Channel 1 Los Angeles
The Journal If there is no objection, the Journal of proceedings of the trial are approved to date. I ask the Sergeant at Arms to make the proclamation. The Acting Sergeant at Arms, Jennifer A. Hemingway, made the proclamation as follows: Hear ye! Hear ye! All persons are commanded to keep silence, on pain of imprisonment, while the Senate of the United States is sitting for the trial of the Article of Impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives against Donald John Trump, former President of the United States. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. I note the presence in the Senate Chamber of the managers on the part of the House of Representatives and counsel for the former President of the United States. Recognition of the Majority Leader The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic leader is recognized. Providing for Related Procedures Concerning the Article of Impeachment Against Donald John Trump, Former President of the United States Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, in a moment, I will call up a resolution to govern the structure of the second impeachment trial of Donald John Trump. It has been agreed to by the House managers, the former President's counsel, and is cosponsored by the Republican leader. It is bipartisan. It is our solemn constitutional duty to conduct a fair and honest impeachment trial on the charges against former President Trump--the gravest charges ever brought against a President of the United States in American history. This resolution provides for a fair trial, and I urge the Senate to adopt it. Mr. President, I send a resolution to the desk on my behalf and that of the Republican leader for the organizing of the next phases of this trial. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the resolution by title. The legislative clerk read as follows: A resolution (S. Res. 47) to provide for related procedures concerning the article of impeachment against Donald John Trump, former President of the United States. Vote on S. Res. 47 The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the adoption of the resolution. Mr. SCHUMER. I ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk called the roll [Rollcall Vote No. 56] YEAS--89 Baldwin Barrasso Bennet Blackburn Blumenthal Blunt Booker Boozman Braun Brown Burr Cantwell Capito Cardin Carper [[Page S590]] Casey Cassidy Collins Coons Cornyn Cortez Masto Cotton Cramer Crapo Daines Duckworth Durbin Ernst Feinstein Fischer Gillibrand Graham Grassley Hassan Heinrich Hickenlooper Hirono Hoeven Hyde-Smith Inhofe Kaine Kelly Kennedy King Klobuchar Lankford Leahy Lujan Lummis Manchin Markey McConnell Menendez Merkley Moran Murkowski Murphy Murray Ossoff Padilla Peters Portman Reed Risch Romney Rosen Rounds Sanders Sasse Schatz Schumer Shaheen Shelby Sinema Smith Stabenow Sullivan Tester Thune Tillis Toomey Van Hollen Warner Warnock Warren Whitehouse Wicker Wyden Young NAYS--11 Cruz Hagerty Hawley Johnson Lee Marshall Paul Rubio Scott (FL) Scott (SC) Tubervill The PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote, the yeas are 89, the nays are 11. The resolution (S. Res. 47) was agreed to. (The resolution is printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'') Order of Business The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Pursuant to the provisions of S. Res. 47, there shall now be 4 hours of argument by the parties, equally divided, on the question of whether Donald John Trump is subject to the jurisdiction of a Court of Impeachment for acts committed while President of the United States, notwithstanding the expiration of his term in that office. Mr. Manager Raskin, are you a proponent or an opponent of this question? Mr. Manager RASKIN. I am a proponent. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Mr. Castor, are you a proponent or an opponent of this question? Mr. Counsel CASTOR. We are an opponent. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Opponent, thank you. Mr. Manager Raskin, your party may proceed first. You will be able to reserve rebuttal time, if you wish. Mr. Raskin, you are recognized. Managers' Opening Statements Mr. Manager RASKIN. Thank you very much, Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Senate. Good afternoon. My name is Jamie Raskin. It is my honor to represent the people of Maryland's Eighth Congressional District in the House and also to serve as the lead House manager. And Mr. President, we will indeed reserve time for rebuttal. Thank you. Because I have been a professor of constitutional law for three decades, I know there are a lot of people who are dreading endless lectures about the Federalist Papers. Please breathe easy, OK. I remember well W.H. Audens' line that a professor is someone who speaks while other people are sleeping. You will not be hearing extended lectures from me because our case is based on cold, hard facts. It is all about the facts. President Trump has sent his lawyers here today to try to stop the Senate from hearing the facts of this case. They want to call the trial over before any evidence is even introduced. Their argument is that if you commit an impeachable offense in your last few weeks in office, you do it with constitutional impunity; you get away with it. In other words, conduct that would be a high crime and misdemeanor in your first year as President and your second year as President and your third year as President and for the vast majority of your fourth year as President you can suddenly do in your last few weeks in office without facing any constitutional accountability at all. This would create a brandnew January exception to the Constitution of the United States of America--a January exception. And everyone can see immediately why this is so dangerous. It is an invitation to the President to take his best shot at anything he may want to do on his way out the door, including using violent means to lock that door, to hang on to the Oval Office at all costs, and to block the peaceful transfer of power. In other words, the January exception is an invitation to our Founders' worst nightmare. And if we buy this radical argument that President Trump's lawyers advance, we risk allowing January 6 to become our future. And what will that mean for America? Think about it. What will the January exception mean to future generations if you grant it? I will show you. (Video footage of 1-6-2021.) Mr. TRUMP. We will stop the steal. (Applause.) Mr. TRUMP. Today I will lay out just some of the evidence proving that we won this election and we won it by a landslide. This was not a close election. And after this, we're going to walk down--and I will be there with you--we're going to walk down--we're gonna walk down to the Capitol. (People chanting: ``Yeah. Let's take the Capitol.'') Unidentified Male. Take it. Unidentified Male. Take the Capitol. Unidentified Male. We are going to the Capitol, where our problems are. It's that direction. Unidentified Male. Everybody in. This way. This way. Mr. TRUMP. Tens of thousands of votes. They came in in duffel bags. Where the hell did they come from? (People chanting: ``USA.'') Sergeant at Arms: Madam Speaker, the Vice President and the United States Senate. (Applause.) Unidentified Male. Off the sidewalk. Unidentified Male. We outnumber you a million to one out here, dude. Unidentified Male. Take the building. Take the building. Unidentified Male. Let us in. Unidentified Male. Fuck these pigs. Unidentified Male. Join us. Unidentified Male. Let us in. Unidentified Male. That's enough. There's much more coming. Mr. TRUMP. The Constitution says you have to protect our country and you have to protect our Constitution. And you can't vote on fraud. And fraud breaks up everything, doesn't it? When you catch somebody in a fraud, you're allowed to go by very different rules. So I hope Mike has the courage to do what he has to do. Unidentified Male. Talking about you, Pence. Mr. TRUMP. When we fight, we fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore. Unidentified Male. Fuck DC police. Fuck you. Mr. TRUMP. So we are going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I love Pennsylvania Avenue. And we are going to the Capitol, and we are going to try and give our Republicans-- the weak ones because the strong ones don't need any of our help. We are going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. Unidentified Male. Get the fuck out of here, you traitors. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader. Mr. McCONNELL. We are debating a step that has never been taken in American history. Unidentified Male. Fuck you, traitors. Mr. McCONNELL. President Trump claims the election was stolen. The assertions range from specific local allegations to constitutional arguments to sweeping conspiracy theories. (People chanting: ``USA.'') Mr. McCONNELL. But my colleagues, nothing before us proves illegality anywhere near the massive scale--the massive scale--that would have tipped the entire election. Unidentified Female. Our house, our house, our house, our house. (People chanting: ``Fight for Trump.'') Unidentified Male. Fuck you, police. Unidentified Male. Let's go. Let's go. Officer GOODMAN. Second floor. Unidentified Male. You are gonna beat us all? Are you gonna beat us all? Mr. LANKFORD. My challenge today is not about the good people of Arizona. The PRESIDING pro tempore. The Senate will stand in recess until the call of the Chair. Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you. (People chanting: ``Woot, woot.'') Mr. GOSAR. Madam--Mr. Speaker, can I have order in the Chamber. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The House will be in order. Unidentified Male. Go, go, go. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The House will be in order. OK. (People chanting: ``Stop the steal.'') (People chanting: ``Traitor Pence.'') (People chanting: ``Stop the steal.'') Unidentified Male. They are leaving. They are leaving. (People chanting: ``Break it down.'') Unidentified Male. Get down. Let's go. Come on. Where the fuck are they? (People chanting: ``No Trump, no peace.'') Unidentified Male. Let's go. We need fresh patriots. (People chanting: ``Traitors.'') (People chanting: ``Fight for Trump.'') Mr. TRUMP. There has never been a time like this where such a thing happened, where they could take it away from all of us--from me, from you, from our country. This was a fraudulent election, but we can't play into the hands of these people. We have to have peace. So go home. We love you. You're very special. You've seen what happens. You've seen the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil. [[Page S591]] I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace. (Audience chants: ``USA.'') Your lies in your own cities, your own counties. Storm your own capitol buildings. We take down every one of these motherfuckers. Hang them! Mr. Manager RASKIN. Senators, the President was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives on January 13 for doing that. You ask what a ``high crime and misdemeanor'' is under our Constitution. That is a high crime and misdemeanor. If that is not an impeachable offense, then there is no such thing. And if the President's arguments for a January exception are upheld, then even if everyone agrees that he is culpable for these events, even if the evidence proves, as we think it definitively does, that the President incited a violent insurrection on the day Congress met to finalize the Presidential election, he would have you believe there is absolutely nothing the Senate can do about it--no trial, no facts. He wants you to decide that the Senate is powerless at that point. That can't be right. The transition of power is always the most dangerous moment for democracies. Every historian will tell you that. We just saw it in the most astonishing way. We lived through it. And you know what? The Framers of our Constitution knew it. That is why they created a Constitution with an oath written into it that binds the President from his very first day in office until his very last day in office and every day in between. Under that Constitution and under that oath, the President of the United States is forbidden to commit high crimes and misdemeanors against the people at any point that he is in office. Indeed, that is one specific reason the impeachment, conviction, and disqualification of powers exist: to protect us against Presidents who try to overrun the power of the people in their elections and replace the rule of law with the rule of mobs. These powers must apply even if the President commits his offenses in his final weeks in office. In fact, that is precisely when we need them the most because that is when elections get attacked. Everything that we know about the language of the Constitution, the Framers' original understanding and intent, prior Senate practice, and common sense, confirms this rule. Let's start with the text of the Constitution. Article I, section 2 gives the House the sole power of impeachment when the President commits high crimes and misdemeanors. We exercised that power on January 13. The President, it is undisputed, committed his offense while he was President, and it is undisputed that we impeached him while he was President. There can be no doubt that this is a valid and legitimate impeachment, and there can be no doubt that the Senate has the power to try this impeachment. We know this because article I, section 3 gives the Senate the sole power to try all impeachments. The Senate has the power, the sole power, to try all impeachments. ``All'' means all, and there are no exceptions to the rule. Because the Senate has jurisdiction to try all impeachments, it most certainly has jurisdiction to try this one. It is really that simple. The vast majority of constitutional scholars who studied the question and weighed in on the proposition being advanced by the President, this January exception, heretofore unknown, agree with us, and that includes the Nation's most prominent conservative legal scholars, including former Tenth Circuit Judge Michael McConnell; the cofounder of the Federalist Society, Steven Calabresi; Ronald Reagan's Solicitor General Charles Fried; luminary Washington lawyer Charles Cooper, among hundreds of other constitutional lawyers and professors. I commend the people I named--their recent writings to you in the newspapers over the last several days. And all of the key precedents, along with detailed explanation of the constitutional history and textual analysis, appear in the trial brief we filed last week and the reply brief that we filed very early this morning. I will spare you a replay, but I want to highlight a few key points from constitutional history that strike me as compelling in foreclosing President Trump's argument that there is a secret January exception hidden away in the Constitution. The first point comes from English history, which matters because, as Hamilton wrote, England provided ``the model from which the idea of this institution has been borrowed.'' And it would have been immediately obvious to anyone familiar with that history that former officials could be held accountable for their abuses while in office. Every single impeachment of a government official that occurred during the Framers' lifetime concerned a former official--a former official. Indeed, the most famous of these impeachments occurred while the Framers gathered in Philadelphia to write the Constitution. It was the impeachment of Warren Hastings, the former Governor-general of the British colony of Bengal and a corrupt guy. The Framers knew all about it, and they strongly supported the impeachment. In fact, the Hastings case was invoked by name at the convention. It was the only specific impeachment case that they discussed at the convention. It played a key role in their adoption of the high crimes and misdemeanors standard. And even though everyone there surely knew that Hastings had left office 2 years before his impeachment trial began, not a single Framer--not one--raised a concern when Virginian George Mason held up the Hastings impeachment as a model for us in the writing of our Constitution. The early State constitutions supported the idea too. Every single State constitution in the 1780s either specifically said that former officials could be impeached or were entirely consistent with the idea. In contrast, not a single State constitution prohibite trials of former officials. As a result, there was an overwhelming presumption in favor of allowing legislatures to hold former officials accountable in this way. Any departure from that norm would have been a big deal, and yet there is no sign anywhere that that ever happened. Some States, including Delaware, even confined impeachment only to officials who had already left office. This confirms that removal was never seen as the exclusive purpose of impeachment in America. The goal was always about accountability, protecting society, and deterring official corruption. Delaware matters for another reason. Writing about impeachment in the Federalist Papers, Hamilton explained that the President of America would stand upon no better ground than a Governor of New York and upon worse ground than the Governors of Maryland and Delaware. He thus emphasized that the President is even more accountable than officials in Delaware, where, as I noted, the constitution clearly allowed impeachment of former officials. And nobody involved in the convention ever said that the Framers meant to reject this widely accepted, deeply rooted understanding of the word ``impeachment'' when they wrote it into our Constitution. The convention debates instead confirm this interpretation. There, while discussing impeachment, the Framers repeatedly returned to the threat of Presidential corruption aimed directly to elections, the heart of self-government. Almost perfectly anticipating President Trump, William Davey of North Carolina explained impeachment was for a President who spared ``no effort or means whatever to get himself reelected.'' Hamilton, in Federalist 1, said the greatest danger to republics and the liberties of the people comes from political opportunists who begin as demagogues and end as tyrants and the people who are encouraged to follow them. President Trump may not know a lot about the Framers, but they certainly knew a lot about him. Given the Framers' intense focus on danger to elections and the peaceful transfer of power, it is inconceivable that they designed impeachment to be a dead letter in the President's final days in office when opportunities to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power would be most tempting and most dangerous, as we just saw. Thus, as a matter of history and original understanding, there is no merit to President Trump's claim that he can incite an insurrection and then insist weeks later that the Senate lacks the power to even hear evidence at a trial, to even hold a trial. The true rule was stated by former President John Quincy Adams when he categorically declared: [[Page S592]] I hold myself, so long as I have the breath of life in my body, amenable to impeachment by [the] House for everything I did during the time I held any public office. When he comes up in a minute, my colleague Mr. Neguse of Colorado will further pursue the relevant Senate precedents and explain why this body's practice has been supported by the text of the Constitution, and Mr. Cicilline of Rhode Island will then respond to the fallacies presented by the President's counsel. After these gentlemen speak, I will return to discuss the importance--the fundamental importance of the Senate rejecting President Trump's argument for the preservation of democratic self-government and the rule of law in the United States of America. I now turn it over to my colleague, Mr. Neguse of Colorado. Mr. Manager NEGUSE. Mr. President, distinguished Senators, my name is Joe Neguse, and I represent Colorado's Second Congressional District in the United States Congress. Like many of you, I am an attorney. I practiced law before I came to Congress, tried a lot of different cases, some more unique than others, certainly never a case as important as this one, nor a case with such a heavy and weighty constitutional question for you all to decide. Thankfully, as Lead Manager Raskin so thoroughly explained, the Framers have answered that question for you, for us, and you don't need to be a constitutional scholar to know that the argument President Trump asks you to adopt is not just wrong, it is dangerous. And you don't have to take my word for it. This body, the world's greatest deliberative body, the United States Senate, has reached that same conclusion in one form or another over the past 200 years on multiple occasions that we will go through. Over 150 constitutional scholars, experts, judges--conservative, liberal, you name it--they overwhelmingly have reached the same conclusion, that, of course, you can try, convict, and disqualify a former President. And that makes sense because the text of the Constitution makes clear there is no January exception to the impeachment power; that Presidents can't commit grave offenses in their final days and escape any congressional response. That is not how our Constitution works. Let's start with the precedent, with what has happened in this very Chamber. I would like to focus on just two cases. I will go through them quickly. One of them is the Nation's very first impeachment case, which actually was of a former official. In 1797, about a decade after our country ratified our Constitution, there was a Senator from Tennessee by the name of William Blount, who was caught conspiring with the British to try to sell Florida and Louisiana. Ultimately, President Adams caught him. He turned over the evidence to Congress. Four days later, the House of Representatives impeached him. A day after that, this body, the United States Senate, expelled him from office, so he was very much a former official. Despite that, the House went forward with its impeachment proceeding in order to disqualify him from ever again holding Federal office. And so the Senate proceeded with the trial with none other than Thomas Jefferson presiding. Now, Blount argued that the Senate couldn't proceed because he had already been expelled. But here is the interesting thing: He expressly disavowed any claim that former officials can't ever be impeached. And unlike President Trump, he was very clear that he respected and understood that he could not even try to argue that ridiculous position. Even impeached Senator Blount recognized the inherent absurdity of that view. Here is what he said: I certainly never shall contend, that an officer may first commit an offense, and afterwards avoid by resigning his office. That is the point. And there was no doubt because the Founders were around to confirm that that was their intent and the obvious meaning of what is in the Constitution. Fast-forward 80 years later--arguably the most important precedent that this body has to consider--the trial of former Secretary of War William Belknap. I am not going to go into all the details, but, in short, in 1876, the House discovered that he was involved in a massive kickback scheme. Hours before the House Committee had discovered this conduct, released its report documenting the scheme, Belknap literally rushed to the White House to resign, tender his resignation to President Ulysses Grant to avoid any further inquiry into his misconduct, and, of course, to avoid being disqualified from holding Federal office in the future. Later that day, aware of the resignation, what did the House do? The House moved forward and unanimously impeached him, making clear its power to impeach a former official. And when his case reached the Senate--this body--Belknap made the exact same argument that President Trump is making today, that you all lack jurisdiction, any power, to try him because he is a former official. Now, many Senators at that time, when they heard that argument-- literally, they were sitting in the same chair as you all are sitting in today--they were outraged by that argument--outraged. You can read their comments in the Record. They knew it was a dangerous, dangerous argument with dangerous implications. It would literally mean that a President could betray their country, leave office, and avoid impeachment and disqualification entirely. And that is why, in the end, the United States Senate decisively voted that the Constitution required them to proceed with the trial. The Belknap case is clear precedent that the Senate must proceed with this trial since it rejected pretrial dismissal, affirmed its jurisdiction, and moved to a full consideration of the merits. Now, Belknap ultimately was not convicted but only after a thorough public inquiry into his misconduct, which created a record of his wrongdoing. It ensured his accountability and deterred anyone else from considering such corruption by making clear that it was intolerable. The trial served important constitutional purposes. Now, given that precedent that I described to you, given all that that precedent imparts, you could imagine my surprise--Lead Manager Raskin's surprise--when we were reviewing a trial brief filed by the President in which his counsel insists that the Senate actually didn't decide anything in the Belknap case. They say--these are not my words. I will quote from their trial brief: [It] cannot be read as foreclosing an argument that they never dealt with. Never dealt with? The Senate didn't debate this question for 2 hours. The Senate debated this very question for 2 weeks. The Senate spent an additional 2 weeks deliberating on the jurisdictional question. And at the end of those deliberations, they decided decisively that the Senate has jurisdiction and that it could proceed, that it must proceed to a full trial. By the way, unlike Belknap, as we know, President Trump was not impeached for run-of-the-mill corruption, misconduct. He was impeached for inciting a violent insurrection--an insurrection where people died in this building, an insurrection that desecrated our seat of government. And if Congress were just to stand completely aside in the face of such an extraordinary crime against the Republic, it would invite future Presidents to use their power without any fear of accountability. And none of us--I know this--none of us, no matter our party or our politics, wants that. Now, we have gone through the highlights of the precedent, and I think it is important that you know, as Lead Manager Raskin mentioned, that scholars, overwhelmingly, that reviewed this same precedent have all come to the same conclusion that the Senate must hear this case. Let's go through just a few short examples. To start, all of us, I know, are familiar with the Federalist Society. Some of you may know Steven Calabresi personally. He is the co-founder of the Federalist Society. Actually, he was the chairman of the board in 2019. He was the first president of the Yale Federalist Society chapter board, a position I understand Senator Hawley later held. Here is what Mr. Calabresi has to say. On January 21, he issued a public letter stating: Our carefully considered views of the law lead all of us to agree that the Constitution permits the impeachment, conviction, and [[Page S593]] disqualification of former officers, including presidents. And by the way, he is not the only one, as Lead Manager Raskin said-- President Reagan's former Solicitor General, among many others. Another prominent conservative scholar known to many of you, again, personally is a former Tenth Court of Appeals judge--my circuit--Judge Michael McConnell. He was nominated by President George W. Bush. He was confirmed by this body unanimously. Senator Hatch--many of you served with--he had this to say about Judge McConnell, that he ``is an honest man. He calls it as he sees it, and he is beholden to no one and no group.'' Well, what does Judge McConnell have to say about the question that you are debating this afternoon? He said the following: Given that the impeachment of President Trump was legitimate, the text makes clear that the Senate has power to try that impeachment. You heard Lead Manager Raskin mention another lawyer, Chuck Cooper, a prominent conservative lawyer here in Washington. He has represented former Attorney General Jeff Sessions and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy. He issued an editorial just 2 days ago, very powerful, observing that ``scholarship on this question has matured substantially'' and that, ultimately, arguments that President Trump is championing are beset by ``serious weaknesses.'' Finally, I have gone through a lot of scholars. I will finish on this one. There is another scholar that I know some of you know and some of you have actually spoken with recently. Up until just a few weeks ago, he was a recognized champion--champion--of the view that the Constitution authorizes the impeachment of former officials. And that is Professor Jonathan Turley. Let me show you what I mean. These are his words. First, in a very detailed study, thorough study, he explained that ``the resignation from office does not prevent trial on articles of impeachment.'' Those are Professor Turley's words. Same piece. He celebrated the Belknap trial. He described it as ``a corrective measure that helped the system regain legitimacy.'' He wrote another article--he has written several on this topic. This one is actually a 146-page study, very detailed. In that study, he said that the decision in Belknap was ``correct in its view that impeachments historically had extended to former officials, such as Warren Hastings,'' who you heard Lead Manager Raskin describe. In fact, as you can see, Professor Turley argued the House could impeach and the Senate could have tried Richard Nixon after he resigned. His quote on this is very telling: ``Future Presidents could not assume that mere resignation would avoid a trial of their conduct'' in the United States Senate. Finally, last quote from Professor Turley that ``no man in no circumstance, can escape the account, which he owes to the laws of his country.'' Not my words, not Lead Manager Raskin's words--Professor Jonathan Turley's words. I agree with him because he is exactly right. Now, a question one might reasonably ask after going through all those quotes from such noted jurists and scholars: Why is there such agreement on this topic? Well, the reason is pretty simple. It is because it is what the Constitution says. I want to walk you through three provisions of the Constitution that make clear that the Senate must try this case. First, let's start with what the Constitution says about Congress's power in article I. You heard Lead Manager Raskin make this point, but it is worth underscoring. Article I, section 2 gives the House ``sole Power of Impeachment.'' Article I, section 3 gives the Senate the ``sole Power to try all Impeachments.'' Based on President Trump's argument, one would think that language includes caveats, exceptions, but it doesn't. It doesn't say ``Impeachment of current civil officers.'' It doesn't say ``Impeachment of those still in office.'' The Framers didn't mince words. They provided express, absolute, unqualified grants of jurisdictional power to the House to impeach and the Senate to try all impeachments--not some, all. Former Judge McConnell, the judge that we talked about earlier, he provides very effective textual analysis of this provision. You can see it up here on the slide. I will just give you the highlight. He says-- and I will quote. This is Judge McConnell: Given that the impeachment of Mr. Trump was legitimate, the text makes clear that the Senate has power to try that impeachment. Now, again, here is what--it is pretty interesting to me at least. We presented this argument in our trial brief, which we filed over a week ago, where we laid it out step by step so that you could consider it and so that opposing counsel could consider it as well. We received President Trump's response yesterday, and the trial brief offers no rebuttal to this point--none. In fairness, I can't think of any convincing response. I mean, the Constitution is just exceptionally clear on this point. Now, perhaps they will have something to say today about it, but they did not yesterday. There is another provision worth mentioning here because there has been a lot of confusion about it. I am going to try to clear this up. This is the provision on removal and disqualification. We all know the Senate imposes a judgment only when it convicts. Up on the screen, you will see article I, section 3, clause 7. With that in mind, the language says that if the Senate convicts, the judgment ``shall not extend further than'' removal and disqualification. That is it. The meaning is clear. The Senate has the power to impose removal, which only applies to current officials. And, separately, it has the power to impose disqualification, which obviously applies to both current and former officers. But it doesn't have the power to go any further than that. Now, as I understand President Trump's argument, they believe that this language somehow says that disqualification can only follow the removal of a current officer, but it doesn't. That interpretation essentially rewrites the Constitution. It adds words that aren't there. I mean, after all, the Constitution does not say ``removal from office and then disqualification.'' It doesn't say ``removal from office followed by disqualification.'' It simply says the Senate can't do more than two possible sentences: removal and disqualification. This, by the way, is not the first time that this direct question has been debated in this Chamber. One hundred forty-six years ago, during the Belknap trial, Senator George Edmunds of Vermont was one of the most prestigious Republican Senators of his time. He sat right where Senator Grassley sits today. He zeroed in on this exact point during the Belknap trial. This is his quote: A prohibition against doing more than two things cannot be turned into a command to do both or neither. And just imagine the consequences of such an absurd interpretation of the Constitution. If President Trump were right about that language, then officials could commit the most extraordinary, destructive offenses against the American people--high crimes and misdemeanors. They would have total control over whether they could ever be impeached and, if they are, whether the Senate can try the case. If they want to escape any public inquiry into their misconduct or the risk of disqualification from future office, then it is pretty simple. They could just resign 1 minute before the House impeaches or even 1 minute before the Senate trial or they could resign during the Senate trial if it is not looking so well. That would effectively erase ``disqualification'' from the Constitution. It would put wrongdoers in charge of whether the Senate can try them. The third and final reason why President Trump must stand trial: the provision of article I of the Constitution. You will see here on the screen that the Constitution twice describes the accused in an impeachment trial. Here is what I want you to focus on. The interesting thing is notice the words. It refers to a ``person'' and a ``party'' being impeached. Now, again, we know that the Framers gave a lot of thought to the words that they chose. They even had a style committee during the Constitutional Convention. They could [[Page S594]] have written ``civil officers'' here. They did that elsewhere in the Constitution. That would, ultimately, have limited impeachment trials to current officials, but, instead, they used broader language to describe who could be tried by the United States Senate. So who could be put on trial for impeachment other than civil officers? Who else could a ``person'' or a ``party'' be? Well, really, there is only one possible answer: former officers. And, again, that actually might explain why, during the Belknap trial, Senator Thomas Bayard, of Delaware, who later became the Secretary of State for the United States--he sat right where Senator Carper is sitting now--he found this point so compelling that he felt compelled to speak out on it. During the trial, he concluded that the Constitution must allow the impeachment and trial of people and parties who are not civil officers, and the only group that could possibly encompass was former officials like Belknap and, of course, here, like President Trump. Just so we are clear, in full disclosure, this is another argument that was not addressed by President Trump in his rebuttal, and we know why they didn't: because their argument doesn't square with the plain text of the Constitution. There is one provision that President Trump relies on almost exclusively, article II, section 4. I am sure you will see it when they present their arguments. Their argument is that the language you will see on the screen somehow prevents you from holding this trial, by making removal from office an absolute requirement--but, again, where does the language say that? Where does it say anything in that provision about your jurisdiction? In fact, this provision isn't even in the part of the Constitution that addresses your authority. It is in article II, not article I, and it certainly says nothing about former officials. President Trump's interpretation doesn't square with history, originalism, textualism. In fact, even Chuck Cooper, the famous conservative lawyer I mentioned earlier, with clients like the House minority leader, has concluded that this provision of the Constitution that President Trump relies on ``cuts against'' his position--his words--and that is because, as Cooper says, article II, section 4 means just what it says. The first half describes what an official must do to be impeached--namely, commit high crimes and misdemeanors--and the second half describes what happens when civil officers of the United States, including the sitting President, are convicted: removal from office. That is it. In Cooper's words: It simply establishes what is known in criminal law as a ``mandatory minimum'' punishment.