Impeachment

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, today is a somber day for our country. As Senators, we are here as representatives of the American people. It is our duty, as we each swore to do when we took our oath of office, to support and defend the Constitution. We also took an oath, as judges and jurors in this proceeding, to pursue ``impartial justice'' as we consider these articles--including the serious charge that the President of the United States leveraged the power of his office for his own personal gain.

Those are the oaths that the Framers set out for us in the Constitution, to guide the Senate in its oversight responsibilities. The Framers believed that the legislative branch was best positioned to provide a check on the Executive. They envisioned that the separation of powers would allow each branch of government to oversee the other. They also knew, based on their experience living under the British monarchy, that someday a President might corrupt the powers of the office. William Davie from North Carolina was particularly concerned that a President could abuse his office by sparing ``no efforts or means whatever to get himself reelected.''

So the Framers put in place a standard that would cover a range of Presidential misconduct, settling on: ``Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 65, the phrase was intended to cover the ``abuse or violation of some public trust'' and ``injuries done immediately to society itself.'' The Framers designed a remedy for this public harm: removal from public office. So now we are here as judge and jury to try the case and to evaluate whether the President's acts have violated the public trust and injured our democracy.

I am concerned of course that the Senate has decided that we must make this decision without all the facts. With a 51 to 49 vote, the senate blocked the opportunity to call witnesses with firsthand knowledge or to get relevant documents. Fairness means evidence--it means documents, and it means witnesses. In every past impeachment trial in the Senate, in this body's entire 231-year history, there have been witnesses. There is no reason why the Senate should not have called people to testify who have firsthand knowledge of the President's conduct, especially if, as some of my colleagues have suggested, you believe the facts are in dispute.

During the question period, I asked about the impeachment of Judge Porteous in 2010. I joined several of my colleagues in serving on the trial committee. We heard from 26 witnesses in the Senate, 17 of whom were new witnesses who had not previously testified in the House. What possible reason could there be for allowing 26 witnesses in a judicial impeachment trial and zero in a President's trial? How can we consider this a fair trial if we are not even willing to try and get to the truth?

We do not even have to try and find it. John Bolton has firsthand knowledge about central facts in this case, and he said he would comply with a subpoena from the Senate. We also know there are documents that could verify testimony presented in the House, like records of emails sent between administration officials in the days after the July 25 call. We cannot ignore this evidence--we have a constitutional duty to consider it.

And since this trial began, new evidence has continued to emerge. One way or another, the truth is going to come out. I believe that history will remember that the majority in this body did not seek out the evidence and instead decided that the President's alleged corrupt acts did not even require a closer look.

But even without firsthand accounts and without primary documents, the House managers have presented a compelling case. I was particularly interested in the evidence that the managers presented showing that the President's conduct put our national security at risk by jeopardizing our support for Ukraine.

Protecting Ukraine's fragile democracy has been a bipartisan priority. I went to Ukraine with the late Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham right after the 2016 election to make clear that the United States would continue to support our ally Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression--that we will stand up for democracy. As the House managers stressed, it is in our national security interest to strengthen Ukraine's democracy. The United States has 60,000 troops stationed in Europe, and thousands of Ukrainians have died fighting Russian forces and their proxies.

Our Nation's support for Ukraine is critically needed. Ukraine is at the frontline of Russian aggression, and since the Russians invaded Crimea in 2014, the United States has provided over $1.5 billion in aid. Russia is watching everything we do. So this summer, as a new Ukrainian President prepared to lead his country and address the war with Russia, it was critical that President Trump showed the world that we stand with Ukraine. Instead, President Trump decided to withhold military security assistance and to deny the Ukrainian President an Oval Office meeting. In doing so, he jeopardized our national security interests and put the Ukrainians in danger. But worse yet, he did so to benefit himself.

Testimony from the 17 current and former officials from the President's administration made it clear that the President leveraged the power of his office to pressure Ukraine to announce an investigation into his political rival. These brave public servants defied the President's order and agreed to testify about what happened despite the risks to their careers. Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch showed particular courage, testifying before the House even as the President disparaged her on Twitter. And I will never forget when Lieutenant Colonel Vindman testified and sent a message to his immigrant father, saying, ``Don't worry Dad, I will be fine for telling the truth.''

As Manager Schiff said, in our country ``right matters.'' What is right and wrong under our Constitution does not turn on whether or not you like the President. It is not about whether the disregard for its boundaries furthers policies that you agree or disagree with. It is about whether it remains true that in our country, right matters. Through his actions, the President compromised the security of our ally Ukraine, invited foreign interference in our elections, and undermined the integrity of our democratic process--conduct that I believe the Framers would see as an abuse of power and violation of his oath of office.

The Articles of Impeachment include a second charge: that the President used the powers of his office to prevent Congress from investigating his actions and attempted to place himself above the law.

Unlike any President before him, President Trump categorically refused to comply with any requests from Congress. Even President Nixon directed ``all the president's men'' to comply with congressional requests. Despite that history, President Trump directed every member of his administration not to comply with requests to testify and also directed the executive branch not to release a single document.

The President's refusal to respect the Congress's authority is a direct threat to the separation of powers. The Constitution gives the House the ``sole power of impeachment,'' a tool of last resort to provide a check on the president. By refusing to cooperate, the President is attempting to erase the Congress's constitutional power and to prevent the American people from learning of his misconduct. As we discussed during our questions, the President is asserting that his aides have absolute immunity, a proposition that Federal courts have consistently rejected. Manager Demings warned, ``absolute power corrupts absolutely.''

But this President has taken many steps to place himself above the law. This administration has taken the position that a sitting President cannot be indicted or prosecuted. This President has argued that he is immune from State and criminal investigations. And now we are being asked to say that the Constitution's check on a President's power, as set out by the Framers, cannot prevent a President from abusing his power and covering it up.

During the trial, we have heard this directly from the President's defense. In the words of Alan Dershowitz, ``If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected--in the public interest--that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.'' These echo the words of an impeached President, Richard Nixon, who said: ``When the president does it, that means it is not illegal.'' We cannot accept that conclusion. In this country the President is not King, the law is King. But if the Senate looks past the President's defiance of Congress, we will forever undermine our status as a coequal branch and undermine the rule of law.

So as we consider these Articles of Impeachment, I ask my colleagues to think about the consequences. Our system, designed by the Framers 232 years ago, is one not of absolute power but of power through and by the people. We are, in some ways, faced with the same question the Founders faced when they made the fateful decision to challenge the unchecked power of a King.

When signing the Declaration of Independence, John Hancock signed his name large and said, ``There must be no pulling different ways. We must all hang together.'' Benjamin Franklin replied, ``Yes, we must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.''

We have the opportunity today to stand together and say that the Constitution, that these United States, are stronger than our enemies, foreign and domestic, and we, together, are stronger than a President who would corrupt our democracy with an abuse of power and an attempt to deny the rights of a coequal branch of government. We do not have to agree on everything today or tomorrow or a year from now, but surely we can agree on the same basic principles: that this is a government of laws, not of men-and women; that in this country, no one is above the law. If we can agree on that much, then I submit to my colleagues that the choice before us is clear.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source