Impeachment

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 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 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source