there won't be a transfer, frankly. There will be a 
     continuation.'' In the same month, when asked by a reporter 
     whether the election results would be legitimate only if he 
     won, Mr. Trump did not give a direct answer, saying, ``So we 
     have to be very careful with the ballots. The ballots--that's 
     a whole big scam.'' \71\
       b. Statements and Conduct Regarding Voter Fraud After 2020 
           Election
       Once the 2020 election was over, Mr. Trump made it clear 
     that he would concede under no circumstances, and continued 
     his full-court press urging Americans not to accept the 
     election results. In a statement after Mr. Biden was 
     projected the winner, Mr. Trump said, ``The simple fact is 
     this election is far from over . . . Beginning Monday, our 
     campaign will start prosecuting our case in court to ensure 
     election laws are fully upheld and the rightful winner is 
     seated. The American People are entitled to an honest 
     election: that means counting all legal ballots, and not 
     counting any illegal ballots. This is the only way to ensure 
     the public has full confidence in our election.'' \72\
       Mr. Trump escalated his attack on the election results by 
     posting a speech on December 2nd, which he taped from behind 
     the presidential lectern and characterized as potentially 
     ``the most important speech I've ever made.'' \73\ Over the 
     course of 46 minutes, Mr. Trump repeated the same baseless 
     claims of voter fraud, and refused to acknowledge his loss. 
     Mr. Trump said the nation's election system was ``under 
     coordinated assault and siege'' and declared that it was 
     ``statistically impossible'' for him to have lost to Mr. 
     Biden.\74\ His overall claim was that, ``This election is 
     about great voter fraud, fraud that has never been seen like 
     this before.'' \75\
       The day after Christmas 2020, Mr. Trump sought to escalate 
     his narrative that there was a mass effort to deprive him of 
     a second term. He sent out a series of tweets attacking 
     executive branch agencies, the federal judiciary, and Senate 
     Republicans, claiming that they had not done enough to 
     prevent voter fraud. He tweeted that the Supreme Court ``has 
     been totally incompetent and weak on the massive Election 
     Fraud that took place.'' He also tweeted that ``The `Justice' 
     Department and the FBI have done nothing about the 2020 
     Presidential Election Voter Fraud.'' Furthermore, he leveled 
     the claim that ``If a Democrat Presidential Candidate had an 
     Election Rigged & Stolen, with proof of such acts at a level 
     never seen before, the Democrat Senators would consider it an 
     act of war, and fight to the death. Mitch & the Republicans 
     do NOTHING.'' \76\
       As late as January 4th, Mr. Trump held a rally before the 
     Georgia Senate runoff saying, ``When you win in a landslide 
     and they steal it and it's rigged, it's not acceptable. Not 
     acceptable.'' The crowd chanted, ``Fight for Trump!'' and Mr. 
     Trump responded, ``They're not going to take the White House. 
     We're going to fight like hell.'' \77\
       In addition to his dishonest rhetoric on election fraud, 
     Mr. Trump took concrete steps to bend reality to match what 
     he wanted. As I will explain in more detail in Section VIII, 
     Mr. Trump used any means necessary to cajole, intimidate, and 
     threaten individuals at all levels of government to use their 
     authority to reject, and in some cases alter, the electoral 
     votes for Mr. Biden.\78\
       It is important to note that Mr. Trump forcefully pushed 
     these lies, no matter how divorced from reality they became. 
     In the weeks after the election, it became painstakingly 
     clear that Mr. Biden was the winner, as states moved to 
     certify his results. In states where the Trump campaign asked 
     for election audits, subsequent recounts provided no 
     compelling evidence that Mr. Trump had won by a 
     landslide.\79\ He and his allies filed and lost over 60 
     lawsuits alleging voting irregularities in state and federal 
     court, including the Supreme Court.\80\ His Attorney General 
     attested that the Justice Department discovered no voting 
     fraud ``on a scale that could have effected a different 
     outcome in the election.'' \81\ Top election officials put 
     out a statement saying, ``The November 3rd election was the 
     most secure in American history . . . There is no evidence 
     that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, 
     or was in any way compromised.'' \82\ The day before the 
     Capitol insurrection, even Vice President Mike Pence told Mr. 
     Trump that he had a constitutional duty to certify the true 
     winner of the election, which was Mr. Biden.\83\
       Yet, throughout all of this and despite undeniable evidence 
     to the contrary, Mr. Trump doggedly claimed that he had won 
     the election, and that his supporters should help vindicate 
     him. He lied to the American people, and did so knowingly and 
     deliberately.
       c. Mr. Trump Invoked Violent Means to Further His Re-
           Election
       Leading up to January 6th, Mr. Trump supported--either 
     tacitly or outright--the use of violent and menacing tactics 
     by his supporters. For example, in the spring of 2020, Mr. 
     Trump embraced the backlash against COVID-19 policies to aid 
     his re-election. Following armed protests over stay-at-home 
     orders, he tweeted ``LIBERATE MINNESOTA!'', ``LIBERATE 
     MICHIGAN!'' and ``LIBERATE VIRGINIA, and save your great 2nd 
     Amendment. It is under siege!'' \84\ During some of the anti-
     lockdown protests, armed groups attempted to derail the 
     legislative proceedings at statehouses in Michigan, Idaho, 
     and Oregon.\85\ These disruptive and aggressive methods were 
     in essence a prelude to what happened during the assault on 
     the Capitol.
       This anger boiled over when six men plotted to kidnap 
     Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer because they were angry 
     about the state's coronavirus policies.\86\ When the Federal 
     Bureau of Investigation foiled the plot, Mr. Trump added fuel 
     to the fire, and attacked Governor Whitmer over Twitter. He 
     tweeted, ``Governor Whitmer of Michigan has done a terrible 
     job. She locked down her state for everyone, except her 
     husband's boating activities . . . My Justice Department and 
     Federal Law Enforcement announced . . . today that they 
     foiled a dangerous plot against the Governor of Michigan. 
     Rather than say thank you, she calls me a White Supremacist--
     while Biden and Democrats refuse to condemn Antifa, 
     Anarchists, Looters and Mobs that burn down Democrat run 
     cities.'' \87\
       Furthermore, in November 2020, Mr. Trump embraced a group 
     of his followers who sought to intimidate supporters of his 
     political opponent. He posted a video of his supporters in 
     different cars surrounding a Biden campaign bus in Texas. Mr. 
     Trump cheered this kind of intimidation, tweeting, ``I LOVE 
     TEXAS'' and ``In my opinion, these patriots did nothing 
     wrong.'' \88\ At a rally in Michigan, Mr. Trump even praised 
     his supporters' actions saying, ``Did you see the way our 
     people, they were, ya know, protecting this bus . . . because 
     they're nice . . . They had hundreds of cars. Trump! Trump! 
     Trump and the American flag.'' \89\
       After Mr. Biden was declared the winner, Mr. Trump focused 
     his ire in the following weeks on changing the election 
     results in Georgia. Mr. Trump's relentless claims of voter 
     fraud in Georgia were followed by a wave of death threats 
     against state election officials. Gabriel Sterling, an 
     election official in Georgia, pleaded with Mr. Trump to 
     denounce the threats of violence, clearly articulating the 
     risks of failing to do so. Sterling said, ``Mr. President, it 
     looks like you likely lost the state of Georgia. We're 
     investigating. There's always a possibility, I get it, and 
     you have the rights to go through the courts. What you don't 
     have the ability to do--and you need to step up and say 
     this--is stop inspiring people to commit potential acts of 
     violence. Someone's going to get hurt. Someone's going to get 
     shot. Someone's going to get killed. And it's not right.'' 
     \90\
       d. Mr. Trump Supported Extremist Groups
       Mr. Trump made statements supporting, or failing to condemn 
     members of extremist groups, many of whom came together to 
     storm the Capitol on January 6th.
       Famously, during the first presidential debate on September 
     29th, when asked to condemn white supremacist groups, like 
     the Proud Boys, Trump refused. Instead, he announced, ``Proud 
     Boys--stand back and stand by.'' \91\ The Proud Boys group 
     took this as an explicit endorsement of their violent tactics 
     and ideology.\92\ A known social media account associated 
     with the Proud Boys made ``Stand back and stand by'' its new 
     slogan, and Proud Boys leader Joe Biggs likewise posted that 
     he was ``standing by.'' \93\
       Mr. Trump also made statements and used social media to 
     pander to Q'Anon, a conspiracy movement, including by 
     retweeting messages from Q'Anon followers on Twitter hundreds 
     of times before his account was suspended.\94\ When pressed 
     on his views on Q'Anon, Mr. Trump appeared to defend the 
     movement. On August 19th, Mr. Trump tacitly endorsed QAnon 
     at a press conference, saying, ``I don't know much about 
     the movement, other than I understand they like me very 
     much. Which I appreciate.'' \95\ In a town

[[Page S930]]

     hall on October 15th, Mr. Trump praised Q'Anon members 
     again, this time saying, ``Let me just--let me just tell 
     you, what I do hear about it, is they are very strongly 
     against pedophilia. And I agree with that. I mean, I do 
     agree with that. And I agree with it very strongly.'' \96\
       e. Mr. Trump Organized the January 6th ``Save America'' 
           Rally
       In the days leading up to January 6th, Mr. Trump sent out 
     numerous tweets promoting the ``Save America Rally'' and gave 
     his supporters specific instructions on when and where to 
     attend. On December 19th, he tweeted, ``Big protest in D.C. 
     on January 6th . . . Be there, will be wild!'' \97\ On 
     December 27, he tweeted ``See you in Washington, DC, on 
     January 6th. Don't miss it. Information to follow.'' \98\ On 
     January 1, 2021, he tweeted, ``The BIG Protest Rally in 
     Washington, D.C. will take place at 11:00 A.M. on January 
     6th. Locational details to follow. StopTheSteal!'' \99\ The 
     day before, he posted, ``I will be speaking at the SAVE 
     AMERICA RALLY tomorrow on the Ellipse at 11AM Eastern. Arrive 
     early--doors open at 7AM Eastern. BIG CROWDS!'' \100\
       Mr. Trump not only knew, but actively coordinated the 
     January 6th rally in order to disrupt the congressional 
     proceedings that day. First, Mr. Trump chose to convene a 
     rally on the same day as the electoral certification, and 
     then explicitly urged his supporters to attend what he 
     predicted would be a ``wild'' and ``historic'' day. Manager 
     Plaskett underscored that it was only after Mr. Trump chose 
     that day that the Pro-Trump group, Women for America First, 
     obtained a permit for what became the ``Save America'' rally 
     at the Ellipse.\101\ The day after Women for America First 
     announced the rally, Mr. Trump reposted their invitation and 
     replied ``I will be there Historic day!'' \102\ Manager 
     Plaskett stated that the Trump campaign even ``became 
     directly involved with the planning of the event, including 
     the speaking line-up and even the music to be played and 
     brought in the same people who spoke at the second Million 
     MAGA rally to help.'' \103\ Notably, Vice President Pence's 
     sister-in-law is on the advisory board of Women for Trump, 
     which has ties to Women for America First--thus blurring the 
     lines between the Trump administration and the organizers of 
     the January 6th rally.\104\
       Manager Plaskett also emphasized that Mr. Trump's top 
     advisors and the Trump communications team were actively 
     monitoring posts from mainstream websites such as Twitter and 
     Facebook, as well as pro-Trump message boards on Reddit and 
     4Chan.\105\ Posters wrote about preparations for the rally in 
     Washington, D.C. to take their election back, by violent 
     means if necessary, on these message boards. His supporters 
     posted hundreds of messages outlining their plans for January 
     6th. They discussed how to physically breach the Capitol 
     grounds, which individuals to target once inside, and which 
     weapons and tactical gear to take with them.\106\
       In this section, I outlined Mr. Trump's words and actions 
     leading up to the attack on the Capitol. I will now move onto 
     examining whether Mr. Trump foreseeably or recklessly 
     persuaded his supporters into believing his voter fraud lies 
     and taking action at his behest to prevent what he considered 
     a stolen election.
     C. Mr. Trump Foreseeably and Recklessly Persuaded His 
         Supporters That the Election Was Stolen
       Mr. Trump spread lies, conspiracy theories, and incendiary 
     rhetoric before and after the 2020 election. He did so with 
     the understanding that it would inflame his supporters and 
     enlist their aid in helping him disrupt the electoral 
     process. The effect was to foreseeably and recklessly goad 
     his supporters into action. We know this because there is 
     evidence that his supporters were buying into his 
     delegitimizing the election, his encouragement of taking 
     action to overturn the electoral process, and his support for 
     violent tactics.
       Mr. Trump's promotion of themes such as ``Stop the Count'' 
     and ``Stop the Steal'' served to gin up his supporters. 
     Manager Swalwell pointed out that Mr. Trump spent ``millions 
     of dollars to amplify that lie . . . [I]n mid-December, 
     President Trump announced the release of ads, including ones 
     entitled `'The Evidence is Overwhelming--FRAUD!'' and ``STOP 
     THE STEAL.'' He spent $50 million from his legal defense fund 
     on these ads to stop the steal and amplify his message. They 
     were released nationally, played in video ads, online 
     advertising, and targeted text messages.'' \107\
       His supporters took these ideas literally--angrily 
     converging upon vote centers on November 5th to protest the 
     continued counting of ballots after Election Day.\108\ Trump 
     supporters formed ``Stop the Steal'' online groups, which 
     became a hotbed for sharing false claims and misleading 
     videos about voter fraud. In November and December, his 
     supporters held ``Stop the Steal'' rallies around the 
     country. It was widely publicized that, at some of these 
     events, participants were armed and belligerent. Notably, on 
     December 12th, they staged the Second Million MAGA March in 
     Washington, D.C., which resulted in violent clashes between 
     Proud Boy members and counter protestors.\109\ Mr. Trump 
     promoted these rallies on his social media, and, in some 
     instances, heaped praise on his supporters for fighting.\110\
       The evidence showed that Mr. Trump's promotion of the 
     ``Save America'' rally succeeded in convincing his supporters 
     to show up at the time and place he named on January 6th. 
     Many of Mr. Trump's supporters said that they felt summoned 
     to Washington, D.C. to take retaliatory action. In a Parler 
     post before the insurrection, a supporter shared one of Mr. 
     Trump's tweets and wrote, ``This isn't a joke, this is where 
     and when we make our stand. #January6th, Washington DC. Be 
     there, no matter what. Nothing is more important.'' \111\ In 
     a statement taped on a livestream video taken during the 
     insurrection, a man is heard saying, ``Our president wants us 
     here We wait and take orders from our president.'' \112\ In 
     court papers and interviews given after the insurrection, 
     pro-Trump rioters said they joined the march because the 
     president encouraged them to do so.\113\
       I find overwhelmingly clear and convincing evidence that 
     Mr. Trump and his allies foreseeably and recklessly solicited 
     his supporters to help him overturn the election results--
     including most prominently by attending the January 6th rally 
     to disrupt the Electoral College certification.
     D. Mr. Trump's Supporters Committed Unlawful Acts of 
         Insurrection on January 6th
       a. Trump Speaks at the ``Save America'' Rally
       After months of fomenting anger over his false claims of 
     election fraud, Mr. Trump gathered his supporters at the 
     ``Save America'' rally on January 6th. Once there, Mr. Trump 
     told the crowd ``We're going to walk down to the Capitol 
     because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You 
     have to show strength and you have to be strong.'' \114\ This 
     was a continuation of a pattern of violent rhetoric by Mr. 
     Trump leading up to the events at the Capitol. For example, 
     Mr. Trump had previously told followers to ``Fight like 
     Hell'' at rallies. He repeated this language at the rally at 
     noon on January 6th stating, ``[W]e fight. We fight like 
     hell.'' \115\ His supporters got the message. By 12:53pm, a 
     large group of Trump supporters approached a fenced off area 
     in front of the Capitol and began to engage with Capitol 
     police officers, many of whom were armed only with mace and 
     their side arms.\116\
       b. The Insurrection Begins
       The crowd pushed past the barricade, knocking down police 
     officers in the process, in an attempt to get closer to the 
     building. Within minutes, protestors began swarming other 
     entrances of the Capitol.\117\ Inside the Capitol, Vice 
     President Pence presided over the joint session of Congress. 
     Contrary to the wishes of Mr. Trump, Vice President Pence 
     began the process of certifying the election results. Outside 
     the Capitol, the crowd of protestors grew more violent. 
     ``Rioters wearing Trump paraphernalia shoved and punched 
     Capitol Police officers, gouged their eyes, assaulted them 
     with pepper spray and projectiles, and denounced them as 
     `cowards' and `traitors.' '' \118\ Law enforcement officers 
     were attacked with baseball bats, crutches, hockey sticks, 
     flag poles, and fire extinguishers.\119\ Some rioters came 
     armed with handguns, pepper spray, knives, and brass 
     knuckles.\120\ Congressional staff and reporters were warned 
     to stay away from windows and doors.\121\
       c. Rioters Storm the Capitol
       Between 2pm and 2:30pm, rioters broke through multiple 
     entrances and began pushing deeper into the Capitol, flooding 
     the Rotunda, Crypt, Statuary Hall, and other locations.\122\ 
     Videos captured by rioters show the crowd, many in Trump 
     paraphernalia, chanting ``Stop the Steal'' and ``U.S.A.'' as 
     they breached the Capitol and overpowered security.\123\
       Meanwhile, the Joint Session had separated into different 
     chambers. The Senate was in the midst of a debate regarding 
     an objection to certifying Arizona's Electoral College 
     votes.\124\ Secret Service rushed Vice President Pence out of 
     the Senate chambers and took him and members of his family to 
     a secure location within the Capitol.\125\ Capitol Police 
     officer Eugene Goodman led rioters away from the entrance to 
     the Senate chambers, narrowly avoiding a potentially deadly 
     encounter between Members of the Senate and rioters.\126\ 
     Senators were then evacuated from the Chamber.\127\
       On the other side of the Capitol, the House went into 
     recess and members were told to lock down and shelter in 
     place.\128\ By 2:45 pm, members of the Capitol Security Team 
     were forced to barricade the doors to the Chamber as 
     insurrectionists attempted to break in. House Members were 
     instructed to put on gas masks and some attempted to build 
     makeshift shelters in case the mob broke through the 
     doors.\129\ Members who were on the ground level were 
     evacuated through the Speaker's Lobby as Capitol Security 
     guarded the door with guns.\130\ Ashli Babbitt, an Air Force 
     veteran, was fatally shot as she and others tried to break 
     through the barricaded glass door.\131\ Members, reporters, 
     and staff in the Gallery remained trapped one floor above the 
     rioters. Videos taken during the events on January 6th show 
     this group sitting and lying down in the aisles in an attempt 
     to shelter behind the chairs.\132\ One particularly moving 
     photo shows Representative Jason Crow (D-CO), a former Army 
     Ranger, comforting Representative Susan Wild (D-PA) as the 
     pair sheltered in the Gallery.\133\ Rep. Crow recounted that 
     he was doing what any friend would do, telling Rep. Wild 
     ``that I was there for her, and that we would get through 
     it.'' \134\ Another video shows Rep. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-
     DE) praying loudly in the Gallery for safety and peace as she 
     and other lawmakers, including Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), 
     watched Capitol Police officers barricade the door to the 
     Chamber.\135\

[[Page S931]]

  

       d. The Rioters Target Vice President Pence and Speaker 
           Pelosi
       As members of Congress moved to secure locations or 
     sheltered in place, rioters walked the halls carrying 
     Confederate flags, vandalizing the building, and breaking 
     into congressional offices, including the office of Speaker 
     of the House Nancy Pelosi.\136\ One rioter said that he and 
     other rioters ``kicked in Nancy Pelosi's office door'' and 
     that ``Crazy Nancy probably would have been torn into little 
     pieces but she was nowhere to be seen.'' \137\ The use of the 
     term ``Crazy Nancy'' is significant, for this is Mr. Trump's 
     nickname for the Speaker of the House. Vice President Mike 
     Pence was another primary target for the most violent 
     sections of the mob. ``Once we found out Pence turned on us 
     and that they had stolen the election, like, officially, the 
     crowd went crazy,'' said one rioter.\138\ Rioters called for 
     Pence's death.\139\ Throughout the Capitol, Members and their 
     staff barricaded themselves in offices, hid under tables, 
     called loved ones, and prayed for safety.\140\
       e. The President Fails to Respond to or Condemn the 
           Violence at the Capitol
       President's Counsel argue that the President did not intend 
     or anticipate for violence to take place. If that were the 
     case, one would expect that--as soon as it was clear that the 
     rioters had begun engaging in unlawful or violent acts--Mr. 
     Trump would quickly and clearly condemn these actions and 
     take every action possible to stop further violence. 
     Arguably, once the lawbreaking began, it was only Mr. Trump 
     that had the most potent power at that point to get his 
     supporters to stop. However, instead of acting expeditiously, 
     it took him more than two hours after the rioters stormed the 
     Capitol to make a statement. In this time, it is reported 
     that lawmakers and Trump advisors pleaded with him to call 
     off the angry mob and denounce the violence.\141\ Mr. Trump 
     was seemingly unmoved by these pleas for help, and it is even 
     reported that he was pleased by the actions of his 
     supporters.\142\ Rather than call off his supporters, it is 
     reported that Mr. Trump called a Member of the Senate asking 
     him to raise additional objections to certifying the 
     Electoral College results.\143\ Not until 4:15pm did Mr. 
     Trump release a pre-recorded message, telling supporters to 
     go home. The video statement did not condemn the rioters' 
     actions at the Capitol.
       Mr. Trump's delay in responding to the insurrection is 
     unsurprising, for many of the rioters thought they were 
     ``answer[ing] the call of my President.'' \144\ In a 
     livestreamed video from inside the Capitol, one rioter 
     declared that ``[o]ur president wants us here. . . . We wait 
     and take orders from our president.'' \145\ Another rioter 
     claimed that she ``thought I was following my President. He 
     asked us to fly there, he asked us to be there, so I was 
     doing what he asked us to do.'' \146\ One supporter, who was 
     later arrested for his actions on January 6th, stated through 
     his lawyer that he, ``acted out of the delusional belief that 
     he was a `patriot' protecting his country . . . He was 
     responding to the entreaties of the-then commander in 
     chief, President Trump. . . . The President maintained 
     that the election had been stolen and it was the duty of 
     loyal citizens to `stop the steal.' '' \147\ To paraphrase 
     the House Managers, Mr. Trump sold his followers the big 
     lie of a stolen election and then provoked those followers 
     to violent action to ``stop the steal.''
       In his late statement on the events at the Capitol, Trump 
     urged his followers to ``Please support our Capitol Police 
     and law enforcement stay peaceful.'' Of course, the 
     insurrection was never peaceful, and the Capitol Police were 
     treated cruelly by the mob. Over the course of the 
     insurrection, 140 police officers were injured and one 
     officer, Brian Sicknick, was killed. Four rioters also died. 
     Congressional Leadership offices were trashed, the walls of 
     the Capitol bore the marks of bullets, monuments were 
     destroyed, windows were smashed and broken in, Members and 
     staff were terrorized, Senate desks were ransacked, and smoke 
     hung in the air. Mr. Trump should have pleaded with the crowd 
     to stand down and leave the Capitol as soon as the 
     insurrection began. The fact that he waited to address the 
     rioters, and downplayed the severity of the insurrection to 
     the point of even praising the patriotism of the rioters, was 
     not just dereliction of duty. It was malicious disregard for 
     the lives of Capitol Police, Members of Congress, staff, and 
     Capitol workers threatened by the mob that he incited.
       f. The Capitol is Cleared and the Election Results are 
           Certified
       It took more than four hours after the rioters first 
     entered the building to secure the Capitol and another three 
     hours before the Joint Session could resume.\148\ 
     Nevertheless, Joseph R. Biden Jr. was confirmed the winner of 
     the 2020 election at approximately 4am.\149\ Democracy 
     prevailed.
     E. The First Amendment Is Not a Defense to Mr. Trump's 
         Incitement of Insurrection
       President's Counsel argued at trial that Mr. Trump was 
     exercising his First Amendment rights in expressing his views 
     at the ``Save America'' rally, and thus cannot be convicted 
     in this proceeding. I conclude that there is overwhelmingly 
     clear and convincing evidence that the First Amendment does 
     not inoculate him from the current Impeachment charge.
       a. The First Amendment Is Not a Bar to Impeachment
       As I explained in Section II, the relevant standard in an 
     Impeachment trial is whether a president committed 
     impeachable ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' An impeachable 
     offense need not violate a criminal or other established law. 
     Indeed, even an action that is lawful or otherwise protected 
     by the Constitution can still be an impeachable offense. 
     Rather the appropriate standard in this proceeding is whether 
     an offense is ``incompatible with either the constitutional 
     form and principles of our government or the proper 
     performance of constitutional duties of the presidential 
     office.'' \150\ In addition, as I explained in Section IV, 
     there is no defined standard of proof in an Impeachment, and 
     there are no requirements to adhere to the same standards as 
     in a criminal prosecution.
       As a result, in an Impeachment trial, the Senate is simply 
     not bound by a determination of whether Mr. Trump is 
     protected by the First Amendment, nor must the Senate demand 
     a showing that every element of a criminal charge of 
     incitement has been met.
       b. Mr. Trump's Speech Likely Satisfies the Standard of 
           Incitement
       Although I have concluded that the First Amendment does not 
     necessarily serve as a shield in this proceeding, I find it 
     persuasive that the bedrock principle of free speech has a 
     long history in our country. Therefore, I undertook an 
     examination of the governing case precedent regarding 
     incitement. I have concluded that, even if the First 
     Amendment were to apply in this case, Mr. Trump's overall 
     course of conduct would satisfy the standard for incitement.
       The First Amendment prohibits any law ``abridging the 
     freedom of speech.'' \151\ However, even at our country's 
     founding, it is clear that the First Amendment was not 
     intended to provide absolute protection for every utterance. 
     Of the fourteen states that ratified the Constitution by 
     1792, thirteen had laws limiting libelous or blasphemous 
     speech.\152\ In addition, the Supreme Court has recognized 
     specific categories of speech that are not protected by the 
     First Amendment and which the government may regulate because 
     of their content. These categories are ``obscenity, 
     defamation, fraud, incitement, fighting words, true threats, 
     speech integral to criminal conduct, and child pornography.'' 
     \153\
       The relevant legal framework for incitement was established 
     by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1969 case of Brandenburg v. 
     Ohio.\154\ In that case, a Ku Klux Klan leader, Clarence 
     Brandenburg, was convicted after making a speech at a Klan 
     rally that apparently broke an Ohio law against 
     ``advocat[ing] crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods 
     of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or 
     political reform.'' \155\ The Supreme Court overturned 
     Brandenburg's conviction and struck down the statute on First 
     Amendment grounds. In doing so, the Court articulated a new 
     test for when advocating for violence or lawbreaking could be 
     criminally prosecuted. The Brandenburg test defines 
     unprotected incitement as speech that is ``directed to 
     inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely 
     to incite or produce such action.'' \156\
       Subsequent cases further clarified the ``imminence'' 
     standard set out in Brandenburg. In the Supreme Court case of 
     Hess v. Indiana, Gregory Hess was attending an anti-Vietnam 
     war protest when the police moved a group of protesters from 
     the street onto the sidewalk.\157\ Hess said, ``We'll take 
     the [effing] street later'' and was convicted for disorderly 
     conduct.\158\ The Supreme Court reversed Hess' conviction, 
     concluding, ``Since the uncontroverted evidence showed that 
     Hess' statement was not directed to any person or group of 
     persons, it cannot be said that he was advocating, in the 
     normal sense, any action. And since there was no evidence, or 
     rational inference from the import of the language, that his 
     words were intended to produce, and likely to produce, 
     imminent disorder, those words could not be punished by the 
     State on the ground that they had `a tendency to lead to 
     violence.' '' \159\
       The Supreme Court subsequently explained that a finding of 
     ``imminence'' also hinged upon the context and timing 
     connecting speech and subsequent acts of lawbreaking. In 
     NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Company, a local branch of the 
     National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 
     (NAACP) organized a boycott of white-owned stores in 
     Mississippi.\160\ The boycott was largely supported by 
     impassioned speeches encouraging nonviolent picketing--
     including by boycott organizer Charles Evers--but some acts 
     and threats of violence did occur.\161\ The Court concluded, 
     ``There are three separate theories that might justify 
     holding Evers liable . . . First, a finding that he 
     authorized, directed, or ratified specific tortious activity 
     would justify holding him responsible for the consequences of 
     that activity. Second, a finding that his public speeches 
     were likely to incite lawless action could justify holding 
     him liable for unlawful conduct that in fact followed within 
     a reasonable period. Third, the speeches might be taken as 
     evidence that Evers gave other specific instructions to carry 
     out violent acts or threats.'' \162\ In the specific case of 
     Evers' speech, the Court concluded ``In the course of 
     [Evers'] pleas, strong language was used. If that language 
     had been followed by acts of violence, a substantial question 
     would be presented whether Evers could be held liable for the 
     consequences of that unlawful conduct. In this case, however 
     the acts of violence identified in 1966 occurred weeks or 
     months after [his] April 1, 1966, speech.'' \163\

[[Page S932]]

       There is overwhelmingly clear and convincing evidence that 
     Mr. Trump's overall course of conduct meets the spirit of the 
     Brandenburg test. As laid out in the Claiborne case, a 
     finding of ``imminence'' should take into account the context 
     and timing of Mr. Trump's January 6th rally speech. After 
     months of fueling the narrative that the election was stolen 
     from him, Mr. Trump asked his supporters to assemble on the 
     day that Congress would be certifying the election results. 
     Once Mr. Trump had gathered his supporters--knowing that they 
     would listen--he directed the crowd to ``walk down 
     Pennsylvania Avenue,'' ``fight like hell,'' and ``stop the 
     steal.'' Unlike the speech in Claiborne, which was far 
     removed in time, the lawlessness was imminent because it 
     happened a short distance and short time after Mr. Trump's 
     speech. Unlike the indefinite speech in Hess, Mr. Trump's 
     speech was directed at a specific group of persons, and 
     subsequent acts of violence are directly traceable to people 
     who had listened to Mr. Trump's calls to action.
       On the issue of Mr. Trump's intent, whether or not Mr. 
     Trump specifically intended every act of violence, he set 
     these events in motion. If Mr. Trump truly did not intend for 
     lawbreaking, what did he expect his supporters would do once 
     they reached the Capitol? How did he expect his supporters to 
     lawfully achieve the aim of preventing electors from being 
     counted? From this evidence, we can infer that Mr. Trump 
     understood there was a high likelihood that his supporters 
     would break the law once they got to the Capitol.
       Further revealing his state of mind, Mr. Trump did not 
     publicly disapprove of the insurrection as it was happening, 
     or take concrete steps to clear the mob. The first public 
     statement he made, once the mob had breached the Capitol, was 
     to disparage Vice President Pence for failing to block the 
     certification. Instead of acting expeditiously, it took him 
     nearly two hours to acknowledge the attack. In his three 
     statements that day, he repeated false claims that the 
     election was stolen and sympathized with his followers. There 
     are reports that he even called a sitting Senator to ask him 
     to object to additional states, as the insurrection was 
     taking place. In addition, there is no evidence that Mr. 
     Trump tried to activate the National Guard, and even rebuffed 
     requests to do so. The question becomes how did Mr. Trump 
     expect these actions--criticizing the Vice President, urging 
     additional electoral objections, and praising his 
     supporters--to calm down tensions? How did he foresee that 
     the overwhelmed Capitol police would be able to push back the 
     mob without additional law enforcement assistance? From this 
     evidence, we can infer that Mr. Trump was satisfied, or at 
     least was not displeased, that his actions had inflamed his 
     supporters to violently disrupt the electoral certification.
       c. Mr. Trump's Speech Was Held to a Higher Standard as a 
           Public Official
       It is further important to note that Mr. Trump was not 
     making statements in his capacity as a private citizen but as 
     president of the United States. In the Supreme Court case, 
     Garcetti v. Ceballos, the Court held that ``when a citizen 
     enters government service, the citizen by necessity must 
     accept certain limitations on his or her freedom.'' \164\ In 
     this case, the respondent was disciplined for a memorandum he 
     wrote as part of his employment in a district attorney's 
     office, and asserted that his supervisors violated his First 
     Amendment rights.\165\ The Court concluded ``We hold that 
     when public employees make statements pursuant to their 
     official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens 
     for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not 
     insulate their communications from employer discipline.\166\
       In Mr. Trump's case, it would be difficult to argue that he 
     gave a political speech at the ``Save America'' rally outside 
     the course of performing his official duties. The purpose of 
     the speech was to use his role as president to urge his 
     supporters to stop the certification of Biden's electoral 
     win. In addition, there is evidence that members of the crowd 
     had taken Mr. Trump's invocations to attend the rally, and 
     his insisting that they head to the Capitol, as instructions 
     coming from the president.\167\
       Moreover, as Manager Raskin explained, a president takes an 
     oath to uphold the laws, the Constitution, and the principles 
     of our republic.\168\ In exchange, the president is given 
     tremendous power and prestige--more so than any other person 
     in the country. That is why, in an instant, a president's 
     words can calm, agitate, or otherwise change the landscape on 
     issues ranging from foreign affairs, to the economy, to the 
     rule of law. Not only can the president's words have an 
     expansive ripple effect, they are more likely to succeed in 
     inciting action from the public. These potent powers can be 
     wielded by the president for the good of the country, or can 
     be exploited to subject it to the gravest abuses. That is 
     why--for the protection of our laws and democratic 
     institutions--a president's primary obligation is to uphold 
     their oath of office, and any freedom of expression must 
     yield to that higher duty.
       In this case, Mr. Trump did not have a First Amendment 
     right to fuel a mass disinformation campaign, foreseeably fan 
     the flames of political division, and then direct a mob to 
     disrupt a congressional proceeding.


                 VII. OBSTRUCTION OF ELECTORAL COLLEGE

       In inciting the insurrection on January 6th and attempting 
     to overturn the 2020 election, Mr. Trump attempted to destroy 
     our democratic system and negate the will of the American 
     people.
       The Electoral College process is laid out in the Twelfth 
     Amendment of the Constitution, which states:

       ``The Electors shall meet in their respective states and 
     vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, 
     at least . . . they shall make distinct lists of all persons 
     voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-
     President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists 
     they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the 
     seat of the government of the United States, directed to 
     the President of the Senate;--the President of the Senate 
     shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of 
     Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes 
     shall then be counted[.]''

       Just as the Electoral College has been carried out and 
     affirmed since the first presidential election of President 
     George Washington,\169\ the 2020 election took place 
     according to the requirements of the Constitution. Voters in 
     each respective state and territory chose their electors to 
     serve in the Electoral College,\170\ with Mr. Biden winning a 
     majority of 306 electoral votes.\171\ On December 14, 2020, 
     the appointed electors convened state-by-state to cast their 
     ballots for the President and Vice President of the United 
     States, and certified the results.\172\ On January 6th to 7th 
     of 2020, Congress counted the certified votes, and declared 
     Mr. Biden and Kamala Harris the winners. \173\
       Throughout the Electoral College process, Mr. Trump 
     attempted to interfere and nullify the outcome. For example, 
     as discussed in Section VII, Mr. Trump was at the head of a 
     mass disinformation campaign to discredit the election 
     results before the election had even gotten underway, and 
     then filed dozens of lawsuits alleging widespread voter 
     fraud.\174\ In addition, as I will outline, he wielded his 
     overwhelming power as president to cajole and intimidate 
     members of federal, state, and local government to start 
     investigations, file lawsuits, and reject electoral votes in 
     a bid to overturn the 2020 election.
     A. Mr. Trump Attempted to Use Federal Law Enforcement 
         Agencies to Carry Out Investigations and File Lawsuits
       After losing the 2020 election, Mr. Trump pushed the 
     Justice Department to investigate his meritless allegations 
     of election irregularities.\175\ He also pushed the Justice 
     Department to ask the Supreme Court to invalidate Mr. Biden's 
     victory, which his appointees refused to do, citing the lack 
     of evidence.\176\ Mr. Trump even disparaged his own FBI and 
     DOJ, implying that they were working against him. In an 
     interview, Mr. Trump said, ``This is total fraud. And how the 
     F.B.I. and Department of Justice--I don't know, maybe they're 
     involved--but how people are allowed to get away with this 
     stuff is unbelievable. This election was a total fraud . . . 
     Missing in action . . . Can't tell you where they are.'' 
     \177\
       Succumbing to this pressure, Attorney General William Barr 
     issued a memorandum to U.S. attorneys across the country 
     allowing them to pursue any ``substantial allegations'' of 
     voting irregularities before the 2020 presidential election 
     was certified.\178\ The memorandum gave prosecutors the 
     ability to sidestep longstanding Justice Department policy of 
     not taking overt steps on possible election fraud before 
     results are certified. In response, career DOJ prosecutors 
     called on Mr. Barr to rescind the memo, because it was not 
     based on fact and there was no evidence of widespread voter 
     fraud.\179\
       After Mr. Barr stepped down as Attorney General, Mr. Trump 
     then reportedly pressured Barr's successor, Acting Attorney 
     General Jeffrey Rosen, to file legal briefs seeking to 
     overturn his election loss.\180\ He wanted Mr. Rosen to 
     appoint special counsels, including a counsel who would look 
     into Dominion Voting Systems--which is at the center of a 
     right-wing conspiracy theory accusing the company of 
     conspiring with the Venezuelan government to tip the election 
     toward Mr. Biden. Mr. Rosen refused the president's 
     entreaties. Mr. Trump then plotted with Jeffrey Clark, a 
     Trump loyalist and the head of the DOJ's civil division, to 
     oust Mr. Rosen as acting attorney general, and replace him 
     with Mr. Clark, who was willing to do Mr. Trump's bidding in 
     trying to overturn the Georgia election results. This plan 
     was only unsuccessful because Mr. Trump's advisors convinced 
     him the move could potentially lead to mass resignations 
     within DOJ's leadership and lead to congressional 
     investigations.\181\
     B. Mr. Trump Exerted Inappropriate Pressure on State Elected 
         Officials
       Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 provides that each state 
     shall appoint electors ``in such Manner as the Legislature 
     thereof may direct.'' \182\ However, the decisions on how and 
     when to choose electors is left up to the states. The 
     Electoral Count Act only requires that states be required to 
     certify their elections at least six days before the electors 
     meet to vote.\183\ After his loss on Election Day, Mr. Trump 
     sought to exploit the ambiguous language of the Electoral 
     Count Act that gives states discretion in choosing electors. 
     Most state laws require the appointment of electors who vote 
     according to the outcome of the popular vote in each 
     state.\184\
       However, Mr. Trump sought to use the weight of his office 
     to persuade and, in some

[[Page S933]]

     cases, intimidate state officials. For example, he invited 
     GOP members of the Michigan state legislature to the White 
     House, in a brazen bid to get them to throw out the state's 
     election results.\185\ He also called two members of the 
     Wayne County Board of Canvassers, including its Republican 
     chairwoman, who had already voted to certify that Joe Biden 
     won their county.\186\ Within 24 hours of the call, the 
     Republican chairwoman announced that she wanted to 
     ``rescind'' her vote.\187\ Her reasoning mirrored Mr. Trump's 
     claims that the election may have been rife with fraud. In 
     another instance, he called the speaker of the Pennsylvania 
     House of Representatives, Bryan Cutler, and inquired about 
     the electoral process. According to Cutler's spokesperson, 
     Mr. Trump blatantly asked, ``I'm hearing about all these 
     issues in Philadelphia, and these issues with your law What 
     can we do to fix it?'' \188\
       Mr. Trump's effort hit its crescendo when the Trump 
     campaign convinced supporters in several states to create an 
     alternate slate of electors to send for the congressional 
     certification.\189\ The Trump campaign helped organize 
     alternate Electoral College meetings in Wisconsin, Arizona, 
     Pennsylvania, Georgia, New Mexico, and Nevada.\190\ However, 
     election law experts dismissed the validity of these false 
     electors, which had ``neither been certified by state 
     executives nor purportedly appointed by state legislators.'' 
     \191\
       Mr. Trump also took extra effort to influence the outcome 
     of the Georgia election, a fierce battleground state. In 
     early December, he called Governor Brian Kemp and asked him 
     to hold a special session of the Georgia legislature to 
     appoint Trump electors to reverse Mr. Biden's win. Mr. Trump 
     also wanted Kemp to order an audit of absentee ballot 
     signatures. When Kemp told the former president he would not 
     be complying with either demand, Mr. Trump told a crowd of 
     supporters at a Georgia rally that, ``Your governor could 
     stop it very easily if he knew what the hell he was doing . . 
     . So far we haven't been able to find the people in Georgia 
     willing to do the right thing.'' \192\
       In the most extraordinary example of his inappropriate 
     interactions with state lawmakers, Mr. Trump outright tried 
     to coerce Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, ``to 
     find'' 11,780 votes--which would amount to the one vote 
     margin he needed to win the state.\193\ Mr. Trump spent 
     roughly an hour haranguing Raffensperger and Ryan Germany, 
     the Georgia secretary of state's general counsel, about doing 
     another vote count and insisting on baseless conspiracy 
     theories. Even when presented with facts to the contrary by 
     Raffensperger and Germany, who are both Republicans, Mr. 
     Trump did not relent.
       Mr. Trump also made veiled threats of how his supporters 
     would punish Republicans if the Georgia election officials 
     did not go along with what he was asking. Specifically, he 
     told Raffensperger, who will be up for reelection in 2022, 
     ``[T]hey hate the state, they hate the governor, and they 
     hate the secretary of state. I will tell you that right now. 
     And the only people that like you are people that will never 
     vote for you. You know that, Brad, right?'' \194\
       Mr. Trump even suggested that Raffensperger and Germany 
     would face criminal consequences if they refused to 
     intervene, saying ``[T]he ballots are corrupt. And you're 
     going to find that they are--which is totally illegal, it is 
     more illegal for you than it is for them because, you know 
     what they did and you're not reporting it. That's a 
     criminal--that's a criminal offense. And you can't let that 
     happen. That's a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. '' 
     \195\
       In the end, Mr. Trump made so many false claims about the 
     Georgia election, a top state official had to publicly debunk 
     the claims one-by-one to restore public trust in the 
     integrity of their election.\196\
     C. Mr. Trump Lobbied Vice President Pence to Reject Electoral 
         Votes
       Vice President Pence presided over the January 6th 
     certification of electoral votes. This role is spelled out by 
     Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, which dictates 
     that ``The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of 
     the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the 
     certificates and the votes shall then be counted.'' \197\ In 
     conducting this duty, the Vice President has no more power 
     than to determine whether the certificates submitted by each 
     state are authentic and then to count the votes.\198\
       In the days leading up to and on January 6th, Mr. Trump 
     denied the constitutional reality of the Vice President's 
     role and made it clear that he wanted Vice President Pence to 
     block electoral votes for Mr. Biden. At his behest, a group 
     of Republican lawmakers filed a lawsuit against Vice 
     President Pence. The lawsuit alleged that the Twelfth 
     Amendment gave the Vice President, and not states, unilateral 
     power to determine which among competing slates of electors 
     may be counted.\199\ Mr. Trump's own Justice Department 
     stepped in to defend Mr. Pence, and a federal judge tossed 
     out the lawsuit after finding that the Republican lawmakers 
     lacked standing to sue in this case.\200\
       Still, Mr. Trump unabashedly and repeatedly tried to coerce 
     Vice President Pence into unilaterally rejecting the election 
     results. On January 2nd, he falsely proclaimed over Twitter 
     that, ``The Vice President has the power to reject 
     fraudulently chosen electors.'' \201\ Two days later, Mr. 
     Trump said at a rally in Georgia that, ``I hope Mike Pence 
     comes through for us, I have to tell you . . . Of course, if 
     he doesn't come through, I won't like him as much.'' \202\ 
     Trump reportedly met with and called Pence multiple times--
     plying him to object to Biden's victory, including at least 
     one time with threatening language.\203\ Trump reportedly 
     solicited others in his orbit to put pressure on the Vice 
     President, including Rudy Giuliani and trade adviser Peter 
     Navarro.\204\ Despite the enormous pressure, Mr. Pence told 
     Mr. Trump that he planned to certify the election results for 
     Mr. Biden.\205\
       In response, Mr. Trump tweeted on the morning of January 
     6th that, ``All Mike Pence has to do is send [the votes] back 
     to the States, AND WE WIN. Do it Mike, this is a time for 
     extreme courage!'' \206\ He also tweeted ``If Vice President 
     @Mike--Pence comes through for us, we will win the 
     Presidency. Many States want to decertify the mistake they 
     made in certifying incorrect & even fraudulent numbers in a 
     process NOT approved by their State Legislatures (which it 
     must be). Mike can send it back!'' \207\ In his remarks at 
     the ``Save America'' rally itself, Mr. Trump said, ``I hope 
     Mike is going to do the right thing. I hope so. I hope so. 
     Because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the 
     election. . . . And I actually--I just spoke to Mike. I said: 
     'Mike, that doesn't take courage. What takes courage is to do 
     nothing. That takes courage.' '' \208\
       Once the electoral vote count had begun, it was clear that 
     Vice President Pence was not going to comply with his 
     demands. Mr. Trump attacked him on Twitter writing, ``Mike 
     Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been 
     done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving 
     States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the 
     fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to 
     previously certify. USA demands the truth!'' \209\
     D. Mr. Trump Encouraged Members of Congress to Deny and 
         Overturn the Election Results
       Once it was clear that Mr. Trump had no plans of conceding, 
     even after Mr. Biden had been declared the presumptive 
     winner, Republicans were faced with a choice. Manager Lieu 
     explained that Mr. Trump targeted Members of Congress on 
     social media making it clear he saw their siding with him as 
     a loyalty test. Mr. Trump reminded Republicans that he, in 
     his view, had gotten them elected and he expected their 
     gratitude.\210\ Under these threats of retribution, Mr. Trump 
     was successful in getting Republicans to line up with him--in 
     either refusing to acknowledge that Mr. Biden had won or 
     worse, enabling his baseless claims of a rigged 
     election.\211\
       In early December, Mr. Trump also identified an ally in the 
     House of Representatives who was circulating a Dear Colleague 
     letter asking Republican members to sign onto an amicus brief 
     supporting a lawsuit filed by the Texas Republican Attorney 
     General in the Supreme Court to void the election results of 
     other states.\212\ Mr. Trump began to personally lobby House 
     Republicans asking them to sign the amicus brief.\213\ In the 
     end, one hundred and twenty six Republican members of 
     Congress signed on, including the House Minority Leader.\214\ 
     The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the lawsuit saying the state 
     of Texas lacked standing to pursue the case.\215\
       As an extension of Mr. Trump' pressure campaign, Republican 
     Members of Congress began to similarly view the certification 
     of the Electoral College as a loyalty test to Mr. Trump. A 
     few days before January 6th, eleven current and then-incoming 
     Republican senators announced that they would vote to reject 
     the Electoral College votes of some states as not ``lawfully 
     certified,'' unless Congress appointed a commission to 
     conduct an emergency, ten day audit of the election 
     results.\216\ One hundred and forty Republican Members of the 
     House planned a similar effort.\217\ Together, the Senate and 
     House Members planned to object to the counting of 
     electors from Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, 
     Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.\218\
       The question is not whether these Members had the legal 
     right to object to electors but whether there were facts to 
     support the objections. At that point, the results of the 
     election and lack of substantive voting irregularities was 
     affirmed by dozens of judges, the U.S. Supreme Court, 
     governors, and election officials.\219\ In addition, 
     Department of Homeland Security officials put out a statement 
     that said, ``The November 3rd election was the most secure in 
     American history.''\220\ Attorney General Barr put out a 
     similar statement that said, ``[We] have not seen fraud on a 
     scale that could have effected a different outcome in the 
     election.''\221\ In the face of all this evidence, the 
     subsequent objections could be seen as little more than a 
     ploy to lend specious legitimacy to Mr. Trump's allegations 
     of voter fraud and avoid provoking Mr. Trump's ire.
     E. Mr. Trump Sought to Block the Peaceful Transfer of Power
       Mr. Trump's overall course of conduct embodied the exact 
     kind of behavior that the Framers built constitutional 
     protections to thwart. The Framers knew that an executive who 
     amassed too much power might replicate the abuses of a 
     monarchy. At the Constitutional Convention, James Madison 
     explained the risks of appointing an executive--saying ``loss 
     of capacity or corruption was more within the compass of 
     probable events, and either of them might be fatal to the 
     Republic.''\222\ An exchange between two delegates, William 
     Richardson Davie and James Wilson, highlights the importance 
     of safeguarding against a corrupt president that would cheat 
     to get reelected. Davie stated, ```[i]f he be not impeachable 
     whilst in office, he will spare no efforts or means

[[Page S934]]

     whatever to get himself reelected.' [Davie] considered this 
     as an essential security for the good behaviour of the 
     Executive.''\223\ Wilson concurred with Davie ``in the 
     necessity of making the Executive impeachable while in 
     office.''\224\
       Without mechanisms to keep an out-of-control president in 
     check, there was little binding him to the law. This, in 
     part, prompted the Framers to design the system of checks and 
     balances and Congress's Impeachment power. Another 
     intentional hallmark of our democracy is the peaceful 
     transfer of power, which is especially important when an 
     incumbent loses re-election.\225\ This assures that an 
     executive acquires and maintains power only through lawful 
     means. It also ensures that power is given to a president, 
     and taken back, according to the will of people. It began 
     when President John Adams--defeated by his bitter political 
     rival Thomas Jefferson--quietly left the White House on the 
     morning of the new president's inauguration.\226\ Since then, 
     no president has ever refused to accept an election result or 
     defied the lawful processes for resolving electoral disputes, 
     until Mr. Trump.
       Mr. Trump, unable to accept the will of the people, 
     categorically rejected the decision of Americans as expressed 
     in the 2020 election. Even more than refusing, he repeatedly 
     sought to undermine processes at the federal, state, and 
     local level that would advance a peaceful transfer of power. 
     As the House Managers noted, Mr. Trump tried to obstruct the 
     election process through non-violent means.\227\ When these 
     attempts failed, he directed a mob to help him wrest power by 
     launching an attack on the legislative branch.


                 IX. VIOLATION OF SEPARATION OF POWERS

       One of the key principles rooted in our democratic system 
     is the separation of powers between the co-equal branches of 
     government. This is apparent from the way the Framers devised 
     a system of federal government that diffuses and divides its 
     core functions across the legislative, executive, and 
     judicial branches.
       The doctrine is rooted in a political philosophy that aims 
     to keep the government, as a whole and each branch, both 
     limited and empowered, so that the government can function 
     effectively, while the branches can prevent one another from 
     acting arbitrarily or recklessly. As James Madison explained 
     in Federalist Paper Number 47, ``The accumulation of all 
     powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same 
     hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether 
     hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be 
     pronounced the very definition of tyranny.''\228\
       Therefore, when any one branch of government seeks to 
     obstruct an essential function of another branch, it 
     threatens the separation of powers.\229\ In a case where a 
     president seeks to derogate the authority of another branch, 
     it can also undermine the president's constitutional 
     obligation to ``take Care that the Laws be faithfully 
     executed.''\230\
       In inciting the armed assault on the Capitol on January 
     6th, Mr. Trump knowingly and recklessly threatened a 
     constitutional proceeding of the Congress. In all this, Mr. 
     Trump gravely endangered the security of the United States 
     and its institutions, and imperiled a coequal branch of 
     government.


                     X. VIOLATION OF OATH OF OFFICE

       Manager Castro outlined the numerous ways that Mr. Trump 
     abandoned his post as the insurrection began, and even hours 
     after it was underway.\231\ Capitol Police were overwhelmed 
     and violently assaulted by the armed mob. Members of Congress 
     and congressional staff feared for their lives, many of them 
     hiding or barricaded in offices, as the mob wreaked mayhem on 
     the Capitol grounds. It was all unfolding on television, 
     leaving little doubt that Mr. Trump saw it happening in real 
     time.
       Manager Castro emphasized that Mr. Trump could have simply 
     told the rioters to stop and leave the Capitol.\232\ As I 
     explained in Section VII, Mr. Trump did not acknowledge the 
     attack for nearly two hours, while Republican lawmakers and 
     the people closest to him implored him to call off the 
     attack. Instead, he tweeted out criticism of Vice President 
     Pence. When he finally acknowledged the attack, he did not 
     denounce the mob or rioters, but asked them to ``stay 
     peaceful,'' even though it was clear that they had undertaken 
     an unlawful siege at the Capitol. At this time, Mr. Trump 
     still did not ask the rioters to stop. Three and half hours 
     in, he released a video reaffirming the same voter fraud 
     lies, and told his supporters, ``We love you. You're very 
     special.'' While Mr. Trump did tell the rioters to go home 
     this time, he still refused to disavow the ongoing attack or 
     the attackers themselves.
       In addition to inciting the insurrection, Mr. Trump 
     abandoned his duties to defend the American people, even 
     after the events of the day turned deadly. Manager Castro 
     noted that he did not deploy the National Guard, nor any 
     other law enforcement.\233\ He was so disengaged from 
     discussions with the Pentagon about deploying the National 
     Guard that Vice President Pence had to intervene to help move 
     the request forward.\234\
       Taken together, Mr. Trump's conduct was an astonishing and 
     willful dereliction of duty. He had sworn an oath to 
     ``faithfully execute the office of President of the United 
     States and preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of 
     the United States.''\235\ Yet on that day, he commanded his 
     supporters to inflict grave harm to the constitutional order, 
     by telling them to disrupt the electoral certification and 
     the peaceful transfer of power. He sat back and watched as 
     his supporters took part in an attack on the government 
     institutions that he swore to defend. Then, he entirely 
     failed to stop or condemn the widespread lawbreaking that his 
     supporters took part in. As such, I find that there is 
     overwhelmingly clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Trump 
     violated his oath of office.


  XI. CONCLUSION: CONVICTION AND DISQUALIFICATION OF MR. TRUMP IS AN 
                           APPROPRIATE REMEDY

       Conviction and disqualification of a president from office 
     requires a high standard and should only be arrived at when 
     there are no other remedies available.
       First, I would refute several assertions by President's 
     Counsel that the Impeachment proceeding, and the remedies 
     thereof, are not the appropriate way to hold Mr. Trump 
     accountable for his actions. President's Counsel and the 
     Senate Minority Leader argue that the more proper forum is a 
     criminal proceeding because of the criminal implications of 
     his offenses. Taken to its logical extreme, their views would 
     absurdly mean that if a president's malfeasance could be 
     prosecuted, the president should be protected from the 
     Impeachment process.
        In addition, Manager Raskin correctly differentiated the 
     purpose and independence of the Impeachment process from the 
     prosecution of crimes. As Manager Raskin stated, 
     ``[Impeachment] was created to prevent and deter elected 
     officials who swear an oath to represent America but then 
     commit dangerous offenses against our republic.''\236\ An 
     Impeachment, unlike a criminal case, is not meant to punish 
     the defendant, but to guard the country and the Constitution 
     from an unfit executive. As I have explained, by his conduct, 
     Mr. Trump violated his oath of office and refused to defend 
     the Constitution itself. Therefore, an Impeachment is the 
     most appropriate forum to protect the integrity of the 
     presidency and the constitutional order.
       President's Counsel also contend that Impeachment is 
     unnecessary in this case because the 2020 election was the 
     remedy for his conduct. Of course, when Mr. Trump incited a 
     mob to violent action at the U.S. Capitol, it was an attempt 
     to delay the certification of the election results. This 
     followed months of Mr. Trump's public refusal to concede the 
     election on the grounds that it was stolen from him. Clearly, 
     the election process is insufficient in this case because Mr. 
     Trump does not recognize the validity of any election outcome 
     that does not favor him.
       Failing to convict the former president would result in 
     several constitutional perils. First, Mr. Trump may once 
     again run for president. If re-elected, there is no reason to 
     believe that he would feel constrained by any limitations. An 
     acquittal essentially would provide him permission to commit 
     the same abuses or worse, without fear of accountability. 
     That includes leveraging all the powers of the presidency to 
     stay in power or wage an assault on a coequal branch of 
     government. Presidents must be held accountable when their 
     lust for power does violence to bedrock principles. 
     Disqualification from public office is the only remedy left 
     to prevent such behavior from Mr. Trump in the future.
       A failure to convict would also be a lesson to future 
     presidents with authoritarian tendencies that they can attack 
     our democratic principles and institutions without 
     consequence. Even beyond a ``January Exception,'' a future 
     president might reason that otherwise impeachable conduct 
     will not be challenged during any part of their presidency. 
     In addition to rank abuse of power, a future president may 
     not submit to the peaceful transfer of power and the sacred 
     will of the people. In terms of the legislative branch, 
     Congress would send a message that it is unwilling to use its 
     own oversight powers functionally and effectively, and is 
     unwilling to uphold a meaningful separation of powers. 
     Disqualification is the necessary method for protecting the 
     republic from such democratic decay within the executive and 
     legislative branches.
       This chapter in history reminds us that democracy is 
     fragile and we must diligently safeguard its principles. To 
     this end, I have a responsibility to defend the truth, the 
     rule of law, and our democratic institutions. I am compelled 
     to vote to convict President Donald J. Trump of committing 
     ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' and support his 
     disqualification from ever again holding an office of public 
     trust.


                                Endnotes

       1. Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United 
     States, for high crimes and misdemeanors, H.R. Res. 24, 117th 
     Cong. (2021).
       2. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 3, cl. 6.
       3. U.S. Const. art. II, Sec. 4.
       4. U.S. Const. art III, Sec. 3, cl. 1.
       5. Staff of H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 116th Cong., Rep. on 
     Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment 14 (Comm. 
     Print 2019).
       6. 2 Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of 
     England 2152 (William Carey Jones ed., 1976).
       7. Id. at 2153.
       8. Charles Doyle, Cong. Research Serv., 98-882, Impeachment 
     Grounds: A Collection of Selected Materials 4 (1998).
       9. The Federalist Paper No. 65, at 439 (James Madison) 
     (Jacob E. Cooke ed., 1961)

[[Page S935]]

  

       10. 2 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 550 
     (Max Farrand ed., 1911).
       11. Ibid.
       12. 4 The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the 
     Adoption of the Federal Constitution 113 (Jonathon Elliot 
     ed., 2nd ed. 1861).
       13. Michael J. Gerhardt, The Federal Impeachment Process: A 
     Constitutional and Historical Analysis 21 (3rd ed. The 
     University of Chicago Press 2019) (1996).
       14. 2 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitutions 799 
     at 269-70 quoting William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 
     of the United States at 213 (2d ed. 1829).
       15. Staff of H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 93rd Cong., Rep. on 
     Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment 27 (Comm. 
     Print 1974).
       16. 2 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, supra 
     note 10, at 64-65.
       17. Id. at 550
       18. Ibid.
       19. Ibid.
       20. Ibid.
       21. Id. at 551.
       22. Id. at 600.
       23. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 3, cl. 7.
       24. 1 The Collected Works of James Wilson 736 (Kermit L. 
     Hall and Mark David Hall eds., 2007).
       25. Memorandum from William Barr, Attorney General, 
     Department of Justice, to Rod Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney 
     General, Department of Justice, and Steve Engel, Assistant 
     Attorney General, Department of Justice 12 (June 8, 2018) (on 
     file with the New York Times) (emphasis in original).
       26. 2 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, supra 
     note 10, at 65-66.
       27. Charles L. Black, Jr. & Philip Bobbit, Impeachment: A 
     Handbook, New Edition 17 (2018).
       28. The Federalist No. 65, supra note 9, at 441; Laurence 
     Tribe & Joshua Matz, To End a Presidency: The Power of 
     Impeachment 127 (2018).
       29. The Federalist No. 65, supra note 9, at 441.
       30. Id. at 442.
       31. Black & Bobbitt, supra note 27.
       32. Ibid. (Black's analysis is cited by several other 
     scholars as persuasive; See e.g., Laurence Tribe and Joshua 
     Matz, To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment 137 
     (2018).
       33. Bruce L. Castor Jr. et al, Trump's Answer to Article of 
     Impeachment, (Feb. 2, 2021) at 1, https://www.cnn.com/2021/
02/02/politics/trump-response-impeachment-article/index.html.
       34. Castor Jr. et al, supra note 33, at 1-2.
       35. Jamie Raskin et al, Trial Memorandum of the United 
     States House of Representatives I. the Impeachment Trial of 
     President Donald J. Trump, House Judiciary Com. 48 (Feb. 2, 
     2021), https://judiciary.house.gov/news/
documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=3515.
       36. Jared P. Cole & Todd Garvey, Impeachment and the 
     Constitution, CRS (Nov. 20, 2019), https://
crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46013.
       37. The Federalist No. 65, supra note 9, at 397.
       38. Raskin et al, supra note 35, at 51.
       39. Brian C. Kalt & Frank Bowman, Congress Can Impeach 
     Trump Now and Convict Him When He's Gone, Wash. Post (Jan 11, 
     2021), https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/01/11/
trump-impeachment-senate-trial/.
       40. Ibid.
       41. Brian C. Kalt, ``The Constitutional Case for the 
     Impeachability of Former Federal Officials: An Analysis of 
     the Law, History, and Practice of Late Impeachment'', 6 Texas 
     Review of Law and Politics 13, 26 (2001).
       42. Kalt, supra note 40, at 29.
       43. Mark Aaronson et al, Constitutional Law Scholars on 
     Impeaching Former Officers, Politico (January 21, 2021), at 
     2, https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000177-2646-de27-a5f7-
 3fe714ac0000.
       44. Id. at 1-92.
       45. The Federalist No. 65, supra note 9, at 456.
       46. Senate Historical Office, ``The First Impeachment'', 
     United States Senate, https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/
history/minute/The-First-Impeachment.htm.
       47. Ibid.
       48. Kalt & Bowman, supra note 38.
       49. Ibid.
       50. Raskin et al, supra note 35, at 73-74.
       51. Raskin et al, supra note 35, at 74.
       52. Kalt & Bowman, supra note 38.
       53. Michael J. Gerhardt, The Federal Impeachment Process: A 
     Constitutional and Historical Analyses 80, (Henry Barton 
     Dawson ed., U. of Chicago Press, 2000).
       54. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 3, cl. 6.
       55. The Federalist No. 65, supra note 9, at 441.
       56. Siobhan Hughes, McConnell Won't Convene Senate Early to 
     Accept Impeachment Article, Wall St. J. (Jan. 13, 2021), 
     https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/trump-impeachment-house-
 biden/card/lQqlkwh7BOCRLaSGrkig.
       57. 167 Cong. Rec. S662 (daily ed. Feb. 11, 2021) 
     (statement of Mr. Manager Lieu), https://www.congress.gov/
117/crec/2021/02/11/CREC-2021-02-11-pt1-PgS645-2.pdf.
       58. Kavin Collier, Selfies, social media posts making it 
     easier for FBI to track down Capitol riot suspects, NBC (Jan. 
     16, 2021), https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/selfies-
social-media-posts-making-it-easier-fbi-track-down-n1254522
       59. Bryce Klehm & Rohini Kurup, Compiling the Criminal 
     Charges Following the Capitol Riot, Lawfare (Jan. 6, 2021), 
     https://www.lawfareblog.com/compiling-criminal-charges-
following-capitol-riot.
       60. Salvador Rizzo, Trump attorneys falsely claim he was 
     denied due process', Wash. Post (Feb. 13, 2021), https://
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/02/13/trump-attorneys-
falsely-claim-he-was-
denied-due-process/
 61. Jared P. Cole, Terrorist Databases and the No Fly List: 
     Procedural Due Process and Other Legal Issues, CRS (July 27, 
     2016), https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43730? 
     source=search&guid=2a367adacc304370874da 
     997e155d437&index=0#_Toc530390992.
       62. Incitement, Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014).
       63. Ibid.
       64. Nicholas Fandos et al, 144 Constitutional Lawyers Call 
     Trump's First Amendment Defense `Legally Frivolous', N.Y. 
     Times (Feb. 5, 2021), https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/05/us/
politics/trump-impeachment-defense.html
       65. U.S. Const. art. II, Sec. 1, cl. 8.
       66. See 77 C.J.S. Riot Sec. 36.
       67. Eugene Kiely et al, The President's Trumped-Up Claims 
     of Voter Fraud, FactCheck.org (Jul. 30, 2020), https://
www.factcheck.org/2020/07/the-presidents-trumped-up-claims-
of-voter-fraud/.
       68. C-SPAN, President Trump Remarks in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, 
     (Aug. 17, 2020), https://www.c-span.org/video/?474841-1/
president-trump-give-acceptance-speech-white-house-week
       69. Paul LeBlanc & Jason Hoffman, Trump again casts doubt 
     on whether he'll accept election result in latest unfounded 
     attack on voting process, CNN (Sept. 24, 2020), https://
www.cnn.com/2020/09/24/politics/trump-2020-election-ballots/
index.html.
       70. Sanya Mansoor, `I Have to See.' Mr. Trump Refuses to 
     Say If He Will Accept the 2020 Election Results', TIME (Jul. 
     19, 2020), https://time.com/5868739/trump-election-results-
chris-wallace/
 71. Nick Niedzwiadek et al, After Trump meeting, Michigan 
     GOP leaders say Biden's win still stands, Politico (Nov. 20, 
     2020) https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/20/michigan-gop-
dc-trump-election-438690.
       72. Staff Reports, READ THE FULL STATEMENT: Trump Responds 
     to Biden Being Projected as Winner, NBC Boston (Nov. 7, 
     2020), https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/read-the-full-
statement-president-trump-
responds-to-biden-being-projected-as-winner/2225599/.
       73. Aamer Madhani & Kevin Freking, In video, Trump spreads 
     baseless claims about voter fraud, PBS News (Dec. 2, 2020), 
     https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/in-video-trump-spreads-
baseless-claims-about-voter-fraud.
       74. Philip Rucker, Trump escalates baseless attacks on 
     election with 46-minute video rant, Wash. Post (Dec. 2, 
     2020), https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-
election-video/2020/12/02/f6c8d63c-34e8-11eb-a997-
1f4c53d2a747_story.html.
       75. Aamer Madhani & Kevin Freking, In video, Trump spreads 
     baseless claims about voter fraud, PBS News (Dec. 2, 2020), 
     https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/in-video-trump-spreads-
baseless-claims-about-voter-fraud.
       76. James Crowley, Trump Attacks FBI, DOJ, Supreme Court 
     and GOP Senators in Twitter Tirade, Newsweek (Dec. 26, 2020), 
     https://www.newsweek.com/trump-attacks-doj-fbi-supreme-court-
gop-senators-mitch-mcconnell-twitter-1557376.
       77. Alana Wise, Despite Clear Defeat, Trump Vows To Fight 
     On, Continues Disinformation In Georgia, NPR (Jan. 4, 2021), 
     https://www.npr.org/2021/01/04/953436607/despite-clear-
defeat-trump-vows-to-fight-on-continues-disinformation-in-
 georgia.
       78. Ariane de Vogue & Paul LeBlanc, Trump asks Supreme 
     Court to invalidate millions of votes in battleground states, 
     CNN (Dec. 10, 2020), https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/09/politics/
trump-supreme-court/index.html.
       79. William Cummings et al, By the numbers: President 
     Donald Trump's failed efforts to overturn the election, USA 
     Today (Jan. 6, 2021), https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/
politics/elections/2021/01/06/trumps-failed-efforts-overturn-
election-numbers/4130307001/.
       80. Ibid.
       81. It's Official: The Election Was Secure, Brennan Ctr. 
     for Justice (Dec. 11, 2020), https://www.brennancenter.org/
our-work/research-reports/its-official-election-was-secure.
       82. GCC et al, Joint Statement from Elections 
     Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council & the Election 
     Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Executive Committees, CISA 
     (Nov. 12, 2020), https://www.cisa.gov/news/2020/11/12/joint-
statement-elections-infrastructure-government-coordinating-
council-election.
       83. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-pressure-pence-
reject-bidens-win-congress-wednesday/story?id=75057551.
       84. Colby Itkowitz, `Liberate': Trump tweets support of 
     protests against stay-at-home orders, Wash. Post (Apr. 17, 
     2020), https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/17/
liberate-trump-tweets-support-protesting-against-stay-at-
home-orders/.
       85. Rebecca Boone, Armed statehouse protests set tone for 
     US Capitol insurgents, Associated Press (Jan. 7, 2021), 
     https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-coronavirus-
pandemic-oregon-elections-idaho-
 688fc8894f44992487bb6ee45e9abd77.
       86. John Flesher, 6 men indicted in alleged plot to kidnap 
     Michigan governor, A.P. (Dec. 17, 2020), https://apnews.com/
article/gretchen-whitmer-michigan-indictments-coronavirus-
pandemic-traverse-city-10f7e02c57004da9843f89650edd4510.
       87. 13 On Your Side Staff, Mr. Trump responds after failed 
     Gov. Whitmer kidnap plot, 12

[[Page S936]]

     News (Oct 8, 2020), https://www.12newsnow.com/article/news/
health/coronavirus/president-trump-responds-after-failed-gov-
whitmer-kidnap-plot/69-3a86c917-343a-431b-91b1-df5e72726a96.
       88. Katie Shepherd, Trump cheers supporters who swarmed a 
     Biden bus in Texas: `These patriots did nothing wrong', Wash. 
     Post (Nov. 2, 2020), https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/
2020/11/02/trump-caravan-biden-bus/.
       89. Matthew Schwartz, Trump Speaks Fondly Of Supporters 
     Surrounding Biden Bus In Texas, NPR (Nov. 1, 2020), https://
www.npr.org/2020/11/01/930083915/trump-speaks-fondly-of-
supporters-protecting-biden-bus-in-texas.
       90. Stephen Fowler, `Someone's Going To Get Killed': Ga. 
     Official Blasts GOP Silence On Election Threats, NPR (Dec. 1, 
     2020), https://www.npr.org/sections/biden-transition-updates/
2020/12/01/940961602/someones-going-to-get-killed-ga-
official-blasts-gop-silence-on-election-threats.
       91. Melissa Quinn, ``Stand back and stand by'': Trump 
     declines to condemn white supremacists at debate, CBS News 
     (Sep, 30, 2020), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/proud-boys-
stand-back-and-stand-by-trump-refuses-to-condemn-white-
 supremacists/.
       92. Sheera Frenkel & Annie Karni, Proud Boys celebrate 
     Trump's `stand by' remark about them at the debate, N.Y. 
     Times (Sept. 29, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/29/
us/trump-proud-boys-biden.html.
       93. Ben Collins & Brandy Zadrozny, Proud Boys celebrate 
     after Trump's debate callout, NBC News (Sep. 30, 2020), 
     https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/proud-boys-celebrate-
after-trump-s-debate-call-out-n1241512.
       94. Alex Kaplan, Trump has repeatedly amplified QAnon 
     Twitter accounts. The FBI has linked the conspiracy theory to 
     domestic terror, Media Matters (Jan. 11, 2021), https://
www.mediamatters.org/twitter/fbi-calls-qanon-domestic-terror-
threat-trump-has-amplified-qanon-supporters-twitter-more-20.
       95. Axios, Trump praises Anon supporters: ``I understand 
     they like me very much'', Axios (Aug. 20, 2020), https://
www.axios.com/trump-praises-qanon-supporters-i-understand-
they-like-me-very-much-42146fb3-bd69-4943-8e80-
2f0bcf4b0b17.html.
       96. Philip Bump, Rather than condemn the QAnon conspiracy 
     theory, Trump elevates its dangerous central assertion, Wash. 
     Post (Oct. 15, 2020), https://www.washingtonpost.com/
politics/2020/10/15/rather-than-condemn-qanon-conspiracy-
theory-trump-elevates-its-dangerous-central-assertion/.
       97. Dan Barry & Sheera Frenkel, ``Be There. Will Be Wild!': 
     Trump All but Circled the Date, N.Y. Times (Jan. 6, 2021), 
     https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/us/politics/capitol-mob-
trump-supporters.html.
       98. Donald Trump, See you in Washington, DC, on January 
     6th. Don't miss it. Information to follow!, Facebook (Dec. 
     27, 2020), https://m.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/posts/see-you-
in-washington-dc-on-january-6th-dont-miss-it-information-to-
 follow/10166040173540725/.
       99. Dan Barry & Sheera Frenkel, ``Be There. Will Be Wild!': 
     Trump All but Circled the Date, N.Y. Times (Jan. 6, 2021), 
     https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/us/politics/capitol-mob-
trump-supporters.html.
       100. @realdonaldtrump, I will be speaking at the SAVE 
     AMERICA RALLY tomorrow on the Ellipse at 11 AM Eastern. 
     Arrive early--doors open at 7 AM Eastern. BIG CROWDS!, 
     Instagram (Jan. 5, 2020), https://www.instagram.com/p/
CJrjQ79sY3Q/?hl=en
       101. 167 Cong. Rec. S629 (daily ed. Feb. 10, 2021) 
     (statement of Ms. Manager Plaskett), https://
www.congress.gov/117/crec/2021/02/10/CREC-2021-02-10-pt1-
PgS615-4.pdf
       102. Philip Bump, When did the Jan. 6 rally become a march 
     to the Capitol?, Wash. Post (Feb. 10, 2021), https://
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/02/10/when-did-jan-6-
rally-become-march-capitol/
 103. 167 Cong. Rec. S629 (daily ed. Feb. 10, 2021) 
     (statement of Ms. Manager Plaskett), https://
www.congress.gov/117/crec/2021/02/10/CREC-2021-02-10-pt1-
PgS615-4.pdf
       104. Women For Trump, Meet the Advisory Board, https://
women.donaldjtrump.com/
 105. 167 Cong. Rec. S630 (daily ed. Feb. 10, 2021) 
     (statement of Ms. Manager Plaskett), https://
www.congress.gov/117/crec/2021/02/10/CREC-2021-02-10-pt1-
PgS615-4.pdf (page S630)
       106. Greg Miller et al, A mob insurrection stoked by false 
     claims of election fraud and promises of violent restoration, 
     Wash. Post (Jan. 9, 2021), https://www.washingtonpost.com/
national-security/trump-capitol-mob-attack-origins/2021/01/
09/0cb2cf5e-51d4-11eb-83e3-322644d82356-story.html.
       107. 167 Cong. Rec. S623 (daily ed. Feb. 10, 2021) 
     (statement of Mr. Manager Swallwell), https://
www.congress.gov/117/crec/2021/02/10/CREC-2021-02-10-pt1-
PgS615-4.pdf.
       108. Bill Bostock, Videos show Trump protesters chanting 
     `count those votes' and `stop the count' outside separate 
     ballot-counting sites in Arizona and Michigan, Bus. Insider 
     (Nov. 5, 2020), https://www.businessinsider.com/videos-trump-
protesters-michigan-arizona-vote-count-2020-11
       109. Jason Slotkin et al, 4 Stabbed, 33 Arrested After 
     Trump Supporters, Counterprotesters Clash In D.C., NPR (Dec. 
     12, 2020), https://www.npr.org/2020/12/12/945825924/trump-
supporters-arrive-in-washington-once-again-for-a-million-
maga-march.
       110. Atlantic Council's DFRLab, #StopTheSteal: Timeline of 
     Social Media and Extremist Activities Leading to 1/6 
     Insurrection, Just Security (Feb. 10, 2021), https://
www.justsecurity.org/74622/stopthesteal-timeline-of-social-
media-and-extremist-activities-leading-to-1-6-insurrection/
 111. Pilar Melendez, `Trump Is Calling Us to Fight!': 
     Georgia Teen Charged in Capitol Riots, Daily Beast (Feb. 8 
     2021), https://money.yahoo.com/trump-calling-us-fight-
georgia-232147165.html.
       112. Dan Barry et al, `Our President Wants Us Here': The 
     Mob That Stormed the Capitol, N.Y. Times (Feb. 5, 2021), 
     https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/09/us/capitol-rioters.html
       113. Alan Feurer & Nicole Hong, `I Answered the Call of My 
     President': Rioters Say Trump Urged Them On, N.Y. Times (Jan. 
     17, 2021), https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/17/nyregion/
protesters-blaming-trump-pardon.html.
       114. Aaron Blake, What Trump said before his supporters 
     stormed the Capitol, annotated, Wash. Post (Jan. 11, 2021), 
     Trump's speech before rioters stormed the Capitol, 
     annotated--Washington Post
       115. Ibid.
       116. Julia Jacobo, A visual timeline on how the attack on 
     Capitol Hill unfolded, ABC News (Jan. 10, 2021), https://
abcnews.go.com/US/visual-timeline-attack-capitol-hill-
unfolded/story?id=75112066.
       117. Ibid.
       118. Jamie Raskin et al, Trial Memorandum of the United 
     States House of Representatives In the Impeachment Trial of 
     President Donald J. Trump, House Judiciary Com. (Feb. 2, 
     2021), at 22, https://judiciary.house.gov/uploadedfiles/
house_trial_brief_final.pdf, Taken from Marc Fisher et 
     al., The Four-Hour Insurrection, Wash. Post (Jan. 7, 2021), 
     https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2021/politics/trump-
insurrection-capitol/.
       119. Evan Hill et al., They Got a Officer!': How a Mob 
     Dragged and Beat Police at the Capitol, N.Y. Times (Jan. 11, 
     2021), https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/they-got-
a-officer-how-a-mob-dragged-and-beat-police-at-the-capitol/
articleshow/80225478.cms; Peter Hermann, `We Got to Hold This 
     Door', Wash. Post (Jan. 14, 2021), https://
www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/01/14/dc-police-capitol-
riot/?arc404=true. Luke Mogelson, New Yorker, Among the 
     Insurrectionists, The New Yorker (Jan. 15, 2021), https://
www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/01/25/among-the-
 insurrectionists.
       120. Officer Christopher Frank Affidavit, at 1 (Jan. 6, 
     2021), https://perma.cc/YN87-BDKH; Officer Alexandria Sims 
     Affidavit, at 1 (Jan. 7, 2021), https://perma.cc/392C-CGPC; 
     Special Agent Lawrence Anyaso Affidavit, at 1 (Jan. 7, 2021), 
     https://perma.cc/M3GZ-WSVM; Luke Mogelson, New Yorker, Among 
     the Insurrectionists, The New Yorker (Jan. 15, 2021), https:/
     /www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/01/25/among-the-
 insurrectionists.
       121. Julia Jacobo, A visual timeline on how the attack on 
     Capitol Hill unfolded, ABC News (Jan. 10, 2021), https://
abcnews.go.com/US/visual-timeline-attack-capitol-hill-
unfolded/story?id=75112066.
       122. Ibid.
       123. Ibid.
       124. 4 Lauren Leatherby & Anjali Singhvi, Critical Moments 
     in the Capitol Siege, N.Y. Times (Jan. 15, 2021), https://
www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/15/us/trump-capitol-riot-
timeline.html.
       125. Ashley Parker et al., How the Rioters Who Stormed the 
     Capitol Came Dangerously Close to Pence, Wash. Post (Jan. 15, 
     2021), https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pence-rioters-
capitol-attack/2021/01/15/ab62e434-567c-11eb-a08b-
f1381ef3d207_story.html.
       126. Rebecca Tan, A Black Officer Faced Down a Mostly White 
     Mob at the Capitol. Meet Eugene Goodman, Wash. Post (Jan. 14, 
     2021), https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/
goodman-capitol-police-video/2021/01/13/08ab3eb6-546b-11eb-
a931-5b162d0d033d_story.html.
       127. Marc Fisher et al., The Four-Hour Insurrection, Wash. 
     Post (Jan. 7, 2021), https://www.washingtonpost.com/podcasts/
post-reports/four-hours-of-insurrection/; Lauren Leatherby et 
     al., How a Presidential Rally Turned Into a Capitol Rampage, 
     N.Y. Times (Jan. 12, 2021), https://www.nytimes.com/
interactive/2021/01/12/us/capitol-mob-timeline.html.
       128. Julia Jacobo, A visual timeline on how the attack on 
     Capitol Hill unfolded, ABC News (Jan. 10, 2021), https://
abcnews.go.com/US/visual-timeline-attack-capitol-hill-
unfolded/story?id=75112066.
       129. Marc Fisher et al., The Four-Hour Insurrection, Wash. 
     Post (Jan. 7, 2021), https://www.washingtonpost.com/podcasts/
post-reports/four-hours-of-insurrection/.
       130. Ibid.
       131. Ellen Barry et al, Woman Killed in Capitol Embraced 
     Trump and QAnon, N.Y. Times (Jan. 7, 2021), https://
www.nytimes.com/2021/01/07/us/who-was-ashli-babbitt.html.
       132. 6 Rep. Dan Killdee (@RepDanKildee), Twitter (Jan. 6, 
     2021, 2:52 PM), https://twitter.com/RepDanKildee/status/
 1346907565482004495; Rose Minutaglio, Rep. Susan Wild On The 
     `Sheer Panic' She Felt In That Viral Photo, Elle (Jan. 7, 
     2021), https://newsopener.com/fashion/rep-susan-wild-on-the-
sheer-panic-she-felt-in-that-viral-photo/; CBS News, Video 
     Shows Members of Congress Taking Cover in House Gallery, 
     (Jan. 6, 2021), https://ft.cbsnews.com/video/video-shows-
members-of-congress-taking-cover-in-house-gallery-cbsnews-
special-report-2021-01-06/.
       133. Haley Britzky, This Army Ranger-turned-Congressman was 
     last out of the House chamber during the Capitol riots, Task 
     and Purpose (Jan. 7, 2021), https://taskandpurpose.com/news/
jason-crow-army-ranger-capitol-riots/.
       134. Ibid.

[[Page S937]]

  

       135. CBS News, Video shows members of Congress taking cover 
     in House gallery, CBS (Jan. 6, 2021), https://
www.cbsnews.com/video/video-shows-members-of-congress-taking-
cover-in-house-gallery-cbsnews-special-report-2021-01-06/.
       136. Julia Jacobo, A visual timeline on how the attack on 
     Capitol Hill unfolded, ABC News (Jan. 10, 2021), https://
abcnews.go.com/US/visual-timeline-attack-capitol-hill-
unfolded/story?id=75112066.
       137. 2 David K. Li & Ali Gostanian, Georgia Lawyer Said He 
     Kicked in Pelosi's Door, She Could've Been `Torn into Little 
     Pieces', NBC News (Jan. 19, 2021), https://www.nbcnews.com/
news/us-news/georgia-lawyer-said-he-kicked-pelosi-s-door-she-
could-n1254756.
       138. Ashley Parker et al., How the Rioters Who Stormed the 
     Capitol Came Dangerously Close to Pence, Wash. Post (Jan. 15, 
     2021), https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pence-rioters-
capitol-attack/2021/01/15/ab62e434-567c-11eb-a08b-
f1381ef3d207_story.html.
       139. Peter Baker et al., Pence Reached His Limit with 
     Trump. It Wasn't Pretty, N.Y. Times (Jan. 12, 2021).
       140. Lauren Leatherby et al., How a Presidential Rally 
     Turned Into a Capitol Rampage, N.Y. Times (Jan. 12, 2021), 
     https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/12/us/capitol-
mob-timeline.html.
       141. Maggie Haberman & Jonathan Martin, After the Speech: 
     What Trump Did as the Capitol Was Attacked, N.Y. Times (Feb. 
     13, 2021), https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/13/us/politics/
trump-capitol-riot.html.
       142. Lexi Lonas, Sasse says Trump was `delighted' and 
     `excited' by reports of Capitol, The Hill (Jan. 8, 2021), 
     https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/533403-sasse-says-trump-
was-delighted-and-excited-by-reports-of-capitol-riot.
       143. Sunlen Serfaty et al, As riot raged at Capitol, Trump 
     tried to call senators to overturn election, CNN (Jan. 8, 
     2021), https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/08/politics/mike-lee-
tommy-tuberville-trump-misdialed-capitol-riot/index.html.
       144. Judge G. Michael Harvey, Special Agent James Soltes 
     Affidavit, (Jan. 8, 2021), at 3 https://www.justice.gov/usao-
dc/case-multi-defendant/file/1364486/download; Alan Feurer & 
     Nicole Hong, `I Answered the Call of My President': Rioters 
     Say Trump Urged Them On, N.Y. Times (Jan. 17, 2021), https://
www.nytimes.com/2021/01/17/nyregion/protesters-blaming-trump-
pardon.html.
       145. Dan Barry et al., `Our President Wants Us Here': The 
     Mob That Stormed the Capitol, N.Y. Times (Jan. 9, 2021), 
     https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/09/us/capitol-rioters.html.
       146. David Begnaud (@DavidBegnaud), Twitter (Jan. 15, 2021, 
     8:30 PM) https://twitter.com/DavidBegnaud/status/
 1350254179218911232.
       147. Kyle Cheney & Josh Gerstein, Judge orders Proud Boy 
     charged in Capitol riot held without bond, Politico (Feb. 10, 
     2021), https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/10/proud-boy-
insurrection-trump-468353.
       148. Shelly Tan et al., How One of America's Ugliest Days 
     Unraveled Inside and Outside the Capitol, Wash. Post (Jan. 9, 
     2021), https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/interactive/
2021/capitol-insurrection-visual-timeline/.
       149. Ibid.
       150. Staff of H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 93rd Cong., Rep. 
     on Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment 27 
     (Comm. Print 1974).
       151. U.S. Const. amend. I.
       152. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 482 (1957).
       153. Victoria L. Killion, The First Amendment: Categories 
     of Speech, CRS (Jan. 16, 2019), https://
crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11072.
       154. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
       155. Ibid.
       156. Ibid.
       157. Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105, 110 (1973).
       158. Id. at 107.
       159. Id. at 108-109.
       160. NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982).
       161. Id. at 886.
       162. Id. at 927.
       163. Id. at 928.
       164. Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 419 (2006).
       165. Cornell Law, GARCETTI v. CEBALLOS (No. 04-473), Legal 
     Inf. Inst. (May 30, 2006), https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/
html/04-473.ZS.html.
       166. Ibid.
       167. Rosalind S. Helderman et al, `Trump said to do so': 
     Accounts of rioters who say the president spurred them to 
     rush the Capitol could be pivotal testimony, Wash. Post (Jan. 
     16, 2021), https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-
rioters-testimony/2021/01/16/01b3d5c6-575b-11eb-a931-
5b162d0d033d_story.html.
       168. 167 Cong. Rec. S659 (daily ed. Feb. 11, 2021) 
     (statement of Mr. Manager Raskin), https://www.congress.gov/
117/crec/2021/02/11/CREC-2021-02-11-pt1-PgS645-2.pdf.
       169. Washington Papers, The Electoral Count for the 
     Presidential Election of 1789, University of Virginia, 
     (https://washingtonpapers.org/resources/articles/the-
electoral-count-for-the-presidential-election-of-1789/.
       170. National Archives, 2020 Electoral College Results, 
     National Archives and Records Administration (2020), https://
www.archives.gov/electoral-college/2020.
       171. Mark Sherman, Associated Press, Biden clears Electoral 
     College 270-vote threshold to become president, PBS News 
     (Dec. 14, 2020), https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/biden-
clears-electoral-college-270-vote-threshold-to-become-
 president.
       172. Ibid.
       173. John Wagner et al, Pence declares Biden winner of the 
     presidential election after Congress finally counts electoral 
     votes, Wash. Post (Jan. 7, 2021), https://
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/06/congress-
electoral-college-vote-live-updates/.
       174. William Cummings et al, By the numbers: President 
     Donald Trump's failed efforts to overturn the election, USA 
     Today (Jan. 6, 2021), https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/
politics/elections/2021/01/06/trumps-failed-efforts-overturn-
election-numbers/4130307001/.
       175. Matt Zapotosky & Devlin Barrett, Barr clears Justice 
     Dept. to investigate alleged voting irregularities as Trump 
     makes unfounded fraud claims, Wash. Post (Nov. 9, 2020), 
     https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trump-
voting-fraud-william-barr-justice-department/2020/11/09/
d57dbe98-22e6-11eb-8672-c281c7a2c96e_story.html.
       176. Jess Bravin & Sadie Gurman, Trump Pressed Justice 
     Department to Go Directly to Supreme Court to Overturn 
     Election Results, W.S. Journal (Jan. 23, 2021), https://
www.wsj.com/articles/trump-pressed-to-change-justice-
department-leadership-to-boost-his-voter-fraud-claims-
 11611434369.
       177. Michael Crowley et al, In his first one-on-one 
     interview since losing to Biden, Trump baselessly cast more 
     conspiracy theories, N.Y. Times (Dec. 23, 2020), https://
www.nytimes.com/live/2020/11/29/us/joe-biden-trump#in-his-
first-one-on-one-interview-since-losing-to-biden-trump-
baselessly-cast-more-conspiracy-theories.
       178. Kadhim Shubber, William Barr Election Memo--November 
     9, Financial Times (Nov. 9, 2020), https://
beta.documentcloud.org/documents/20403358-william-barr-
election-memo-november-9.
       179. Katie Benner & Adam Goldman, Federal Prosecutors Push 
     Back on Barr Memo on Voter Fraud Claims, CNN (Nov. 13, 2020), 
     https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/13/us/politics/justice-
department-voter-fraud.html.
       180. Kate Benner, Trump and Justice Dept. Lawyer Said to 
     Have Plotted to Oust Acting Attorney General, N.Y. Times 
     (Jan. 22, 2021), https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/22/us/
politics/jeffrey-clark-trump-justice-department-
election.html.
       181. Ibid.
       182. U.S. Const. art. II, Sec. 1, cl. 2.
       183. Electoral Count Act, Pub.L. 49-90.
       184. NCSL, The Electoral College, (Nov. 11, 2020), https://
www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/the-electoral-
college.aspx.
       185. Peter Alexander et al, Trump invites Michigan GOP 
     lawmakers to White House after calling officials in key 
     county, NBC News (Nov. 19, 2020), https://www.nbcnews.com/
politics/2020-election/trump-called-michigan-republicans-
they-sought-rescind-their-certification-votes-n1248254.
       186. Nick Niedzwiadek et al, After Trump meeting, Michigan 
     GOP leaders say Biden's win still stands, Politico (Nov. 20, 
     2020) https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/20/michigan-gop-
dc-trump-election-438690; & Ursula Perano, Trump called 
     Michigan Republican who wanted to flip vote on Wayne County 
     election certification, Axios (Nov. 19, 2020), https://
www.axios.com/trump-called-wayne-county-republican-michigan-
vote-ff545fb1-657a-4016-939d-015e5289e894.html.
       187. Anita Kumar & Gabby Orr, Inside Trump's pressure 
     campaign to overturn the election, Politico (Dec. 21, 2020), 
     https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/21/trump-pressure-
campaign-overturn-election-449486.
       188. Amy Gardner et al, Trump asks Pennsylvania House 
     speaker for help overturning election results, personally 
     intervening in a third state, Wash. Post (Dec. 8, 2020), 
     https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-pennsylvania-
speaker-call/2020/12/07/d65fe8c4-38bf-11eb-98c4-
25dc9f4987e8_story.html.
       189. Alison Durkee, Trump Campaign Assembling Alternate 
     Electors in Key States in Far-Fetched Attempt to Overturn 
     Election, Forbes (Dec. 14, 2020), https://www.forbes.com/
sites/alisondurkee/2020/12/14/trump-campaign-assembling-
alternate-electors-in-key-states-in-far-fetched-attempt-to-
overturn-election/?sh=66a9659b3213.
       190. Deanna Paul, Republican Electors Cast Unofficial 
     Ballots, Setting Up Congressional Clash, Wall St. J. (Dec. 
     28, 2020), https://www.wsj.com/articles/republican-electors-
cast-unofficial-ballots-setting-up-congressional-clash-
 11609164000.
       191. Rick Hasen, Trump Campaign Planning on Sending 
     Alternative Slate of Electors to Congress, Per Stephen 
     Miller. It Won't Matter to the Outcome. Election Law Blog 
     (Dec. 14, 2020), https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119632.
       192. Anita Kumar & Gabby Orr, Inside Trump's pressure 
     campaign to overturn the election, Politico (Dec. 21, 2020), 
     https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/21/trump-pressure-
campaign-overturn-election-449486.
       193. Amy Gardner, `I just want to find 11,780 votes': In 
     extraordinary hour-long call, Trump pressures Georgia 
     secretary of state to recalculate the vote in his favor, 
     Wash. Post (Jan. 3, 2021), https://www.washingtonpost.com/
politics/trump-raffensperger-call-georgia-vote/2021/01/03/
d45acb92-4dc4-11eb-bda4-615aaefd0555_story.html.
       194. The New York Times, Transcript: Mr. Trump's Phone Call 
     With Georgia Election Officials, N.Y. Times (Jan. 3, 2021), 
     https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/03/us/politics/trump-
raffensperger-georgia-call-transcript.html.
       195. Ibid.
       196. Miles Parks, Georgia Election Official: Don't Let 
     Misinformation `Suppress Your Own

[[Page S938]]

     Vote', NPR (Jan. 4, 2021), https://www.npr.org/2021/01/04/
953321408/georgia-election-official-dont-let-misinformation-
suppress-your-own-vote.
       197. U.S. Const. art. II, Sec. 1.
       198. Michael Schmidt, Trump Says Pence Can Overturn His 
     Loss in Congress. That's Not How It Works, N.Y. Times (Jan. 
     5, 2021), https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/05/us/politics/
pence-trump-election.html.
       199. Maggie Haberman & Katie Benner, Justice Dept. Asks 
     Judge to Toss Election Lawsuit Against Pence, N.Y. Times 
     (Dec. 31, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/31/us/
politics/justice-department-mike-pence-louie-gohmert.html.
       200. Caroline Linton, Judge dismisses Gohmert's attempt to 
     force Pence to decide election results, CBS (Jan. 3, 2021), 
     https://www.cbsnews.com/news/louie-gohmert-trump-election-
lawsuit-pence-dismissed-federal-judge/.
       201. Nick Niedzwiadek & Kyle Cheney, Trump pressures Pence 
     to throw out election results--even though he can't, Politico 
     (Jan. 5, 2021), https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/05/
trump-pressures-pence-election-results-455069.
       202. Ibid.
       203. Josh Dawsey & Ashley Parker, Inside the remarkable 
     rift between Donald Trump and Mike Pence, Wash. Post (Jan. 
     11, 2021), https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-
pence-breakuo-capitol-riot/2021/01/11/6a6aa052-5357-11eb-
89bc-7f51ceb6bd57_story.html.
       204. Ibid.
       205. Jeff Mason, Despite Trump pressure, Pence will not 
     block Biden's election certification: advisers, Reuters (Jan. 
     4, 2021), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-
pence/despite-trump-pressure-pence-will-not-block-bidens-
election-certification-advisers-idUSKBN29A2J0.
       206. Quint Forgey, `Do it Mike': Trump leans on Pence to 
     reject Biden's Electoral College certification, Politico 
     (Jan. 6, 2021), https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/06/do-
it-mike-trump-leans-on-pence-to-reject-bidens-electoral-
college-certification-455319.
       207. Ashley Collman, Trump is still wrongly insisting that 
     Pence can change the election result, and he called a New 
     York Times report that said otherwise `fake news', Bus. 
     Insider (Jan. 6, 2021), https://www.businessinsider.com/
trump-wrongly-insisting-pence-can-overturn-election2021-1.
       208. Brian Naylor, Read Trump's Jan. 6 Speech, A Key Part 
     Of Impeachment Trial, NPR (Feb. 10, 2021), https://
www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-
key-part-of-impeachment-trial.
       209. John Haltiwaner, Trump attacks Pence for not having 
     the `courage' to overturn the election as the president's 
     supporters storm the Capitol, Bus. Insider (Jan. 6, 2021), 
     https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-attacks-pence-for-not-
having-courage-to-overturn-election-2021-1.
       210. https://www.congress.gov/117/crec/2021/02/10/CREC-
2021-02-10-pt1-PgS615-4.pdf (S626).
       211. Paul Kane & Scott Clement, Just 27 congressional 
     Republicans acknowledge Biden's win, Washington Post survey 
     finds, Wash. Post (Dec. 5, 2020), https://
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/survey-who-won-election-
republicans-congress/2020/12/04/1a1011f6-3650-11eb-8d38-
6aea1adb3839_story.html.
       212. Anita Kumar & Gabby Orr, Inside Trump's pressure 
     campaign to overturn the election, Politico (Dec. 21, 2020), 
     https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/21/trump-pressure-
campaign-overturn-election-449486.
       213. Ibid.
       214. Daniella Diaz, READ: Brief from 126 Republicans 
     supporting Texas lawsuit in Supreme Court, CNN (Dec. 11, 
     2020), https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/10/politics/read-house-
republicans-texas-supreme-court/index.html.
       215. Adam Liptak, Supreme Court Rejects Texas Suit Seeking 
     to Subvert Election, N.Y. Times (Dec. 11, 2020), https://
www.nytimes.com/2020/12/11/us/politics/supreme-court-
election-texas.html.
       216. Andrew Solender, Nearly a Dozen Republican Senators 
     Will Object to Electoral College Vote, Forbes (Jan. 2, 2021), 
     https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2021/01/02/
nearly-a-dozen-republican-senators-will-object-to-electoral-
college-vote/?sh=7965a5881c3e.
       217. Jake Tapper, At least 140 House Republicans to vote 
     against counting electoral votes, two GOP lawmakers say, CNN 
     (Dec. 31, 2020), https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/31/politics/
electoral-college-house-republicans/index.html.
       218. Dareh Gregorian, Congress is set to count the Trump-
     Biden Electoral College votes. Here's the lowdown, ABC News 
     (Jan. 5, 2021), https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-
election/congress-set-count-trump-biden-electoral-college-
votes-here-s-n1252609.
       219. Meryl Kornfield, From a presidential commission to 
     Trump-nominated judges, here's who has rebuked Trump's voter 
     fraud claims, Wash. Post (Jan. 3, 2021), https://
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/03/voter-fraud/.
       220. GCC et al, Joint Statement from Elections 
     Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council & the Election 
     Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Executive Committees, CISA 
     (Nov. 12, 2020), https://www.cisa.gov/news/2020/11/12/joint-
statement-elections-infrastructure-government-coordinating-
council-election.
       221. Katie Benner & Michael S. Schmidt, Barr Acknowledges 
     Justice Dept. Has Found No Widespread Voter Fraud, N.Y. Times 
     (Dec. 1, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/01/us/
politics/william-barr-voter-fraud.html.
       222. The Avalon Project, Madison Debates, Yale Law School 
     Lillian Goldman Law Library (Jul. 20, 1787), https://
avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_720.asp.
       223. Id. at 64.
       224. Ibid.
       225. U.S. Const. amend. XX, Sec. 1.
       226. Sara Georgini, How John Adams Managed a Peaceful 
     Transition of Presidential Power, Smithsonian Mag. (Dec. 7, 
     2020), https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-john-adams-
managed-peaceful-transition-presidential-power-180976451/.
       227. 167 Cong. Rec. S627 (daily ed. Feb. 11, 2021) 
     (statement of Mr. Manager Lieu), https://www.congress.gov/
117/crec/2021/02/10/CREC-2021-02-10-pt1-PgS615-4.pdf (S627).
       228. The Federalist Paper No. 47 (James Madison) (Jacob E. 
     Cooke ed., 1961).
       229. See generally The Federalist Paper No. 47 (James 
     Madison) (Jacob E. Cooke ed., 1961); The Federalist Paper No. 
     48 (James Madison) (Jacob E. Cooke ed., 1961); The Federalist 
     Paper No. 49 (James Madison) (Jacob E. Cooke ed., 1961); The 
     Federalist Paper No. 50 (James Madison) (Jacob E. Cooke ed., 
     1961; The Federalist Paper No. 51 (James Madison) (Jacob E. 
     Cooke ed., 1961). (Federalist Papers No. 47 through No. 51 
     explain how the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches 
     were to be wholly separated from each other, yet accountable 
     to each other through a system of checks and balances.); See 
     also Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 
     425, 426 (1977). (In Nixon v. GSA, the Supreme Court 
     articulated the test for a violation of the separation of 
     powers as occurring when the action of one branch ``prevents 
     [another branch] from accomplishing its constitutionally 
     assigned functions.'')
       230. U.S. Const. art. II, Sec. 3.
       231. 167 Cong. Rec. S641-S643 (daily ed. Feb. 10, 2021) 
     (statement of Mr. Manager Castro), https://www.congress.gov/
117/crec/2021/02/10/CREC-2021-02-10-pt1-PgS615-4.pdf.
       232. 167 Cong. Rec. S641-S642 (daily ed. Feb. 10, 2021) 
     (statement of Mr. Manager Castro). https://www.congress.gov/
117/crec/2021/02/10/CREC-2021-02-10-pt1-PgS615-4.pdf (S641-
     S642).
       233. 167 Cong. Rec. S642 (daily ed. Feb. 10, 2021) 
     (statement of Mr. Manager Castro). https://www.congress.gov/
117/crec/2021/02/10/CREC-2021-02-10-pt1-PgS615-4.pdf.
       234. Matt Stieb, Pence, Not Trump, Gave Order to Activate 
     National Guard: Report, Intelligencer, N.Y. Mag. (Jan. 6, 
     2021), https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/01/pence-not-
trump-activated-the-national-guard-report.html.
       235. U.S. Const. art. II, Sec. 1, cl. 8.
       236. 167 Cong. Rec. S662 (daily ed. Feb. 11, 2021) 
     (statement of Mr. Manager Raskin). https://www.congress.gov/
117/crec/2021/02/11/CREC-2021-02-11-pt1-PgS645-2.pdf.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the Senate was asked to decide whether 
this body has the constitutional jurisdiction to hold an impeachment 
trial of Donald Trump now that he is no longer President of the United 
States. While the Constitution does not explicitly address Congress' 
jurisdiction when the subject of impeachment is a former President--or 
any former officer--its text and purpose as applied to the facts in 
this matter support the conclusion that the trial should proceed.
  The question of Senate jurisdiction should start with the text of the 
Constitution itself. The impeachment process is described in article I, 
which delineates the respective powers of the House of Representatives 
and the Senate. Section 2 plainly states that the House ``shall have 
the sole power of impeachment.'' In this matter, there is no dispute 
that impeachment occurred before former President Trump's term expired, 
and, therefore, there is no dispute that the House had jurisdiction to 
impeach him.
  What is at issue is whether the impeachment trial can occur in the 
Senate now that former President Trump is no longer in office. Again, I 
look to the text of article I. Section 3 states that ``the Senate shall 
have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.'' As former Federal 
circuit court Judge Michael McConnell has observed, the key word here 
is ``all.'' Sections 2 and 3 read together lead to the inescapable 
conclusion that, if the House presents the Senate with a valid 
impeachment article, the Senate has jurisdiction to conduct the trial.
  Some have argued that such an interpretation would put all former 
Presidents, Vice Presidents, and office holders dating back to the 
Washington administration at risk of being impeached and convicted, but 
the facts in this matter do not require such a sweeping conclusion. By 
asserting its jurisdiction over this trial, the Senate is simply ruling 
that a President who was impeached while still in office can be tried 
after he is no longer in office--nothing more.
  The former President's attorneys argue that the Senate does not have 
jurisdiction to conduct a trial because the penalty prescribed for 
conviction

[[Page S939]]

under article II, section 4, is removal from office. Because former 
President Trump cannot be removed, they argue that the Constitution 
requires he not be tried. But article I, section 4, authorizes the 
Senate to impose the penalty of permanent disqualification from holding 
office in the future if it chooses to do so. And, notably, a vote on 
whether or not to disqualify can only be taken after conviction, at 
which point any defendant would have been removed and no longer an 
office holder.
  If the defense's argument were to be followed to its logical 
conclusion, it would lead to a constitutional absurdity--the Senate 
would have the sole power to apply the disqualification penalty, but it 
would never have jurisdiction to do so. If the Senate were unable to 
consider disqualification after a President is no longer in office, the 
second penalty would lose its meaning. A more sensible reading of 
article I, section 4, is that both punishments, removal and 
disqualification, are equally significant, and therefore, the Senate 
has jurisdiction in this matter.
  For all the reasons I have set forth, I believe that the Senate must 
exercise jurisdiction, and I voted to begin its impeachment 
proceedings.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
statement regarding the impeachment trial of the former President be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   Statement on the Second Impeachment Trial of the Former President

       Mr. CASEY. Mr. President. The former President's conduct 
     during and after the 2020 Presidential election was 
     indefensible and dangerous. By inciting an insurrection 
     against Congress and pressuring government officials across 
     our Nation to overturn the election in his favor, the former 
     President directly ``threatened the integrity of the 
     democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transition of 
     power, and imperiled a coequal branch of Government.''\1\ As 
     long as he is able to hold public office under the United 
     States, he will remain a grave threat to our national 
     security and our Constitution. For these reasons, I again 
     voted to convict the former President on the House of 
     Representatives' Article of Impeachment.


                     Constitutionality of the Trial

       As a threshold question in this trial, the former 
     President's legal team and several Republican Senators have 
     argued that the Senate cannot hold an impeachment trial 
     against a President who is no longer in office.\2\ This 
     argument is just another convenient excuse for some of my 
     Republican colleagues to avoid holding the former President 
     accountable. Not only has the theory been roundly rejected by 
     both liberal and conservative constitutional legal 
     scholars,\3\ it would also completely contravene both Senate 
     and historical precedent.\4\ In this case, consistent with 
     the prevailing legal theory and historical precedent, the 
     Senate voted to affirm the constitutionality of this current 
     trial--a decision that I fully supported.\5\ Thus, after 
     addressing the threshold Constitutional issue, the question 
     before every Senator in this trial became twofold--(1) did 
     the former President do what he is charged with in the 
     Article?; and (2) if so, does that action warrant conviction 
     and disqualification from holding future office?


                          The Big Lie Debunked

       The public record demonstrates clearly that the former 
     President engaged in the conduct outlined in the Article of 
     Impeachment put forward by the House of Representatives. We 
     watched his actions with our own eyes. We heard his 
     conspiracy theories and baseless accusations with our own 
     ears. For months after the election, all of America witnessed 
     the former President's deliberate repetition of the ``Big 
     Lie;'' he repeatedly claimed--without any evidence--that the 
     2020 general election was rigged and stolen from him.\6\ In 
     furtherance of this falsehood, the former President has made 
     numerous claims, all easily and consistently rebutted, 
     regarding the votes cast in multiple battleground states. As 
     the Senior Senator from Pennsylvania, a state that the former 
     President relentlessly attacked after the election, I believe 
     it is important to debunk the numerous false statements that 
     the former President asserted regarding the Pennsylvania 
     Presidential election.
       Prior to the election, it was widely reported that the 
     public should ``beware'' of early U.S. election tallies 
     because of the unprecedented amount of mail-in voting and the 
     different ways that states were processing ballots due to the 
     COVID-19 pandemic.\7\ In Pennsylvania specifically, 
     Democratic voters were outpacing Republican voters by a 3-to-
     1 ratio in mail-in voting.\8\ Since the mail-in votes would 
     be the last to be counted in most counties, experts cautioned 
     voters that the former President might appear to be winning 
     in the early returns on election night (a ``Red mirage'') 
     only to lose that lead as election officials counted more 
     mail-in ballots in the days after Election Day (a ``Blue 
     shift'').\9\
       Despite these warnings, the former President attempted to 
     sow doubt, even before Election Day, about votes counted 
     after November 3. A week before Election Day, he indicated 
     that ``counting ballots for two weeks'' after Election Day 
     was ``totally inappropriate'' and he did not believe it was 
     consistent with our Nation's election laws.\10\ To be clear, 
     there is nothing improper or illegal about election officials 
     counting legally cast votes after Election Day. Nonetheless, 
     as election officials in Pennsylvania began to process the 
     heavily Democratic-leaning mail-in ballots in the days 
     following Election Day and the former President's ``Red 
     mirage'' predictably turned to a ``Blue shift'' in favor of 
     President Biden, the former President claimed that officials 
     were ``finding Biden votes all over the place.''\11\ In 
     reality, election officials in Pennsylvania were simply 
     counting legally cast votes. As Republican Philadelphia 
     Commissioner Al Schmidt said: ``In the birthplace of our 
     Republic, counting votes is not a bad thing. Counting votes 
     cast on or before Election Day by eligible voters is not 
     corruption. It is not cheating. It is democracy.''\12\
       Relatedly, the former President also claimed that in 
     Pennsylvania, ``tens of thousands of votes were illegally 
     received after 8 P.M. on Tuesday, Election Day, totally and 
     easily changing the results.''\13\ Here again, the former 
     President was lying. In September 2020, the Pennsylvania 
     Supreme Court extended the mail-in ballot receipt deadline in 
     Pennsylvania by three days because of the unprecedented 
     circumstances caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.\14\ The 
     Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision did not permit eligible 
     voters to vote after Election Day. Rather, pursuant to the 
     Free and Equal Elections Clause of the Pennsylvania 
     Constitution, the court explained that ballots mailed by 
     Election Day could still be counted if those ballots were 
     received within three days of Election Day.\15\ In addition 
     to lying about whether it was legal to receive ballots after 
     Election Day, the former President drastically overinflated 
     the number of ballots received after Election Day in 
     Pennsylvania. In fact, there were only approximately ten 
     thousand ballots received after Election Day and those 
     ballots were not even included in Pennsylvania's certified 
     election results.\16\ Since President Biden won Pennsylvania 
     by over eighty thousand votes, the ballots received after 
     Election Day would not have made any difference in 
     Pennsylvania's Presidential election outcome.\17\
       In another tweet, the former President claimed that 
     Pennsylvania prevented his campaign officials ``from watching 
     much of the Ballot count.''\18\ Again, the former President 
     was lying. In fact, in response to a judge's question during 
     one hearing on whether there were election observers in the 
     canvassing room, a lawyer representing the former President 
     offered the seemingly bizarre concession that there was ``a 
     non-zero number of people in the room.''\19\ Furthermore, 
     multiple courts confirmed that the former President's 
     campaign presented no evidence suggesting that his campaign's 
     observers were treated any differently than the observers for 
     the Biden Campaign.\20\
       The former President's lies did not stop there. In late 
     November, the former President tweeted that over a million 
     votes in Pennsylvania were ``created out of thin air.''\21\ 
     This is a lie. Here, the former President was referring to a 
     conspiracy theory offered by Republican State Senator Doug 
     Mastriano, who claimed that the Pennsylvania Department of 
     State was reporting an extra 1.1 million mail-in votes in 
     Pennsylvania.\22\ Senator Mastriano indicated that 
     Pennsylvania had reported mailing out ``1,823,148 ballots, of 
     which 1,462,302 were returned,'' but he indicated that a 
     dashboard on the Department of State's website recorded over 
     2.5 mail-in ballots in the general election.\23\ While 
     Senator Mastriano did not include sources for his data, it 
     was easy to determine that he was conflating different 
     datasets from the general election and the June primaries. A 
     dataset from the Pennsylvania Department of State clearly 
     detailed that there were 1,823,148 mail-in ballot request for 
     the June 2020 primaries\24\--the exact number that Senator 
     Mastriano cited--while Pennsylvania's official returns for 
     the 2020 general election clearly illustrated that over 2.6 
     million voters cast a ballot by mail in the Presidential 
     election.\25\
       In another tweet on December 28, the former President 
     claimed that there were ``205,000 more votes than there were 
     voters'' in Pennsylvania.\26\ This too is another lie. Again, 
     the former President appeared to be referencing yet another 
     conspiracy theory offered by another state legislator, 
     Representative Frank Ryan.\27\ Representative Ryan claimed 
     that the official election returns included 205,000 more 
     votes than those listed in Pennsylvania's voter registration 
     database.\28\ Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro 
     explained that the voter registration database referenced by 
     Representative Frank ``is updated by each county 
     individually, and this updating process can take several 
     weeks following an election.''\29\ Thus, the Attorney General 
     explained that it appeared that Representative Ryan was 
     comparing ``the official returns with incomplete data from 
     the registration database to justify his baseless claim that 
     there were more votes than voters.''\30\
       Unfortunately, the above lies are merely a sampling of the 
     former President's total lies about the election process in 
     Pennsylvania and across the Nation. In addition to these

[[Page S940]]

     falsehoods, the former President claimed--without evidence--
     that there were ``900,000 Fraudulent Votes'' in 
     Pennsylvania,\31\ that Dominion Voting Systems switched 
     221,000 votes from the former President to Joe Biden in 
     Pennsylvania,\32\ and that ``Fraud and illegality'' were a 
     ``big part'' of his election lawsuits in Pennsylvania.\33\
       The Pennsylvania election was administered safely and 
     securely by thousands of Republican and Democratic election 
     officials and selfless volunteers across the Commonwealth. We 
     know this because as the House Managers highlighted in their 
     trial brief, ``[o]ur legal system affords many ways in which 
     a candidate can contest the outcome of an election.''\34\ The 
     former President did not merely contest the election in 
     Pennsylvania, but also in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, 
     and Wisconsin.\35\ In total, the former President and his 
     allies filed 62 lawsuits in state and federal courts 
     regarding the 2020 election and they lost every case, except 
     for one minor lawsuit in Pennsylvania.\36\
       Furthermore, despite the President's public claims of 
     widespread illegalities, his legal team rarely attempted to 
     allege fraud in his lawsuits.\37\ In fact, his own attorney, 
     Rudy Giuliani, explicitly confirmed that the Campaign was not 
     alleging fraud during one high profile case in Pennsylvania 
     by stating ``[t]his is not a fraud case.''\38\ Despite these 
     facts, the former President continued to spread a different 
     narrative--a Big Lie regarding a rigged election--on Twitter.
       United States District Court Judge Matthew Brann of the 
     Middle District of Pennsylvania highlighted the absurdity of 
     some of the former President's legal arguments in an opinion 
     dismissing one of the Campaign's lawsuits:

       ``Plaintiffs ask this Court to disenfranchise almost seven 
     million voters. . . . One might expect that when seeking such 
     a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed 
     with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant 
     corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to 
     regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the 
     impact it would have on such a large group of citizens. That 
     has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with 
     strained legal arguments without merit and speculative 
     accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and 
     unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, 
     this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, 
     let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. 
     Our people, laws, and institutions demand more.''\39\

       In the Campaign's appeal to the United States Court of 
     Appeals for the Third Circuit, Judge Stephanos Bibas, a judge 
     appointed by the former President,\40\ wrote for a unanimous 
     panel affirming Judge Brann's initial decision.\41\ Judge 
     Bibas wrote: ``Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our 
     democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an 
     election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific 
     allegations and then proof. We have neither here.''\42\ The 
     Presidential election was fair and lawful notwithstanding the 
     many lies told by the former President.


               The Former President's Pattern of Conduct

       Despite losing case after case in federal and state courts, 
     the former President was not deterred in his efforts to 
     spread his Big Lie regarding a stolen election. Instead, he 
     turned his attention to pressuring federal, state and local 
     elections officials to overturn the election. In Georgia, he 
     personally called the Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, 
     and told him to ``find 11,780 votes, which is one more than 
     we have because we won the state.''\43\
       He also began an aggressive lobbying campaign against Vice 
     President Pence.\44\ Pursuant to the Twelfth Amendment, the 
     Vice President counts each state's certified Electoral 
     College votes for President in a joint session of 
     Congress.\45\ However, the former President regularly lied 
     about the constitutional duty of the Vice President. In 
     another attempt to turn the election in his favor through 
     illegitimate means, the former President suggested that Vice 
     President Pence should violate his oath of office by refusing 
     to count certain electoral votes for President Biden during 
     the joint session.\46\
       After failing to overturn the election through the courts 
     and his pressure campaign on other elected officials, the 
     former President took aim for one more attack on American 
     democracy. He summoned his mob of insurrectionists to 
     Washington, D.C. on January 6, 2021 for a ``Save America 
     Rally'' to coincide with the joint session of Congress.\47\ 
     He invited them. He incited them over the course of months 
     and on January 6. Finally, he directed this Trump mob to the 
     Capitol to subvert and obstruct Congress from conducting its 
     constitutional obligation to certify the 2020 Presidential 
     election.
       On January 6, we heard the former President continue to 
     spread his Big Lie at his rally. As Attorney General Shapiro 
     detailed, the former President ``inflamed the crowd by 
     repeating the same debunked allegations about voter fraud in 
     Pennsylvania and elsewhere. In his remarks, he repeated no 
     fewer than eight false statements about Pennsylvania's 
     elections alone.'' \48\ He further incited the mob to ``stop 
     the steal'' by declaring that ``we fight, we fight like 
     hell,'' because ``if you don't fight like hell you're not 
     going to have a country anymore.'' \49\
       The case for incitement is about far more than just the 
     former President's speech on January 6. This was about a 
     pattern of conduct. It was about the former President's 
     autocratic leadership and calls for political violence 
     throughout his Presidency. It was about a President who once 
     bragged: ``I have the tough people [supporting me], but they 
     don't play it tough until they go to a certain point, and 
     then it would be very bad, very bad.'' \50\
       I, as well as public officials in both parties, talk about 
     fighting for public policy goals. We fight for health care. 
     We fight for civil rights. We fight for equity and justice. 
     However, when the former President tells his supporters to 
     fight, it means something different because the former 
     President has regularly condoned and encouraged violence 
     against protestors and members of the press since he became a 
     candidate in 2015. As Lead House Manager Jamie Raskin told us 
     during the trial: ``January 6 was a culmination of the 
     President's actions--not an aberration from them.''\51\ It 
     was the former President's pattern and practice of condoning 
     and encouraging violent action.
       For example, during remarks in October 2015, the former 
     President--then a candidate--indicated that he would be a 
     ``little more violent'' next time protestors interrupted one 
     of his rallies.\52\ Video later showed the former President's 
     supporters forcibly dragging protestors out of the campaign 
     event.\53\ In a February 2016 rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, we 
     saw the former President tell his supporters to ``knock the 
     hell'' out of protestors and then promised to pay their legal 
     fees resulting from any altercation.\54\
       In March 2016, a supporter of the former President sucker 
     punched a Black man being escorted out of a campaign 
     rally.\55\ The former President's supporter was later 
     recorded as saying ``[t]he next time we see him, we might 
     have to kill him.'' \56\ Just days later, the former 
     President defended those at his rallies assaulting protestors 
     by calling their actions ``very, very appropriate.'' \57\ In 
     another 2016 rally in Las Vegas, the former President 
     commented that he would like to ``punch [a protestor] in the 
     face'' before reminiscing about the fictional ``old days'' 
     when violent behavior was allegedly more acceptable.\58\ 
     ``You know what they used to do to guys like that when they 
     were in a place like this?'' he asked the crowd. ``They'd be 
     carried out on a stretcher, folks.''\59\
       This abhorrent behavior did not change when the former 
     President entered office. In August 2017, after a rally of 
     white supremacists resulted in three deaths and more than 33 
     other injuries in Charlottesville, Virginia, the former 
     President offered perhaps the most disturbing comments of his 
     Presidency when he suggested that there was ``blame on both 
     sides'' and that there were ``very fine people on both 
     sides.''\60\ In October 2018, we saw the former President 
     praise and glorify the actions of current Governor of 
     Montana, Greg Gianforte, after then-candidate Gianforte had 
     body slammed and hospitalized a journalist in May 2017.\61\ 
     Mr. Gianforte had already pled guilty to the assault.\62\
       In 2020, the former President further glorified violence by 
     indicating that ``when the looting starts, the shooting 
     starts'' in relation to the civil rights protests occurring 
     after George Floyd's murder at the hands of law enforcement 
     in Minneapolis, Minnesota.\63\ Later, we saw the former 
     President direct federal agents to forcibly move hundreds of 
     peaceful protestors outside of the White House so he could 
     pose for a photo op in front of St. John's Church in 
     Washington, D.C.\64\
       In April 2020, in what turned out to be a dress rehearsal 
     for the January 6 insurrection, we saw the former President 
     tweet ``LIBERATE MICHIGAN!'' after the Governor of Michigan 
     implemented several mitigation measures to address the COVID-
     19 public health crisis.\65\ Nearly two weeks later, on April 
     30, armed protestors dressed in tactical gear sieged the 
     Michigan State Capitol, waving the Confederate flag and 
     wearing MAGA hats.\66\ Rather than condemn those who had 
     seized the state capitol waving Confederate flags, the former 
     President encouraged the Governor of Michigan to negotiate 
     with them: ``The Governor of Michigan should give a little, 
     and put out the fire. These are very good people, but they 
     are angry. They want their lives back again, safely! See 
     them, talk to them, make a deal.''\67\ Just a few months 
     following the capitol siege in Michigan, the FBI arrested 
     thirteen men for ``plotting to storm the Michigan State 
     capitol building, launch a civil war, kidnap Governor 
     Whitmer, transport her to Wisconsin, and then try and execute 
     her.'' \68\
       The former President's pattern of conduct is indisputable. 
     A reasonable person cannot dispute that the former President 
     knew exactly what he was doing by perpetuating the ``Big 
     Lie,'' summoning his crowd of insurrectionists on January 6 
     and telling them: ``[I]f you don't fight like hell, you're 
     not going to have a country anymore.'' \69\ The former 
     President led his supporters to a breaking point and as he 
     had predicted in the past--it was ``very bad, very bad.'' 
     \70\ There is simply no way to excuse the former President's 
     actions in this case.


                       An Attack on Our Democracy

       By encouraging his mob of insurrectionists to march on the 
     Capitol and obstruct the Congressional certification of the 
     2020 election, the former President attacked the foundational 
     principles of our democracy and the peaceful transfer of 
     power. He did not merely endanger another branch of 
     government and the Presidential line of succession. His 
     actions led to at least five deaths,

[[Page S941]]

     injuries to nearly 140 members of law enforcement and untold 
     collateral damage resulting from the carnage of that day.\71\ 
     He endangered the lives of countless Congressional staffers 
     and employees, members of the press and members of Congress. 
     He put a target on the back of his own Vice President and his 
     Vice President's family. His actions jeopardized our Nation's 
     national security by tarnishing the United States' reputation 
     abroad and emboldening violent extremists at home.
       Furthermore, he has shown absolutely no remorse for any of 
     it, even going as far to glorify the insurrection in the 
     immediate aftermath of the attack. After the Capitol had been 
     secured in the early evening of January 6 and Congress was 
     making plans to resume its joint session, the former 
     President turned to Twitter to release a statement. He did 
     not denounce the violent insurrection, but rather he chose to 
     continue to spread his Big Lie that the election was stolen 
     from him and to call the insurrectionists ``great patriots:''

       ``These are the things and events that happen when a sacred 
     landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously 
     stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & 
     unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. 
     Remember this day forever.'' \72\

       Ultimately, after carefully reviewing all of the evidence 
     put forward in this case, I found that the House Managers 
     more than exceeded their burden of proof. The former 
     President's conduct violated his oath of office, endangered 
     our democracy and jeopardized the United States' national 
     security. Through this conduct, the former President 
     committed a high crime against our Constitution. I voted to 
     convict him in the most bipartisan Presidential impeachment 
     proceedings in our Nation's history.\73\


                                endnotes

       1. H.R. Res. 24, 117th Cong. art. I (2020).
       2. Proceedings of the United States Senate in the 
     Impeachment Trial of Donald John Trump, S. Doc. No. 117-2, at 
     122--46 (2021) [hereinafter ``Impeachment Proceedings II''] 
     (Trial Memorandum of Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the 
     United States of America). See also Nicholas Fandos, 
     Republicans Rally Against Impeachment Trial, Signaling 
     Likely Acquittal for Trump, N.Y. Times (Jan. 26, 2021), 
     https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/26/us/politics/
republicans-impeachment-trump.html (``By a vote of 55-to-
     45, the Senate narrowly killed a Republican effort to 
     dismiss the proceeding as unconstitutional because Mr. 
     Trump is no longer in office.'').
       3. See Ilya Somin, Legal Scholars' Letter on Impeachment of 
     Former Officials Makes Appearance in Trump's Senate Trial, 
     Volokh Conspiracy (Feb. 9, 2021, 3:10 PM), https://
reason.com/volokh/2021/02/09/legal-scholars-letter-on-
impeachment-of-former-officials-makes-appearance-in/ 
     (highlighting one letter signed by ``constitutional law 
     scholars across the political spectrum,'' including the co-
     founder of the Federalist Society).
       4. Impeachment Proceedings II, supra note 2, at 48-97 
     (Trial Memorandum of the United States House of 
     Representatives).
       5. 167 Cong. Rec. S609 (daily ed. Feb. 9, 2021).
       6. See Larry Buchanan et al., Lie After Lie: Listen to How 
     Trump Built His Alternate Reality, N.Y. Times (Feb. 9, 2021) 
     (``In hundreds of public statements from Nov. 4, 2020, to 
     Jan. 6, 2021, Mr. Trump repeatedly used phrases like `we won 
     the election' and `won it by a landslide,' and he said that 
     the election was `rigged' and `stolen' by the Democrats. Such 
     assertions have been proven false by the courts and elections 
     officials across the country.'').
       7. Chris Kahn & Jason Lange, Explainer: Red Mirage, Blue 
     Mirage--Beware of Early U.S. Election Wins, Reuters (Nov. 1, 
     2020, 6:12 AM), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-
election-mirage-explainer-idUSKBN27H1A6; David Wasserman, 
     Beware the ``Blue Mirage'' and the ``Red Mirage'' on Election 
     Night, NBC News (Nov. 3, 2020, 8:27 AM), https://
www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/beware-blue-mirage-
red-mirage-election-night-n1245925.
       8. Pennsylvania Could See a ``Red Mirage'' on Election 
     Night. Here's Why, 6abc (Oct. 29, 2020), https://6abc.com/
pennsylvania-vote-count-in-red-mirage-mail-in-voting/
 7455361/. See also Holly Otterbein, Democrats Return Nearly 
     Three Times as Many Mail-In Ballots as Republicans in 
     Pennsylvania,  Politico (Nov. 3, 2020, 1:31 PM), https://
www.politico.com/news/2020/11/03/democrats-more-mail-in-
ballots-pennsylvania-433951 (explaining that on Election Day, 
     more than 1.6 million of returned mail-in ballots were from 
     registered Democrats and 586,000 were from Republicans).
       9. Brittany De Lea, ``Red Mirage'' Possible in Pennsylvania 
     as Officials Urge Voters to be Patient, Fox News (Nov. 1, 
     2020), https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pennsylvania-red-
mirage-officials-voter-patience; Jonathan Lai, How Does a 
     Republican Lead on Election Night and Still Lose 
     Pennsylvania? It's Called the ``Blue Shift,'' Phila. Inquirer 
     (Jan. 27, 2020), https://www.inquirer.com/politics/election/
pennsylvania-2020-election-blue-shift-20200127.html.
       10. Jeff Mason & Ernest Scheyder, Trump Questions Counting 
     Late Ballots as Biden Preaches Unity in Georgia, Reuters 
     (Oct. 27, 2020, 10:46 AM), https://www.reuters.com/article/
usa-election-idUSKBN27C25G.
       11. Donald J. Trump (@realdonaldtrump), Twitter (Nov. 4, 
     2020, 11:55 AM), https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/
 1324032541544927233. See also Trump Twitter Archive V2, 
     https://www.thetrumparchive.com/ (last visited March 1, 2021) 
     (archiving all of the former President's tweets).
       12. Bill Whitaker, ``It is Not Cheating, It is Democracy'': 
     A First-Hand Look at Ballot Counting in Pennsylvania, CBS 
     News: 60 Minutes (Nov. 9, 2020), https://www.cbsnews.com/
news/pennsylvania-ballot-counting-2020-election-60-minutes/.
       13. Donald J. Trump (@realdonaldtrump), Twitter (Nov. 7, 
     2020, 8:20 AM), https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/
 1325065540390559745. See also Trump Twitter Archive V2, supra 
     note 11.
       14. Pennsylvania Democratic Party v. Boockvar, 238 A.3d 
     345, 369-72 (Pa. 2020)..
       15 Id.
       16. Memorandum from Pa. Att'y Gen. Josh Shapiro 7 (Feb. 10, 
     2021), https://www.attorneygeneral.gov/wp-content/uploads/
2021/02/Jan-6-Memo.pdf [hereinafter ``Att'y Gen. Shapiro 
     Memo''].
       17 Id.
       18. Donald J. Trump (@realdonaldtrump), Twitter (Nov. 9, 
     2020, 3:17 PM), https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/
 1325895380983275524. See also Trump Twitter Archive V2, supra 
     note 11.
       19. Katelyn Polantz et al., Trump and GOP Lawsuits 
     Challenging Election Flail in Court, CNN (Nov. 6, 2020, 3:01 
     AM), https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/06/politics/trump-and-gop-
lawsuits-to-challenge-election-flail-in-court/index.html.
       20. E.g., Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Boockvar, 
     No. 4:20-CV-02078, 2020 WL 6821992, at *13 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 21, 
     2020), aff'd, 830 F. App'x 377 (3d Cir. 2020); 830 F. App'x 
     377 at 388.
       21. Donald J. Trump (@realdonaldtrump), Twitter (Nov. 28, 
     2020, 12:09 AM), https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/
 1332552283553476608. See also Trump Twitter Archive V2, supra 
     note 11.
       22. Senator Doug Mastriano (@SenMastriano), Twitter (Nov. 
     27, 2020, 1:59 PM), https://twitter.com/senmastriano/status/
 1332398733401591808. See also Fact Check: Post Mixes 
     Pennsylvania Primary and General Election Data to Suggest 
     Vote-By-Mail Irregularities, Reuters (Dec. 1, 2020, 11:38 
     AM), https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-fact-check-pa-mail-
votes-primary-gene-idUSKBN28B5NW [hereinafter ``Reuters Fact 
     Check''] (debunking State Senator Mastriano's claims).
       23. Id.
       24. 2020 Primary Mail Ballot Counts by County, OpenDataPA, 
     https://data.pa.gov/Government-Efficiency-Citizen-Engagement/
2020-Primary-Mail-Ballot-Counts-by-County/43wz-2ph2 (last 
     updated Aug. 3, 2020). See also Reuters Fact Check, supra 
     note 22 (debunking State Senator Mastriano's claims).
       25. 2020 Presidential Election Official Return, Pa. Dep't 
     of State, https://www.electionreturns.pa.gov/ (last visited 
     Mar. 1, 2021). See also Reuters Fact Check, supra note 22 
     (debunking State Senator Mastriano's claims).
       26. Donald J. Trump (@realdonaldtrump), Twitter (Dec. 28, 
     2020, 4:00 PM), https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/
 1343663159085834248. See also Trump Twitter Archive V2, supra 
     note 11.
       27. Press Release, Pa. State Rep. Frank Ryan et al., PA 
     Lawmakers: Numbers Don't Add Up, Certification of 
     Presidential Results Premature and In Error (Dec. 28, 2020), 
     http://www.repfrankryan.com/News/18754/Latest-News/PA-
Lawmakers-Numbers-Don't-Add-Up,-Certification-of-
     Presidential-Results-Premature-and-In-Error. See also Ali 
     Swenson, There Were Not More Votes Than Voters in 
     Pennsylvania, Associated Press (Dec. 29, 2020), https://
apnews.com/article/fact-checking-9887147615 (debunking State 
     Representative Ryan's election claims).
       28. Id.
       29. Att'y Gen. Shapiro Memo, supra note 16, at 6.
       30. Id. at 6-7
       31. Donald J. Trump (@realdonaldtrump), Twitter (Nov. 21, 
     2020, 11:54 PM), https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/
 1330374020613758977. See also Trump Twitter Archive V2, supra 
     note 11.
       32. Donald J. Trump (@realdonaldtrump), Twitter (Nov. 12, 
     2020, 11:34 AM), https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/
 1326926226888544256. See also Trump Twitter Archive V2, supra 
     note 11.
       33. Donald J. Trump (@realdonaldtrump), Twitter (Nov. 28, 
     2020, 3:49 PM), https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/
 1332788716818010114. See also Trump Twitter Archive V2, supra 
     note 11.
       34. Impeachment Proceedings II, supra note 2, at 29 (Trial 
     Memorandum of the United States House of Representatives).
       35. Id.
       36. Id.
       37. Tessa Berenson, Donald Trump And His Lawyers Are Making 
     Sweeping Allegations of Voter Fraud In Public. In Court, They 
     Say No Such Thing, Time (Nov. 20, 2020, 3:13 PM), https://
time.com/5914377/donald-trump-no-evidence-fraud/.
       38. Id.
       39. Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Boockvar, No. 
     4:20-CV-02078, 2020 WL 6821992, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 21, 
     2020), aff'd, 830 F. App'x 377 (3d Cir. 2020).
       40. Press Release, White House, Eleven Nominations Sent to 
     the Senate Today (June 19, 2017), https://
trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/eleven-
nominations-sent-senate-today-3/.
       41. Trump for President, 830 F. App'x at 391.
       42. Id. at 381.
       43. Impeachment Proceedings II, supra note 2, at 32 (Trial 
     Memorandum of the United States House of Representatives).

[[Page S942]]

  

       44. Id. at 40-42.
       45. U.S. Const. amend XII.
       46. Impeachment Proceedings II, supra note 2, at 40-41 
     (Trial Memorandum of the United States House of 
     Representatives).
       47. See, e.g., Donald J. Trump (@realdonaldtrump), Twitter 
     (Dec. 19, 2020, 1:42 AM), https://twitter.com/
 realdonaldtrump/status/1340185773220515840 (``Big protest in 
     D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!''); Donald J. 
     Trump (@realdonaldtrump), Twitter (Jan. 1, 2021, 2:53 PM), 
     https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/
 1345095714687377418 (``The BIG Protest Rally in 
     Washington, D.C., will take place at 11.00 A.M. on January 
     6th. . . . StopTheSteal!''). See also Trump Twitter 
     Archive V2, supra note 11.
       48. Att'y Gen. Shapiro Memo, supra note 16, at 1.
       49. Impeachment Proceedings II, supra note 2, at 43 (Trial 
     Memorandum of the United States House of Representatives).
       50. Alexander Mallin, Trump Warns ``Tough'' Supporters 
     Could Turn Things ``Very Bad'' If Provoked, ABC News (Mar. 
     15, 2019, 11:05 AM), https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-
warns-tough-supporters-turn-things-bad-provoked/
story?id=61709959.
       51. 167 Cong. Rec. S647 (daily ed. Feb. 11, 2021).
       52. Fabiola Cineas, Donald Trump is the Accelerant, VOX 
     (Jan. 9, 2021, 11:04 AM), https://www.vox.com/21506029/trump-
violence-tweets-racist-hate-speech.
       53. Id.
       54. Id.
       55. Id.
       56. Id.
       57. Eric Levitz, Trump on His Supporters Attacking 
     Protesters: ``That's What We Need More Of,'' N.Y. Mag. (Mar. 
     11, 2016), https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/03/trump-
punching-protesters-is-very-appropriate.html.
       58. Cineas, supra note 52.
       59. Id.
       60. 167 Cong. Rec. S648 (daily ed. Feb. 11, 2021).
       61. Cineas, supra note 52.
       62. Merrit Kennedy, Montana's Gianforte Pleads Guilty, 
     Won't Serve Jail Time in Assault on Journalist, NPR (June 12, 
     2017, 2:35 PM), https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/
06/12/532613316/montanas-gianforte-pleads-guilty-wont-serve-
jail-time-in-assault-on-journalist.
       63. Cineas, supra note 52.
       64. Id.
       65. Donald J. Trump (@realdonaldtrump), Twitter (Apr. 17, 
     2020, 11:22 AM), https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/
 1251169217531056130. See also Trump Twitter Archive V2, supra 
     note 11.
       66. 167 Cong. Rec. S648 (daily ed. Feb. 11, 2021).
       67. Donald J. Trump (@realdonaldtrump), Twitter (May 1, 
     2020, 8:42 AM), https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/
 1256202305680158720. See also Trump Twitter Archive V2, supra 
     note 11.
       68. 167 Cong. Rec. S648 (daily ed. Feb. 11, 2021).
       69. Impeachment Proceedings II, supra note 2, at 43 (Trial 
     Memorandum of the United States House of Representatives).
       70. See supra note 50 and accompanying text.
       71. See Caitlin Emma & Sarah Ferris, Second Police Officer 
     Died by Suicide Following Capitol Attack, Politico (Jan. 27, 
     2021, 12:45 PM), https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/27/
second-officer-suicide-following-capitol-riot-463123 (``Five 
     people died as a result of the riots, and two officers later 
     died by suicide--a death toll that has horrified lawmakers of 
     both parties and led them to demand answers from Capitol 
     security officials.''); Michael S. Schmidt & Luke Broadwater, 
     Officers' Injuries, Including Concussions, Show Scope of 
     Violence at Capitol Riot, N.Y. Times (Feb. 11, 2021), https:/
     /www.nytimes.com/2021/02/11/us/politics/capitol-riot-police-
officer-injuries.html (``At least 138 officers--73 from the 
     Capitol Police and 65 from the Metropolitan Police Department 
     in Washington--were injured. . . .'').
       72. Donald J. Trump (@realdonaldtrump), Twitter (Jan. 6, 
     2021, 6:01 PM), https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/
 1346954970910707712. See also Trump Twitter Archive V2, supra 
     note 11.
       73. Maggie Astor, Impeachment Briefing: The Senate Acquits 
     Trump, N.Y. Times (Feb. 13, 2021), https://www.nytimes.com/
2021/02/13/us/politics/impeachment-briefing-the-senate-
acquits-trump.html.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, as Senators in this proceeding, we were 
bound by two oaths, to support and defend the Constitution and to 
pursue impartial justice as we considered the Article of Impeachment 
filed against former President Donald Trump: a charge of incitement of 
insurrection.
  The Framers of our Constitution gave us the tools to respond to a 
moment like this. Having lived under the tyranny of an unaccountable 
King, they were well aware of the risks of a President willing to abuse 
his or her power. William Davie, one of North Carolina's 
representatives at the Constitutional Convention, argued that 
empowering the Congress was necessary to protect against the threat of 
a President who would spare ``no efforts or means whatever to get 
himself reelected.''
  Our system of checks and balances as laid out in our Constitution 
provides that the Congress can impeach a President for committing 
``Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' The phrase 
was meant to encompass any offenses that, as Alexander Hamilton 
explained in Federalist 65, include an ``abuse or violation of some 
public trust'' and ``injuries done immediately to society itself.'' 
Impeachment is a remedy for this public harm.
  Some of my colleagues argue that the Senate could not sit as a court 
of impeachment for a former President. But constitutional scholars from 
across the political spectrum agree that the plain language of the 
Constitution and the historical precedent are clear that the Senate has 
the power to hold former officers accountable for offenses committed 
while in office. The question was debated on the Senate floor, we had a 
vote, and a bipartisan majority decided that we should proceed. As 
Manager Jamie Raskin said, ``[t]he jurisdictional constitutional issue 
is gone . . . We are having a trial on the facts.''
  As we were all witnesses to what happened on January 6, the facts are 
clear. During the trial, we saw evidence that was haunting and 
chilling. But more than that, collectively, the evidence presented a 
clear indictment of President Trump's role in threatening not only the 
lives of those at the Capitol, but the very lifeblood of our democracy.
  President Trump's actions on January 6 were consistent with a years-
long effort to undermine faith in our democratic system. After spending 
months trying to delegitimize our elections and despite losing by more 
than 7 million votes, President Trump filed dozens of lawsuits and 
called into question the election results across the country. In court 
after court, the President's claims were rejected. As Judge Bibas, who 
was appointed by President Trump, wrote for the Third Circuit, 
``Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair 
does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then 
proof. We have neither here.''
  In an attempt to delay the certification of the results, President 
Trump privately pressured State election officials, including asking 
Georgia's Secretary of State to ``find'' 11,780 votes, a number that 
would flip the State in his favor. Thankfully, election officials 
followed the law, and by December 11, 2020, all States had certified 
the results of the election.
  Despite the results being final, however, President Trump convinced 
his supporters that there was one last opportunity to interrupt the 
peaceful transfer of power: preventing the Congress from counting the 
electoral college votes. And they responded to his call. During the 
trial, we saw a video of a rioter yelling, ``We were invited by the 
President of the United States!'' and examples of the rioters' social 
media posts telling President Trump they were there for him, including 
a photo of rioters storming the Capitol steps captioned, ``This is 
me.''
  Law enforcement, sworn to protect the Capitol, were repeatedly 
assaulted defending our temple of democracy and our very republic. We 
will never forget the shrieks of the police officer pinned in between 
the doors at the hands of the rioters, pleading for help. We will never 
forget Officer Harry Dunn, who fought against the violent mob for hours 
and, after it was over, broke down in tears, telling fellow officers he 
had been called the N-word numerous times that day. He asked: ``Is this 
America?'' Or Officer Eugene Goodman who ran to take on a growing group 
of the rioters by himself, diverting them away from the Senate Chamber 
and allowing Senators to move to a secure location.
  Tragically, the attack on the Capitol also cost the lives of three 
brave officers, including Officer Brian Sicknick who died from injuries 
sustained while engaging with rioters. Two other officers died by 
suicide following the events of January 6: D.C. Metropolitan Police 
Officer Jeffrey Smith and U.S. Capitol Police Officer Howard 
Liebengood.
  While much of the trial rightfully focused on what President Trump 
did on and leading up to January 6, in many ways what he did not do was 
even more dangerous. After he sent the mob to the Capitol, putting law 
enforcement

[[Page S943]]

in danger and threatening the safety of the Vice President, President 
Trump did nothing to stop the violence. Despite calls from Republican 
leaders across the country, President Trump did not even send a tweet 
to defend our democracy. Hours after the rioters first breached the 
Capitol, he finally released a video and told the rioters: ``we love 
you; you're very special.''
  President Trump betrayed his oath of office to preserve, protect, and 
defend the Constitution of the United States. He incited a mob to 
attack the Capitol and prevent the peaceful transfer of power, and for 
that, he should be impeached.
  On January 6, we were all awakened to our responsibilities as 
Americans and as Senators. I will never forget walking to the House 
Chamber around 4 a.m., with shattered glass from broken windows strewn 
in the hallway, joined by Senator Blunt, Vice President Pence, and 
alongside two young women who carried the mahogany boxes holding each 
State's electoral votes. We knew we had to return to do our jobs, and 
that night, we made clear to all: Democracy will prevail.
  Thank you.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, on January 6, 2021, the heart of 
American democracy was attacked by a violent mob seeking to stop the 
counting of electoral votes in Congress and the peaceful transition of 
power. The peaceful transition of power is the hallmark of any healthy 
democracy and the foundation of our government by the people. That 
tradition has endured in our country since the ``Revolution of 1800'' 
when John Adams lost his election to Thomas Jefferson, marking the 
first peaceful change of Executive party in the United States. Years 
later, Jefferson would write about the ``Revolution of 1800'' and say, 
``for that was as real a revolution in the principles of our government 
as that of 76 . . . not effected indeed by the sword . . . but by the 
rational and peaceable instrument of reform, the suffrage of the 
people.'' Sadly, the attack on the Capitol was an attempt to return to 
the ``sword,'' and it was incited by the President of the United 
States.
  Donald Trump's actions leading up to and on January 6 demonstrated 
what I believed following his first impeachment: He was unfit for the 
Presidency and betrayed his oath to faithfully execute the office of 
President and preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. Donald 
Trump engaged in a months-long campaign of lies and misinformation 
about voter fraud in the 2020 election to mislead the American people 
and maintain power. This campaign was waged with a singular purpose: to 
overturn a free and fair election through any means necessary. It 
included calls to State election officials in Georgia where he urged 
them to ``find votes'' that would allow him to win the State; wild 
conspiracy theories that voting machines had been rigged against him; 
and baseless lawsuits that were rejected more than 60 times by Federal 
courts at all levels. This insidious effort culminated at the ``Save 
America'' rally on January 6 when the former President urged his 
supporters to ``fight like hell'' and directed them to march on 
Congress where the counting of electoral votes had begun.
  The House Managers presented a detailed timeline of the former 
President's actions before, during, and after the election that exposed 
his effort to subvert the Constitution and defy the will of the 
American people. The evidence presented against the former President 
demonstrated that he sought to undermine and ultimately overturn the 
results of the 2020 election. It showed that when his challenges in 
court had failed and the electoral results had been certified, he 
turned his attention and all the power of the Presidency to January 6. 
He encouraged his supporters to come to DC to ``stop the steal'' and 
pressured former Vice President Pence to assert power he did not have 
under the Constitution to overturn the election. Trump amassed a crowd 
of individuals waiting for his direction, including armed individuals 
who had planned an attack for weeks in response to the President's 
claims that the election was stolen.
  The former President's actions had deadly and destructive 
consequences. Insurrectionists stormed the Capitol building, 
desecrating the seat of American Government and the physical 
manifestation of freedom for people across the world. The 
insurrectionists viciously beat police officers defending our 
democracy, vandalized the building, and terrorized those inside. All 
the while, the mob chanted ``hang Mike Pence,'' ``President Trump sent 
us'' and ``traitor, traitor, traitor.'' When the attack was over, 
hundreds of police officers and others were injured, and five people 
were dead, including a brave Capitol police officer who lost his life 
defending our Capitol. The attack was viewed across the world and has 
undeniably tarnished America's reputation as a beacon of freedom and 
democracy.
  What was the former President's response to this treasonous attack on 
our constitutional process? It was to repeat the sinister lies that had 
led to the attack in the first place and refer to the insurrectionists 
as ``great patriots'' whom he loved. The House Managers showed that the 
President could have stopped the attack, but he chose instead to 
continue his effort to obstruct the counting of the electoral votes. 
According to the testimony of Congresswoman Herrera Beutler submitted 
to evidence, the former President responded to House Minority Leader 
Kevin McCarthy's pleas for help by saying, ``Well, Kevin, I guess these 
people (the insurrectionists) are more upset about the election than 
you are.'' These are not the actions of a President trying to defend 
the Constitution and uphold his oath of office; they are the actions of 
an individual intent on retaining power by any means necessary.
  The actions of Donald Trump before, during, and after the attack on 
the Capitol reflected our Constitution's Framers greatest fear that a 
president would do anything to retain power contrary to the will of the 
people. They knew well the dangers of a despot and the capacity of 
power to corrupt the Republic they had established. That is why I voted 
to convict the former President to protect our system of government 
from those who would use their office to undermine our Constitution. 
Senate precedent, history, and tradition clearly demonstrate that a 
former President could be convicted having been impeached by the House 
while still in office.
  The former President's legal team made no persuasive argument as to 
how his remarks on January 6 would be considered protected speech under 
the First Amendment or why he could not be convicted as a former 
President. As House Manager Raskin said during his argument, ``if this 
is not impeachable conduct then what is?'' I believe it fits squarely 
within the high crimes and misdemeanors identified as an eligible 
offense for impeachment in the Constitution. Thus, I exercised my 
responsibility as a juror to vote to convict and ensure that the 
actions of the former President would not go unchecked.
  Donald Trump betrayed his oath of office and he betrayed the American 
people. His actions must not go unanswered. The oath that I took and my 
allegiance to it require that I preserve, protect, and defend the 
Constitution by voting to convict a former President whose zealous 
pursuit of unchecked power will forever be remembered as one of the 
darkest days in American history. As a U.S. Senator, I will continue to 
take a stand against actions that violates the fundamental norms and 
ideals of American democracy.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, for the second time in over a year, events 
compelled the Senate to hold an impeachment trial for President Donald 
Trump. By once more acquitting the President despite overwhelming 
evidence of his guilt, the Senate has again abdicated its 
responsibility to the American people and our democratic Republic.
  The Founders fashioned our constitutional system to at once defy 
history and reflect its enduring lessons. They understood that since 
the first human societies, rule of the strong had prevailed across ages 
of warlords, monarchs, emperors, and tyrants. From the examples of 
ancient Greece and Rome, they also knew that rule by the people was the 
fragile, flickering exception.
  To ignite America's experiment in self-government, the Founders 
handed us a constitutional system unique in human history, with 
inalienable rights for the people, free and fair democratic elections, 
the rule of law, and coequal

[[Page S944]]

branches of government to check the unbridled ambitions that risked 
dragging us into tyranny. Our system was never perfect--far from it--
but over 234 years, Americans have fought and sacrificed to make it 
more democratic, more fair, and more free.
  The Founders also understood that, however well-crafted the 
Constitution may be, its fate would inevitably depend on the public 
officials sworn to protect it. They could give the Senate the unique 
power to convict a President, but they could not guarantee Senators 
would exercise that power when the moment required it.
  Their fears were realized on February 13, 2021, when the Senate 
failed to convict President Trump, a man who defied every standard of 
conduct and decency the Founders expected of public officials.
  Months before Americans cast their ballots, Donald Trump made our 
democracy his enemy--manufacturing false claim after false claim to 
undermine the 2020 election. He warned the election would be stolen or 
rigged, dead people would vote, and voting machines were not 
trustworthy. He repeated these claims incessantly on social media, at 
his rallies, and in interview after interview on cable news. He repeats 
these lies to this day.
  When Donald Trump lost the election by over 7 million votes, he 
refused to concede. Instead, he waged a months-long war against the 
peaceful transition of power. First, he challenged the election results 
in court. He lost 61 out of the 62 cases, often being howled out of 
court by Federal judges, many appointed by the President, for failing 
to produce any evidence of widespread fraud. Former Attorney General 
William Barr, one of the President's most steadfast allies, confirmed 
that there was no such evidence.
  So the President changed course. He threw the weight of his office 
against State and local officials hoping he could coerce them into 
overturning their States' lawfully conducted election. He called 
election officials in Wayne County, MI. He summoned State senators from 
Michigan and Pennsylvania to the White House to urge the legislature to 
intervene. His aides hounded the Governor of Arizona to echo the 
President's baseless claims about the election. Most notoriously, he 
browbeat Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in a recorded 
phone call to ``find'' another 11,780 Trump votes and badgered the Vice 
President to reject the certification of the electoral results. In my 
view, these actions alone warranted impeachment. But he didn't stop 
there.
  In the end, President Trump stopped at nothing. As Congress gathered 
on January 6 to certify the electoral college results, he incited a mob 
to invade the Capitol and ``stop the steal.'' They scaled, as if it 
were an enemy rampart, the platform built for President-elect Biden's 
inauguration and the peaceful transition of power. They chanted 
President Trump's name as they smashed doors, broke windows, and looted 
private offices. They repeated the President's lies as they cursed, 
speared, and bludgeoned the men and women of law enforcement who 
defended our democracy.
  At virtually every step of the way, our constitutional system held 
its ground because patriotic Americans fulfilled their obligation to 
our Republic. From the Capitol Police to the nonpartisan election 
officials, to the State and Federal judges, to the Vice President of 
the United States--all refused to bend to the President's lawless 
demands. We should shudder to think how events would have unfolded if 
these Americans had made a different choice.
  Yet somehow, confronted with these examples of individual patriotism 
and the overwhelming evidence of the President's impeachable offenses, 
43 Senators still voted to acquit, including the Senator minority 
leader, Mitch McConnell.
  The minority leader refused to contest the case laid out by the House 
managers. He conceded that President Trump was ``practically and 
morally responsible for provoking the events'' of January 6, committing 
what he called ``a disgraceful dereliction of duty.'' Instead, the 
Senator hid behind a strained reading of history and dodged his duty to 
hold President Trump accountable on the feeble ground that the Senate 
lacked jurisdiction. Through this sophist sleight of hand, the minority 
leader tried to place one foot on the right side of history without 
taking the hard vote it actually required. In doing so, he provided 
cover to every Republican Senator who joined him to acquit President 
Trump, including many who have failed to denounce the former President 
for anything he has done to undermine American democracy.
  The Constitution grants the legislative branch authority to hold 
accountable any President who would seek to undo our democratic system 
of government. This Senate's refusal to exercise this authority and 
convict Donald Trump is a stain on this body. We had the responsibility 
to serve as a check on his anti-American actions and reassert the 
standard of government our Founders imagined. We chose otherwise.
  With the permission of the Senate's acquittal, Donald Trump refuses 
to admit his defeat and continues to mislead his supporters that the 
election was stolen. In so doing, he continues to perpetuate, in 
another form, the insurrection he unleashed on January 6.
  Our democracy stands today, not as a result of our actions, but those 
of law enforcement officials at the Capitol and State and local 
officials in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, and Wisconsin--
men and women who didn't surrender to President Trump's tyrannical 
demands.
  Nearly 2 months later, the U.S. Capitol remains ringed with razor-
wire. As I have walked through the perimeter each morning, I have 
reflected on those who kept us safe from the President's anti-
democratic mob--the law enforcement officials, the people who maintain 
and clean the Capitol, congressional staff. They risked life and limb, 
not only to defend Senators and Representatives but to defend basic 
American principles of our constitutional order: free elections, the 
peaceful transition of power, the rule of law, and the separation of 
coequal branches of government.
  And then I think about the State and local officials, many 
Republicans, who held their ground under pressure from the President of 
the United States, often accompanied by threats from angry citizens 
caught up in his ``Big Lie'' that an election he lost by over 7 million 
votes was somehow stolen from him. These brave men and women did their 
duty to protect our constitutional system.
  They are true patriots no different than the millions of other 
citizens who have done their part to defend the way of life we share 
under our Constitution. They join the African-American regiments who 
defended the Union in the Civil War, the code talkers in World War II, 
and the sons and daughters of immigrants who have defended our country 
from Yorktown to Normandy to Kandahar.
  The Constitution of the United States is not a machine that runs 
itself; it is an exercise in self-government. American citizens--
including those elected to serve them in the Senate--must keep it 
working and always ensure that it becomes more democratic, more fair, 
and more free.
  As Americans, we should take comfort that there have been many, from 
Frederick Douglass and Susan B. Anthony to the other courageous 
citizens who rose to moments far more difficult than our own to protect 
the Republic and push it closer still to our highest ideals.
  They are why the United States remains, for now, the longest lasting 
government by the people in human history. But as the Founders 
understood, democracy will always be vulnerable to demagogues who stop 
at nothing to hold on to power. History will record the names of those 
who stood on the side of the Constitution, passing down to the next 
generation the high standard of citizenship our democracy demands. 
Hopefully, a future Senate will meet that standard.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, in this impeachment trial, every 
Senator was a juror, but also a witness and victim of the violent 
insurrection Donald Trump incited. The case was straightforward. Former 
President Trump instigated an armed riot seeking to overthrow a lawful 
election and possibly even injure or assassinate elected officials.
  I spent most of my career enforcing laws, including two decades as 
Connecticut's attorney general. In this

[[Page S945]]

role, I learned the power and the significance of accountability. When 
wrongdoers enjoy impunity for their actions, they and others like them 
are emboldened.
  The first time former President Trump was impeached by the House, he 
had pressured a foreign government to corrupt the American election 
process, extorting a vulnerable, fledgling democracy to help him cheat 
in a Presidential election.
  This time, former President Trump's attack on American democracy was 
more direct and violent. The insurrectionists forced us to flee for our 
lives, to place desperate, seemingly final calls to loved ones. A 
Capitol police officer died protecting us.
  I have the same fear now, only greater, that I felt at the close of 
former President Trump's last impeachment. By again refusing to hold 
former President Trump accountable, the Senate is paving the way for 
another would-be tyrant to break laws and norms to retain power.
  We in the Senate are obligated to uphold our oaths to support and 
defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Our 
oaths obligate us to hold former President Trump to account for his 
incitement of a violent attack on the U.S. Capitol, the symbol of 
American democracy around the world.
  The case against Donald Trump was proven convincingly with videos and 
voice recordings so powerful that this printed word can never capture 
their force. The former President's offense in this case is as 
dangerous as it is straightforward. He spent months of his Presidency 
telling and retelling the ``Big Lie.'' The lie that no matter how the 
American people voted at the ballot box, he was the only legitimate 
winner of the 2020 Presidential election. That the election was stolen 
from him, that anyone who disagrees is un-American, a traitor.
  As Manager Lieu explained at trial, at a certain point in his efforts 
to undermine the 2020 election, ``Trump ran out of non-violent options 
to retain power.''
  Donald Trump encouraged, emboldened, and even helped build a mob of 
violent extremists that he invited to Washington, DC, and incited to 
storm the Capitol. While some Members of Congress were serving the 
former President in seeking to subvert American democracy by objecting 
to vote counting, Trump was imploring the mob to do the same. He told 
supporters to ``never give up'' on the ``Big Lie.'' He told them that 
``this election was stolen from you, from me, from the country.'' He 
said, ``if you don't fight, you are not going to have a country 
anymore.'' He told the insurrectionists to go to the Capitol, and he 
even lied to them that he would be going with them.
  The resulting violence, clearly foreseeable, was horrifying. They 
marched to the Capitol. Rioters broke windows and breached the 
building. They killed a 42-year-old Capitol Hill police officer and Air 
Force veteran, Brian Sicknick. They did stop the vote counting, if only 
temporarily. They injured many.
  Members of Congress removed congressional pins to avoid 
identification from the mob. Senators ran from the Senate Chamber. They 
ran for their lives. Rioters flew a Confederate flag, a symbol of hate 
that did not fly in the Capitol even at the height of the Civil War.
  Donald Trump watched this deadly attack unfold with glee from the 
Oval Office. On national TV, he told the insurrectionists that he loved 
them. ``I know you're hurt,'' he consoled the rioters. ``We love you. 
You're very special.'' He did not lift a finger to help anyone 
threatened with violence, including his Vice President.
  As a result of former Donald Trump's incitement, an angry mob stormed 
the Capitol with every intent to harm elected officials and disrupt the 
peaceful transfer of power. Not only has the world lost Brian Sicknick, 
two other Capitol Police officers have died by suicide. Several members 
of the mob were killed.
  The Senate's failure to convict increases the specter of another 
would-be tyrant, as well as Donald Trump, seeking again to mobilize a 
mob to overthrow democracy. Violent extremism has been emboldened. It 
is a present, immediate danger.
  My colleagues know that former President Trump lost the 2020 
Presidential election. They know that more than 60 courts tossed out 
his attempts to drum up baseless allegations of voter fraud. They know 
that the director of Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, 
a lifelong Republican, certified the election was safe and secure. And 
they know that former President Trump incited the insurrectionists to 
attack the Capitol on January 6.
  Democracy is not our default state of being. Democracy thrives only 
so long as the institutions that support it thrive. And democratic 
institutions will only thrive and persist through hard work, active 
work, dedicated work of our elected officials. For 4 years, former 
President Trump continuously attacked our basic norms and institutions 
of democracy. For 4 years, he normalized chaos. Our job now--
Republicans, Democrats, Independents--is to restore. We must dedicate 
ourselves to restoring the rule of law, the protections of rights, and 
the integrity of institutions. And that task starts with accountability 
for all those who perpetrated the damage.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise today regarding the second 
impeachment of Donald Trump.
  The House managers made their case. Based on the evidence they 
presented and the events we all experienced, Donald Trump should be 
convicted and prohibited for holding office ever again for inciting a 
violent insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on January 6.
  Through video, pictures, and quotes, they outlined how the President 
of the United States engaged in a months-long campaign to discredit the 
legitimate election results of the 2020 election--a deranged campaign 
that began before a single vote was cast.
  This unprecedented campaign of misinformation, pushing the ``Big 
Lie,'' infected a significant contingent of the President's supporters. 
They came to Washington, DC, at Trump's invitation and inciteful 
rhetoric. They followed his direction on January 6 to storm the Capitol 
and tried to stop us from carrying out our constitutional duty to 
certify the election for the lawful winner of the Presidential 
election, Joe Biden.
  The evidence presented by the managers is solid and irrefutable, and 
the President's lawyers made almost no effort to try. Given the jury 
they were facing, I don't blame them. Almost every Senator in this 
Chamber was there that day. Senators Ossoff, Warnock, and Padilla 
weren't sworn in until January 20. We all experienced the unthinkable 
that day, and we are all processing it differently. The violent 
insurrection shook many of us to the core. For some of us, the events 
of that day were so chaotic that the full magnitude of what was 
happening wasn't clear at the time.
  Both as part of the trial evidence and through interviews and 
statements, we have learned more fully the measure of danger we faced 
as Donald Trump's murderous mob assaulted the Capitol campus. The 
managers' case and other media has given us all a better picture of the 
terror.
  There are stories of bravery, like that of Officer Eugene Goodman and 
his U.S. Capitol Police colleagues.
  The footage of Officer Goodman misdirecting the mob marauding through 
these halls is remarkable. Put yourself in his shoes. How many of us 
would have acted as quickly in the face of a rushing wave of hate? He 
has rightly been commended for his decisive, nearly superhuman 
response. All across the complex, his colleagues battled with 
insurrectionists who assaulted them with bats, bear spray, and other 
weapons in close quarters--these were scenes from a war zone, not the 
heart of the U.S. Government. While their bravery is commendable, 
Capitol Police and the other law enforcement agencies that eventually 
assisted to restore order should never have been in that position. But 
for the President of the United States sending a mob of violent 
insurrectionists to the Capitol, they would not have.
  There are other chilling stories that should make every American's 
heart race. The audio of the Speaker's staff barricaded in their 
office, whispering into the phone, voices trembling, begging for help. 
The silent Capitol security footage showing just how close the Vice 
President, Senators, Representatives, and staff came to harm. The 
videos of chanting, gleeful, rioters demonstrating their horrifying 
fealty to

[[Page S946]]

Donald Trump's lies as they broke down doors and ransacked offices and 
the Senate floor. The story that my friend Senator Murray has told of 
being trapped in her office with her husband. The mob pounding on the 
door while he tried to hold it shut with his foot. The absolute terror 
she must have felt hoping that the door was locked and that help would 
come quickly. They were inches away. The rest of us there that day were 
at least feet away. I am sure that we all called, texted, and thought 
of loved ones. Trying to reassure them but not actually knowing if that 
was true. Feeling from far away their helpless anguish for us and the 
utter terror and disbelief that something like this could happen in our 
country. To the U.S. Capitol, of all places.
  The U.S. Capitol is the heart of our democratic system of government. 
While we may disagree vociferously, debate passionately, and represent 
people and communities with deeply divergent views, Congress exists to 
find common ground without resorting to violence. This simple fact--
that as a country we solve our problems through democratic institutions 
and debate--is a source of our strength and global leadership. I have 
strong disagreements with a number of my colleagues. I know many of 
them disagree with me. But each day we come to the Senate floor and 
voice those disagreements without fear for our safety. On January 6, 
that basic level of understanding--the very thing that separates our 
country from so many others--was shattered by the assault on the 
Capitol. And worst of all, that insurrection was incited by a sitting 
President of the United States.
  In some respects, it is difficult to know how best to move forward 
from that awful day. We came back. We did our jobs. And we are still 
here doing what our constituents sent us here to do. The Capitol may 
have been changed indelibly for many of us.
  Again, to turn to the words of my friend Senator Murray the 
bipartisan actions shown in Congress in the wake of the September 11 
attacks helped to restore some semblance of safety and security. That 
common response is absent today.
  To begin to heal, we need accountability. We need to live up to our 
constitutional oaths and the sacred duty our constituents bestowed on 
us when we were elected: to uphold the law, to stand for their values, 
and, when necessary, to stand for our own. We can only start to heal 
when we have accountability and justice for what happened. To achieve 
this, we need those who are in leadership positions to lead.
  Republicans failed to lead last year when they voted to acquit Donald 
Trump for his corrupt actions in dealing with Ukraine by conditioning 
military assistance on receiving political dirt on Joe Biden. Their 
failure to lead, to hold Trump accountable, and frankly to constrain 
his mania, emboldened him to push the boundaries of our political 
discourse further.
  Republicans have another chance to stand up for our democracy and 
against authoritarianism. They have a chance to accept the reality that 
has been clearly outlined for them in video, audio, and their own 
experiences. They can make a strong statement that political violence 
is unacceptable in the United States. They can--and should--vote to 
convict Donald Trump and bar him from ever holding office again. This 
is the real first, meaningful step that we can take to achieve the 
unity that we all claim to want.
  I will vote to convict. I hope that this time, more than one of them 
will be brave enough to lead by standing up and doing what is right.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I would like to enter a statement into the 
record.
  The President swears an oath to faithfully execute the Office of the 
Presidency and to ``preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of 
the United States.'' At the very core of that oath is a commitment to 
democracy, to government of the people, for the people, and by the 
people.
  President Trump tested that commitment. Americans endured a pandemic 
while casting their votes in the November 2020 election. Following that 
election, the outgoing President baselessly sowed doubt about its 
legitimacy and refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power. In 
the days leading up to January 6, 2021, President Trump agitated his 
most dangerous supporters, who had already shown a propensity for 
violence, and called on them to interfere with Congress' duty to 
formally count the votes of the electoral college. Donald Trump wanted 
a riot to take place on January 6. We know because he said so. And when 
police officers defending the Capitol were overrun by his mob, he did 
nothing. Democracy is at its most fragile at the moment of transition, 
and that fragility is exactly what the former President sought to 
exploit.
  During President Trump's second impeachment trial, his defense tried 
to paint for Americans a picture of a President who called for peaceful 
protest and who bears no responsibility for the January 6 assault on 
the People's House. But the President's actions took place before our 
eyes. His conduct before, during, and immediately after the assault on 
the Capitol is well known to the American public. He is uniquely 
responsible for the events of January 6.
  Americans spoke clearly and forcefully in November when they elected 
a new President. Donald Trump's attempt to cling to power through lies 
and violence is just what the Framers of our Constitution feared. But 
part of the brilliance of our Constitution's separation of powers is 
that we, the Congress, have the power and obligation to defend against 
such gross misconduct through impeachment.
  I voted to convict and disqualify former President Donald Trump 
because he violated his oath of office and because our future leaders 
must know that such abuses of power will not be tolerated in a free and 
democratic society. I will continue to call out these abuses and to 
keep those in power accountable.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, the essence of any American President's 
job is set forth in the oath he or she swears--an oath that the 
Founders considered so fundamental that they put it in the 
Constitution. And that job is to preserve, protect, and defend the 
Constitution of the United States.
  A President who violates that oath has committed an impeachable 
offense. That is a truth. There can be no reasonable dispute that a 
President who fails at this basic responsibility is unfit to remain in 
office and cannot and should not be permitted to hold that office 
again.
  Not only did Donald Trump fail to uphold his oath, he took steps 
intended to violate it. It wasn't mere negligence. It wasn't even 
recklessness. Donald Trump engaged in an active, willful, intentional 
attack on our Constitution and our democracy.
  Donald Trump incited to violence and riot a mob that attacked the 
U.S. Capitol and our government. That is a high crime and misdemeanor. 
We all saw and heard the evidence during the trial. The video. The 
audio. The tweets. The statements. The affidavits.
  Months before the election, Donald Trump laid the groundwork for this 
insurrection, arguing he would only lose the election if there were 
fraud. After he lost, he repeated over and over again the ``Big Lie'' 
that the election was stolen. He agitated his supporters who falsely 
and wrongly believed that the election was rigged.
  Trump beckoned a mob to Washington for a rally when he knew the 
Congress would be counting the electoral ballots. Trump's people knew 
from law enforcement bulletins and intelligence that the mob was armed 
and dangerous. Yet, he riled them up and then sent them up Pennsylvania 
Avenue to the Capitol. That rally became an orgy of violence and hate. 
Mayhem and destruction ensued, all in Donald Trump's pursuit of staying 
in office beyond his term. Of ignoring our Constitution. Of preventing 
a peaceful transfer of power. Of promulgating the Big Lie. Donald Trump 
did not express horror or outrage at the scenes playing out live on 
television. He did not quickly and decisively urge his supporters to 
stop. He did not immediately call out the National Guard. He did not 
show any concern for the law enforcement officers being beaten, maimed, 
and even killed at the Capitol. He reportedly delighted in what was 
happening, unable to comprehend why others were not excited about it 
like he was. And he has never shown any remorse or an ounce of 
contrition or taken any responsibility. Instead, he

[[Page S947]]

has maintained that he acted perfectly appropriately.
  The Senate of the United States sat as an Impeachment Court, with 
Democrats and Republicans serving as jurors. But the vast majority of 
those Republicans were more interested in fealty to Donald Trump than 
loyalty to our country. They were more concerned about Trump's base 
than basic justice. They were willing to ignore the truth to embrace 
the Big Lie.
  I had hoped the House managers would call witnesses. Clearly, there 
were individuals with direct knowledge of Trump's state of mind during 
the insurrection, the danger at the Capitol as it unfolded, and his 
support of it. But even before we debated potential witnesses, 
Republicans had made up their minds. They were unmoving in their fealty 
to Trump. Republicans were willfully blind to the truth and the facts 
of the case.
  The rioters wanted to kill Vice President Pence and House Speaker 
Pelosi. They told us so. We know that the west side of the Capitol was 
breached around 2 p.m. and that the rioters had overrun the Capitol. We 
know that the mob was approaching the Senate floor when our session was 
abruptly recessed at 2:13 p.m. We know that Vice President Pence was 
whisked off the Senate floor and that he was in mortal danger, as were 
all Members of Congress in their Chambers doing their constitutional 
duty. We know that all this was playing out in real time on television 
and that Donald Trump had to know it was happening. And yet, about 10 
minutes later, at 2:24 p.m., knowing all this, Donald Trump tweeted an 
attack at his own Vice President. ``Mike Pence did not have the courage 
to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our 
Constitution.'' And we know that around 2:26 p.m., Donald Trump called 
Senator Tuberville not to ascertain what was happening, not ask how the 
Vice President was or to offer aid and assistance against the 
insurrection. No, Trump called to ask Senator Tuberville to delay the 
certification. It is clear whose side Donald Trump was on.
  There is no First Amendment defense to what Donald Trump did. The 
First Amendment has no application in an impeachment proceeding, which 
does not seek to punish unlawful speech, but to protect the Nation from 
a President who has violated his oath of office.
  But even if the First Amendment applied, even if we bought Trump's 
lawyers' bogus claims that the First Amendment can be a defense, the 
argument utterly fails. Trump's lawyers relied on the Supreme Court's 
decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio, but Brandenburg explained that the 
First Amendment protects advocacy, ``except where such advocacy is 
directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or 
produce such action.'' Once the Capitol was breached, the lawless 
action was no longer imminent, it was actual. And Donald Trump was 
still tweeting words of encouragement to the rioters. There was a siege 
actually happening in the Capitol. There was no longer rhetorical 
fighting; there was actual fighting. On television. Live for everyone 
to see.
  The House managers proved their case with facts and evidence. Donald 
Trump incited and relished in an effort to violently overthrow our 
government. He invited. He incited. He delighted.
  Anyone who is opposed to abolishing the filibuster need only look at 
the vote to acquit and see how Republicans willfully blinded themselves 
to truth and facts in fealty to Trump and their party. Their votes to 
acquit once again show our hurdles to progress: Republican political 
calculations and their dereliction to truth and justice.
  The final tally on the vote to acquit does nothing to reassure me 
that Republicans are willing to work together and transcend party 
politics. Republicans had the opportunity to recognize that faith in 
the Constitution is a faith that we all share. Instead, they ignored 
the Constitution for a Big Lie. How can we expect them to work in good 
faith with Democrats to respond to the big challenges facing our Nation 
when they refuse to accept undeniable facts?
  The only reasonable conclusion based on the evidence presented at the 
trial was that Donald Trump committed an impeachable offense, should 
have been convicted, and should have been barred from holding future 
office. Republicans refused to accept or acknowledge that. I fear that 
with their votes to acquit, they have sown the seeds of another violent 
attack on our Constitution and our democracy.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, the impeachment trial of former 
President Donald Trump marked the third time in 1 year that the Senate 
has had to confront significant constitutional and institutional 
questions with consequences that will undoubtedly reverberate into the 
future. As always, I am guided by the Constitution, historical 
precedent, and ``a deep responsibility to future times,'' as stated by 
Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, our Nation's first great 
constitutional scholar, two centuries ago. This is what has informed me 
during last year's impeachment, the electorial college certification in 
January, and now another impeachment.
  This has been a disheartening episode for a divided America. Make no 
mistake: I condemn the horrific violence that engulfed the Capitol on 
January 6. All those who undertook violence on that day should be 
prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I also condemn former 
President Trump's poor judgment in calling a rally on that day, and his 
actions and inactions when it turned into a riot. His blatant disregard 
for his own Vice President, Mike Pence, who was fulfilling his 
constitutional duty at the Capitol, infuriates me. I will never forget 
the brave men and women of law enforcement--some of whom lost their 
lives and were seriously injured--who carried out their patriotic duty 
to protect members of Congress that day.
  However horrible the violence was--and how angry I have been about 
it--I believe that it is imperative, for the future of our democracy, 
to examine closely the totality of the precedents, impeachment 
proceedings, and evidence, and to be as dispassionate and impartial as 
possible in this case.
  That is why I cast my vote, on February 13, 2021, to acquit former 
President Trump on the single Article of Impeachment, ``incitement of 
insurrection.''
  The primary purpose of impeachment in our constitutional system is to 
remove an official from office--to, according to Justice Story, divest 
an official ``of his political capacity.'' The House's single Article 
of Impeachment emphasized this need to remove President Trump from 
office. Regarding this case before the Senate, President Donald Trump 
had already been removed from office by a vote of the American people 
this past November. Thus, pursuing impeachment in this case creates a 
troubling precedent in which former officials--private citizens--can 
face impeachment and conviction.
  Therefore, the fundamental issue in this impeachment trial is not 
removal from office but whether the Senate has or should accept 
jurisdiction to try, convict, and disqualify Donald Trump, a private 
citizen, from any future elected office based on the House's single 
article of impeachment--incitement of insurrection.
  The House and Senate have never before claimed or exercised such 
impeachment jurisdiction over a former President. I do not believe that 
the Constitution empowers the Senate to have such impeachment 
jurisdiction. In his renowned ``Commentaries on the Constitution,'' 
Justice Story comes to the same conclusion, although to be fair, there 
are others who do not. I believe that the precedents set in claiming 
that the Senate can try former Presidents who are private citizens have 
the very real potential to do significant long-term damage to our 
constitutional order, individual liberties, and the proper functioning 
of our Republic in a way that we will come to regret as a nation.
  Additionally in this case, the House undertook a ``snap impeachment'' 
in 48 hours with no hearings, no witnesses, no record, and no defenses 
presented. When asked about this during the Senate trial, the House 
managers stated that constitutional due process protections for a 
defendant in an impeachment are ``discretionary'' or, in other words, 
not required. This troubling declaration is now a precedent in the 
House. Combining this ``no Due Process/snap impeachment'' precedent 
with the additional power of the Senate to try former officials, who 
are now private citizens, amounts to a massive expansion of Congress' 
impeachment

[[Page S948]]

power never contemplated by our Founding Fathers. The temptation to use 
such power as a regular tool of partisan warfare in the future will be 
great and has the potential to incapacitate our government.
  Those in favor of expanding impeachment jurisdiction to include the 
former President primarily point to the potential for Presidents or 
other officials to commit impeachable acts near the end of their term 
or shortly before resigning. The House managers called this a ``January 
exception'' to impeachment. They argued that this would allow such 
individuals to escape culpability and would frustrate the purpose of 
impeachment to hold public officials accountable. This is a legitimate 
concern. However, there are other remedies available to punish such 
conduct of a former President through the judicial system, if 
warranted. The Constitution explicitly provides that former officials 
can be subject to criminal prosecution for their actions while in 
office, regardless of impeachment. Moreover, even if such conduct 
eludes judicial review, the American people are well equipped to judge 
political conduct and pass their judgement upon it. For that reason, 
and as I emphasized last year following the previous impeachment trial, 
I believe it can be left to the wise judgement of the American people 
on whether or not the former President should be disqualified from 
future office.
  Even if this Senate was empowered by the Constitution to hear this 
case, I do not believe that the House managers met their burden in 
proving the critical issue at trial--whether the former President 
intended there to be violence at the Capitol as a result of his speech 
at the Ellipse on January 6. Furthermore, the House managers claimed, 
in arguing their incitement charge, that First Amendment political 
speeth protections do not apply to elected officials in impeachment 
proceedings. A conviction based on this breathtaking precedent has the 
potential to significantly further undermine core constitutional 
protections for Americans and their ability to undertake political 
speech in the future.
  Finally, laced throughout the House managers' presentations were 
subtle and not-sosubtle indictments, not just against the Capitol 
rioters who fully deserve condemnation but against all supporters of 
the former President, which of course includes many Alaskans. This 
sentiment is one that cannot and should not be allowed to be 
perpetuated. In my view, this will not bring about the kind of unity 
that our Nation needs now. In contrast to what some of the House 
managers implied at this trial, the vast majority of Americans and 
Alaskans who had supported President Trump were appalled by the 
violence on January 6. Such Alaskans supported this President because 
of his polices that helped our State. I will continue to work to make 
sure that these Alaskans' voices are not silenced and that this 
dispiriting chapter in American history won't deter them from speaking 
out in defense of their beliefs.
  This has been a difficult time for our Nation. My vote on February 13 
was not in defense of the former President's conduct on January 6 with 
which I fully disagreed, particularly his twitter attacks on Vice 
President Pence, as the Vice President undertook his constitutional 
duties to preside over the electoral college vote at the Capitol.
  At the end of the day, my obligation is to rise above the passions of 
the moment and to carefully consider the decisions we make today and 
the ramifications they will have for our country's future. I believe 
that my vote to acquit fulfills that obligation. I want Alaskans and 
Americans to know that throughout all of this, my guiding light has 
been both fidelity to Alaska and to our Constitution.
  Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, during this impeachment trial, I 
have adhered to the oath I swore at the trial's outset to ``do 
impartial justice,'' and I have listened with care to the facts and law 
presented to me as a juror.
  These facts compel me to conclude that Donald Trump is guilty of 
inciting an insurrection against our Republic.
  As the evidence presented by the House impeachment managers has made 
clear, Donald Trump used the powers at his disposal to ensure he could 
keep his grip on the Presidency even though he lost the election.
  As the sitting President and a candidate for reelection, Donald Trump 
cast doubt on the results of that election for months, arguing that the 
only way he would lose at the polls was by fraud. Then, after losing to 
Joe Biden by a margin of 7 million votes in a free and fair election, 
Donald Trump claimed it was a ``fraudulent election.''
  As our system of government allows, Donald Trump turned to State and 
Federal courts to hear his allegations of widespread fraud. Some of 
those courts were presided over by judges who Donald Trump himself had 
selected. Again and again, those courts rejected the allegations of 
fraud as baseless.
  Even Trump's own Attorney General, William Barr, publicly declared 
that he had found no evidence of fraud that could have ``effected a 
different outcome in the election.''
  Faced with defeat in the courts, Mr. Trump nevertheless pressured 
officials at every level of both State and Federal government, 
including his own Vice President, Mike Pence, to change the election 
results.
  When those efforts failed, he encouraged his supporters to come to 
Washington, DC, on January 6, the day when Congress would certify the 
electoral college votes for Joe Biden. He claimed that the election was 
stolen and tweeted ``We have just begun to fight,'' promising that on 
January 6, it would be ``wild.'' On December 11, 2020, Donald Trump 
released two campaign ads claiming the election was a ``fraud'' and 
instructing his supporters to ``stop the steal.'' His campaign paid $50 
million dollars for the ads and ran them up to and until January 5, 
2021.
  Those who heeded that well-funded call understood what President 
Trump was asking. They didn't just come with protest signs; they came 
with handcuffs and rifles, bear spray and tactical gear, Molotov 
cocktails and crossbows, and walkie talkies for communication.
  On January 6, at a rally just before noon, Donald Trump asked the 
large crowd assembled before him to march on the Capitol. He asked them 
to fight ``like hell'' because ``if you don't fight like hell, you're 
not going to have a country anymore.''
  Despite knowing that there had been concerns for months about 
potential violence surrounding the election, Donald Trump urged those 
at the rally 20 times to ``fight.'' He also called on them to ``stop 
the steal,'' declaring ``you'll never take back our country with 
weakness.''
  Inspired by President Trump's words, his supporters began streaming 
toward the Capitol, where they eventually overwhelmed its defenses and 
threatened those inside. Those in danger included the Vice President, 
the Speaker of the House, Members of Congress, countless staffers, and 
thousands of members of law enforcement.
  And when Donald Trump saw that his supporters were battling U.S. 
Capitol Police officers and DC police, he said nothing to stop them for 
more than 2 hours, even when he knew that Vice President Pence, one of 
his most loyal political allies, was in danger. More, he tweeted 
further criticism of Mr. Pence as the Vice President's Secret Service 
detail was laboring to whisk Mr. Pence to safety.
  Donald Trump was willing to do almost anything to convince Vice 
President Pence to violate his duty to the Constitution, and so the 
Vice President had a target on his back.
  In other words, those who came to Washington at former President 
Trump's request and attacked the seat of our democracy were trying to 
do exactly what they believed Donald Trump asked them to: prevent the 
certification of Joe Biden as President-elect.
  That is why they frankly admitted, both during the Capitol riot and 
later to law enforcement, that they were at the Capitol because ``[o]ur 
president wants us here.''
  In response to all these facts, Donald Trump argues that the 
Constitution does not permit ex-Presidents to be tried for impeachment 
and that the First Amendment protects his right to encourage an attack 
on our democracy. These arguments are lawyerly fig leaves. Mr. Trump 
relies on them so heavily because his own behavior is indefensible.
  The vast majority of legal scholars agree that the First Amendment 
does

[[Page S949]]

not apply in this instance because the incitement of an insurrection is 
not protected speech under the Constitution. They also believe the 
Constitution allows for the impeachment and trial of public officials 
after they leave office, particularly when, as in this case, the public 
official was impeached by the House of Representatives while still in 
office.
  Otherwise, all an office-holder would have to do to protect him or 
herself from punishment would be to resign just before impeachment. The 
Senate has implicitly or explicitly agreed with this view three times 
in our Nation's history; first, in the very first impeachment trial 
against former Senator William Blount of Tennessee, held during the 
lifetime of the Founders; second, in 1876 when Secretary of War William 
Belknap resigned just hours before the House voted to impeach him for 
bribery and corruption; and finally, in this impeachment trial of 
Donald Trump, when a bipartisan majority of the Senate agreed that this 
trial could proceed in spite of the defendant's objections to its 
constitutionality.
  My colleagues understand that the Constitution gives Congress the 
power to impeach, convict, and disqualify a former officeholder. This 
is true because otherwise, the country would be vulnerable to a 
President of either party who could flout any law but resign to be 
insulated from consequences.
  As the House managers have argued, if anything is impeachable, it is 
a President inciting his followers to violence to overturn a legitimate 
election.
  Our Founding Fathers held democracy sacred. They feared a demagogue, 
a leader who would pervert the Constitution in order to keep power, and 
they sought to protect the new Republic from such a president.
  Donald Trump is the person the Framers feared. He poses an 
existential threat to American democracy. He has shown himself willing 
to use almost every measure at his disposal to gain and retain power, 
even if it means overturning a free and fair election through violence.
  We can have no doubt what our Founding Fathers would have made of 
him: He was exactly the kind of person they wanted to prevent from 
holding and wielding power.
  We have seen over the course of this election the profound risks of 
trifling with our democracy and undermining the legitimacy of our 
elections. We cannot let future candidates of either party believe that 
in America, the way to win is to lie and cheat, to whip a crowd into a 
frenzy, to turn it on public servants and law enforcement alike. We 
have to reestablish in our politics our absolute commitment to the idea 
that we resolve our disputes in our courts and in Congress, not by 
wielding weapons against lawmakers.
  Our Founding Fathers made clear in the very preamble to the 
Constitution that ``We the people . . . in order to form a more perfect 
union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility . . . do ordain 
and establish this Constitution.'' America cannot be tranquil unless 
its leaders forswear violence and stand up for democracy. That is why I 
voted to convict Donald J. Trump of high crimes and misdemeanors 
against the American people.
  Unfortunately for our country, many of my colleagues did not agree. I 
know this is difficult news for many American patriots, who, just as I 
do, love and cherish our democratic traditions, the rule of law, and 
the centuries-old tradition of the peaceful transfer of power. To that 
majority of Americans, I want to say: We must not lose faith in our 
system of government. We must work all the more diligently to protect 
it.
  Right after Supreme Court decided the Dred Scott case--the most 
odious case in our long legal history--the great abolitionist and 
orator Frederick Douglass gave a speech. I turn to this speech whenever 
I am in need of hope.
  Precisely when slavery seemed to have won a decisive victory, 
Frederick Douglass, himself a former slave, said in that speech that 
his ``hopes were never brighter than now.'' He believed that the world 
would see what a ``scandalous tissue of lies'' the Supreme Court's 
decision in Dred Scott was. And he was right. History holds that Court 
case as one of the most shameful in our history, and I believe it will 
likewise condemn Donald Trump's incitement of the Capitol attack. So 
today I remain hopeful because the people of Nevada and all Americans 
have been able to see the truth for themselves, and they understand 
that Donald J. Trump must never again be trusted to protect our sacred 
democracy.
  Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, the facts and the evidence were 
overwhelming: Former President Donald Trump lied for months to his 
supporters, summoned them to Washington, and incited a violent 
insurrection against our government and our democracy. I voted to 
convict because no reasonable person can listen to all the evidence 
presented and believe otherwise.
  Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, I would like to submit this statement 
for the record regarding the impeachment trial of former President 
Donald Trump. The statement reflects my thoughts on this complicated 
constitutional matter and its implications for future impeachments.
  In 1787, the Articles of Confederation were failing, and our young 
Nation was struggling to address the many challenges it was being 
confronted with in its infancy. A collection of independent States, the 
newly formed country experienced much difficulty with the regulation of 
trade and commerce, foreign affairs, and other basic domestic civil 
issues. With calls for disunion multiplying, delegates to the 
Constitutional Convention met to deliberate and forge a new government 
and with it an Executive to help centralize the powers necessary to 
form a strong republic. Having just shed the bonds of the British 
Monarchy and its infringements upon the liberties the delegates so 
desperately wanted to protect, there was much skepticism toward this 
idea. In order to abate these concerns, the Constitution's Framers 
provided for a means of removing an Executive, a Presidential 
impeachment.
  After much debate over particular wording, article II, section 4 of 
the Constitution adopted by the delegates reads: ``The President, Vice 
President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed 
from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or 
other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.''
  This is the fundamental impeachment provision contained in the 
Constitution and provides the primary evidence as to why the lone 
Article passed out of the House as well as the subsequent trial in the 
Senate, was unconstitutional. As this section shows, impeachment refers 
to ``the President'' and other officials, and it provides that that 
they shall be ``removed from Office.'' Donald J. Trump is no longer the 
President of the United States and therefore can no longer be removed 
from office. He is a private citizen.
  Further evidence that Donald Trump is no longer the President and 
therefore that this trial is unconstitutional can be found within the 
Senate's impeachment authority: Article 1, section 3 provides that 
``When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice 
shall preside.'' Chief Justice John Roberts did not preside over the 
impeachment trial, and instead that role was filled by the senior 
Senator from Vermont, Patrick Leahy. In a statement, Senator Leahy 
himself stated that the President pro tempore of the Senate ``has 
historically presided over Senate impeachment trials of non-
presidents.'' These facts demonstrate that Chief Justice Roberts 
declined to preside over the trial because he did not believe that he 
had a constitutional role and that Senator Leahy acknowledged that 
Donald Trump was no longer an officeholder. Finally, article 1, section 
3 provides, ``Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further 
than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any 
Office of honor.'' This reiterates that removal from office must occur 
before that person is disqualified from holding an office again. If the 
Founders had intended that disqualification be a separate judgment, 
then the Constitution would have clearly stated ``or'' rather than 
``and.'' The Constitution does not give the Senate the authority to try 
a private citizen or to remove him from an office that he no longer 
occupies.
  It also does not give the Senate the authority to disqualify him from 
an office that he was not removed from.
  I voted to acquit former President Donald Trump of the charge of 
inciting

[[Page S950]]

an insurrection for the January 6 Capitol riot because of these basic 
concerns surrounding the constitutionality of the proceeding. The 
impeachment of a private citizen, driven by political obsession, sets a 
very dangerous precedent. What would prevent a Republican-controlled 
Congress from impeaching former President Barack Obama or Secretary of 
State Hillary Clinton? What about historical Presidents such as George 
Washington, whose pivotal legacy no longer appears to meet the moral 
standards of contemporary times? While the political retaliation 
against the President is certain to continue now that he is out of 
office, I am proud to have been a part of the minority in the Senate to 
stand up to this type of unconstitutional behavior and to acquit Donald 
Trump.

                          ____________________