WASHINGTON, D.C. [02/04/20]—Today, U.S. Senator Tina Smith (D-Minn.) took to the Senate floor to let Minnesotans—and all Americans—know why she’ll vote to remove President Trump from office. In her speech, Sen. Smith shared her position on this historic vote, and looked ahead to continuing the work of reinforcing the American values of fairness and justice.
Sen. Smith’s remarks follow her penning an op-ed in the Star Tribune sharing how she arrived at her decision after serving as an impartial juror during the impeachment trial.
“While evidence of the President’s wrongdoing is substantial, I advocated every way I could for a trial that would be fair for both sides, which means hearing from witnesses with direct knowledge of the President’s actions. I am greatly disappointed that almost all my Republican colleagues in the Senate abandoned the historical bipartisan precedent of hearing from witnesses in every Senate impeachment trial. Ultimately, when so many people know the truth of what happened, the complete truth will come out,” said Sen. Smith in her remarks from the Senate floor. “The Senate abandoned its responsibilities when it blocked efforts to get the complete truth.
“As a result, there will be a permanent cloud over these proceedings. The President may be acquitted, but without a fair trial he cannot claim to be exonerated.
“The core question of this impeachment trial is this: do we say that it is okay for the President to use his office to advance his personal political interest, while ignoring or damaging the public good? My answer is no.
…
“There is nothing inevitable about democracy. It’s not a natural state, it’s a state we have to fight for. The fight for democracy and our constitution has chosen us in this moment, and it’s our job to rise to the moment.
“After the Senate vote, the work of reinforcing the American values of fairness and justice will continue. We have a lot of work to do, but democracy is hard work, and I know that Minnesotans are up to it. The truth is that I see more signs of common ground, hope, and determination in Minnesota than I do the fractures of division, distrust and partisanship. That is a foundation for us all to build on going forward.”
You can download video of Sen. Smith’s remarks here and access remarks as prepared for delivery below:
Floor Speech on Vote to Remove President Donald J. Trump
(Remarks as prepared for delivery)
Senator Tina Smith
February 4, 2020
M. President,
This morning, I let Minnesotans know that I will vote to remove President Donald Trump from office. I rise today because, on this historic vote, I want Minnesotans to understand why, and where I think we go from here.
I was reluctant to go down the path of impeachment. While I strongly disagree with the President on many issues, I see impeachment as a last resort, and I feared that leaping to impeachment would only serve to drive us all even further into our political corners. This changed when I read the Whistleblower report, which alleged nothing less than the President’s corrupt abuse of power, an abuse that had the potential to undermine our election in 2020. For me, this left us no choice but for the House to fully investigate these allegations.
When the House sent the two Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, it became my job to “do impartial justice according to the Constitution and the law.” I take that oath as seriously as anything I have ever done.
This impeachment trial has been about whether the President’s corrupt abuse of power – power he used for his own personal, political benefit, while betraying the public trust – is a high crime and misdemeanor as defined by our founders in the Constitution. I believe it is. I also believe that to condone corrupt behavior such as this undermines the core value that we stand for as a nation – that no one is above the law, including and most especially our President.
Over the past several weeks I have listened carefully to hundreds of hours of presentations and questions and answers, and read hundreds of pages of documents. Through it all, the facts underlying the case against the President were never really refuted. The President, working through his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, withheld from Ukraine security assistance and a prestigious meeting in the White House in an effort to persuade President Zelensky to announce he was investigating Joe Biden, and the theory that Ukraine interfered in our 2016 election. In order to improve his prospects for reelection, Trump directed that vital assistance be withheld until Ukraine announced investigations into a baseless conspiracy theory that originated as Russian propaganda. He only released the aid after he was caught.
And then, when the House sought to investigate these actions, the Trump White House categorically blocked any and all subpoenas for documents and witnesses. No U.S. President has ever categorically rejected the power of Congress to investigate and do oversight of the Executive branch. Not Nixon. Not Clinton. This obstruction fractures the balance of power between the legislative and executive branch. How can our constitutional system work if we allow the President to decide if and how Congress can investigate the President’s misconduct? It can’t. If we say the President can decide whether he cooperates with a Congressional investigation, we are saying he is above the law.
While evidence of the President’s wrongdoing is substantial, I advocated every way I could for a trial that would be fair for both sides, which means hearing from witnesses with direct knowledge of the President’s actions. I am greatly disappointed that almost all my Republican colleagues in the Senate abandoned the historical bipartisan precedent of hearing from witnesses in every Senate impeachment trial. Ultimately, when so many people know the truth of what happened, the complete truth will come out. The Senate abandoned its responsibilities when it blocked efforts to get the complete truth.
As a result, there will be a permanent cloud over these proceedings. The President may be acquitted, but without a fair trial he cannot claim to be exonerated.
The core question of this impeachment trial is this: do we say that it is okay for the President to use his office to advance his personal political interest, while ignoring or damaging the public good? My answer is no.
Corruptly soliciting a foreign government to interfere in our elections, and to announce and investigation to damage a political rival and an American citizen, at the expense of free and fair elections and our national security – that is the definition of an abuse of power. This is what Alexander Hamilton was talking about when wrote that impeachment proceedings should concern “the abuse or violation of some public trust.”
Some have argued that what the President did was wrong, but his conduct does not rise to the level of impeachment. They agree that the President used his power to secure an unfair advantage in our elections, but think that abuse of power isn’t bad enough to remove him from office.
It is that bad. Trump’s abuses of power are grave offenses that threaten the constitutional balance of power, and the core value that no one, especially the President, is above the law. The President’s abuses of power undermine the integrity of our next election, and call into question whether our elections will be free and fair. His abuses of power damage national security by undermining the moral stature of the United States as a trusted ally and a fighter against corruption. For me, one of the saddest moments of the trial was the testimony from American diplomats who urged Ukrainian leaders not to engage in political investigations. According to the testimony, the Ukrainians responded by saying, in effect, “do you mean like the investigations you are asking us to do with the Bidens and the Clintons?”
Some have said that we should wait and let the people decide in the next election, only months away. But when the President has solicited foreign nations to influence our elections with disinformation, and prevented the American people from hearing a full and fair accounting of that effort, our duty to defend the Constitution requires that we act now. A vote to remove the President from office protects our next election. When Leader McConnell refuses to allow the Senate to consider election security legislation, and when the President shows no remorse and says publicly he is ready to do it again, we have no choice but to act. When the President says that the Constitution allows him to do whatever we want, Congress must act. The President’s conduct is a threat to our elections and our national security. What’s more, if we fail to check this president, future presidents may be emboldened to pursue even more shameless corruption.
Lots of countries have high-minded constitutions full of powerful words and strong enunciations of rights, that don’t really mean anything. (As House Manager Adam Schiff pointed out, Russia has a constitution like this.) Our constitution is different. It’s not some dry historic document that we keep behind glass in a museum, it is the big idea of our system of government, that no one is above the law, and people, not monarchs, are the source of power. Everything flows from this great idea, realized in the lives of Minnesotans who every day seek the freedom and opportunities they need to build the lives they want.
There is nothing inevitable about democracy. It’s not a natural state, it’s a state we have to fight for. The fight for democracy and our constitution has chosen us in this moment, and it’s our job to rise to the moment.
After the Senate vote, the work of reinforcing the American values of fairness and justice will continue. We have a lot of work to do, but democracy is hard work, and I know that Minnesotans are up to it. The truth is that I see more signs of common ground, hope, and determination in Minnesota than I do the fractures of division, distrust and partisanship. That is a foundation for us all to build on going forward.
English