This was friday about the Upcoming Senate trial. The senate will have to address some of the deepest questions contemplated by our constitution. We will have to decide it for going to let shortterm partisan rage overcome them. Back in december, i explained how House Democrats sprint into the most rushed, lease fair, at least thorough impeachment inquiry in American History, has jeopardize the foundations of our system of government. A spring, Speaker Pelosi told the country impeachment is so divisive to the country, that unless theres something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, i dont think we uld go down that path ago down that path. In 1990 eight, congressman jerry nadler said, there must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our Major Political parties largely imposed by the other. Such an impeachment would like legitimacy, said congressman jerry nadler 20 years ago. That was obviously a standard when the democrat was in the white house. Democrats, house cared more about attacking President Trump than kicking keeping their promises. So they rushed through a slapdash investigation. They decided not to bother with the standard legal processes or pursuing witnesses and evidence. They dont have time to do that. Adam schiff told the entire country that a Court Decision takes a long time. He didnt want to wait. It takes a long time to go to court. Ahead. Ust plowed right with a historically weak case and impeached a duly elected president with votes from just one political party. Democrats have left have let trent trumped arrangement syndrome develop into what our Founding Fathers were afraid of. Just before the holidays this sad spectacle took another unusual turn. As soon as the partisan Impeachment Vote had finished, the prosecutors began to develop cold feet. Instead of sending the articles to the senate, they flinched. They flinched. Thats right. The same people who just spent weeks screaming that impeachment was so serious and so urgent that he couldnt wait for due process, now decided it could wait indefinitely while they checked the political whims and looked for some new talking points. This is yet another situation where the house have blown right past the specific warnings upper Founding Fathers. Alexander hamilton specifically warned about the dangers of a person determination of the charges. In impeachment. He explained it would not be fair to the accused and it would be dangerous for the country. Pelosi apparently does not care. Her congress is behaving exactly like the, quote, intemperament or designing majority in the house of representatives that hamilton warned might abuse the impeachment power. So, as House Democrats continue their political delay, theyre searching desperately for some new talking points to help them deflect blame for what theyve done. Weve heard it claimed that the same House Democrats who botched their own process should get to reach over here into the senate and dictate our process. Weve heard claims that its a problem that ive discussed trial mechanics with the white house. Even as my counterpart, the democratic leader, is openly coordinating political strategy with the speaker who some might call the prosecution. So its okay to have consultation with the prosecution but not apparently with the defendant. Oh, and weve heard claims that any senators who have formed opinions about House Democrats irresponsible and unprecedented actions as they played out in the view of the entire nation should be disqualified from the next phase. Obviously, mr. President , this is nonsense, nonsense. Let me clarify senate rules and Senate History for those who may be confused. First, about this fantasy that the speaker of the house will get to handdesign the trial proceedings in the senate, thats obviously a nonstarter. What ive consistently said is pretty simple. The structure for this impeachment trial should track with the structure of the clinton trial. We have a precedent here. That means two phases. First, back in 1999, the Senate Passed a unanimous bipartisan resolution 1000 that set up the initial logistics like briefs, opening arguments, and senator questions. It stayed silent on mid trial questions such as witnesses until the trial was actually under way. That was approved 1000. Somewhat predictably, things started to diverge along party lines when we considered those later procedural questions, but the initial resolution, laying out the first half of the trial, was approved 1000. I believe we should simply repeat that unanimous bipartisan precedent at this time as well. Thats my position. President trump should get the same treatment that every single senator thought was fair with president clinton. Just like 20 years ago. We should address mid trial questions such as witnesses after briefs, opening arguments, senator questions, and other relevant motions. Fair is fair. Now, lets discuss these lectures about how senators should do our jobs. The oath that senators take in impeachment trials to, quote, do impartial justice according to the constitution and laws, end quote, has never meant that senators should wall themselves off from the biggest news story in the nation and completely ignore what the house has been doing. The oath has never meant that senators check all of their political judgment at the door and strip away all of our independent judgment about what is best for the nation. It has never meant that, and it never could. The framers debated whether to give the power to try impeachments to a court or to the senate. And decided on the senate precisely because impeachment is not a narrow legal question. Impeachment is not a narrow legal question. But a deeply political one as well. Hamilton said this explicitly in federalist 65. Impeachment requires the senate to address both legal questions about what has been proved and political questions about what the common good of our nation requires. Senators do not cease to be senators just because the house sends us articles of impeachment. Our job remains the same to represent our states, our constituents, and our nations best interests in the great matters of our time. That is our obligation, whether we are voting on legislation, nominations, or the verdict in an impeachment. 20 years ago, i would add, democrats understood all this very well. President clinton had obviously committed an actual felony. President clinton had actually committed a felony. If democrats actually believed in the narrow sense of impartiality that they have now adopted as a talking point, then every single one of them would have voted to remove president clinton from office. Oh, no, but instead, a majority of the senate decided that removing president clinton, despite his proven and actual crimes, would not best serve the nation. Mr. President , they made a political judgment. And by the way, back then, leading democrats had zero, zero objections to senators speaking out before the trial. The current democratic leader, senator schumer, was running for the senate during the house impeachment process back in 1998. He voted against the articles both in the House Judiciary Committee and on the house floor , and a major part of his Senate Campaign that year listen to this has literally promising new yorkers in advance , in advance that he would vote to acquit president clinton. People asked if it was appropriate to him to prejudge like that. He dismissed the question, saying, quote, this is not a criminal trial. But something the Founding Fathers decided to put in a body that was susceptible to the whims of politics. That was the democratic leader in the 1998 Senate Campaign. That was a newly sworn in senator schumer in 1999. A few weeks later, during the trial itself, democratic senator tom harkin successfully objected to the use of the word jurors to describe senators because the analogy to a narrow legal proceeding was so inappropriate, according to senator harkin. So look, mr. President , i respect our friends across the aisle, but it appears that one symptom of trump derangement syndrome is also a bad case of amnesia. A bad case of amnesia. And no member of this body needs condescending lectures on fairness from House Democrats who just rushed through the most unfair impeachment in modern history or lectures on impartiality from senators who happily prejudged the case with president clinton and simply changed their standards to suit the political whims. Look, anyone who knows American History or understands the constitution knows that a senators role in an impeachment trial is nothing, nothing like the job of jurors in the legal system. The very things that make the senate the right forum to settle impeachment would disqualify all of us in an ordinary trial. All of us would be disqualified in an ordinary trial. Like many americans, senators have paid great attention to the facts and the arguments that House Democrats have rolled out publicly before the nation. Many of us personally know the parties involved on both sides. Look, this is a political body. We do not stand apart from the issues of the day. It is our job to be deeply engaged in those issues. But and this is critical the senate is unique by design. The framers built the senate to provide a check against shorttermism, the runaway passions, and he demon of factions that hamilton warned would extend this scepter over the house of representatives at certain seasons. We exist because the founders wanted an institution that could stop momentary hysterias and partisan passions from damaging our republic. An institution that could be thoughtful, be sober, and take the long view, and that is why the constitution puts the impeachment trial in this place. Not because senators should pretend they are uninformed, unopinionated, or disinterested in the longterm political questions that an impeachment of the president poses, but precisely because we are informed, we are opinionated, and we can take up these weighty questions. That is the meaning of the oath we take. That is the task that lies before us. Impartial justice means making up our minds on the right basis. It means putting aside purely reflexive partisanship and putting aside personal relationships and animosities. It means cooley considering the facts the house has presented and then rendering the verdict that we believe is best for our states, our constitution, and our way of life. It means seeing clearly not what some might wish the house of representatives had proven, but what they actually have or have not proven. It means looking past a single news cycle to see how overturning an election would reverberate for generations. So look, you Better Believe senators have started forming opinions about these critical questions over the last weeks and months. We sure have. Especially in light of the precedentbreaking theatrics that House Democrats chose to engage in. But heres where we are, mr. President. Their turn is over. Theyve done enough damage. Its the senates turn now to render sober judgment as the framers envisioned. But we cant hold a trial without the articles. The senates own rules dont provide for that. So for now, we are content to continue the ordinary business of the senate while House Democrats continue to flounder. For now. But if they ever muster the courage to stand behind their slapdash work product and transmit their articles to the senate, it will then be time for the United States senate to fulfill our answers as well. On impeachment, mr. President ,