Keep the United States out of endless wars in the middle east. The president s actions, however, hadr, seemingly incread the risk that we could be dragged into exactly such a war. Its indicative of President Trumps Foreign Policy record, which is riddled by chaotic, uninformed, erratic, and impulsive decisionmaking without adequate consideration for the consequences in just about every Foreign Policy area President Trump touches, we are worse off than we were before he started with it. With china, north korea, syria, russia. The president has careened from one impulsive action to the next with no coherent strategy. North korea today, despite what President Trump said, we dont have to worry about then, is a greater Nuclear Threat than theyve ever been. Trumps actions have been disastrous. North korea has more nuclear weapons, and by all reports has even developed or is i very cloe to developing an icbm that can hit the United States mainland. And that is the result of president s trumps bumbling. The situation in syria is much worse than before. Doing what he did in syria pull it out those made no sense to anybody, even the most hawkish Foreign Policy people we have. Every time the president seems to deal with putin, putin seems to come out ahead. Looking at the president s chaotic and rudderless Foreign Policy and hotspots around the globe, its hard to conclude that any of these situations are better off than when the president took office three years ago. His policies seems to be characterized by erratic, impulsive, and often egotistical behavior, with little regard to a longterm strategy that would advance the interests of the trinity. At times like this its essential for congress to provide a check on the present and assert our constitutional role in matters of war and peace. In myy view, President Trump dos not, does not have authority to go to war with iran. And there are several important pieces of legislation that seek to again assert congress authority and prerogative on these matters. Senator kaine has a war powers resolution that would force a debate and vote in congress to seek, to prevent further escalation of hostilities with iran. That resolution will be privilegedil so we will have to come to the fore. My colleagues will vote on it. Senator sanders is introduced a bill that would block funding for the war with iran. I am supportive of both senator kaine and senator sanders efforts, and it urge the senate to consider both in the coming days. Additionally, the Trump Administration must start acting with greater transparency. By law the Trump Administration must make a notification to congress when it conducts a military operation like the one last friday. That stone as a war powers act notification. Unusually, the Trump Administration made the notification saturday after the action occurred, and then they did it in a completely classified format. Let met. Be clear, and entirely classified notification in the case of this particular military operation is simply not appropriate, and there appears to be no legitimate justification for classifying this notification. So rankingbe member menendez ani sent a letter to the president urging declassification. It is critical that National Security matters of such importance, war and peace, the possibility of another quote endless war in the middle east, that knowledge of the actions and justification should be shared with the American People in a timely manner. Its americans who will be asked to pay for such a war if it occurs. Its american soldiers who will risk their lives oncend again, d im sure it will be bravely. The reason, mr. President , that the Founding Fathers Gave Congress the warmaking authority is very simple. They were afraid of an overreaching executive. Th they wanted to make sure that any act as important as war, war and peace, be discussed in an open manner by the congress so it could be that it, so questions could be asked that it take so small insular group, president s groups seems to be more insular. People like mattis and mcmaster who disagreed with the president because he so erratict leave, leaving a bunch of yes people who seem to want to do whatever the president wants. And that means that having a debate in congress when questions are asked, coming to the American People so that people can hear a justification and see if its actually a valid one, is vital. The Administration Still has to answer several really crucial questions about their actions last week. Among them, iran has many dangerous surrogates in the region, and a whole range of possible responses. Which response to we expect . Which responsewh is do we expec . Which are the most likely . What do we know about what iran would plan to do in retaliation . And then, what are our plans to counter all of these responses . And how effective this our military, does our cia, does our state Department Think these responses will be . Next question, what is this action mean for the longterm stability of iraq . What does it mean towards our presence in iraq . And what does it mean to the trillions of dollars, trillions, and thousands of american lives sacrificed there . How does what were doing now fit into that . How does the Administration Plan to manage any escalation of hostilities . And how does the Administration Plan to avoid a larger evidential endless consecration in middle east . Crucial questions not one has been answered by the president or anyone in his administration. All of the tweeting and all the bravado is no substitute for Strategic Thinking and longterm Foreign Policy goals and ways to achieve those goals. This administration seems to beh devoid of that. It certainly was when it came to north korea. It certainly was when it came to syria. It certainly is when it comes to russia, and seems likely the same case is now occurring with iran. The questions that ive mentioned at a minimum must be answered. Important moment for our nation. The American People need clarity that the Trump Administration has a plan, not just a tweet, a plan to keep our troops, our nation, and our people safe. On impeachment, as my colleagues return from holiday recess, one question looms before. Senate the United States conduct a fair impeachment trial of the president of the United States . Will research for all of the facts, or when we look for a coverup . A sham trial. On one of the most important powers the Founding Fathers gave the American People. The framers gave the senate the sole power to try president ial impeachments because they could not imagine another body with, quote, confidence enough, unquote, in its own status to go, preserve the necessary impartiality, unquote. Its up to every center now to live up to that awesome, profound responsibility. At the moment it is a very clear difference of opinion between the republican leader and myself about what it means to have a fair trial. I believe a fair trial is one that considers all t the relevat facts. That allows for relevant witnesses and documents, a feature of every single impeachment trial of a a presit in the history of our nation. We have never had one with no witnesses, not once. Leader mcconnells likes to cite precedent. That president stands him in the face and he gets into my republican counterpart believes a trial should feature no relevant witnesses, none of the relevant documents, and as he made clear in his public appearance on fox news, should proceed according to the desires of the whiteo house, the defendant in this case, glaringly, the republican leader has yet to make one single argument while witnesses should not testify, one single argument, im waiting to hear it, leader mcconnell. Give a specific answer why these witnesses should not come forward. Names, dont think a point, dont get angry at nancy pelosi. Tell us why here in the senate witnessesse and documents should not come forward that are directlyhe relevant to the chars against the president of the United States of america. So, leader mcconnell has sort of exempted himself from their debate. He doesnt want a fair trial turkey wants a quick and sham trial. Now its up to every senator, every other senator, every senator will have a say in deciding which of the two views wins out. Will we have a fair trial or a coverup . Will we hear the evidence or will we try to hide it . And it will not be me and not the republican leader alone, but a majority ofav senators who wil decide whether we have a fair trial with facts and evidence, or will have a senate sponsored coverup of the president s alleged misconduct . My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, your constituents and the voice of history is watching. You will be required to vote on whether we have a fair trial with witnesses and with documents, or you will say im running away from the facts, im scared of the facts, ill go for a coverup. A few hours ago, the momentum for uncovering the truth in the senate trial gathered even more momentum, one of the key witnesses ive asked for, mr. John bolton, former National Security adviser to President Trump, correctly acknowledged that he needs to comply with the Senate Subpoena for his testimony if issued. Previously, mr. Bolton said he was leaving the question of his testimony up to the courts. Today, he made it perfectly clear that he will come if the senate asks, as he should. The other potential witnesses weve identified, mr. Mulvaney, mr. Duffy, mr. Blair, should do the same. We know that mr. Bolton, like mr. Mulvaney, mr. Duffy and mr. Blair, the three other witnesses, has crucial, crucial eyewitness knowledge of the president s dealings with ukraine about how decisions were made to withhold Security Assistance and how opposition within the administration to that delay that President Trump seemed to want was overcome. A simple majority is all it takes to ensure that the Senate Issues a subpoena for these witnesses. If only four republicans decide that mr. Bolton and the three other witnesses ought to be heard, they will be heard, because every democrat will vote to hear them. It is now up to four Senate Republicans to support bringing in mr. Bolton and the three other witnesses as well as the key documents we have requested to ensure all the evidence is presented at the outset of the senate trial. Given that mr. Boltons lawyers have stated he has new and relevant information to share, if any Senate Republican opposes issuing subpoenas to the four witnesses and documents weve requested, they would make it absolutely clear they are participating in a coverup on one of the most sacred duties we have in this congress, in this senate, and that is to keep a president in check. Now, leader mcconnell has suggested we follow the 1999 example of beginning the impeachment trial first and then deciding on witnesses and documents after the arguments are complete. He keeps making this argument. It doesnt gather any steam because its such a foolish one. Let me again respond for the benefit of my colleagues. Witnesses and documents are the most important issue and we should deal with them first. To hear leader mcconnell saying no witnesses now, but maybe some later, is just another indication he has no argument against witnesses and documents on the merits. Hes afraid to address the argument because he knows its a loser for him. He says lets decide it later. Why . Why . No reason. In fact, its sort of backward. We are going to have all the arguments, pro and con, then say maybe we will have witnesses and documents . The arguments first and the evidence later . As ive said, leader mcconnells view of the trial is an alice in wonderland view. First the trial, then the evidence. And more important than precedent is the fact that his analogy plainly doesnt make sense, because you dont have both sides present their arguments first and then afterward, ask for the evidence we know out there. The evidence should inform the trial, not the other way around. When leader mcconnell proposes we follow the 1999 precedent, hes essentially arguing we should conduct the entire impeachment trial first, and then once its over, decide on whether we need witnesses and documents. Again, mcconnells view is alice in wonderland. First the trial, then the evidence. If the senate were to agree to leader mcconnells proposal, the senate will act as little more than a nationally televised meeting of a mock trial club. Leader mcconnells proposal on witnesses and documents later is a poorly disguised track. Hes already actually made clear what his goals are. He said it. On fox news radio, after we have heard the arguments, we will vote and move on, no witnesses, no documents. Well, at least 47 democrats and i hope some republicans wont fall for that kind of specious logic. What mcconnell said doesnt sound like someone who will reasonably consider witnesses and documents at a later date. It more sounds like someone who has already made up his mind. You cannot, you cannot have a fair trial without the facts, without the testimony from witnesses with knowledge of the events and related documents. A trial without all the facts is a farce. If the president is acquitted at the end of a partisan sham trial with no witnesses, no documents, his acquittal will not carry much weight in the minds of the American People or in the judgment of history. So President Trump, you are hurting about this acquittal this impeachment and youre wishing for a fair trial and a real acquittal, join us in asking for the witnesses to come forward. Join us in asking for the documents. What are you hiding, President Trump . What are you afraid of, President Trump . If you think that youve done nothing wrong, you wouldnt mind having witnesses, your own witnesses, these are people youve appointed, come here. Most americans know President Trump is afraid, seems to be afraid of the truth. 64 of all republicans who almost always side with President Trump in the polling data say there should be witnesses and documents. 64 . A trial without all the facts is a farce. The verdict of a Kangaroo Court are empty. It is time for a bipartisan majority in this chamber, democrat, republican, to support the rules and procedures for a fair trial. A vote to allow witnesses and documents does not presume a vote for conviction in any way. It merely ensures that when the ultimate judgment is rendered, whatever that judgment may be, it will be based on the facts. We dont know what the witnesses will say. They could be exculpatory for President Trump, or they could be more condemning. But whatever they will be, we should have the facts come out and let the chips fall where they may. Senate democrats believe we must, must conduct a fair trial. To Senate Republicans, well see. I yield the floor. Mr. President . Senator from texas. Mr. President , i have some prepared remarks talking about the suleimani strike and some other related matters but i want to take a moment just to respond briefly to my friend, the democratic leader. There seems to be a lot of irony involved in this question of the articles of impeachment. First of all, of course, Speaker Pelosi, who said this is an urgent fulfilling of a constitutional duty, wants the articles of impeachment that were voted on in the house, shes been radio silent and appears to be getting cold feet on whether or not she will even send the articles of impeachment to the senate. So i would suggest that the first thing we need to know is Speaker Pelosi actually serious about this, because if shes not, theres no occasion for us to even begin this conversation about how the senate trial will proceed. Speaker pelosi is mistaken if she thinks she can direct or influence the senates decision on how the trial will proceed. In fact, one of the things im pretty sure of is the senate will not replicate the circuslike atmosphere of the impeachment inquiry in the house which has been one of the most partisan undertakings that ive seen in my time in the senate. I think they are really grasping at straws now, recognizing that they did a poor job developing the case and leading to the two articles of impeachment, one because of a disagreement over the manner in which the president exercised his authorities under the constitution, engaged in foreign relations, and the other based on this bogus idea that by saying i need to go to court to get some direction on a claim of executive privilege, that somehow even though mr. Schiff drops the subpoena or no longer seeks that witness testimony, that somehow they have obstructed an investigation of the congress. All of this without even alleging any crime. But i suggest that the senate is an institution that follows the rules and we follow our precedents. The most obvious precedent for this impeachment trial is the clinton impeachment trial. There, we saw 100 senators agree to a procedure which allowed both sides to present their cases, after which there was a vote to see whether additional testimony would be required and indeed, there was an agreement to provide three additional witnesses, not live in a circuslike atmosphere here on the floor of the senate, but through depositions taken out of court that could then be out of the chamber and then those excerpts of those depositions could be offered as additional evidence. Thats the procedure that was supported by the democratic leader, the senator from new york, and i suggest that whats fair for president clinton is fair for President Trump. Its not much more complicated than that, and that indeed is the most relevant precedent. Now, with regard to this claim that some senators arent demonstrating impartiality, i recall reading where the senator from new york, when he was running against the incumbent, he said a vote for me for the senate will be a guaranteed vote of acquittal of president clinton. Hardly impartial. And now here, he protests too much and i think demonstrates his hypocrisy when it comes to the standard by which he holds himself and others, and im sorry, madam president , i just cant believe that elizabeth warren, senator warren and senator sanders, would qualify under anybodys definition as an impartial juror, but thats our constitutional system. I think whats happened, they realize that their case is falling, falling short of any standard by which a president would be convicted and impeached, and they are simply grasping at straws. Madam president , on another matter, last friday, americans woke up to the news that one of the most brutal terrorist leaders in the world had been killed. Qassem suleimani was killed in an air strike by americas military, bringing to an end his decadeslong reign of terror. You could legitimately call general suleimani a master of disaster because that defined his entire professional life as a leader of irans military. Actually, he was the head of the Islamic Revolutionary guard corps and the quds force, which are a u. S. Designated terrorist organization. General suleimani was the most consequential military leader in iran which has been designated by the u. S. State department as a sponsor state sponsor of International Terrorism since 1984. General suleimani orchestrated irans efforts to squash democracy movements both at home and abroad by any means necessary. He and his army of terrorists exported violence around the region and engaged in gross Human Rights Violations against the iranian people. If youre curious how the iranian government treats its own citizens, just look at the recent protests that started as complaints over increased gas prices. When iranian citizens took to the streets in peaceful protest, the ayatollah, the supreme leader, called them enemy agents and thugs and the government attacked. As many as 450 iranians were killed in those peaceful protests, some 2,000 were injured and 7,000 were detained. This is not a government protecting its people. Its a network of criminals masquerading as a government. One of the ayatollahs most loyal henchmen was suleimani. In addition to fueling terrorist operations throughout the middle east, he also played a crucial role in fomenting syrias civil war. Suleimani helped finance and aid the butcher known as Bashar Al Assad in the slaughter of the syrian people. The death toll in the Syrian Civil War is estimated to be half a million, as high as half a million syrians and the number of refugees and internally displaced persons goes into the millions. While the greatest death and destruction orchestrated by suleimani was concentrated in the middle east, the United States was one of his and irans biggest targets. From the iranian hostage crisis back in 1979 to the Khobar Towers bombing to the recent shooting down of the u. S. Drone and the death of an American Contractor in iraq, irans actions at every turn have demonstrated a desire to bring the chant death to america to reali reality. Suleimani was known to be responsible for the deaths of hundreds of american soldiers. He and the Iranian Regime supplied explosively formed penetrators which cut through american armor like a hot knife through butter and left hundreds, indeed tens more than hundreds, maybe a thousand or more american soldiers disabled as a result of this deadly instrument of war. Since 2003, at least 600 u. S. Soldiers have been killed by iranian proxies in iraq and many more injured, as i said. I and others in this chamber have seen their activities firsthand at brook army medical center, the center for the intrepid in san antonio and other places where they have received treatment, like Walter Reed Hospital here in washington, d. C. Its where the victims of these iranian improvised explosive devices were treated for amputation, for burns or functional limb loss if they survived those injuries in the first place. These soldiers are a reminder of the selfless commitment our men and women in uniform make each day, as well as the perilous threat posed by iran under suleimanis leadership. For decades, since the iranian revolution in 1979, tehran has waged war against the United States and our allies, and recent reports indicate that suleimani was in the process of plotting even more acts of aggression against the u. S. And u. S. Interests. Hardly surprising, though, since hes been doing that for many years. Thats precisely why he was targeted. Just as quickly as news of this attack spread, so did antitrump rhetoric. Instead of celebrating the fact that irans chief terrorist was dead, and could kill no more, a number of our democratic colleagues chose to bash the president instead. They claimed his action was unauthorized, even illegal, or that he should have sought congressional approval beforehand. Well, none of that is true. The president not only has the authority under the constitution, but the responsibility to defend the United States from terrorist organizations like the Iranian Revolutionary guard corps, and its leaders like general suleimani. This was not an assassination, a particularly loathesome allegation thats made on social media, nor was it an unprovoked attack. This was the president of the United States exercising his lawful authorities to protect the United States, our allies and our national interests, just as president s before have done. Perhaps the most stark comparison is when barack obama directed the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Where were the people who now claim that suleimanis death is an abuse of power . I dont recall anyone calling the killing of Osama Bin Laden an assassination. When he was killed, they werent on cable tv criticizing the move. We were all celebrating. Some of our democratic friends will simply never pass on an opportunity to criticize the president , no matter how unfair. Thank goodness there are democrats like former department of Homeland Security secretary jeh johnson and former u. S. Senator Joe Lieberman who said President Trumps order to take out Qassem Suleimani was morally, constitutionally and strategically correct. It deserves more bipartisan support than the begrudging or negative reactions it has received thus far from my fellow democrats. Thats senator Joe Lieberman. Im also grateful for the informed comments by luminaries like former centcom commander general David Petraeus as well as ambassador ryan crocker, who have both rightly said that this action was authorized and necessary. Its unquestionable that the death of suleimani was a major blow to the Iranian Regime and a strong message of deterrence to all state sponsors of terrorism. The blood of hundreds of american soldiers and countless civilians is on suleimanis hands and because of the Decisive Action taken by President Trump, he is gone. I fully support this move by the president and commend the president s willingness to send a strong message of deterrence to the terrorist threat in the middle east, particularly that directed against the United States, our citizens or our interests. Finally, madam president , i want to join my fellow senators in thanking the brave men and women in uniform who fought and continue to fight terrorist acts brought about by people like general suleimani and the quds force as part of the irgc, especially those that are fighting and prepared to defend our interests in the middle east today. America must never back down in the face of this evil. Our world is safer today because Qassem Suleimani is dead and it would not be possible without the actions that President Trump has undertaken, as well as the resolve of our military leaders and our Courageous Service members who put theiriv
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.