January 14, 2020 - Issue: Vol. 166, No. 8 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 2nd Session
All in House sectionPrev43 of 61Next
STILL I RISE: SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL; Congressional Record Vol. 166, No. 8
(House of Representatives - January 14, 2020)
Text available as:
Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.
[Pages H229-H231] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] STILL I RISE: SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 3, 2019, the gentleman from Texas [[Page H230]] (Mr. Green) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, and still I rise. I rise because I love my country, and I rise today to talk about impeachment and the trial thereof, the trial associated with impeachment. Madam Speaker, there is much to be said. However, I assure all that I will not say it all. I do want to call to the attention of those who are paying attention that we are now about to embark upon a trial in the Senate. Impeachment was a function of the House of Representatives pursuant to Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, and the trial is a function of the Senate pursuant to Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution. The trial is to take place in the Senate. The House has done its job. The House acts similar, not the same, but it behaves in a fashion similar to that of a grand jury--similar but not the same. The House determines whether there is enough evidence for a trial to take place, simply put--similar but not the same as a grand jury. Then it becomes a function of the Senate to have a trial. The Senate is the only place on planet Earth where a President can be tried. The President will not be punished at this trial, assuming that the President is found guilty. There is no punishment. The President can be removed from office, but there won't be any punishment similar to what we call punishment, as it were, with a court, for example, wherein you might be fined or accorded some sort of incarceration. None of that has to do with removal from office. There was a big debate about this trial of the President. In Federalist Paper No. 65, Alexander Hamilton speaks at great length about the trial of the President. It was contemplated in making a final decision that perhaps the Supreme Court would be the place to try the President. With much debate, without going into the nuances, the details, this was not concluded to be the appropriate place for a trial of the President. It was finally concluded that the trial would take place in the Senate but that, in doing this, there would be a presiding officer, and this person would be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The Senate tries the case with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding. In Federalist Paper No. 65, there was much talk about this trial and how it might move forward. Clearly, the Framers of the Constitution contemplated that the trial would receive evidence, that there would be evidence received. Clearly, a fair reading of Federalist Paper No. 65 would cause one to conclude that. Of course, the Federalist Papers, as it were, there was a conclusion drawn that in this trial, there would be evidence presented. The evidence would be presented, of course, by the House. We call the persons presenting the evidence managers. They will act as lawyers. The Senate will receive this evidence. It was anticipated, in my opinion, after perusing Federalist Paper No. 65, that the trial could consist of evidence beyond what the House might present because at a trial, it is expected that one might call witnesses and present documents, present additional evidence. It is my opinion that this is especially true, and I believe a good many constitutional scholars agree with me, this is especially true if it is known that there are witnesses who have evidence that would be of great value, witnesses who have evidence, material evidence that is relevant, would be of great value in coming to a just conclusion, a trial that would have a just conclusion, a trial that would afford not only the accused to have witnesses to testify but also the managers to have witnesses to testify. You see, the country, the United States of America, is entitled to a fair trial. The President should have a fair trial, but the people should have a fair trial. If the trial is to be fair in the Senate and there are witnesses available, then those witnesses ought to be called. If the witnesses are not called, and it is known that there are witnesses, then the question becomes: What are we doing? What is the Senate doing? I say ``we''; I mean as a country. I am not a Senator, obviously. What is the Senate doing? If there are witnesses who are available and are willing to testify, and the Senate decides to simply dismiss the case, what is the Senate doing? Before I answer that question, let me just share this with you. The truth be told, not only will the President be on trial but also the Senate would be on trial. I will answer what the Senate is doing, but I must say first that the Senate is on trial. People are watching not only here in the United States of America but across the globe. The world wants to see the kind of justice that the United States of America accords. The world wants to know whether the United States of America will pursue justice such that witnesses who are material and relevant will have the opportunity to testify. {time} 1500 What is the Senate doing if the Senate declines to hear from these relevant witnesses? The Senate is having something less than a trial. No question, because a trial contemplates witnesses and evidence. If the Senate is going to have what may amount to a briefing, then there is no need to have Chief Justice Roberts. The Framers constituted a trial. They contemplated a trial with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding. If we are going to have only a briefing, why have the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court present? This would be tantamount to a briefing, to simply call the Senate to order, receive some comments, some statements, and perhaps whatever the House has sent over. But knowing that a witness is available--multiple witnesses, I might add--and not call any of the multiple witnesses would be tantamount to a briefing. If the Senate but engages in a briefing, what would we call the results of a briefing? In my opinion, justice delayed, if not denied-- justice delayed, if not denied. The Framers of the Constitution contemplated a trial. Federalist Paper No. 65 contemplates a trial. The Senate acts as the triers of fact. They conclude with their findings with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding. One can easily conclude that the simple dismissal of a case, wherein others are available to give testimony, would cause something less than a trial and, quite frankly, will be an embarrassment to the Senate, to the country, and to our sense of justice. It would be an embarrassment to do such a thing. As I have read in various publications, this is being contemplated, to simply dismiss the case knowing that there are additional witnesses to be heard. Could it be that in so doing, whether by accident or with intent, whether by accident or design, if this occurs, could it be that we are now seeing a coverup, a coverup if you know that there are witnesses who are available and who would testify but you denied them the opportunity to testify by simply dismissing the case? Are you participating in a coverup? I pray that there are enough Senators who will say: ``I will not participate in what appears to be a coverup,'' and will ask for witnesses to testify. If a majority of the Senators should so ask, there will be testimony presented. We live in a world where it is not enough for things to be right. They must also look right. It would not and will not look right if the Senate knows that there are witnesses available and declines to call them. It won't look right. Some would say it is right because the Constitution doesn't have strict guidelines, in terms of how the Senate is to perform. But I assure you, the Framers contemplated a trial. If there is no trial, a simple dismissal, there are many people who will say that the Senate has engaged in a coverup because evidence that should be revealed has been concealed, has been covered, has been pushed aside. The Senate, in my opinion, will do our country a disservice if it simply dismisses this cause. It is my belief that the Senate will not dismiss the cause summarily. It is my belief that the Senate consists of honorable people who are going to take [[Page H231]] an oath, and they are going to abide by the oath that they will take. I was a judge of a small claims justice court. I will tell you that I marveled at how people, after taking the oath as jurors, would rise above the many things that would ordinarily influence them and see to it that justice was done. It is a wonderful thing to see how people take an oath and take that oath seriously. I believe that a majority of the Senators will take the oath seriously, and I believe that there will be witnesses, or at least one, called to testify. I believe that this will happen because I think that the Senators who will do this will understand that justice is in their hands and that this justice has much to do with what the witness will say, but it also has much to do with the balance of power that they are there to protect. The Senators are there to protect the balance of power as it relates to the cause that has been presented to them. The Senators will have to decide whether or not the House of Representatives is going to become less than a coequal branch of government because one of the articles deals with the fact that the President has blocked the appearance of witnesses in the House and has blocked the presentation of certain evidence, documents, if you will, in the House. Now it is left up to the Senate to determine whether or not they are going to allow a President to block the presentation of evidence and walk away without some consequence. Blocking evidence without consequence, that is going to be one of the considerations before the Senate. Will you protect the balance of power? Will you assure this country that no one is above the law? Madam Speaker, I assure you that if the Senators do not take this cause seriously and simply dismiss it out of hand, they are simply saying that the President is above the law. The President deserves a trial. The country deserves a trial. We ought to have witnesses presented. There ought to be some degree of deliberation. The Senate acts as the trial jury, the petit jury, if you will, similar to a petit jury, a trial jury, but not the same. It is not the same because they can make decisions about whether evidence will be presented. I had a constituent ask me whether or not the Chief Justice could decide to receive the evidence, and I had to tell the truth. The response is that the ultimate judge of whether evidence will be received will be 51 Senators. The Chief Justice can make rulings, but the Senators can overrule the Chief Justice with a vote. The world is watching, and the House of Representatives hangs in the balance, as it relates to the balance of power. If this Senate simply dismisses out of hand, we will have a President with no guardrails. There will be no guardrails. It doesn't matter how you feel about the President. The question is: How do you feel about the country that we love? How do you feel about the notion that no one is above the law, a very bedrock principle in this country? How do you feel about this? What happens once can happen twice, and what happens twice can happen multiple times. We should not allow this to take place. My clarion call to my brethren, my friends, the ladies and gentlepersons of the Senate, is: Do more than have a briefing. Do more than simply dismiss the cause out of hand. There will have to be 51 who will conclude that there will be more than a briefing, that there will be a trial. I assure you that there are many of us who are waiting to see what will happen. Some of us will traverse great distances across the country to be in Washington, D.C., to make it clear that they want to be a part of this history for various and sundry reasons. The world is watching. We have a duty, a responsibility, and an obligation to the country to have a fair trial, a trial where witnesses are called and witnesses are examined. This is not unusual. This is what every person in this country anticipates if he or she is charged with an offense. Why would we have the President be above this basic premise of calling witnesses to have a fair trial? Why would we have one person in the country who is above this, above the law? Every person is subjected to the law in this country. Madam Speaker, I will close with these words: It is not enough for things to be right. They must also look right. If the Senate does this simply because it has the power, meaning if the Senate simply dismisses because it has the power and doesn't call witnesses, that won't look right, and in my opinion, it won't be right. The Senate has a responsibility to have a trial, and witnesses must be called. I do believe that witnesses will be called. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. ____________________
All in House sectionPrev43 of 61Next