Morning madam president i wanted to speak to one very specific part of this. Over the weekend the democratic leader decided to shortcircuit the customary aland collegial process for laying basic groundworkin advance of a potential impeachment trial. The preferable path would have been an in person conversation which nonetheless i still hope to pursue. Instead, he chose to begin by writing me an 11 paragraph letter on sunday evening delivered by way of the news media and began a Cable Television campaign a few hours later. The Democratic Leaders letter is an interesting document from the very beginning. For example, in the second of its 11 paragraphs, our colleagues literally misquotes the constitution. That error actually aligns with our colleagues apparent confusion about some of the deeper questions. Ill come back to that in a moment. At first, our colleagues letter appears to request that a potential impeachment trial adopts similar procedures to the clinton impeachment in1999. Now, i happen to think thats a good idea. The basic procedural framework of the clinton impeachment trial serves ithe senate and the nationwell. In my view. But the problem is that while the democratic leader notionally says he wants a potential 20 20 trial you 1999, he goes on to demand things that would break with the 1999 model. In president clintons trial, we had procedural issues in two separate Senate Resolutions that passed at different times. The first resolution passed unanimously before the trial. Its sketch out basic things like scheduling opening arguments and the timing of a motion to dismiss. Other more detailed questions about the middle and the end fof the trial including whether any witnesses would be called were reserved for a second resolution that was passed in the middle of the trial itself. As a matter of fact, we passed it only after a number of democrats including editor schumer himself voted to dismiss the case. They got a motion to dismiss before the senate and even decided whether to depose a single witness. And instead of a tried and true 1999 model , start a trial and then see how senators wish to proceed. The democratic leader wants wa to write a completely new set of rules for president trump. He wants one single resolution up front insteadof two , however many are needed. He wants to guarantee up front that the senate hear from the various specific witnesses instead of letting the body evaluate the witness issue after opening arguments and senators questions. Like back in 1999. A very telling lead madam president our colleague from new york completely omits any motions to dismiss the case. Like the one he was happy to vote for himself as a new center back in 1999 area almost exactly 20 years ago today, prior to the senate trial senator schumer said this on television , direct quote. This is what he said. Certainly any senator according to the rules moved to dismiss which is done every day. In criminal and civil courts rule out america, motions to dismiss are made. And if a majority vote for tthat motion to dismiss,the procedure could be truncated. That was senator schumer in january 1999. But now the same process that senator schumer was good enough for president clinton, he doesnt want to afford resident trump. Go figure. Look. Most people understand what the democratic leader is really after. He is simply trying to lock in witnesses. That is a strange request this country for a couple of reasons. But one thing, the 1999 version of senator schumer vocally opposed having witnesses even when the question was raised after hours of opening arguments on lawyers, hours of questions from senators and a failed motion to dismiss. He favors live witnesses so strongly this time before the senate even has articles. Moreover, presumably it will be the house prosecutors job to ask for the witnesses they feel they need to make the case. So cwhy does the democratic leader in the senate want to predetermine the house impeachment witness request . Before the house has even impeached the president . Might he, just might he be coordinating these questions people outside the senate . Heres one possible explanation. Maybe the house public proceedings have leftthe democratic leader with the same impression theyve left many of us. That from everything we can tell, House Democrats slapped aimpeachment inquiry has erfailed to come anywhere near, anywhere near the bar for impeaching a duly elected president , let alone removing him for the first time in american history. And so those who have been eagerly hoping for impeachment are starting to scramble. Chairman adam schiff, and House Democrats actively decided not to go to court and pursue potentially useful witnesses because they didnt want to wait for due process. Indeed, they threatened to impeach the president if they had to go to court at all. That intentional political decision is the reason why the house is poised, poised to send the senate the thinnest, least thorough president ial impeachment in our nations history. By any ordinary legalstandard , what House Democrats have assembled appears to be woefully , woefully inadequate to prove what they want to allege. So now, senate Democratic Leaders would apparently like our chamber to do House Democrats homework for them. He wants to volunteer the senate time and energy on a fishing expedition to see whether his own ideas could make chairman schiffs sloppy work more persuasive and chairman schiff himself area bothered to make it. So madam president , this comes out to be dead wrong. The senator is meant to act as judge and jury, not to rerun the entire factfinding investigation because angry partisans rushed sloppily through it. The trajectory at the democratic leader apparently wants to take us down before hes even heard opening arguments could set a nightmarish precedent for our institution. If the Senate Volunteers ourselves to do House Democrats homework for them, we will only incentivize an endless stream of dubious partisan impeachments in the future. And we will invite future houses to paralyze future senate with frivolous impeachments as well. This misunderstanding about constitutional roles rings me back to something iraised earlier. The Democratic Leaders letter to me by the way by way of the press literally misquoted the constitution. Senator schumer wrote that we should exercise the senates sole power of impeachment under the constitution with integrity and dignity. He intruded into the senate the sole power of impeachment. And well, theres a problem mister president. Thats the role the constitution gives actually to the house. Not the senate. They give it to the house. Article 1, section 2 says the house of representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment. Doesnt sound that ambiguous to me. If my colleague wants to read about our responsibilities in the senate needs to turn to the next page, article 1, section 3 says the senate shall have the sole power to try allimpeachment. We dont create impeachments over here, mister president. We judge them. The house chose this road, its their duty to investigate. Their duties meet the high bar for undoing a national election. As Speaker Pelosi herself once said, is the house obligation to build and unplanned case to act. Thats Speaker Pelosi. If the house obligation to build an ironclad case to act. If they fail, they fail. Its not the senates job to leap into the breach and searched desperately for ways to get the opening. That would hardly be impartial justice. In fact, our colleague is already desperate to sign up the senate for new factfinding which House Democrats themselves were too impatient to see through. Well, that suggests something to me. It suggests that he even at democrats do not like this president are beginning to realize how dramatically insufficient the houses rush process has been. Look, i hope the house of t representatives sees that to. If House Democrats case is this deficient, this thin , the answer is not for the judge and jury to cure it in the senate. The answer is the house should not impeach on this basis in the firstplace. But if the house dials ahead, if this ends up here in the senate, we certainly do not need yours to start brainstorming witnesses, witness lists for the prosecution. And demandingto lock them in before we even heard opening arguments. I still believe that senate should try to follow the 1999 model