January 21, 2020 - Issue: Vol. 166, No. 12 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 2nd Session

[Pages S287-S288]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              IMPEACHMENT

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, last Thursday, the U.S. Senate crossed 
one of the greatest thresholds that exist in our system of government. 
We began just the third Presidential impeachment trial in American 
history. This is a unique responsibility which the Framers of our 
Constitution knew that the Senate--and only the Senate--could handle. 
Our Founders trusted the Senate to rise above short-term passions and 
factionalism. They trusted the Senate to soberly consider what has 
actually been proven and which outcome best serves the Nation. That is 
a pretty high bar, and you might say that later today, this body will 
take our entrance exam.
  Today, we will consider and pass an organizing resolution that will 
structure the first phase of the trial. This initial step will offer an 
early signal to our country. Can the Senate still serve our founding 
purpose? Can we still put fairness, evenhandedness, and historical 
precedent ahead of the partisan passions of the day? Today's vote will 
contain some answers. The organizing resolution we will put forward 
already has the support of a majority of the Senate. That is because it 
sets up a structure that is fair, evenhanded, and tracks closely with 
past precedents that were established unanimously.
  After pretrial business, the resolution establishes the four things 
that need to happen next. First, the Senate will hear an opening 
presentation from the House managers. Second, we will hear from the 
President's counsel. Third, Senators will be able to seek further 
information by posing written questions to either side through the 
Chief Justice. Fourth, with all that information in hand, the Senate 
will consider whether we feel any additional evidence or witnesses are 
necessary to evaluate whether the House case has cleared or failed to 
clear the high bar of overcoming the presumption of innocence and 
undoing a democratic election.
  The Senate's fair process will draw a sharp contrast with the unfair 
and precedent-breaking inquiry that was carried on by the House of 
Representatives. The House broke with precedent by denying Members of 
the Republican minority the same rights that Democrats had received 
when they were in the minority back in 1998. Here in the Senate, every 
single Senator will have exactly the same rights and exactly the same 
ability to ask questions.
  The House broke with fairness by cutting President Trump's counsel 
out of their inquiry to an unprecedented degree. Here in the Senate, 
the President's lawyers will finally receive a level playing field with 
the House Democrats and will finally be able to present the President's 
case. Finally, some fairness.
  On every point, our straightforward resolution will bring the clarity 
and fairness that everyone deserves--the President of the United 
States, the House of Representatives, and the American people. This is 
the fair roadmap for our trial. We need it in place before we can move 
forward, so the Senate should prepare to remain in session today until 
we complete this resolution and adopt it.
  This basic, four-part structure aligns with the first steps of the 
Clinton impeachment trial in 1999. Twenty-one years ago, 100 Senators 
agreed unanimously that this roadmap was the right way to begin the 
trial. All 100 Senators agreed the proper time to consider the question 
of potential witnesses was after--after--opening arguments and 
Senators' questions.
  Now, some outside voices have been urging the Senate to break with 
precedent on this question. Loud voices, including the leadership of 
the House majority, colluded with Senate Democrats and tried to force 
the Senate to precommit ourselves to seek specific witnesses and 
documents before Senators had even heard opening arguments or even 
asked questions. These are potential witnesses whom the House managers 
themselves--themselves--declined to hear from, whom the House itself 
declined to pursue through the legal system during its own inquiry.
  The House was not facing any deadline. They were free to run whatever

[[Page S288]]

investigation they wanted to run. If they wanted witnesses who would 
trigger legal battles over Presidential privilege, they could have had 
those fights. However, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee 
and the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee decided not to. They 
decided their inquiry was finished and moved right ahead. The House 
chose not to pursue the same witnesses they apparently would now like--
would now like--the Senate to precommit to pursuing ourselves.
  As I have been saying for weeks, nobody--nobody--will dictate Senate 
procedure to U.S. Senators. A majority of us are committed to upholding 
the unanimous, bipartisan Clinton precedent against outside influences 
with respect to the proper timing of these midtrial questions. So if 
any amendments are brought forward to force premature decisions on 
midtrial questions, I will move to table such amendments and protect 
our bipartisan precedent. If a Senator moves to amend the resolution or 
to subpoena specific witnesses or documents, I will move to table such 
motions because the Senate will decide those questions later in the 
trial, just like we did back in 1999.
  Now, today may present a curious situation. We may hear House 
managers themselves agitate for such amendments. We may hear a team of 
managers led by the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees 
chairmen argue that the Senate must precommit ourselves to reopen the 
very investigation they themselves oversaw and voluntarily shut down. 
It would be curious to hear these two House chairmen argue that the 
Senate must precommit ourselves to supplementing their own evidentiary 
record, to enforcing subpoenas they refused to enforce, to 
supplementing a case they themselves have recently described as 
``overwhelming''--``overwhelming''--and ``beyond any reasonable 
doubt.''
  These midtrial questions could potentially take us even deeper into 
even more complex constitutional waters. For example, many Senators, 
including me, have serious concerns about blurring--blurring--the 
traditional role between the House and the Senate within the 
impeachment process. The Constitution divides the power to impeach from 
the power to try. The first belongs solely to the House, and with the 
power to impeach comes the responsibility to investigate.
  The Senate agreeing to pick up and carry on the House's inadequate 
investigation would set a new precedent that could incentivize frequent 
and hasty impeachments from future House majorities. It could 
dramatically change the separation of powers between the House and the 
Senate if the Senate agrees we will conduct both the investigation and 
the trial of an impeachment.
  What is more, some of the proposed new witnesses include executive 
branch officials whose communications with the President and with other 
executive branch officials lie at the very core of the President's 
constitutional privilege. Pursuing those witnesses could indefinitely 
delay the Senate trial and draw our body into a protracted and complex 
legal fight over Presidential privilege. Such litigation could 
potentially have permanent repercussions for the separation of powers 
and the institution of the Presidency that Senators would need to 
consider very, very carefully.
  So the Senate is not about to rush into these weighty questions 
without discussion and without deliberation--without even hearing 
opening arguments first. There were good reasons why 100 out of 100 
Senators agreed two decades ago to cross these bridges when we came to 
them. That is what we will do this time as well. Fair is fair. The 
process was good enough for President Clinton, and basic fairness 
dictates it ought to be good enough for this President as well.
  The eyes are on the Senate. The country is watching to see if we can 
rise to the occasion. Twenty-one years ago, 100 Senators, including a 
number of us who sit in the Chamber today, did just that. The body 
approved a fair, commonsense process to guide the beginning of a 
Presidential impeachment trial. Today, two decades later, this Senate 
will retake that entrance exam. The basic structure we are proposing is 
just as eminently fair and evenhanded as it was back then. The question 
is whether the Senators are themselves ready to be as fair and as 
evenhanded.
  The Senate made a statement 21 years ago. We said that Presidents of 
either party deserve basic justice and a fair process. A challenging 
political moment like today does not make such statements less 
necessary but all the more necessary, in fact.
  So I would say to my colleagues across the aisle: There is no reason 
why the vote on this resolution ought to be remotely partisan. There is 
no reason other than base partisanship to say this particular President 
deserves a radically different rule book than what was good enough for 
a past President of your own party. I urge every single Senator to 
support our fair resolution. I urge everyone to vote to uphold the 
Senate's unanimous bipartisan precedent of a fair process.

                          ____________________