Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Mr. Speaker, and still I rise, a proud, liberated Democrat, unbought, unbossed, and unafraid.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today because I believe in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I am known to wear this tie that has what I consider to be a meaning that expresses much of what the pledge is all about. There are many people who have said to me that the tie is old, that it appears to be soiled and stained, but it is my favorite tie. It is a tie that I will never surrender. It is a tie that means something to me because it stands for something.

It stands for the Pledge of Allegiance. More appropriately, it stands for some specific words within that pledge. Those words are: ``Liberty and justice for all.''

``Liberty and justice for all.''

I do pledge allegiance to liberty and justice for all, and I rise today to thank the courageous persons who, on just yesterday, took a stand for liberty and justice for all.

I rise to thank the 140 persons who, on yesterday, voted to support H. Res. 939, House Resolution 939. This resolution, H. Res. 939, impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

I rise to thank the 140 persons who supported this resolution.

I rise to thank the 47 persons who did not oppose what we were doing but chose to simply say: I will vote ``present.''

That was a significant vote, as well. I rise to thank them.

All of these persons had the courage to say to Donald John Trump: Things are changing in this country. You are likely to face a vote of 218 more persons who would vote to have you impeached.

I rise to thank them for their courage, but I also rise with my cane in hand to thank two people. I want to thank John Bonifaz. John Bonifaz. John Bonifaz. Constitutional scholar, John Bonifaz.

There are many constitutional scholars in this country. Let me harken back just a moment to make this point perspicuously clear.

There were many people who understood what invidious discrimination was, known as segregation but, in fact, was racism. There were many who knew what it was. They understood it. They could articulate it well. They were great orators, but they had something that set them apart from Dr. King. It was a lack of courage.

Dr. King was set apart from the intellectuals and great orators of his time because he had courage. It was his courage that allowed him to go to Birmingham and, from the Birmingham jail, to write a letter that explained why the movement existed and why it was so important.

It was courage.

John Bonifaz, constitutional scholar par excellence. John Bonifaz has something that many of the constitutional scholars just don't have. They are brilliant. They can elucidate and explain to you the Federalist Papers in great detail. They can tell you why you shouldn't or why you should do something, but they don't have the courage of John Bonifaz--the courage to speak not only truth to power. You can speak truth to power by simply saying: Power, there is a problem, and we need to address it.

John will speak truth about power, which means you go to power, and you say: Power, there is a problem, and you are it. You are it.

John Bonifaz has that kind of power. John Bonifaz has that kind of courage.

John Bonifaz, I thank you for what you have done to help me move impeachment to the floor of the House of Representatives for a vote. I want history to know who you were. I want people to know that you left big tracks--big tracks--in the sands of time. I want people to know that you came from one direction and that you proceeded to another, a righteous direction. I want people to know who you are.

I want people to know who Jessica Denson is, who is the mother and founder of the Removal Coalition; who believes that impeachment, conviction, and removal is part of the process, but it is also the solution.

Jessica Denson is a courageous woman--a courageous woman who has a voice that is sometimes amazing to me in terms of how she so clearly articulates the issues of our time.

I want people to know that she had the courage to be there when we were in front of the Lincoln Memorial--to be there--to be the key, the cornerstone, of the movement that caused us to get to the Lincoln Memorial, which she was there to support but also to push for impeachment, conviction, and removal. She is truly one of the great patriots of our time.

I thank you for your courage.

I also want to thank the millions of people now who are associating themselves with this courage of Bonifaz; with this courage of Denson; with this courage of the 140 who, on yesterday, voted to support H. Res. 939; with this courage of the 47 who also took a position that I appreciate greatly.

There is courage. I have to mention courage because these things don't happen simply because you want them to. It is not easy to do what we did yesterday. It is not. There are all sorts of forces, crosscurrents, winds, and all sorts of energy pushing back: Don't do it.

Let me pause for a moment and say this: Those who are antithetical to my views like to say that I--Al Green has gone rogue. It was in the papers today. Al Green is coming before Congress, and he has his cane, and he is just waving his cane.

That is what they say. They would have me become a person who is just another person from some dark place who doesn't know what he is talking about, so they talk about waving my cane.

Yes, I am waving my cane, and I am pointing it straight at all of you who are antithetical to righteousness, antithetical to what we did yesterday in bringing these Articles of Impeachment to a vote. I am pointing my cane at you.

I am pointing at those people who are a part of the news media who will bring me up and say things about me but won't allow me to respond to them. You know who you are. But, as I was saying, I want people to know about this courage and the pushback and the antithetical forces. I want people to know about it, and I want people to know that I understand what happened yesterday.

It was comparable to what happened at the Edmund Pettus Bridge. Yesterday was a seminal moment in time. It was comparable to what happened. It was comparable to what happened when John Lewis explained it to me. What many people never discuss is the fact that there were many people who thought that you shouldn't go to the Edmund Pettus Bridge; it is too dangerous.

If you go to the Edmund Pettus Bridge, you could be hurt. You know what the constabulary will do. There were people who warned them, admonished them, pleaded with some of them, saying: Those people will hurt you. These people are inspired by hate. There are some evil people among them.

It was courage, however, that said: Go on to the Edmund Pettus Bridge, go on to the Edmund Pettus Bridge.

Not only did they go, but when they reached that crest, they could see a point where the constabulary was there, some on horseback, and they knew at that point that some of those people who admonished them were right, but they marched on. They did not allow fear to prevent them from doing a righteous thing, even when they knew the consequences could be harmful.

I keep saying it, and I will say it until I make my transition. John Lewis told me that he thought he was going to die on that bridge, but he marched on. Yesterday, in spite of a lot of admonitions, people marched on. People marched on, and they took a courageous vote: a vote that is going to be marked as a seminal moment in time, a vote that will have an impact on the rest of time because it sent a message to a reckless, ruthless, lawless President indicating that your time in office as a reckless, ruthless, lawless President, your days are numbered.

No one wants to see you harmed physically, that is not the case. But there are people who do not believe that you should serve out this term of office given your behavior in office. There are people who believe that you ought to be impeached, you ought to be convicted, and you ought to be removed.

I am one of the people. I am one of the people. We, the people of the removal movement, believe that you, sir,

should be an example of what a righteous government will do when a person who would subvert the Constitution has slithered his way into office.

You, sir, should be the example. You, sir, by your behavior, by your actions, by your words, by your deeds, you, sir, should not hold the title President of the United States of America, and you should be removed.

I know that there are some who would want to wait, well, he will leave office in a couple years, and after he leaves office in a couple of years, we will get back to our normal lives. Not the case. This man is having a long-term impact on American society. Not the case.

There are others who want to mimic him. There are many Trumps--not many in terms of numbers, although I could argue that there are large numbers, but there are many in terms of being smaller now who would like to enlarge their persona, enlarge their image, enlarge their reach, enlarge their power, many Trumps who want to be another Donald Trump. They are out there, and we need to do something to let people know that when you behave as he has behaved, justice will be served.

Yesterday, the sword of justice swung across the House of Representatives, and it left its indelible mark. People know now that we mean business. Yes, we mean business.

To the millions of people who have joined the impeach, convict, and removal coalition, I thank you for being there. I especially thank the persons who were on The Mall at the Lincoln Memorial.

Now, I would like to respond to the question, if I haven't already: Why are you doing this, Al Green? That really is not the question.

The question really is: Why wouldn't I do it? Why wouldn't I do it, when I have in my hand language that motivates me to do it?

Let me read what I bear in my hand. It says here Dick Cheney's statement. For further edification, that would be Vice President Dick Cheney. This is his statement on Donald Trump's statement, talking about Donald Trump. This is something that NPR published September 6, 2024, per Vice President Dick Cheney.

By the way, he was a Republican. I need not say it, but I think that it adds to what I am about to say. I am a Democrat. I think we were in different places politically, but when it comes to the country, we are in the same place. We were in the same place then, and we are in the same place now.

Here is what he said: ``In our Nation's 248-year history, there has never been an individual who is a greater threat'' to American democracy--correction--``a greater threat to our Republic than Donald Trump.''

Let me repeat it. ``In our Nation's 248-year history, there has never been an individual who is a greater threat to our Republic than Donald Trump.''

Then, he goes on to inspire because he says: ``As citizens, we each have a duty''--I would add the word ``responsibility.'' ``We each have a duty to put country above partisanship to defend our Constitution,'' to put our country above partisanship and defend our Constitution.

Those words inspire me. I believe that he is right. We have to put country above partisanship. We have got to defend the Constitution. That means defend liberty and justice for all, not in the Constitution, but it is symbolic of what the Constitution represents. It means, defend your Fifth Amendment rights, right to due process, 14th Amendment also, defend your right to free speech, defend your right to say that members of the military don't have to follow illegal orders. In fact, they must not follow illegal orders. That is what he is talking about. That is the Constitution. That is what comes out of the Constitution, although it may not be explicated with this kind of specificity within the Constitution, but that is it. You have got a right to say it. Don't follow illegal orders. That is a mandate. It is not something that is optional. You have got a right to say it. And you have got a right to say it without having someone indicate that you somehow have done something wrong and that you somehow ought to be hanged.

Now, I will say more about that in just a moment. I have much to say about that, but before I say it, I want to say this: If you, any one of you, if I, if I threaten the President of the United States of America, I have got a punishment here in my hand, if you are convicted under 18 U.S.C. Section 871 of threatening the President of the United States, you can suffer consequences including up to 5 years in a Federal prison, fines of $250,000, a permanent felony record, possible restrictions on future employment, firearm ownership, and other rights.

Now, if I or anyone of you should indicate in some way that the President ought to somehow receive a death sentence, or if I or one of you should indicate that the President ought to be hanged, I guarantee you this President would have you arrested. I guarantee you, you would be incarcerated. I guarantee you, because you can indict a ham sandwich, they say, you would be indicted. I guarantee you, you would go to trial.

If you do something that is considered threatening, if you say--here is a good word: If you say the President ought to receive death, be punishable by death, or if you say that he ought to be hanged--as the President has said here when he posted a third-party's post indicating, ``hang them, Washington would,'' indicating here that their behavior was ``seditious behavior, punishable by death.''

Now I am talking about the person who did the right thing, the righteous thing, the lawful thing of saying to people in the military: Don't follow illegal orders. They found themselves, not the President but themselves, being suspect. The President who has threatened execution, some people don't want him impeached.

Now, there are some who do, but they have various reasons for why they can't take the stand. They can't say it. Well, I can. For all of you who want to say it and can't say it, I am saying it for you. I am saying he should have been impeached. I am saying that if ever there was a President in the history of the United States of America who should be impeached, it is Donald John Trump for what he said. He should be impeached.

Now, there are people who will say that you do know that he went over to FOX News, that he slithered his way over there and after being there, he indicated that he didn't intend for anybody to be killed. Maybe not in those exact words, but he didn't intend. He didn't intend for that to be the case.

Do you really think that if I said the President ought to be hanged that I could go over to FOX--well, FOX wouldn't allow me to say it, but some news source--and say, oh, no. Forgive me. I made a mistake. It was a slip of my tongue. No. This President would not allow it. He would consider this a threat. I would be facing a fine. I would be facing going to prison, but the President is with impunity, saving what happened yesterday, with impunity making threats against judges, making threats against Members of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, for those who say, well, that is just Congress and they are just judges, let me tell you how it impacts your life.

If you go before one of the judges that the President has threatened and you believe that the President's threats can make a difference, will you question the judgment of the judge? He puts the judiciary in question, the judgements. When he can intimidate judges to the extent that you think judges are acting because of the President's actions that he has taken against the judge.

This is bigger than you are as a person. It is about all of us as people. Threatening the judiciary, threatening the independence of the judiciary, not respecting the separation of powers, it impacts you and me.

We all can be judged at some point. We want to believe that the judge is going to be objective, that he is not going to be subjected, that he is not going to or she is not going to subject her most precious judicious thoughts to the whims of a President who is reckless, ruthless, and lawless. That is what you want to believe.

Okay. Well, maybe that takes care of the judges, Congressman Green, but what about Members of Congress? He is just threatening them.

Remember, we had a Member of Congress who was wounded. There was an

attempt to assassinate her. There were innocent bystanders there with her who were harmed, deadly. It is about all of us. It is about when we are out in the public. It is about some person taking to heart what the President said when he said ``death,'' when he said ``hang them.'' It is about all of us.

Mr. Speaker, I have no regrets for what I have done. Zero. I would challenge anyone to come and stand over here or here and stand with me. I challenge you to come and stand and point out why I shouldn't have done what I have done, or we shouldn't have done what we have done, meaning those who were part of the removal coalition.

Come. I challenge you. Let's talk before the world, any one of you. I am proud of what I have done. I would do it again.

I want you to know that in doing this we are putting the country above some people. We are. Because it is the country that contains all of the people. All of the people are more important than some one or two, 10 people maybe, maybe 23. More important than 23 people. It is the country we are trying to save.

Well, how do you save the country without having control of the House of Representatives, Al?

By showing the country that what is happening to this country is going to cause us to dissolve into something that we have been fighting. We are already at the point of having a person who is maybe less than a dictator but an authoritarian, we are getting close.

When the President controls one side of the aisle that has a majority, the Republicans in the House, when a President controls one side of the aisle called Republicans in the Senate, when a President has stacked the Supreme Court of the United States--yes, he stacked the deck--and gets rulings that people never thought the Supreme Court would render, all that is left is impeachment. That is all that is left.

There are those who would say, well, let's just wait. Why don't we wait. They told Dr. King to wait. One of the things that Dr. King said in response to this notion that we must wait was: ``The time is always right to do what is right.''

Now, I say to you what we did yesterday was not only right, it was righteous because everything in those articles is true. It is righteous, and we don't have constitutional scholars coming out and saying, well, it really doesn't comply with Federalist number whatever. That is not the argument.

The argument is this is not the time. I differ. The time, as Dr. King put it, is always right to do what is right.

Now, Dr. King didn't expect everybody to do what was right when he was doing it. I don't expect everybody who believes that what we are doing is right but won't do it themselves to do what is right with us.

I understand, but what I don't want you to do, and I beg that you not do, is assault the people who are standing up for you in clever language.

Don't do that. Don't assault us. We may fight back, but don't do that. I have bigger things to do. I am not going to say ugly things.

My point is this is bigger than any one of us in this Congress. It is bigger than the Congress, the House and the Senate together, and the judiciary. This is about the country. What kind of country will he leave when he leaves office? That is what we are dealing with.

My friends across the aisle are very much aware of how he is encroaching upon the separation of powers, the judiciary, how he is threatening the Supreme Court, and threatening judges with abusive, vituperative language. When you are threatening one judge, you are threatening them all. Let's not kid ourselves. He is doing it.

I am going to share this with you. I know who this President is. I want to make sure that you understand that I am going to a different topic in sharing with you who he is. I want to tell you who he is because, in telling you who he is, I will be going to a different topic. I made my point about impeachment, but I want to tell you who he is, because I have seen him before. I know him.

This is a different topic now because there is more to be said about this President than what was said in the Articles of Impeachment. I want to say that more has to be said at this time about who he is that wasn't in the Articles of Impeachment. To say that, I am going to move to another podium. I am going to move to another podium, so give me just a moment as I move to another podium.

And still I rise, Mr. Speaker, and I rise now to explain to the world who Donald John Trump is. I have seen him before. I have seen his cousins. I have seen his relatives. I am going to tell you who he is.

I saw him on June 11, 1963, when he stood in the schoolhouse door. He was George Wallace. I saw him when he fought desegregation in this country. I saw him. He metamorphoses. He changes. He is a shape- shifter. He changes his makeup, his appearance.

Now, there are those who are going to take that literally and say, gosh, he thinks that Donald Trump was George Wallace, but there are other people who understand that I am saying: George Wallace was a forerunner of Donald Trump.

I saw him. I know who he is. He wasn't Wallace, but he is, in a sense, his cousin. He was George Wallace's cousin. He is a relative, not because of ethnicity, not because of race, but because of behavior. They are related in terms of their behavior.

I know he is. I saw him in 1964, when he was Lester Maddox. He had an ax handle, and he used his ax handle to threaten people of color. I saw him with that ax handle when he wouldn't allow Black people into his restaurant.

I know who he is. I saw his cousin, Milton Friedman, Nobel laureate, who, after the Brown v. Board of Education decision was rendered, he went public and said let's use vouchers to maintain segregation. That is another way of saying let's use vouchers to maintain racism, because that is what segregation was. It was racism.

I know who he is because I have read about him and what he did on May 18, 1896, in Plessy v. Ferguson, the case that allowed invidious segregation to bloom and blossom and permeate society.

I know who he is. Some of you don't know. You have not had a chance to review his history as I have. I know his cousins. I know his relatives.

I know who he is because I have read about what his relatives did on March 6, 1857, in Dred Scott v. Sandford, when they concluded, this Chief Justice, that a Black person had no rights that a White person had to respect.

I know who he is. I know the people who were there before him to pave the way for him to do what he is doing now. I know him, and because I know him, I have to fight him. I know what he did in my lifetime.

He didn't have a personal hand in what happened, but when I say he did, I am talking about the people who have made it possible for him to do what he is doing now.

Let's just say I know what they did so that FOX News and some of the many others who are antithetical to hearing the truth--maybe they won't obliterate the truth to the extent that they are perfectly capable of doing.

Here is what I know: I know what happened in my lifetime when I had to go to the back door to get my food. I remember when I had to drink from a filthy colored water fountain when there was a pristine White water fountain right next to me. I know. I lived it.

I remember how I had to sit in the back of the bus, and if there weren't enough seats for Anglos--we called them White people. I don't like the term. But when there weren't enough seats for Anglos, then I had to move. I know. I know what is going on. I see it.

Well, you say, that is not happening right now. No, but we are headed in that direction. I don't want to return to that past where I was a suspect simply because of the color of my skin. I was a suspect.

We are now at a point in this country, to tie this together, where there are people who are suspects because of the way they look, just as I was a suspect because of the way I looked. If you are Latino in the United States of America, given the behavior of the king's men--that would be President Trump--you are a suspect. You are a suspect, and the king's men can show up with a mask, faces covered, collect you--that is a very kind way of saying it--put you in some vehicle, and then storm away to some distant place and lock you up. Relatives don't know where you are--no due process.

I know. I know who you are. I know where you are going. I know what you

want to do. I have suffered what you would return to if you could. I know. Yes, I see how you have decided that you, and you alone, determine what the law is in this country. You, and you alone, will decide whether a person should be locked up or released, unlike what the Constitution requires. I know who you are.

Mr. Speaker, I know who you are. I understand that there is an attempt to roll back the clock. People of color are becoming suspect in this country. You can be African American; you can be Asian; you can be Latino; we are moving toward your being suspect.

There are people of good will of all colors who are going to fight this. I pray that we will succeed. There are people of good will who are White and who are standing with us.

It is easy to see, if you care to look, at how the President has now said: Yes, I said there were s-hole countries. Yes, I said it.

The President is now saying in South Africa there is genocide. We will bring in the White South Africans. If you are from one of the 19 countries--actually it is 18--predominated by people of color, we will put a hold on you.

There is no one so blind as he who won't see, not he who can't, but he who chooses not to see. I know who he is. I know what he has done to lay the foundation, not him personally, but the many who came before him and who know how to use hate as a weapon to change society. That is what he is doing. He is using hate.

He is using beneficial bigotry.

How does beneficial bigotry work, Al Green?

Here is how it works. You go to someone who is a principled person, someone who has been fighting for liberty and justice for all. You do them a favor. In exchange for that favor, you only require one thing: Loyalty. Just give me your loyalty. Give me your loyalty in the future.

The thing that he has done can sometimes be of benefit to the person. Most of the time it is. It can also be detrimental to some other people. He uses beneficial bigotry.

It is beneficial bigotry that he has used against the Palestinians. It is beneficial bigotry to say they should be obliterated and to say that the Palestinians don't deserve a country. He has used it to do all that he can to eliminate the possibility of a two-state solution. That plan that he has is nothing more than a land grab.

I know who he is. I see what he is doing. Others do, too. They just don't have the ability to stand in the well of the House of Representatives and say it. I am saying it. Yes, he is a beneficial bigot.

Then those who benefit from his bigotry are loyal to him. These are people who would never allow a person to do such a thing if he hadn't done favors for them. They would speak out and speak up against his bigotry. They don't because he has done favors.

Those who are part of the evangelical movement see what is happening to the country. They have an opportunity to preach on Sunday all of the righteousness, and then on Monday they benefit from the bigotry. As a result, righteousness becomes secondary to the loyalty that they pledged because he did something for them.

I say to my dear friends in this part of my message today that I am not going to relent. There are some who would have me go away. There are some who have already indicated--there was a news story out today about how I will be defeated at the next election and I will just become part of a bygone history. They have already prognosticated my defeat and called me a rogue.

Friends, all of this may happen. I will say this. It won't change my opinion, and it won't change who I am. I believe in this flag. I believe in liberty and justice for all. I don't support beneficial bigotry. I don't support people who would desecrate what the flag really means as it relates to the Constitution.

Those are not the last Articles of Impeachment that will be brought to the floor. H. Res. 939 is not the last to be brought to the floor for a vote to remove Donald John Trump from office.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, and still I rise.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today on this, the birth date of Dr. Martin Luther King, a man so great in the eyes of this country that we honor his birthday as a holiday, but it is more than a holiday. It is an opportunity for us to do some introspection, to examine some of the many things that are occurring within our country that should be addressed in a King-like fashion.

Dr. King had something that many other intellectuals of his time did not have. He was an intellectual. He had something that many of the persons who did speak up did not have; he had something called courage.

Many of the great intellectuals could expose and expound on some of the great issues of the time, but they didn't have the courage to take a stand, as Dr. King did, to go out into the public--into the streets, if you will--with protest--peaceful protest--to bring about a change in this country, and he did bring about a change.

So today, on his birthday, I want to honor Dr. King by speaking from one of his quotes. He had many quotes that are quite quotable, to be quite honest. It is difficult to single out just a few, but today I will mention a couple. But there is one that I will focus on, the third one. He, of course, is known for having said: ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.''

Injustice in Minnesota is a threat to justice in every other State in the Union.

He didn't say that about Minnesota, but he was giving us the words to help us understand that what is happening in Minnesota, if it is an injustice, it can happen in your State. It can happen in Texas, my State. ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'' I think that is probably one of his most-quoted quotes.

But then he also had one that is not quoted too often. This one is one that people don't like to associate with Dr. King because it speaks to his militancy, in a sense, but it also speaks to things that people don't want us to do. We have a State that has as its motto Live Free or Die.

Well, it is all right for a State to have that, but Dr. King's quote was: ``A man who hasn't found something worth dying for isn't fit to live.''

A man, a person, who has not found something worth dying for isn't fit to live. Very few people will cite Dr. King for having said this. By the way, I paraphrase a lot of what I am saying in terms of his quotes.

``A man who hasn't found something worth dying for isn't fit to live.''

But the one that I would like to quote today and say much about is his quote that deals with the ultimate measure. ``The ultimate measure of a man . . . '' is the way he put it, but I will be paraphrasing.

The ultimate measure--the ultimate measure of the person is not where the person stands in times of comfort--comfort, when all of your bills are paid and you are living the high life--not where the person stands in times of comfort and convenience--when everything is at your fingertips. You have at your fingertips all of the luxuries of life, all of the things that make life worth living.

The ultimate measure is not where the person stands in times of comfort and convenience, but, rather, where do you stand in times of challenge--challenge, when you have a reckless, ruthless, lawless President who is breaching the Constitution, who is doing things that we never expected to see in our lifetimes. Where do you stand when you have a President who is doing things within and without the country that we did not anticipate?

Dr. King says that the ultimate measure of the person is not where you stand in times of comfort and convenience, but where do you stand in times of challenge and controversy--controversy because what he is doing is being justified by many people who stand in the corridors of power. What he is doing is being justified by members of the clergy, who ordinarily would take the righteous stand. Where do you stand?

``The ultimate measure of a man. . . .'' Where do you stand in times of challenge and controversy?

Let's talk about this. Where do you stand when the President of the United States has replaced Congress with corporate America; when the President of the United States will consult corporate America before he consults Congress; and when the President of the United States goes into another country, Venezuela, bombs this country, and consults with corporate America but does not consult with the Congress of the United States of America? Where do you stand?

Well, here is where the Senate has taken a position. Here is where the Senate stands. Let's first read what the Senate has in S.J. Res. 90. This is a resolution brought before the Senate and has been voted on but was voted down.

Let's examine briefly an excerpt from the resolution.

The resolution reads: ``A joint resolution to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress.''

Remember, this is the President, who consulted with corporate America but not the Congress of the United States of America. The Senate has this resolution, S.J. Res. 90.

It continues in the Findings. ``Congress makes the following findings.'' I will read a portion of one.

This is what Congress finds. This is the United States Senate: ``Congress has the sole power to declare war under Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution.''

Congress, the sole power to declare war.

It goes on to say: ``Congress has not yet declared war upon Venezuela or any person or organization within Venezuela. . . .''

Mr. Speaker, Congress not having declared war, a President who has declared that he visited with corporate America before taking kinetic activity in Venezuela, where do we stand?

Well, the Members of the Senate, 50 of them, stood with this resolution. I would stand with them. I stand with them now, 50 of them who stood for this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, 50 Members were antithetical to the resolution. When this occurs, the Vice President of the United States has a vote.

The Vice President of the United States voted with those who were antithetical to this resolution, S.J. Res. 90. You can research and pull up the entirety of it, and I beg that you would.

So where do you stand when the Senate of the United States of America cannot reclaim its power to declare war? And we ought to do it while we can. We are losing it.

The ultimate measure of the United States Senate--what is the ultimate measure of it when it has the opportunity to reclaim its power to declare war and it doesn't?

We are finding ourselves now with the National Guard being sent into various cities around the country, various States, without a request from the Governors, without a request from the mayors, without a request from the officials who are in a position to make that request, without a request from the people, we the people not making that request. I know that we the people don't make the request; the Governor makes the request. But the point is we the people put the Governor in place.

So we the people are not making the request by and through our official agent, Governors, but the President has decided he would do this. And he always concocts some fallacious, some fictitious means by which this should be done, and he does it. And, unfortunately, we have to ask: Where do the courts stand?

Some of the courts are yielding to the President's pressure. He has threatened judges. Where do we stand when the President is threatening judges? Where do we stand when the President has decided that there is no separation of powers, that he can determine when a judge is right or wrong and if that judge is wrong, that judge should be

impeached? Where do we stand when the Senate holds a hearing to discuss the impeachment of judges who differ with the President of the United States of America? It has been done. I saw it myself. Where do we stand?

Where do we stand when, after the President has sent the National Guard into various places, more turmoil has been committed as a result of the Guard being there than was being committed before they arrived? The President is the person who is creating the turmoil so that he can then say: I am justified in sending the National Guard.

Where do we stand when a woman seated in her vehicle, a woman, Ms. Renee Nicole Good, seated in her vehicle when she is approached by a member of the constabulary in a rather aggressive way--and I am being kind, because with that aggression was an insufficient amount of profanity, more than sufficient. It was really insufficient, not necessary, profanity.

Now, do we expect the constabulary to approach people and in this process swear at them, or do we expect them to be respectful, be respectful even when the person that the member of the constabulary is approaching is disrespectful? That is our job. We are to be respectful, notwithstanding the disrespect we have to suffer.

I was a judge. I remember having a man come before me in court and said some very unkind things with profanity. I could have held him in contempt. All I had to do was say: Mr. Bailiff, take this man over to a certain area and hold him until I finish the docket. I have to have a further discussion with him.

I could have held him in contempt, but I had heard enough of that case to know that he was right about the facts in the case; he was wrong in how he expressed himself. I never held that man in contempt. I had the black robe on. I had the power.

How you use power determines whether you are a person who should possess power, whether you are the person that should be armed with lethality such that you can change a person's family's history and remove a person from existence.

Where do we stand when officers approach a person such as Ms. Good was situated and when Ms. Good says to this person: Dude, in a sense, I am not mad at you. I am not mad at you. To the person approaching aggressively: I am not mad at you. And as she is saying these things-- it has been said that these were her last words--another officer comes across, near her, in front of her, and this officer with a video camera has his weapon just with him. This officer, as she turns away, shoots her and then, as she is passing by, shoots again.

I assume the first shot hit her. I don't know whether it did or didn't. That is my assumption, so I am saying that. But we do know this: There were additional shots fired as she passed by through her window--the window was not up; it was not elevated--through her window. We do know that she died. We do know because we have seen it.

Now, you can justify this if you would like, but you can't justify the Justice Department concluding that it would not cooperate with the local authorities with the investigation, not if you want transparency. Where do we stand when the Justice Department refuses to be transparent after we see what appears to be an injustice to many people? I am one of them. I believe that the killing of Ms. Renee Nicole Good was a grave, gross injustice. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. So where do we stand when this is happening? Where do we stand? Sent in armed persons, and they have now taken a life in a way that is quite questionable.

Well, where do we stand when the President now is saying that he is declaring martial law? Well, he is not declaring it currently. He is saying that he may have to, talking about martial law. He talked about that some time ago. Actually now he is talking about the Insurrection Act, the Insurrection Act. He is talking about the Insurrection Act. He has spoken of martial law on other occasions long ago, a while ago, but now the Insurrection Act. So that means he is going to send in the military, if he does it, and then the next thing after that could be martial law.

So are we going to just stand by and witness the President replace Congress with corporate America, decide that he will send in the National Guard, send it in to cities across the country without a request from the Governor of the State? When he decides that he is going to talk about now the Insurrection Act as his next tool, National Guard already in, using the Insurrection Act, bring in the military, the only thing left is martial law. He hasn't said that he will resort to martial law at this time, but I want to say this: I have been trying to warn you. I have been trying to warn the American people that this President is moving us toward a dictatorship. I was among the very first, if not the first, to say publicly that this was an authoritarian, among the first to say it. It is difficult to be a part of the avant-garde when you are trying to warn powerful people about something that is taking place.

I have been trying to warn you. I say it is difficult because Voltaire was right. It is dangerous to be right in affairs where established men are wrong. It is dangerous to be right. It is dangerous to be right when the establishment in this country refuses to acknowledge what is taking place.

Thank God for people associated with free speech for people. Thank God for the impeach and removal coalition, people who are willing to be a part of the avant-garde, who are willing to take the proper stand when they see democracy at risk, when they see the President absolutely disregarding the separation of powers, absolutely disregarding the fact that the judiciary has the authority to render opinions about circumstances that have been brought before the judiciary.

There are some people who are standing up. I am proud to say that, here in the Congress of the United States of America, there are people who are taking a stand against this President's unconstitutional behavior. They are taking a stand.

I am proud to tell you that many Articles of Impeachment have been filed since the first was filed. Many have been filed, and I am on every one of them.

December 9, a stand was taken. Articles of Impeachment were filed. I am on those articles.

December 10, a stand was taken. Articles of Impeachment were filed. I am on those articles.

January 14, a stand was taken. I am on these Articles of Impeachment.

I do not require people to stand with me when I take a stand, because I sincerely believe, as I have said here at this microphone many times, on some issues it is better to stand alone than not stand at all. I don't lead by telling people you have to follow me. No, I am an example. If you think I am a good example, then you can embrace the example.

I am not out whipping people for votes. I am not going to demand that people do something that I think is appropriate. I lead by example, and I try to be a good example. I am not always a good example, so no one should claim that I claim perfection because I do not.

I do claim this: On these issues related to the Constitution, I refuse to stand by and see what is happening in my country as it devolves into what I perceive as a dictatorship. I refuse to stand by and see that and say nothing.

The truest and the ultimate measure of the person is not where you stand in times of comfort and convenience when you have all of these things happening that I have cited, but where do you stand in times of challenge and controversy when these things are happening--not when all is right with the world, but where you stand in times of challenge and controversy.

Do you stand with the President who is behaving in an unlawful fashion as it relates to the Constitution, or do you stand with the Constitution? Do you stand with the Constitution of the United States of America?

This is where we Members of Congress now have to make a decision. Are we going to stand with the reckless, ruthless, lawless President, or are we going to stand with the Constitution of the United States of America?

I am proud to tell you that when we filed the last Articles of Impeachment--and I have filed many. I plan to file more, just for edification purposes. I will say more about that at a later time.

When the last Articles of Impeachment were filed, it was H. Res. 939. With these Articles of Impeachment, there was a vote. I believe that we ought to take a stand. We ought to take a stand. These are times of challenge and controversy. We were elected to take a stand in times of challenge and controversy.

Yes, I know that it can put my career at risk. There are people trying to get me out of office, and they are doing a pretty good job. I never know what my next day will bring.

I do know this: I will have my record show that I fought all the way out. I didn't come to stay forever, but I did come to make a difference while here on the great issues of our time.

Where do we stand? On H. Res. 939, 140 persons voted for H. Res. 939, 140 Members of Congress, not one from the other side of the aisle--140, Members who hold high positions. I am not calling anybody out.

As a result, we have identified all of them in this document. This is my copy. But all 140 Members who voted for H. Res. 939 will receive a similar copy, and their names are all listed. Each person's name is going to be highlighted one time, and that one time will be the time that we will acknowledge this person as being in the document by highlighting the name. That will be given to that person. Each person will have his or her name highlighted on the page when no other names are highlighted but that one person's.

It is important now for me to read a bit from H. Res. 939. It reads: ``Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.''

I have to pause a minute and say this. The President said just recently that ``they will find a reason to impeach me.'' Mr. President, we don't have to find a reason. You are giving reasons. You are providing reasons on a daily basis almost. I said ``almost.''

On a daily basis, you are providing reasons for people to file Articles of Impeachment against you. The question is not whether the reasons are there. You are providing them. The question is, Mr. President, will we have the courage to bring you to justice?

This is the bar of justice for you, Mr. President. You will be brought before this bar of justice, the House of Representatives, where impeachment is the indictment that will bring you to justice.

So, it reads: ``Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.''

It goes on to read: ``Resolved, That Donald John Trump, President of the United States, is an abuser of Presidential power who, if left in office, will continue to promote the incitement of violence''--and he has a done a job--I almost said ``a good job,'' but I hate to use ``good'' in this context. He has ``engender[ed] invidious hate, undermine[d] our democracy, and dissolve[d] our Republic, that he is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following Articles of Impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate.''

They were first exhibited to the House. The House took a vote. One hundred forty persons voted for the impeachment. We had another 47, I believe, who chose to vote ``present.''

For these 140, I have the courage to present to you this document in this fine piece of cover that has a very soft texture to it. We will present this to you. I want to read what it says above the patriotic 140.

It reads: Patriotism means to stand.

Where do you stand in times of challenging controversy? Remember Dr. King.

Patriotism means to stand by the country in times of challenging controversy.

That is what patriotism means: Stand by the country. Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President.

Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President.

Dr. King, today we honor your profound words in the ultimate measure of the man. As it was said at that time, the ultimate measure of the person is not where the person stands in times of comfort and convenience but where does a person stand in times of challenge and controversy.

The answer is from Theodore Roosevelt. I am a bipartisan guy. The answer is: Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President.

This is Dr. King's birthday. I thought it most appropriate to pay tribute to the 140 patriotic Americans who took a stand.

For those who have concluded that there will not be impeachment: You are wrong.

It is the only solution available to prevent the next Donald Trump, the next would-be, from assuming the position that this Donald Trump has taken and imposed the kinds of horrific atrocities on society that this Donald Trump is the imposing.

We need to impeach right here and send it over to the Senate. The Senate would have a trial. Impeach, convict--conviction takes place in the Senate--and remove. The Senate has the power to do this. This is the solution.

I understand that the network television programs, for the most part--there are some exceptions, but for the most part, they stand with Donald Trump. Donald Trump does not want to be impeached. He as much as said so, and the networks don't want him impeached. They have said so. I have listened to many persons associated with the networks, and they said so. They don't want to see impeachment.

I differ with them. By the way, when you differ with them, they won't let you say that. This is a free-speech country when people will allow you to speak broadly on their networks. So they are not going to let you do that. You won't see me on CNN. You won't see me on MSNBC, but you will hear from me here as long as I am allowed to speak because I just believe in speaking truth about power, not just speak truth to power, but speak truth about power.

Speak truth to power, you say: Power, there is a problem. Let's solve it.

Speak truth about power, you say: Power, there is a problem, and you are it.

That is just as I did from that seat right over to my right when the President was up at that podium and I told him he didn't have a mandate to cut Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security.

The networks are a status quo institution for the most part. They want to maintain things as they are. I am not a status quo Representative. I want to see change, positive change, change that can make a difference in the lives of people.

I tell you this, Mr. Speaker, if we don't speak up, stand up, and meet the ultimate measure of the person that Dr. King calls to our attention, it may be too late at some point within the next 3 years for us to do so. Because this President is showing us that he intends to become a dictator. To a certain extent, he is already, to a limited extent, a dictator.

So we have to take back our power to declare war while we can before it is too late. We have got to take back the authority in the Constitution to have a separation of powers while we can before it is too late. We have got to stand up to this President.

Dr. King, that is what you would have us do. I believe you would have us take a stand.

I believe that Dr. King would not sit silently by and witness what has taken place now and do it without taking a stand.

Not everybody has to take a stand to impeach. Some people decided that they would peacefully protest. I am a peaceful protester. I will stand by people who peacefully protest. I will not stand by people who do not peacefully protest. If you introduce violence, then you just lost me. I am not with you. It doesn't matter who you are, I am not with you.

The ultimate measure of the person in times of challenge and controversy is with the Constitution of the United States of America. That is where I am, and that is where I stand. I assure you as I stand here, I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that we who believe that Dr. King should be commemorated ought to commemorate his life respectfully.

There is nothing wrong with commemorating his life by engaging in peaceful protest. There is nothing wrong with commemorating his life by

standing on the authority vested in the Constitution of the United States of America which is imparted to us. The words are without us they just become words. We give meaning to the Constitution.

So there is nothing wrong with taking that stand. Stand on the Constitution of the United States of America. Dr. King, I know that is what you would have us do.

That is what I encourage others to do.

I assure you, Dr. King, I am going to bring additional Articles of Impeachment to a vote on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I rise to give notice of my intention to raise a question of the privileges of the House.

The form of the resolution is as follows:

H. Res. 939. Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Resolved, That Donald John Trump, President of the United States, is an abuser of presidential power who, if left in office, will continue to promote the incitement of violence, engender invidious hate, undermine our democracy, and dissolve our Republic, that he is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.

ARTICLE I. Abuse of Presidential Power by Calling for the Execution of Members of Congress.

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Donald John Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has unfaithfully, dangerously, and unconstitutionally abused his official position by threatening Democratic lawmakers in Congress with execution.

President Trump called for the execution of six Democratic lawmakers, all of whom are currently serving in the U.S. Senate or U.S. House of Representatives and who previously served in the U.S. Military or in U.S. Intelligence communities, in response to a short video that they posted on November 18, 2025. In their video, the Democratic lawmakers appropriately urged current members of the military and intelligence communities to adhere to the Constitution and the laws of our country. They specifically said: ``Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend this Constitution. Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren't just coming from abroad, but from right here at home. Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.''

On November 20, 2025, in response, President Trump called for their execution. In one social media post, he wrote: ``It's called SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL. Their words cannot be allowed to stand--We won't have a Country anymore!!! An example MUST BE SET. President DJT.'' In another, he wrote of the lawmakers: ``SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!''

Dangerously and unconstitutionally, he reposted a third party's post: ``HANG THEM GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD!!''

President Trump's call for the execution of lawmakers is a reckless and flagrant abuse of presidential power that promotes extra-judicial punishment and the assassination of Members of Congress, and warrants impeachment by the U.S. House of Representatives and trial by the Senate.

ARTICLE II. Abuse of Presidential Power to Intimidate Federal Judges in Violation of the Separation of Powers and Independence of the Judiciary.

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Donald John Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has unfaithfully, dangerously, and unconstitutionally abused his official position by threatening federal judges.

President Trump has fostered a political climate in which lawmakers and judges face threats of political violence and physical assault; and in this climate has made threats and vituperative comments against federal judges, putting at risk their safety and well-being, and undermining the independence of our judiciary.

Case in point, in response to a federal district court ruling with which President Trump disagreed, he posted: ``This Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge, a troublemaker and agitator who was sadly appointed by Barack Hussein Obama, was not elected President. . . This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges' I am forced to appear before, should be

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, impeachment is the most consequential tool Congress to has protect our Nation from a president or other public official who has betrayed their oath, abused their power, and committed high crimes and misdemeanors against the American people. Impeachment necessitates a deliberate process of investigation and a thorough documentation of crimes committed

against the American people. I voted present on the motion to table this impeachment resolution because it does not meet that high standard.

It is clear that many members of the Trump Administration, including President Donald Trump himself, are violating the law and the public's trust in ways that should lead to an investigation on potential high crimes and misdemeanors by the House Judiciary Committee. But bringing an impeachment resolution to the floor mere hours after it has been introduced and without any investigative report--as Congressman Green is doing for the second time this Congress--sets a harmful precedent. It undermines the ability of Congress to make a serious and well- documented case for impeachment against this or any future president.

President Trump was impeached twice during his first term, and I voted to impeach him both times. We conducted a formal inquiry during the first impeachment, where we subpoenaed witnesses and held public hearings to demonstrate that the President had abused his power and obstructed Congress. When President Trump was impeached a second time for inciting an insurrection, the House Judiciary Committee completed an investigative report that documented what Members of Congress and our entire Nation witnessed on January 6, 2021. When the articles of impeachment were brought to the floor a week later, almost every House Democrat was a cosponsor. I presided over that vote in the House of Representatives, with full confidence in the case we were presenting to the American people.

The House of Representatives is currently controlled by President Trump's Republican party, and their majority is unwilling to take even the most basic step to hold Trump or anyone in his cabinet accountable for illegal and unconstitutional actions. To be clear, the House of Representatives has a duty to uphold our oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. This obligation includes the open, transparent process of Congressional hearings, investigations, and subpoenas into potentially impeachable offenses. The Republican majority controlling this Congress will not allow that work to move forward.

In the face of this obstruction, I will continue to work with my Democratic colleagues to document violations of the law by this administration, submit briefings to the court to rein in their abuses, and collect evidence to hold the President of the United States and his officials accountable.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House and offer the resolution that was previously noticed.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.