releases: https://sensenbrenner.house.gov/2019/12/sensenbrenner-democrat-impeachment-weakest-case-in-history
Data license: MIT · Data source: dwillis/congress-press
This data as json
| url | title | date | year | month | party | chamber | state | member_name | bioguide_id | domain | scraper | source | date_source | text | has_text | collected_at | updated_at |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| https://sensenbrenner.house.gov/2019/12/sensenbrenner-democrat-impeachment-weakest-case-in-history | Sensenbrenner: Democrat Impeachment Weakest Case in History | 2019-12-11 | 2019 | 2019-12 | Republican | House | WI | F. Sensenbrenner | S000244 | sensenbrenner.house.gov | legacy | By: Breitbart Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) delivered a stirring address during the markup of the articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump in the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday evening, calling the Democrats' case the weakest in American history. His full speech: Mr. Chairman, I agree witheverybody that tonight is a verysolemn night. This is the third time in thelast 40 years, 45 years, thatthis committee has sat to readarticles of impeachment againstthe President of the United States. What we are debating here, in myopinion, is the weakest case inhistory. And yet the Democrats have decided to go full speed ahead, again because ofthe clock and the calendar, withan incomplete record, simply byusing hearsay evidence andtrashing the rules of the Houseevery time they can in order tospeed things up for the preordainedconclusion. And that is: apartisan vote for impeachment, something that both the Speakerand the chairman of thiscommitteete rejected earlier onwhen they thought they couldmake this bipartisan. If they could've made itbipartisan, they blew theiropportunity very early on withtheir trashing of the rules andthe trashing of what is thehistory of what is in the history this committee. Now, let's look at these twoarticles. Unlike the Nixon and Clintonimpeachment, there is no crimethat is alleged to have been committed by the President of the United States. There are policy differences, but I would submit that giventhe definition of treason, andbribery, and other high crimesand misdemeanors, that does notmean that the policy differencesshould be enough to remove apresident from office. There is no allegation ofbribery in these articles. There is no allegation ofextortion. They have defined for themselveswhat a high crime andmisdemeanor will be. This bar is so low that what ishappening is that a futurepresident can be impeached forany disagreement when thepresidency and the House of Representatives are controlledby different parties. And that goes back toestablishing a parliamentarysystem, which the Framersexplicitly rejected at the time of the Constitutional Convention. In the United Kingdom, or Canada, or other parliamentarydemocracies, if the governmentloses the confidence of themajority of the lower house, the government is out, and there is either a newgovernment or a new electionthat happens. The Framers did not want that. We had an independentpresidency. The president was independentlyelected. He did not serve at thesufferance of Congress. No he served for a fixed term andwas only, if he really obstructedthe functions of government orwas treasonous, he could beimpeached. Now let's look at obstruction of Congress. You know, again, in the past, whenever theexecutive and legislativebranches in the United Stateshave had a disagreement, they'vegone to court. And the third branch decides this difference. This committee and this majorityare so hide-bound to their clock and their calendar that they willnot allow the judicialprocess to work out. What brought Richard Nixon down,honestly, was the Supreme Courtsaying that he had to turn overcertain documents. And within two or three weeksafter that, the president knewhis time was up. There were Republicans that convinced him of that, and he resigned, rulingout the impeachment. So, yes the constitution is atstake. The Framers of our Constitution's enlightened decisions are at stake. We are about to go on a road tobecoming a parliamentarydemocracy like England and Canada are. We need an independent presidentwho does not have to suffer toanything a congressional majority might throw at him. That's what the courts are for, to figure it out. And I would to appeal to mychairman, [and] the majority membersof this committee, to listen towhat Madison and Hamilton had tosay during the ratification ofthe Constitution and during thedebates of the convention: put aside your partisan politicsand don't listen to what Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler are tellingyou because the future of ourcountry and the viability of our Constitution as the Framersdecided are at stake. The committee will vote Thursday, and an impeachment vote is possible by Friday. | 1 | 2026-03-30T12:14:52Z | 2026-03-30T12:14:52Z |