The President pro tempore will convene as the court of Impeachment Trial of Donald J. Trump

Channel 1 Los Angeles

2/10/2021

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.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.