Schumer’s Impeachment Letter: Fact vs. Fiction

Schumer Misquoted The Constitution On The House Of Representatives’ ‘Sole Power Of Impeachment’

1. SEN. SCHUMER: “This is an enormously weighty and solemn responsibility that was assigned to the Senate by the Framers of the Constitution. Senate Democrats believe strongly, and I trust Senate Republicans agree, that this trial must be one that is fair, that considers all of the relevant facts, and that exercises the Senate’s ‘sole Power of Impeachment’ under the Constitution with integrity and dignity.” (Sen. Schumer, Letter To Sen. McConnell, 12/15/2019)

THE FACTS: “The United States Constitution provides that the House of Representatives ‘shall have the sole Power of Impeachment’ (Article I, section 2) and that ‘the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments…[but] no person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present’ (Article I, section 3). The president, vice president, and all civil officers of the United States are subject to impeachment.” (U.S. Constitution)

In 1999, Schumer Worked ‘To Explore Every Possible Way To Avoid A [Senate] Trial,’ Now Writes That The Constitution Requires A Trial

2. SEN. SCHUMER: “In response to the House’s action, as you have noted, our rules require the Senate to conduct a trial to consider and vote on the Articles of Impeachment.  This is an enormously weighty and solemn responsibility that was assigned to the Senate by the Framers of the Constitution. Senate Democrats believe strongly, and I trust Senate Republicans agree, that this trial must be one that is fair, that considers all of the relevant facts, and that exercises the Senate’s ‘sole Power of Impeachment’ under the Constitution with integrity and dignity.  The trial must be one that not only hears all of the evidence and adjudicates the case fairly; it must also pass the fairness test with the American people.  That is the great challenge for the Senate in the coming weeks.” (Sen. Schumer, Letter To Sen. McConnell, 12/15/2019)

THE FACTS: In January 1999, Sen. Schumer Voted To Dismiss The Clinton Impeachment Trial. (Roll Call Vote #4: Motion Rejected 44-56: D 44-1, R 0-55, 1/27/1999, Schumer Voted Yea)

QUESTIONER: “Do you believe that a trial will actually go forward?”
REP. SCHUMER: “Well, I hope a trial doesn’t go forward. And I am starting from this moment on to explore every possible way to avoid a trial. The worry I have is that Trent Lott is very much susceptible to the same forces of the hard right that the House Republicans were. And they are going to push him to at the very least begin a trial. And the only real way to stop it, I think, is either if the moderate Republicans in the senate tell him no right from the start, or secondly, if the public -- it’s so clear -- and I agree with Barney -- I think that, you know, when one of the extremes reaches too far, they get burnt. Today, I think in an ironic way the far right got burnt in a variety of ways. And the, so maybe -- maybe Trent Lott will see that to go so far to the right and to kiss the -- well, I don’t want to use that expression -- I was going to say ring, I was going to say ring, but I don’t even want to use that, because I was told that people don’t like that expression --and so, to do everything he can to win the friendship of the far right is going to be destructive to his own party. That’s what’s happening here.” (Rep. Schumer, Press Conference, 12/19/1998)

SEN. SCHUMER: “Yes, yes, they’re old. But you know, they’re pretty standard, trial type rules. And I guess we could begin along that basis. Certainly, any senator -- according to the rules -- could move to dismiss, which is done. You know, I mean, there is some talk -- well, that would be unconstitutional. Mallarchy [sic]. Every day, in criminal and civil courts throughout America motions to dismiss are made. And if a majority vote for that motion to dismiss, the procedure could be truncated. My guess is that, you know, you have to let things play out for a little bit at first to see what happens.” (Fox Morning News, 1/6/1999)

SEN. SCHUMER: “I am still hopeful that the timeframe can be done rather quickly. From the comments of my Republican colleagues inside, my view – that we should vote articles of dismissal if no new facts come out – may not happen.” (Sen. Schumer, Press Conference, 1/10/1999)

Schumer Voted Against Subpoenaing Witnesses During The Clinton Impeachment Trial, Now Writes That The Senate Should Consider His Handpicked Witnesses

3. SEN. SCHUMER: “In keeping with the bipartisan spirit of the procedures adopted in the trial of President Clinton in 1999, and in order to advance what I believe are our shared objectives for the process in the trial of President Trump, Senate Democrats propose the following provisions for your consideration and in advance of our upcoming discussion.  These provisions are modeled directly on the language of the two resolutions that set forth the 1999 trial rules.  The first of those resolutions passed the Senate by a vote of 100-0, and the second resolution, allowing House Managers to call witnesses, passed with the support of all Senate Republicans.” (Sen. Schumer, Letter To Sen. McConnell, 12/15/2019)

THE FACTS: In January 1999, Sen. Schumer Voted Against A Motion To Subpoena Witnesses During The Clinton Impeachment Trial. (Roll Call Vote #5: Motion Agreed To 56-44: D 1-44, R 55-0, 1/27/1999, Schumer Voted Nay)

In January 1999, Sen. Schumer Voted Against A Resolution To Subpoena And Depose Witnesses During The Clinton Impeachment Trial. (S. Res. 30, Roll Call Vote #8: Resolution Agreed To 54-44: D 0-44, R 54-0, 1/28/1999, Schumer Voted Nay)

“Democrat Chuck Schumer cast his first substantive votes as New York’s newest senator on Wednesday, voting first to dismiss the impeachment trial of President Clinton and then against hearing testimony from witnesses.” (“In First Votes As New Senator, Schumer Supports Ending Impeachment,” The Associated Press, 1/27/1999)

Schumer Opposed Calling Witnesses During The Clinton Impeachment Trial, Now Cites The Clinton Trial Precedent To Support His Argument

4. SEN. SCHUMER: “In the trial of President Clinton, the House Managers were permitted to call witnesses, and it is clear that the Senate should hear testimony of witnesses in this trial as well.  I propose, pursuant to our rules, that the Chief Justice on behalf of the Senate issue subpoenas for testimony by the following witnesses with direct knowledge of Administration decisions regarding the delay in security assistance funds to the government of Ukraine and the requests for certain investigations to be announced by the government of Ukraine: Robert Blair, Senior Advisor to the Acting White House Chief of Staff; Mick Mulvaney, Acting White House Chief of Staff; John Bolton, former National Security Advisor; and Michael Duffey, Associate Director for National Security, Office of Management and Budget.  All four of these witnesses were asked to testify in the House impeachment inquiry but did not appear.” (Sen. Schumer, Letter To Sen. McConnell, 12/15/2019)

THE FACTS: “Sen. Charles Schumer said Saturday that House impeachment managers, in three days of impeachment presentations, did not mention ‘a single new fact’ that would warrant calling witnesses. ‘I have not heard in all the days of testimony a single new fact,’ said Schumer, D-N.Y. ‘That is the reason to have witnesses. That is basically the only reason to have witnesses.’” (“Sen. Schumer Argues Witnesses Not Warranted,” The [Albany] Times Union, 1/17/1999)

SEN. SCHUMER: “I think today is a sad day. It’s a sad day for the country. It’s a potentially sad day for the Senate. It’s certainly a sad day for Monica Lewinsky. It seems to me that no good case has been made for witnesses. That if the purpose, as the House managers stated, for witnesses is to compare the disparities in facts, then they would have called a different list of witnesses. Because the number one witness who is involved in factual disparities is Betty Currie, and she wasn’t called.” (Sen. Schumer, Press Conference, 1/27/1999)

“So far, there is no sign of a bipartisan groundswell in favor of calling witnesses to examine the charges. ‘I think most Democrats remain opposed to the idea,’ said Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a Democrat from New York.” (“Calling Witnesses Is Likely, GOP Says; Votes A Week Away; President Could Be Invited To Testify,” The Baltimore Sun, 1/16/1999)

SEN. SCHUMER: “Well again, I do not think we need witnesses because we have studied this for a year. There’s 60,000 pages as Henry Hyde kept saying in the House when he didn’t want to call witnesses with testimony. I will say this though, I think the process that was agreed to can lead us much closer together and that’s why I was so pleased to be part of it after three months of acrimony first on the House Judiciary Committee and then on the House floor. Remember, first each side will make its case. That will narrow maybe what kind of witnesses people think they might need to hear. Then they have to present a list of witnesses and that list is not for who goes directly to the House floor, but simply who would be deposed. That is supposed to be one list. I think that encourages brevity. In other words, if they were to present the list, the House managers of 47 witnesses, maybe some of my colleagues would vote no on that list and it has to be as I understand it, one list.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 1/10/1999)

SEN. SCHUMER: “Well, my view is that we have heard from most of these witnesses over and over again. We’ve heard the same story. I am a little perplexed by the selection of witnesses. The House managers told us repeatedly that they needed witnesses to resolve conflicts of fact, but the bottom line is one of the witnesses who was called, Sidney Blumenthal, there is absolutely no conflict of fact. And the number one witness where there are conflicts of fact, Betty Currie, wasn’t called at all. And sometimes I wonder if the House managers aren’t a little more interested in political theater than in actually getting to the bottom of the facts.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 1/31/1999)

NBC’S MATT LAUER: “Senator Schumer, the basic problem here is that the House managers say the president perjured himself and obstructed justice. The president says, that’s not true. Aren’t witnesses the only way to sort out that cloudy situation since they have the first-hand knowledge of what occurred?”
SEN. SCHUMER: “Matt, they are. With one basic caveat here. We have now -- Monica Lewinsky has been interviewed by the Office of Independent Counsel 22 times, Betty Currie nine times, Vernon Jordan five times. They said the same thing on each time. So what I am waiting to see is what -- why are we going through this again? We know what they’ve said. People can draw different opinions from that. But why don’t -- why are we again going through witnesses? I thought Mr. Ruff made a pretty compelling case yesterday that calling Vernon Jordan wouldn’t change the facts, that he was on the airplane when the job search quote, "Began in earnest" according to Asa Hutchinson and so he didn’t know of this change in the status of Monica Lewinsky, that when you call John Podesta and the other presidential appointees, they’re going to say exactly the same thing they have said 20 times, which is what the president told them.” (NBC’s “Today Show,” 1/20/1999)

Schumer Claimed Calling Witnesses Would Be At Least A Two Month Process, Now Wants An Expedited Witness Process

5. SEN. SCHUMER: “We would of course be open to hearing the testimony of additional witnesses having direct knowledge of the Administration’s decisions regarding the delay in security assistance funds to the government of Ukraine and the requests for certain investigations to be announced by the government of Ukraine, if the President’s counsel or House Managers identify such witnesses.   In order to ensure that the trial can be completed within a reasonable period of time, I propose that the total time allotted to testimony by each witness be limited to not more than four hours for the House Managers and not more than four hours for the President’s counsel.” (Sen. Schumer, Letter To Sen. McConnell, 12/15/2019)

THE FACTS: SEN. SCHUMER: “And so one wonders why all of a sudden the House managers, who were vehemently opposed to witnesses in the House, are now so eager to call witnesses here. And one other point, Tony, I agree with Byron completely. Once, any trial lawyer will tell you, once you start a trial, you don’t know how long it’s going to last. We may have a set list of four witnesses, and then the president says I want five, and then the House managers say in reference to these five, we want another three. Each one will be deposed by both sides first. I can’t imagine, if we vote for witnesses, if this is going, that it’s any less than a two month process.” (Fox News Sunday, 1/17/1999)

Schumer’s Partisan Loyalty Meant He ‘Never’ Considered Voting For The Articles Of Impeachment Against Clinton, Now Claims He’s For Putting ‘Partisan Concerns’ Aside

7. SEN. SCHUMER: “We believe this proposal, which is set forth in greater detail in the accompanying document, will allow for a trial in which all of the facts can be considered fully and fairly, and in which final votes can be taken within a reasonable period of time, without any unnecessary delay.  Conducting the trial according to this plan will also allow the public to have confidence in the process and will demonstrate that the Senate can put aside partisan concerns and fulfill its constitutional duty.  I look forward to discussing this plan with you and to working with you to ensure that the Senate can rise to this critically important occasion.” (Sen. Schumer, Letter To Sen. McConnell, 12/15/2019)

THE FACTS: NPR’S LINDA WERTHEIMER: “Mr. Schumer, you had critical things to say about the president in your own campaign for the Senate in New York. Did you ever at any time consider voting for any of the articles of impeachment?”
REP. SCHUMER: “Never. I had to research this thoroughly, Linda, because I was, as you say, campaigning and had to vote as a member of the Judiciary Committee. I came to two conclusions. I came to the conclusion that the president did lie under oath and should be punished for it. But I came to an equally strong conclusion that the obstruction of justice and abuse of charges, the more serious charges, not that the others aren’t, were flimsy and were politically motivated by Ken Starr. And that any--even if you assumed everything Ken Starr said as fact, it did not rise to the level of impeachment. So I never thought of voting for the articles of impeachment and I do think this is sort of a partisan hijacking. I worry about the future of the country when this can happen. I worry that Democrats will next try to impeach a Republican president. I worry that we are using the criminal process and scandal-mongering, if you will, both parties are, to achieve political goals; things that can’t be achieved at the ballot box are almost sort of criminalized.” (NPR’s “All Things Considered,” 12/18/1998)

NBC’S LISA MYERS: “Though D’Amato once said he wanted every student to learn to spell the word subpoena, he is conspicuously silent about the latest scandal, saying he may have to be a juror if there’s an impeachment trial in the Senate. Schumer, on the other hand, says the president should be censured for lying to the grand jury. So a vote for Chuck Schumer is a vote not to impeach the president.”
REP. SCHUMER: “Based on the present evidence, that is correct.” (NBC’s “Today,” 10/28/1998)

NBC’S TIM RUSSERT: “Congressman Schumer, the Republican National Committee put out a statement saying that you were a House member on the Judiciary Committee, you announced that you would not impeach the president of the United States.”
SEN. SCHUMER: “Right.”
RUSSERT: “That therefore, you are not an impartial juror in the Senate and should recuse yourself.”
SEN. SCHUMER: “Right. Well, first, I found it curious that three of us had to take positions because of our positions in the House, then-Congressman Bunning, Congressman Crapo and myself. They criticized me without mentioning the other two, who also took a position. But let’s remember this, Tim: The Founding Fathers, whose wisdom just knocks my socks off every day, it really does, set this process up to be in the Senate, not at the Supreme Court, not in some judicial body. Every day, for instance, hundreds of people call us up and lobby us on one side and the other. You can’t do that with a juror. The standard is different. It’s supposed to be a little bit judicial and a little bit legislative-political. That’s how it’s been. And, you know, I have to say this, and, you know, it’s my first week in the Senate, and in the middle of the week, I was depressed, saying to myself, "This is going to be a process just like the House. We’re starting to divide; we’re starting to get angry." And by the end of the week, because of Senators Kennedy and Gramm and Lott and Daschle, we have a process that I think is fair. I do not think if this process seems to carry out in the direction it does that it will go on for a long time. I want to compliment--you know, it was hard for my Republican Senate colleagues to tell their House colleagues they couldn’t get everything they wanted, which was just to call everybody willy-nilly. And…” (NBC’s “Meet The Press, 1/10/1999)

CNN’S LARRY KING: “How can you judge a trial in which you have already stated an opinion or have an opinion? You wouldn’t be --- you’d be thrown off a jury in any court in America, right?”
SEN. SCHUMER: “Right.”
KING: “You have a pre-opinion.”
SEN. SCHUMER: “The three of us in the House, two Republicans -- Crapo and Bunning -- and myself have all decided we would continue to sit here and that’s precisely for the reasons I think that Joe Biden mentioned. This is not a criminal trial, but this is something the founding fathers decided to put in a body that was susceptible to the whims of politics. I felt that to have my state -- have half the representation of every other state wouldn’t make sense.”
KING: “So therefore anybody taking an oath tomorrow can have a pre-opinion; it’s not a jury box.”
SEN. SCHUMER: “Many do.”
KING: “Many do.”
SEN. SCHUMER: “And then they change. In fact, it’s also not like a jury box in the sense that people will call us and lobby us. You don’t have jurors called and lobbied and things like that. I mean it’s quite different than a jury. We’re also the judge.” (CNN’s “Larry King Live,” 1/6/1999)