The House also provided no guidance on whether conviction—and therefore removal from office—should rest on provinga single, “corrupt” motive, or whether mixed motive would suffice under their theory. In its trial brief, the House argued thatthere’s “no credible alternative explanation” for the President’s alleged conduct. But once the Senate heard from thePresident’s Counsel, the House changed its tune. Apparently, even a credible alternative explanation shouldn’t stop theSenate from removing the President.
Re-shaping their own standard mid-trial, however, only served to undercut their initial arguments. And simply asserting atleast 63 times that their evidence was “overwhelming” didn’t make the House’s allegations accurate or prove animpeachable offense.
Even after arguments had concluded, the House managers started repeating the terms “bribery” and “extortion” on thefloor of the Senate, while neither appears anywhere in the articles. It’s not the Senate’s job to read into the House’sarticles what the House failed, or didn’t see fit, to incorporate itself. As I made clear, articles of impeachment shouldn’t bemoving targets. The ambiguities surrounding the House’s “abuse of power” theory gave me reason enough to vote “notguilty.” If we’re going to lower the bar of impeachment, we better be clear on where the bar is being set.
Second, the House’s article for “obstruction of Congress” was equally unprecedented and patently frivolous. I know a thingor two about obstruction by the Executive Branch. Congressional oversight—rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse—iscentral to my role as a senator representing Iowa taxpayers. In the face of obstruction, I use the tools the Constitutionprovides to this institution. That’s the very core of checks and balances.
For example, I fought the Obama administration to obtain documents related to “Operation Fast and Furious.” Under theHouse’s “obstruction” standard, should President Obama have been impeached for his failure to waive privileges duringthe course of that investigation? We fought President Obama on this for three years in the courts, and we still didn’t endup with all we asked for. We never heard a word from the House Majority then. So, the hypocrisy here is on full display.
In this impeachment, the House issued a series of requests and subpoenas to the Executive Branch. But the House failedto enforce its requests. When challenged to stand up for its subpoenas in court, the investigating committee simplyretreated. The House may cower at defending its own authority, but the Senate shouldn’t have to clean up a mess of theHouse’s own making. For the many ways in which the House failed in the fundamentals of oversight, and for the terriblenew precedent the “obstruction” article would’ve set, I voted “not guilty.”
There’s also been debate about the whistleblower whose complaint motivated the House’s impeachment inquiry. Now, I’veworked for and with whistleblowers for more than thirty years. I’ve sponsored numerous laws to strengthen whistleblowerprotections. Attempts by anyone to “out” a whistleblower just to sell an article or score a political point aren’t helpful. It’snot the treatment any whistleblower deserves.
However, it’s important for investigators to talk to whistleblowers, to evaluate their claims and credibility, because thoseclaims form the basis of an inquiry. My office does this all the time. When whistleblowers bring us significant cases ofbipartisan interest, we frequently work closely with the other side to look into those claims. I know the House committeeshave followed that course in the past. Both parties understand how to talk to whistleblowers and respect theirconfidentiality. But why no efforts were taken in this case to take these very basic, bipartisan steps is baffling. I fear that, toachieve its desired ends, the House majority weaponized and politicized whistleblowers for purely partisan purposes. Ihope that the damage done will be short lived.
Furthermore, as a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I’ve always made it a priority to hold judicialnominees to a standard of restraint and fidelity to the law. As judges in this case, we too needed to consider those factorswhich counseled restraint. To begin with, the articles came to the Senate as the product of a flawed, unprecedented andpartisan process. The House Majority’s inquiry ignored many of the procedural rights that were given to the investigatingCommittee’s minority in previous impeachments. When the articles were voted on by the full House, the onlybipartisanship was in opposition.
Moreover, the Iowa caucuses have already occurred. The 2020 presidential election is underway. Yet we were asked toremove the incumbent from the ballot, based on an impeachment supported by only one party in Congress.
The Senate refused to endorse the dangerous new precedent this would’ve set for future impeachments.
Finally, I want to briefly address the issue of witnesses. Over the span of two weeks, the Senate conducted a fair andthorough examination of the House’s articles of impeachment and supporting materials. That includes more than 28,500pages of evidence, interviews with 17 witnesses and 192 video clips. The House managers themselves argued that theevidence they provided was “overwhelming” and “uncontested.” Accordingly, the Senate did not need to take theunprecedented step of hearing from witnesses that were not already part of the House’s record.
Now that this impeachment trial has drawn to a close, the American people are more than adequately prepared to decidefor themselves the fate of the President in November.
This decision belongs to the People.
Once again, thank you for taking time to contact me. I urge you to keep in touch.