The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“IMPEACHMENT” mentioning Ron Johnson was published in the Senate section on pages S140-S141 on Jan. 26.
Of the 100 senators in 117th Congress, 24 percent were women, and 76 percent were men, according to the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress.
Senators' salaries are historically higher than the median US income.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
IMPEACHMENT
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, this impeachment is nothing more than a partisan exercise designed to further divide the country. Democrats claim to want to unify the country, but impeaching a former President, a private citizen, is the antithesis of unity.
Democrats brazenly appointing a pro-impeachment Democrat to preside over the trial is not fair or impartial and hardly encourages any kind of unity in our country. No, unity is the opposite of this travesty we are about to witness.
If we are about to try to impeach a President, where is the Chief Justice?
If the accused is no longer President, where is the constitutional power to impeach him?
Private citizens don't get impeached. Impeachment is for removal from office, and the accused here has already left office.
Hyperpartisan Democrats are about to drag our great country down into the gutter of rancor and vitriol, the likes of which has never been seen in our Nation's history.
Instead of doing the Nation's work, with their new majorities in the House, the Senate, and the executive branch, Democrats are wasting the Nation's time on a partisan vendetta against a man no longer in office. It is almost as if they have no ability to exist except in opposition to Donald Trump. Without him as their boogeyman, they might have to legislate and to actually convince Americans that their policy prescriptions are the right ones.
Democrats are about to do something no self-respecting Senator has ever stooped to. Democrats are insisting the election is actually not over, and so they insist on regurgitating the bitterness of the election.
This acrimony they are about to unleash has never before been tried. Why? Because calmer heads have typically prevailed in our history and allowed public opinion to cast blame where blame is deserved.
This sham of an impeachment will ostensibly ask whether the President incited the reprehensible behavior and violence of January 6, when he said: ``I know everyone here will soon march to the Capitol to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.''
``Peacefully and patriotically''--hardly words of violence.
But what of Democrat words? What of Democrat incitement to violence?
No Democrat will honestly ask whether Bernie Sanders incited the shooter that nearly killed Steve Scalise and a volunteer coach. The shooter nearly pulled off a massacre--I was there--because he fervently believed the false and inflammatory rhetoric spewed by Bernie and other Democrats, such as: ``The Republican healthcare plan for the uninsured is that you die.''
As this avowed Bernie supporter shot Steve Scalise, nearly killing him, and shot one of our coaches and two or three of our staff, he screamed: ``This is for healthcare!''
Ask me or anyone if that is incitement.
No Democrat will ask whether Cory Booker incited violence when he called for his supporters to get ``up in the face of Congress people''--a very visual and specific incitement.
No Democrat will ask whether Maxine Waters incited violence when she literally told her supporters: ``If you see a member of the Trump
[administration] at a restaurant, [at] a department store, [at] a gas station, or any place, you create a crowd and you push back on them.'' Is that not incitement?
My wife and I were pushed and surrounded and screamed at by this same type of mob that Maxine likes to inspire. It is terrifying to have a swarm of people threatening to kill you, cursing at you, and literally holding you hostage until police come to your rescue. That night we were assaulted by the crowd, I wasn't sure if we would survive even with the police protection. But no Democrat has ever considered impeaching Maxine for her violent rhetoric. In fact, Republicans, to our credit, have never once thought it legitimate to censure or impeach these Democrats.
No Republican has sought to use a government to hold these Democrats responsible for Antifa and Black Lives Matter violence that has consumed our cities all summer, resulting in over $1 billion of destruction, looting, and property damage. Not one Republican said,
``Oh, let's impeach the Democrats who are inciting this'' because it would be ridiculous.
Many on the Democrat side of the aisle cheered them on. Kamala Harris famously offered to pay the bill for those who were arrested. I wonder if she will be brought up on charges of inciting violence for that now that she is Vice President. Should Kamala Harris be impeached for offering to pay for violent people to get out of jail who have been burning our cities down? No. No Republican has offered that because we are not going down the road the Democrats have decided, this low road of impeaching people for political speech.
Should Republicans impeach the Democratic mayor of Seattle who incited and condoned violence by calling the armed takeover of part of her city ``a summer of love''? Did any Republicans try to impeach her?
Then on June 8, the New York Post, citing U.S. Justice Department statistics, reported that more than 700 law enforcement officers were injured during the Antifa-Black Lives Matter riots. There were at least 19 murders, including 77-year-old retired police officer David Dorn. Yet Democrats insist on applying a test of incitement to a Republican that they refuse to apply to themselves.
I want the Democrats to raise their hands if they have ever given a speech that says ``Take back; fight for your country.'' Who hasn't used the word ``fight'' figuratively? And are we going to put every politician in jail? Are we going to impeach every politician who has used the word ``fight'' figuratively in a speech?
Shame. Shame on these angry, unhinged partisans who are putting forth this sham impeachment, deranged by their hatred of the former President. Shame on those who seek blame and revenge and who choose to pervert a constitutional process while doing so.
I want this body on record, every last person here: Is this how you think politics should be?
Look, we have now got crazy partisans on the other side of the aisle trying to censor and remove two of the Republican Senators for their political position. Look, I disagreed. I don't think Congress should overturn the electoral college. But impeaching or censoring or expelling a Member of Congress you disagree with--is the truth so narrow that only you know the truth? We now have the media on your side saying there is only one set of facts, one set of truths, and you can only interpret it this way.
Now we have seven Senators on the other side trying to expel, censor, or impugn two Senators on this side. I defend them, not because I defend their position--I disagreed with their position--but you can't impeach, censor, or expel people you disagree with. What is this coming to?
In a few minutes, I will insist on a vote to affirm that this proceeding we are about to enter is unconstitutional, that impeachment of a private citizen is illegal and essentially a bill of attainder, and that no sense of fairness or due process would allow the judge in the proceeding to be a partisan Democrat already in favor of the impeachment.
A sham this is. A travesty. A dark blot on the history of our country. I urge my colleagues to reconsider this kangaroo court and move forward to debate the great issues of our day.
With that, I would like to relinquish the last moment or two of my time to the Senator of Wisconsin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I would like to first thank my colleague from Kentucky for his consistent, over the years--consistent fighting, I use that word--fighting for the Constitution. I truly appreciate it, and I appreciate his raising this constitutional point of order in an hour or so.
The issue he raises is one of constitutionality versus unconstitutionality. I have been reading positions on both sides. I understand there are legitimate arguments on both sides of that question. But the fact is, 3 weeks ago, we came together in this body and we collectively decided that it was not wise, it was not smart--
regardless of the constitutionality or the ability for us to do so, it was not smart for Congress to overrule, overturn the wishes of voters and of States that certified the electors. We felt that was not wise.
Again, in a couple of hours, we are going to be voting on--we won't be able to debate, which is why I am rising today or at this moment--we are going to debate whether a trial of someone who is no longer a President, no longer a civil servant, a private citizen, whether that is constitutional or not constitutional. Again, there are good arguments on both sides. Senators will vote differently and have justification for whatever side of that argument they take.
What I would like my colleagues to consider when they decide how to vote on that is not the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of that; I want them to consider, is it wise? Will a trial of a former President, of a private citizen--will it heal? Will it unify? I think the answer is clearly it will not. A trial of a former President is simply vindictive. It will divide. It is like opening up a wound and throwing salt in it. That is not a healing process.
Again, the question when we vote on this in a couple of hours, for every Senator, should be, Is it wise? Is it the right thing to do? I think from that standpoint, the choice is very clear: It will not heal. It will not unite.
Let's put an end to this now. Let's dismiss this trial and rule it unconstitutional.
I yield the floor.
____________________
Alerts Sign-up