mesut/congress_speeches huggingface dataset:
IMPEACHMENT
Ron Johnson (Republican, WI) \u2014 2020-2-5

I am glad that this unfortunate chapter in American history is over. The strength of our Republic lies in the fact that, more often than not, we settle our political differences at the ballot box, not on the streets or battlefield and not through impeachment. prgtoken Just last year, Pelosi said that any impeachment ``would have to be so clearly bipartisan in terms of acceptance of it.'' And in 1998, Representative Nadler, currently a House impeachment manager, said, ``There must never be . . . an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other . . . Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come . . .'' prgtoken And yet, that is exactly what House passed. I truly wish Pelosi, Chairman Nadler, and their House colleagues would have followed their own advice. prgtoken As I listened to the House managers' closing arguments, I jotted down adjectives describing the case they were making: angry, disingenuous, hyperbolic, sanctimonious, distorted--if not outright dishonest--and overstated; they were making a mountain out of a molehill. prgtoken Congressman Schiff and the other House managers are not stupid. They had to know that their insults and accusations--that the President had threatened to put our heads on a pike, that the Senate was on trial, that we would be part of the coverup if we didn't cave to their demand for witnesses--would not sway Senators. No, they had another goal in mind. They were using impeachment and their public offices to accomplish the very thing they accused President of doing, interfering in the 2020 election. prgtoken Impeachment should be reserved for the most serious of offenses where the risk to our democracy simply cannot wait for the voters' next decision. That was not the case here. prgtoken Instead, the greater damage to our democracy would be to ratify a highly partisan House impeachment process that lacked due process and sought to impose a duty on the Senate to repair the House's flawed product. Caving to House managers' demands would have set a dangerous precedent and dramatically altered the constitutional order, further weaponizing impeachment and encouraging more of them. prgtoken Now that the trial is over, I sincerely hope everyone involved has renewed appreciation for the genius of our Founding Fathers and for the separation of powers they incorporated into the U.S. Constitution. I also hope all the players in this national travesty go forward with a greater sense of humility and recognition of the limits the Constitution places on their respective offices. prgtoken I am concerned about the divisiveness and bitterness that Chairman Nadler warned us about. We are a divided nation, and it often seems the lines are only hardening and growing farther apart. But hope lies in finding what binds us togethe
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES
Kevin Brady (Republican, TX) \u2014 2020-2-5

in 2009, the majority leader, now Mr. Hoyer, led a formal rebuke of South Carolina Representative Joe Wilson defending ``the rules of the House and enforcing the traditional decorum of the Chamber.'' prgtoken At the time, Mr. Hoyer said: ``This House cannot stay silent. What is at issue here is important to the House and of importance to the country.'' prgtoken My parliamentary inquiry is----
IMPEACHMENT
James E. Risch (Republican, ID) \u2014 2020-2-5

fellow Senators, I come today to talk about the business at hand. Obviously, it is the vote that we are going to take at 4 o'clock this afternoon. prgtoken We were subjected to days and days of trial here--many witnesses, witness statements, and all that sort of thing--and it is incumbent upon us now as jurors to reach a conclusion, and I have done so. prgtoken I come at this with a little bit of a different view, probably, than others. I have tried more cases, probably, than anyone on the floor, both as a prosecutor and in private practice. So I watched carefully as the case was presented to us and how the case had been put together by the managers from the House. What I learned in the many years of trial experience that I had is that the only way, really, to try a case and to reach where you want to get is to do it in good faith and to do it honestly. prgtoken I had real trouble right at the beginning when I saw that the lead manager read a transcript purporting to be a transcript of the President's phone call that has been at issue here, and it was falsified. It was falsified knowingly, willfully, and intentionally. So, as a result of that, when they walked through the door and wanted to present their case, there was a strike there already, and I put it in that perspective. prgtoken How the case unfolded after that was stunning because I have never seen a case succeed the way they put the case together. They put the case together by taking every fact that they wanted to make fly and put it only in the best light without showing the other side but more importantly--more importantly--intentionally excluding evidence. Of course, this whole thing centered on witness statements that the President had somehow threatened or pressured the President of Ukraine to do what he was going to do. That simply wasn't the case. The transcript didn't say that. prgtoken Now, admittedly, they had a witness who was going around saying that, and they called every person he told to tell us that that was the situation. The problem is, it was hearsay. There is a good reason why they don't allow hearsay in a court of law, and that is, it simply wasn't true. prgtoken When the person who was spreading that rumor actually talked to the President about it, the President got angry and said: That is not true. I would never do that. prgtoken They never told us that. Once the tape was shown, the House managers spent days putting together that proposition for us. The President's counsel dismantled that in about an hour and did so really quickly. And, as a result of that, simply from a factual basis, it is my opinion that the prosecution in this case did not meet its burden. prgtoken Now, much has been said about witnesses and how they did this and what have you, but the Constitution is crystal clear. It gives the House absolute, total, 100-percent control of impeachment; that is, the investigation and the vote on it. It gives us
IMPEACHMENT
Dan Sullivan (Republican, AK) \u2014 2020-2-5

I rise today to speak about the impeachment of Donald J. . prgtoken The ic House managers, who are prosecuting the case against the President, emphasized that history is watching. That is true. Every action taken by the House and the Senate during this impeachment sets a precedent for our country and our institutions of government, whether good or bad. prgtoken For that reason, it is our job as Senators to look at the entire record of this proceeding--from what happened in the House to final arguments made here in the Senate. It is also our duty to look at the whole picture, the flawed process in the House, the purely partisan nature of the articles of impeachment, the President's actions that led to his impeachment, and the impact of all of this on our constitutional norms. prgtoken Most importantly, we must weigh the impact on our Nation and on the legitimacy of our institutions of government, if the Senate were to agree with the House managers' demands to overturn the 2016 election and remove the President from the 2020 ballot. This has never happened in our country's 243-year history. prgtoken It is also our job as Senators during an impeachment trial to be guided by ``a deep responsibility to future times.'' This is a quote from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, two centuries ago, but it couldn't be more relevant today. With this grave constitutional responsibility in mind, and considering the important factors listed above, I will vote to acquit the President on both charges brought against him. prgtoken It may surprise some, but if you listened to all the witnesses in this trial and you examine the sweep of American history, one strong bipartisan point of consensus has emerged: Purely partisan impeachments are not in the country's best interest. In fact, they are a danger which the Framers of the Constitution clearly feared. prgtoken Alexander Hamilton's warning from Federalist No. 65 bears repeating: ``In many cases [impeachment] will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will inlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt . . . Yet it ought not to be forgotten that the demon of faction will, at certain seasons, extend his sceptre over all numerous bodies of men.'' prgtoken The reason for this ``greatest danger'' is obvious: the weaponization of impeachment as a regular tool of partisan warfare will incapacitate our government, undermine the legitimacy of our institutions, and tear the country apart. Until this impeachment, our country's representatives largely understood this. During the Clinton impeachment--, including Minority Leader Schumer and House Managers Lofgren and Nadler, argued that a purely par
IMPEACHMENT
Josh Hawley (Republican, MO) \u2014 2020-2-5

I come here today with the business of impeachment before this Chamber. It should hardly be necessary at this late juncture to outline again the train of abuses and distortions and outright lies that have brought us to today's impeachment vote: the secret meetings in the Capitol basement; the closed hearings without due process or basic fairness; the failure of the House to follow their own rules and authorize an impeachment inquiry and then the bipartisan vote against impeachment; and the attempt to manipulate or even prevent a trial here in the Senate--holding the Articles of Impeachment for 33 days--in brazen defiance of the Constitution's mandates. prgtoken The House have given us the first purely partisan impeachment in our history and the first attempt to remove an elected President that does not even allege unlawful conduct. prgtoken Animating it all has been the bitter resentment of a professional political class that cannot accept the verdict of the people in 2016, that cannot accept the people's priorities, and that now seeks to overturn the election and entrench themselves in power. That is how we arrived at this moment, that is how we got here, and that is what this is really about. prgtoken Now it is time to bring this fiasco to a close. It is time to end this cycle of retribution and payback and bitterness. It is time to end the abuse of our institutions. It is time to let the verdict of the people stand. So I will vote today to acquit the President of these charges. prgtoken You know, it has been clear for a long time that impeachment is not a priority of the people--it is not even close. It is a pipe dream of politicians. And as the have forced it on this country over these many months, it has sapped our energy and diverted our attention from the real issues that press upon our country, the issues the people of this Nation have tried to get this town to care about for years. I mean the crisis of surging suicides and drug addiction that is driving down life expectancy in my State and across this Nation. I mean the crisis at the border, where those drugs are pouring across. I mean the crisis of skyrocketing healthcare costs, which burden families, young and old, with bills they cannot pay. I mean the crisis of affordable housing, which robs parents of a safe place to raise their children and build a life. I mean the crisis of trafficking and exploitation, which robs our young girls and boys of a future and our society of their innocence. I mean the crisis of the family farm and the crisis of education costs for those who go to college and the lack of good-paying jobs for those who don't. I mean the crisis of connectivity in our heartland, where too many schoolchildren can't access the internet even to do their homework at night. I mean the crisis of unfair trade and lost jobs and broken homes. And I could go on. prgtoken My point is this: When I listen to th
VOTE EXPLANATION
Cory A. Booker (Democrat, NJ) \u2014 2020-2-5

throughout my time in Congress, I have worked to address our Nation's most pressing environmental issues and have supported aggressive action to protect our environment, address climate change, and reduce air and water pollution. Although I was not present for the votes on the following nominees and legislation on the floor, I did vote no on the nomination of Aurelia Skipwith to be Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service during her Senate Environment and Public Works Committee markup. In addition, if I had been present for the floor vote on her nomination and the additional votes outlined below, I would have voted in the following way: yes on 2/7/19 for vote No. 18, motion to table amendments to the Natural Resources Management Act, S. 47, PL 116-9. prgtoken Throughout my time in Congress, I have worked to address our Nation's most pressing environmental issues and have supported aggressive action to protect our environment, address climate change, and reduce air and water pollution. Although I was not present for the votes on the following nominees and legislation on the floor, I did vote no on the nomination of Aurelia Skipwith to be Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service during her Senate Environment and Public Works Committee markup. In addition, if I had been present for the floor vote on her nomination and the additional votes outlined below, I would have voted in the following way: no on 2/7/19 for vote No. 19, motion to table amendment to the Natural Resources Management Act, S. 47, PL 116- 9. prgtoken Throughout my time in Congress, I have worked to address our Nation's most pressing environmental issues and have supported aggressive action to protect our environment, address climate change, and reduce air and water pollution. Although I was not present for the votes on the following nominees and legislation on the floor, I did vote no on the nomination of Aurelia Skipwith to be Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service during her Senate Environment and Public Works Committee markup. In addition, if I had been present for the floor vote on her nomination and the additional votes outlined below, I would have voted in the following way: no on 4/11/19 for vote No. 77, the confirmation of David Bernhardt to be Secretary of the Interior. prgtoken Throughout my time in Congress, I have worked to address our Nation's most pressing environmental issues and have supported aggressive action to protect our environment, address climate change, and reduce air and water pollution. Although I was not present for the votes on the following nominees and legislation on the floor, I did vote no on the nomination of Aurelia Skipwith to be Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service during her Senate Environment and Public Works Committee markup. In addition, if I had been present for the floor vote on her nomination and the additional votes outlined below, I would have voted in
IMPEACHMENT
Jacky Rosen (Democrat, NV) \u2014 2020-2-5

I didn't come to the Senate expecting to sit as a juror in an impeachment trial. I have participated in this trial with an open mind, determined to evaluate the President's actions outside of any partisan lens, and with a focus on my constitutional obligations. I listened to the arguments, took detailed notes, asked questions, and heard both sides answer questions from my colleagues. After thorough consideration, based on the evidence presented, sadly, I find I have no choice but to vote to remove the President from office. prgtoken The first Article of Impeachment charges the President with abuse of power, specifically alleging that the President used the powers of his public office to obtain an improper political benefit. I can now conclude the evidence shows that this is exactly what the President did when he withheld critically important security assistance from Ukraine in order to persuade the Ukrainian Government to investigate his political rival. I understand that foreign policy involves negotiations, leveraging advantages, and using all the powers at our disposal to advance U.S. national security goals. But this was different. The President sent his personal attorney, whose obligation is to protect the personal interests of the President, not the United States, to meet and negotiate with foreign government officials from Ukraine to get damaging information about the President's rivals, culminating in the July 25 phone call between the U.S. and Ukrainian Presidents, during which the President made clear his intent to withhold aid until a political favor was completed. In doing so, the President put U.S. national security and a key alliance against Russian aggression at risk, all so he could benefit politically from the potential fallout from an investigation into a possible opponent. prgtoken While I would like to hear more from witnesses and see the documents the administration is withholding, the evidence presented is compelling and not in doubt. The President withheld military aid in order to coerce an ally to help him politically. This is no mere policy disagreement; this is about whether the President negotiates with foreign governments on behalf of the United States; or on his own behalf. No elected official, regardless of party, should use public office to advance his or her personal interests, particularly to the detriment of U.S. national security, and in the case of the President of the United States, such conduct is particularly dangerous. As elected officials, we have no more important responsibility than ensuring our national security, and that includes protecting the Nation from future threats. The President's conduct here sets a dangerous precedent that must not be repeated in the future and requires a firm response by the representatives of the people. After hearing evidence that the President heldup congressionally approved military assistance to an ally fighting
TRIAL OF DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
Charles E. Schumer (Democrat, NY) \u2014 2020-2-5

. Mr. Chief Justice, I join the leader in thanking the personnel who aided the Senate over the past several weeks. The Capitol Police do an outstanding job, day in and day out, to protect the Members of this Chamber, their staffs, the press, and everyone who works in and visits this Capitol. prgtoken They were asked to work extra shifts and in greater numbers provide additional security over the past 3 weeks. Thank you to every one of them. prgtoken I, too, would like to thank those wonderful pages. I so much enjoyed you with your serious faces walking down right here and giving the Chief Justice our questions. As the leader noted, the new class of pages started midway in this impeachment trial. When you take a new job, you are usually given a few days to take stock of things and get up to speed. prgtoken This class was given no such leeway, but they stepped right in and didn't miss a beat. Carrying hundreds of questions from U.S. Senators to the Chief Justice on national television is not how most of us spend our first week at work, but they did it with aplomb. prgtoken I would also like to extend my personal thank you to David Hauck, Director of the Office of Accessibility Services; Tyler Pumphrey, supervisor; and Grace Ridgeway, wonderful Director of Capitol Facilities. prgtoken Everyone on Grace's team worked so hard to make sure we were ready for impeachment: Gary Richardson, known affectionately to us as ``Tiny,'' the chief Chamber attendant; Jim Hoover and the cabinet shop who built new cabinets to deprive us of the use of our electronics and flip phones during the trial; Brenda Byrd and her team who did a spectacular job of keeping the Capitol clean; and Lynden Webb and his team, who moved the furniture, and then moved it again and again and again. prgtoken Grace, we appreciate all your hard work. Please convey our sincerest thanks to your staff. Thank you all, the whole staff, for your diligent work through many long days and late nights during this very trying time in our Nation's history. prgtoken Statement Of The Chief Justice Of The United States On The Senate Floor
IMPEACHMENT
Jeff Merkley (Democrat, OR) \u2014 2020-2-5

as Senators, our decisions build the foundation for future generations. I want those generations to know that I stood here on the floor of this Chamber fighting for equal justice under law. I stood here to defend our Senate's responsibility to provide a fair trial with witnesses and documents. I stood here to say that when our President invites and pressures a foreign government to smear a political opponent and corrupt the integrity of our 2020 Presidential election, he must be removed from office. prgtoken As a number of my colleagues have confessed, the House managers have proven their case. President did sanction a corrupt conspiracy to smear a political opponent, former Vice President . President assigned Rudy Giuliani, his personal lawyer, to accomplish that goal by arranging sham investigations by the Government of Ukraine. President advanced his corrupt scheme by instructing the three amigos--Ambassador Volker, Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, and Ambassador Gordon Sondland--to work with Rudy for this goal. President did use the resources of America, including an Oval Office meeting and security assistance to pressure Ukraine, which was at war with Russia, to participate in this corrupt conspiracy. The facts are clear. prgtoken But do President 's acts rise to the level the Framers envisioned for removal of a President, or are they, as some colleagues in this Chamber have said, simply ``inappropriate,'' but not ``impeachable''? With respect to those colleagues, ``inappropriate'' is lying to the public; ``inappropriate'' is shunning our allies or failing to put your personal assets into a blind trust or encouraging foreign governments to patronize your properties. That is something you might call ``inappropriate,'' but that word does not begin to encompass President 's actions in this case--a corrupt conspiracy comprising a fundamental assault on our Constitution. prgtoken This conspiracy is far worse than Watergate. Watergate was about a break-in to spy on the ic National Committee--bad, yes; wrong, definitely. But Watergate didn't involve soliciting foreign interference to destroy the integrity of an election. It didn't involve an effort to smear a political opponent. Watergate did not involve an across-the-board blockade of access by Congress to witnesses and documents. prgtoken If you believe that Congress was right to conclude that President Nixon's abuse of power merited expulsion from office, you have no choice but to conclude that President 's corrupt conspiracy merits his expulsion from office. prgtoken President should be removed from office this very day by action in this very Chamber, but he will not be removed because this Senate has failed to conduct a full and fair trial to reveal the extensive dimensions of his conspiracy and because the siren call to party loyalty over country has infected this