Speaker 1 (00:00):
…. Was nothing more than a political show. Problem was they weren’t prepared. We had offered to have an open and public debate and votes on multiple resolutions by Republicans. Rather than taking that time to hold the debate, that Republicans claimed was imperative, they denied our fair and reasonable offer and didn’t seem to know what to do.
(00:29)
What we saw today was a microcosm of this impeachment since day one. Hallowed, frivolous, political. And we felt very strongly that we had to set a precedent that impeachment should never be used to settle policy disagreements. I felt that very strongly. This is the first impeachment I can recall, you look at history, none were done because there were policy disagreements. If we allowed that to happen, it would set a disastrous precedent for Congress, could throw our system of checks and balances into cycles of chaos. Any time the House would want to just shut the Senate down, they could send over another impeachment resolution and could create frivolous impeachment trial after impeachment trial.
(01:27)
I felt it really important the dangerous precedent was not the one the Republicans are talking about, but the one of letting impeachment take the place of policy disagreements. Cabinet person after cabinet person could be subject to this. We cannot have that happen and I felt that that’s what the Senate had to do to step up to its responsibilities. We’re supposed to have debates on the issues, not impeachments on the issues. We are not supposed to say that, when you disagree with someone on policy, then that’s suddenly a high crime and misdemeanor. That would degrade government.
(02:13)
It’s clear that Republicans aren’t interested in working with Democrats to fix the problems at the border. In fact, if they wanted to pass the bipartisan proposal we put together and have a debate on it about policy, fine. If Republicans, instead of spending so much time and energy on this meritless impeachment, work with Democrats on border reform, then we might’ve actually gotten something done. If House Republicans want to have a serious debate on border security, we welcome it, but everyone knows what’s happening at the border is terrible and needs fixing. That’s not a secret. The President knows it. Secretary Mayorkas knows it. Both parties in Congress know it. That’s exactly why we had a bipartisan bill to fix it.
(03:07)
Democrats worked hand in hand with Republicans for four months to draft the strongest border security bill in 30 years. A bill with dramatic updates to asylum and reformed parole, a bill that provided new tools for addressing the Fentanyl crisis, a bill that provided new resources to border patrol agents. If our Republican colleagues would’ve allowed it to come to the floor here in the Senate and down the hall over in the House, I’m certain it would’ve passed and gone to the President’s desk.
(03:39)
But we all know what happened. Donald Trump told his Republican allies in Congress to kill this border bill before we could even debate it. The former President explicitly took credit for that bill going down. Please, blame it on me, he said. His words. Let me say it just one more time. If Republicans, instead of spending so much time and energy on this meritless impeachment, worked with Democrats on border reform, we might’ve actually gotten something done on this very serious issue. Questions on this subject first.
Speaker 2 (04:17):
The implication from Senator Cornyn’s parliamentary inquiry, just now, during the trial, was that a future Republican-led Senate could use the precedent you set today to dismiss an impeachment trial against-
Speaker 1 (04:30):
No, the parliamentarian ruled that the precedent set was the precedent that was done here. Don’t use impeachment for policy disagreements. Whether it’s with a President, a Cabinet, or Secretary, or anyone else.
Speaker 2 (04:45):
You’re not worried that Republicans will do that… Leadership?
Speaker 1 (04:47):
No. We have made it clear, clear, that you don’t use policy disagreements for impeachment, and I don’t care who it is, President, Cabinet, Secretary, or anybody else, and if we didn’t make that clear, it would’ve been much worse for what you’re talking about. Yes? Anyone else on this subject? Yes?
Speaker 3 (05:09):
Your point of order was that the Article II allegation did not actually allege a high-crime misdemeanor. The allegation was that the Secretary lied to Congress. Now, under oath, you may disagree with the facts of that, but just on that allegation-
Speaker 1 (05:27):
Look, here’s the bottom line. Everyone knows these were policy disagreements, never rising to what the Founding Fathers intended with impeachment, with high crimes and misdemeanors. It was clear as day and that’s why the parliamentarian ruled in our favor on impeachment. Anyone else? Yes?
Speaker 3 (05:48):
Mike Lee is very upset and he says that he’s going retaliate by slowing business on the Senate floor, like you did earlier this week, with the motion to proceed. What is your response?
Speaker 1 (06:03):
We have so many things we have to get done for the future of this country that I don’t think that is an appropriate reaction. Yes?
Speaker 4 (06:15):
When will the Senate vote [inaudible 00:06:20]?
Speaker 1 (06:21):
Do you mean the supplemental?
Speaker 4 (06:23):
Their version of it. Yes.
Speaker 1 (06:26):
Okay. Let me just say three things. First, it seems that what they’re sending to us is very similar to the supplemental that the Senate passed with a strong bipartisan majority, 70 to 22, but I haven’t seen the language. I want to see the language and what has happened when they posted it, I’ve been in impeachment all day, before making any final judgments, and I’d like to get it done as quickly as possible.
Speaker 4 (06:54):
The President-
Speaker 1 (06:55):
Nope. Next question.
Speaker 5 (06:57):
On FISA, what is the status of the negotiations around the amendment votes and will it be able to pass?
Speaker 1 (07:02):
Yeah, I’m filing cloture tomorrow to move forward on FISA. We still don’t know the amendments on either side, so we can’t specifically lay out what’s going to happen until we see what those amendments are. I think, right now, now that the impeachment trial has been concluded, each side is going to look at what amendments different members want. Yes?
Speaker 10 (07:25):
[inaudible 00:07:28].
Speaker 1 (07:32):
If the precedent were, any time there’s a policy disagreement in the House, impeached, and send it to the Senate and you had to have a long and consuming trial, that would’ve been a bad precedent.
Speaker 10 (07:41):
[inaudible 00:07:46].
Speaker 1 (07:45):
Again, a trial committee just then relates to having a trial on the floor, makes it even longer and more stretched out. If it’s a real high crime and misdemeanor and there are arguable claims that it is, obviously that’s what the Founding Fathers intended in impeachment. If it’s a policy disagreement, that’s never what they intended. Yes?
Speaker 11 (08:04):
[inaudible 00:08:08].
Speaker 1 (08:10):
Look, we don’t know when the house is sending it to us and, once they do, we’ll be able to plot out where we’ll go and we have to do it, as I said, as expeditiously as possible. Burgess?
Burgess (08:22):
Yeah. I was going to ask you, you want members to be on standby to make sure-
Speaker 1 (08:26):
Same answer as I gave to your friend from NBC. Last one.
Speaker 7 (08:40):
The TikTok bill is part of the discussion on the House side in the supplemental. Is that something you support and would that be a-
Speaker 1 (08:40):
Okay, the House put it in. I haven’t seen the language. I’m going to study the language. Okay? Thank you everybody.