Executive Session
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, now, in the aftermath of the U.S. military operation that took out Iranian General Soleimani, we need to be asking the right questions and remain clear-eyed about what might happen next.
I have grown increasingly concerned about the strike against Soleimani and what it might mean for the safety of American troops in the region and the future of America's involvement in the Middle East. The President has promised that he would not drag the American people into another endless war in the Middle East. The President's actions, however, have seemingly increased the risk that we could be dragged into exactly such a war.
Unfortunately, this contradiction is far too typical of how the President has conducted foreign policy over the last 3 years. The President's decision making has been erratic, and it has been impulsive, without regard to the long-term consequences of America's actions abroad. He prefers reality show diplomacy and photo ops with foreign leaders to substantive progress. As a result, the President's foreign policy has been dangerously incompetent.
When you look at nearly every hotspot around the globe, he has made the situation worse, not better. North Korea--3 years after failed ``negotiations,'' North Korea remains belligerent, defiant, and intent on developing ICBMs. Syria--after years of sacrifice and struggle against ISIS, one impulsive decision to withdraw our troops risks undoing all our progress. Russia--every meeting the President holds with Putin always seems to result in Putin's coming out ahead. We are now at risk of the situation with Iran heading for a similar deterioration.
The President's foreign policy actions so far in North Korea, in Syria, in Russia, and just about everywhere else can be described in two words: ``erratic'' and ``impulsive.'' I am worried that a few months from now his Iran policy will be described in exactly the same way.
As the President's circle of advisers has gotten smaller and more insular and as nearly all of the dissident voices have been forced out of the administration, there seems to be no one left to tell the President no. At times like this, skeptical voices need to ask the right questions, and Congress--Congress must provide a check on the President and assert our constitutional role in matters of war and peace.
In my view, President Trump does not--does not--have authority for a war with Iran. There are several important pieces of legislation by both Senators Kaine and Sanders to limit further escalation with Iran and assert Congress's prerogative on these matters. Both should receive votes in the Senate.
I plan to ask pointed questions of this administration at a briefing for the Gang of 8 later this afternoon. We need answers to some crucial questions, and there are many. Here are the two that are most on Americans' minds: What are Iran's most probable responses to the strike on Soleimani? Are we prepared for each of these responses, and how effective will our counterresponses be?
There was some alarming confusion yesterday about the military's position on the future of U.S. troops in Iraq. What, in truth, does the Soleimani strike mean for the long-term stability of Iraq and our presence there? How does the administration plan to prevent an escalation of hostilities and the potential for large-scale confrontation with Iran in the Middle East? These are just some of the questions the administration has to answer. The safety and security of our American troops and of the American people are at stake. Impeachment
Madam President, on impeachment, this morning, I return to the most pressing question facing my colleagues at this moment: Will the Senate conduct a fair impeachment trial of the President of the United States of America?
The Framers suspected that any impeachment would ignite the passions of the public and naturally would create partisans who are either sympathetic or inimical to the President's interests. That is why the Framers gave the Senate the responsibility to try impeachment cases. When it came to a matter as serious as the potential removal of a President, they believed the Senate was the only body of government with enough independence to rise above partisan considerations and act with the necessary impartiality. Will we live up to that vision?
Right now, the Republican leader and I have very different ideas about what it means to conduct a fair trial. Democrats believe a fair trial considers all the relevant facts and allows for witnesses and documents. We don't know what the evidence will say. It may exculpate the President. It may further incriminate him. We only want a trial that examines all the facts and lets the chips fall where they may.
The Republican leader, in contrast, apparently believes that a trial should feature no witnesses, no relevant documents, and proceed according to the desires of the White House, the defendant. The Republican leader seems more concerned with being able to claim he went through the constitutional motions than actually carrying out our constitutional duty.
Because the Republican leader has been completely unwilling to help get the facts for a Senate trial, the question will have to be decided by the majority of Senators in this Chamber. That means four Republican Senators at any point can compel the Senate to call the fact witnesses and subpoena the relevant documents that we know will shed additional light on the truth.
I have heard several arguments from the other side as to why we shouldn't vote on witnesses and documents at the outset of the trial. The Republican leader and several Republican Senators have suggested that each side complete their arguments, and then we will decide on witnesses.
This idea is as backward as it sounds. Trials should be informed by witnesses and documents; they are not an afterthought. Their reasoning and McConnell's reasoning has an ``Alice in Wonderland'' logic to it: Let's have each side make their case, he says, and then vote on whether the prosecutors and defense should have all the available evidence to make those cases.
We know what is going on here. Our Republican colleagues, even Leader McConnell, knows that the American people want witnesses and documents. Sixty percent of Republicans do. They are afraid to say no, but they don't want to vote on them because that might offend the defendant in this trial, President Trump, so they are trying to kick the can down the road.
It is a strange position for Republican colleagues to take. They are willing to kick the can down the road, as I said, on questions of witnesses and documents, but they are not willing to say when or if they will ever support it.
Just yesterday, one of the four witnesses we have requested, former National Security Advisor Bolton, said he is ready to testify and has new information to share related to the case at hand. Republicans were dodging and twisting themselves into pretzels trying to explain why someone with direct knowledge of what the President did shouldn't testify under oath immediately.
I believe that illustrates the fundamental weakness of the Republican position. None of our Republican colleagues can advance an argument about why this evidence shouldn't be part of a trial from the beginning.
To put it another way, none of our Republicans have advanced an argument about why it would make sense for the Senate to wait until the end of the trial to obtain all the evidence.
Make no mistake, on the question of witnesses and documents, Republicans may run, but they can't hide. There will be votes at the beginning on whether to call the four witnesses we have proposed and subpoena the documents we have identified. America and the eyes of history will be watching what my Republican colleagues do.
Another argument I have heard from the other side is that it is not the Senate's job to go outside of the record established by the House impeachment probe. I would reply that it very much is the Senate's job. The Constitution gives the Senate the sole power to try impeachment cases, not review impeachment cases, not go over impeachment cases but the sole power to try them. It is not the Senate's job to put the House impeachment proceedings on a weeklong rerun on C-SPAN. Our job is to try the case, to hold a real, fair, and honest trial. That means examining the arguments. That means letting the prosecutors request witnesses and documents to make their case.
This is not just my view. It has been the view of every Senate facing impeachment trial in our history. Every single impeachment trial of a President has featured witnesses. Andrew Johnson's impeachment trial had 41 witnesses. Several of my Republican colleagues here today voted for witnesses in the Clinton trial. Except for one solitary case, every impeachment trial of any official, in the history of the Senate--and there have been a bunch--had witnesses.
A trial isn't a trial without evidence. A trial without all the facts is a farce. If the President is ultimately acquitted at the end of a sham trial, his acquittal will be meaningless. That is why the President himself should demand a full and fair trial.
President Trump, if you have nothing to hide, if you think the case is as flimsy as you say, call your Chief of Staff. Tell him to release the documents. Call Leader McConnell and tell him what you already told the country; that you would ``love'' for your aides to testify in a Senate trial. President Trump, if you believe you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to be afraid of from witnesses and documents. To the contrary, if you are afraid of witnesses and documents, most Americans will believe you have something to hide and that you fear you have done something very, very wrong.
If my Republican colleagues believe the President has done nothing wrong, they should have nothing to fear from witnesses and documents. In fact, they should welcome them. What better way to prove to the American people that we are treating this matter with the gravity it requires. What better way to prove to their constituents that they are not just doing the President's bidding and not just making this a sham trial because of obeisance to the President of the United States.
If every Senate Republican votes to prevent witnesses and documents from coming before the Senate, if every Republican Senator votes for a rigged trial that hides the truth, the American people will see that the Republican Senate is part of a large and awful coverup.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source