CT Lawmakers Explain Why They Voted To Impeach Donald Trump

CONNECTICUT — Connecticut's congressional delegation was united on Wednesday's House of Representatives vote to approve two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump and charge him with abusing his office and obstructing Congress.

The nation's 45th president became just the third person in the office to be impeached. He now faces trial in the Senate and the unlikely possibility of being removed from office for "high crimes and misdemeanors."

In Connecticut, it likely wasn't a surprise that all five Democratic members of Congress: John Larson, D-1, Joe Courtney, D-2, Rosa DeLauro, D-3, Jim Himes, D-4, and Jahana Hayes, D-5, all voted to impeach Trump.

Last week, a bitterly divided House Judiciary Committee approved two articles of impeachment accusing Trump of abusing the power of his office and obstructing Congress. However, given the Senate is controlled by Republicans, it's considered highly unlikely.

Impeachment is not a conviction, rather the rough equivalent of a grand jury issuing indictments. Senators act as judge and jury.

Here's how Connecticut lawmakers voted on both articles of impeachment, and why they voted the way they did:

John Larson

“As we vote today, I think it is instructive that Americans reflect on how we got to this point. The impeachment of Donald J. Trump has largely been brought on by the President himself.

“The President took two specific actions: he directly solicited a foreign government to gather information on his political opponent. He then further sought to promote a false narrative that it was Ukraine, and not Russia, who interfered with the elections in 2016. With the ability to correct the record, clear his name, or offer explanation for his actions, he chose instead to obstruct a co-equal branch of government from performing its Constitutional responsibilities of oversight and review. He did this by refusing testimony, ignoring Congressional subpoenas, and not providing Congress with any pertinent information or data.

“Today we’re putting Russia and other adversaries on notice, don’t interfere with our elections. Russia tried to divide the country in 2016, but they only succeed if America turns away from the rule of law.

“Some Republicans have excused the President’s behavior by saying, ‘Donald Trump isn’t a politician, he’s a businessman. This is Trump being Trump, this how he’s used to doing business.’

“That very well may be true, but in a constitutional democracy, no one, including Donald Trump, is above the law.

“I realize there are people who feel strongly and differently than I do, but to do nothing, to take no vote, is in essence condoning this behavior that disregards our Constitution. Republicans may see today differently, but as we look forward, we must stand united as a Congress in defending our democracy.

“For a democracy to work in a system of checks and balances, no one is above the law. The President takes an oath of allegiance to the United States Constitution; there are no exceptions for the art of the deal.”

Joe Courtney

“The release of two articles of impeachment on December 10, 2019 is the culmination of two and a half months of depositions, public hearings and legal analysis conducted under the House rules, H.Res. 660 passed by the House, and the Constitution. These activities were initiated after President Trump’s Inspector General Michael Atkinson notified Congress of a ‘credible’ and ‘urgent’ complaint that centered around actions taken by President Trump that had serious ramifications to US national security.

“As someone who has voted three times since 2017 against Privileged Motions for impeachment brought in the House, and who had initially opposed commencing an impeachment process based on the Mueller Report, Mr. Atkinson’s report, made pursuant to the law, raised a far different issue than before. It concerned actions by President Trump, not candidate Trump - and thus was not about ‘relitigating the 2016 election’ – and also concerned the suspension of military assistance to Ukraine that the House Armed Services Committee, on which I proudly serve, had directly supported on a bipartisan basis.

“On the committee, we have tracked Russia’s illegal occupation of Crimea, invasion of the Donbass region, and seizure of three Ukrainian navy vessels along with 20 sailors in international waters in 2018. The desperately needed military assistance that was suspended by President Trump was for an ally who is actively fighting a war against Russian aggression.

“Pages 67 through 82 of the Intelligence Committee’s Impeachment Inquiry report clearly lay out the timeline of the 55-day suspension of aid that the Office of Management and Budget suddenly ordered despite the unanimous objections of the Departments of Defense, State, and NSC. During that time, the Los Angeles Times reported that 25 Ukrainian soldiers lost their lives in combat. The gravity of this feckless decision is clear and stunning.

“Pages 114 through 134 also make clear that during that 55-day hiatus, President Trump wanted a ‘favor’ before the assistance would be released – namely, a public announcement by a foreign leader, Ukrainian President Zelensky, that he would commence an investigation aimed at former Vice President Biden and the widely de-bunked claims of Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election (page 121). Contrary to the President’s assertions, this is not about a single call – but instead reflects a sustained campaign by this President, his aides, and outside actors to use US assistance to solicit foreign involvement in our elections.

“After having read the 110-page Republican minority views on the intelligence committee impeachment inquiry report a number of times, it is clear that no meaningful rebuttal of those facts exists, partly because the White House indiscriminately barred key officials from testifying before the Intelligence Committee. It is also clear that the delayed release of the support to Ukraine on September 11, 2019 was due to the public revelation of the suspension in late August and the public furor it caused, as well as growing knowledge within the administration and in Congress of the existence of the whistleblower’s complaint. That the aid was ultimately released, as required by the law, is not a compelling defense given all we now know about the events leading up to this decision.

“Article One of the impeachment resolution states ‘President Trump abused the powers of the Presidency by ignoring and injuring national security and other vital interests to obtain an improper personal benefit.’ Unfortunately, based on uncontested facts, the President’s actions did cause harm to an ally, contradicted the clear bipartisan intent of Congress who approved the military assistance, and did so for his own benefit. This article does not ‘relitigate’ the actions of Candidate Trump in 2016, but is aimed squarely at President Trump’s actions while in office. The Impeachment power of the Congress is reserved in Article One of the Constitution to regulate precisely this type of behavior. As Alexander Hamilton stated in ‘Federalist No. 65,’ the subject of impeachment is for ‘those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words, the abuse or violation of the public trust.’ His words describe accurately the situation addressed in Article One, and I intend to vote in support of it.

“Article Two of the impeachment resolution concerns the indiscriminate refusal of President Trump to recognize the Impeachment powers of the Congress. Article One, Section Two of the Constitution, clearly vests that power ‘solely’ in the House of Representatives. The blanket order of the President to defy the House is unprecedented, and no coherent explanation or defense has ever been offered to justify that decision. All of the President’s aides who brazenly defied the impeachment inquiry could have claimed privilege to individual questions, but are not entitled to just refuse to appear. Once again, it is my intention to support the rule of law and uphold Congress's constitutional role as a coequal branch of our government, and vote in favor of Article Two.

“Our constitutional system of government relies on the President’s faithful execution of laws duly passed by Congress in service of the national interest, not personal political benefit. Based on the evidence and testimony in the impeachment inquiry, it is clear to me that the President has failed to uphold that constitutional duty. Therefore, I will solemnly support the articles of impeachment introduced this week when they come before me for a vote in the House.”

Rosa DeLauro

“President Donald Trump’s actions are a dangerous departure from his oath of office and his duty to uphold the Constitution. As with many of my colleagues, I was reluctant to call for impeachment because I feared it would further divide our country, be perceived as overturning the 2016 election, and go to the United States Senate where Republicans would acquit President Trump regardless of the evidence. But the President’s unchecked actions gave the Congress no other choice.”

“Today, the House of Representatives upheld its duty to protect the Constitution of the United States. Our founders set up a system of checks and balances, separation of powers, and rule of law so that no person would be above the law. That includes the President of the United States. The Constitutional recourse for ‘treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors’ is clear: impeachment. It is a heavy price—intended only for matters of grave consequence to our republic. President Trump’s actions meet that high bar, and that is why I voted in favor of the articles of impeachment.”

“The facts of the case against President Trump are indisputable. On July 25, 2019, President Trump called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and asked him to ‘look into’ 2020 Presidential candidate Vice President Joe Biden and his son—an investigation solely for his own personal and political gain. In the weeks leading up to that call, the President withheld Congressionally-appropriated foreign aid to Ukraine, as well as a meeting between the two countries’ presidents in the White House, as leverage. The President’s abuse of power has been corroborated before the Congress by brave public servants over the last few months.”

“Facing a Congressional investigation into these matters, President Trump ‘directed the unprecedented, categorical, and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives pursuant to its “sole Power of Impeachment.”’ In doing so, President Trump obstructed Congress’s Constitutionally-authorized investigation.”

Jim Himes

Jahana Hayes

"My commitment has always been to be honest and transparent with the people of Connecticut’s 5th District on my thinking and the decisions I make. Impeachment is not a course I wanted to pursue. I came to Congress to make a difference, not to impeach a President.

After extensive review of the articles of impeachment and the available evidence, I will vote in favor of impeaching the President of the United States. I do not take this action lightly and understand the gravity of the moment.

As the impeachment discussion progressed, I remained committed to not weighing in publicly, believing it was important that everyone had the chance to examine the case for themselves. As the investigation proceeded, I deliberately chose not to comment without having had a chance to review all the evidence and study the full articles as drafted.

I have now had the chance to thoroughly consider all the evidence and the articles of impeachment being considered on the floor of the House of Representatives. It is clear to me that the president attempted to use the Office of the President to demand a foreign leader investigate an American citizen for political gain.

As I listened to the testimony, I became more concerned about the actions of the president. While some may argue these actions do not merit impeachment, to do nothing and normalize this behavior would be a dereliction of my oath of office. This is a moment where I must lead, and I will vote yes when the articles of impeachment are brought to the floor of the House."

Chris Murphy, U.S. Senator

“Every senator took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and now that a trial of the president is coming to the Senate, we need to recognize that conducting a fair, fact-centered trial is central to that oath,” said Murphy. “I don't want a trial that drags on for months, but I also want to make sure every senator has all the information relevant to the weighty decision before us. Rushing to a vote, with no witnesses and no demands for documents, would be an affront to our constitutional duty.”

Murphy continued: “The bottom line is this: President Trump abused his authority by using taxpayer funded aid to pressure a foreign government to help him win re-election in 2020. Since then, he has been trying to cover up his corruption. If there are no consequences for such blatant attempts to rig an election, or such brazen resistance to congressional oversight, then I fear for the future of the rule of law. I am deeply sorry that our nation has to go through this, but now we have to focus on rising above petty politics and conducting a process that puts our nation's interests first.”

Richard Blumenthal, U.S. Senator

"After lengthy fact-finding & compelling public testimony, the case is clear: President Trump tried to trade away our national security for a personal political favor. Merely soliciting a bribe is bribery. Ineffective criminals are still criminals.

I know my House colleagues felt a grave, solemn responsibility this evening as they cast their votes. I hope we in the Senate will approach our upcoming task—a full, fair trial with witnesses & documents—with the same kind of steadfast commitment to the facts & to our Constitution."