As we speak today, House Democrats still have the opportunity to do the right think for the country and avoid setting this new president. The house can turn back and not deploy this constitutional remedy last resort, to deliver a predetermined partisan outcome. This morning mountain president , i swear to speak to one very specific part of this. Over the weekend, didnt later decided to short circuit the process and learn basic groundwork in advance of a potential impeachment trial and the brechbuhl past, wouldve been a conversation in person which nonetheless i still hope to pursue. Instead, he chose to begin by writing me in a long paragraph letter on sunday evening deliberate by the way of the news media and begin a Cable Television campaign of two hours later. The Democratic Leaders lesser ig an interesting document from the very beginning. For example, in the second of this 11th paragraph, our colleague literally misquotes the constitution. That error actually aligns with his confusion about the deeper questions. I will come back to that in a moment. At first, our colleagues letter appears to request that a potential impeachment trial adopt some of the procedures that the clinton impeachment trial back in 1999, and i happen to think that is a good idea. The basic procedural framework of the clinton impeachment trial,rv t served at the Senate Nation well. In my view. But the problem is from the democratic leader emotionless as he will do a potential 2020 trial to look like 1999, he goes on to demand things that would break with the 1999 law. President putins trial, we had procedural issues in two separate Senate Resolutions that passed in different times. The first resolution passed unanimously before the trial in the sketch out things like scheduling opening arguments and the timing. With the motion to dismiss. The more detailed questions about the middle, and the end of the trial, including whether any witnesses would be called, were reserved for a second resolution. That was passed in the middle of the trial. As a matter of fact, we passed only after a number of democratics that she worked himself, voted to dismiss the case. They got a motion to dismiss before the senate had even decided whether to propose a single witness instead of a triedandtrue 1999 model starts trial and then see how the senator would like to proceed the democratic leader would also write it completely set new set of roles for president trump. He wants one single resolution up front instead of two, however many are need it. He was a guaranty upfront that the senate hear from the very specific witnesses instead of loving the body evaluate the witness issue after, after opening arguments and senators questions. A very telling as our colleagues from new york, completely emotions any emotion to dismiss the case when he was happy to vote for himself. As a new senator back in 1999. Almost exactly 20 years ago today, prior to the centro. President senator schumer says almost direct quote, certainly any senator could move to dismiss, which is an everyday in criminal and civil courts throughout america, motions to dismiss are made. If the majority vote for the motion to dismiss can be truncated. That was senator schumer in january of 1999. But now the same process, the senator schumer that was good orenough for president clinton,e doesnt want to afford president trump. Go figure. Look, most people understand what the democratic leaderc is really happening. Instantly trying tooc login witnesses that is a strange request at this juncture for a couple of reasons. One think, in the 1999 version of senator schumer locally opposed to having witnesses even join the question was raised after hours of opening arguments from the lawyers. Hours of questions from senators and a failed motion to dismiss. Our county approved the judge said he favors live witnesses before the senate, before they even have articles. Moreover, presumably it would be the house prosecutors job to ask for the witnesses they feel may need to make the case. So i does the democratic leader want to predetermined the house join his request to predetermine that. Before the houses even impeaching they andt . President. Just might he be coordinating these questions with people outside of the senate. Heres one possible explanation. Maybe house public proceedings is they have made an impression with many of us. Then from everything we can tell, House Democrats that impeachment inquiry as a failed to come anywhere near anywhere near, the bar for impeaching a duly elected president. Let alone removing him from the first time. In this american history. So those who have been equally hoping for an impeachment, are starting to scramble. Chairman adam shift, and House Democrats actively decided not to go to quote and pursue potentially useful witnesses because they didnt want to wait for due process. Indeed they threatened to increase the president they had to go to quote at all. That intentional political decision is the reason why the house is poised to send the senate the least president ial impeachment in our nation news history. By any ordinary legal standard, join asked democrat assembled appears to be locally, inadequate to prove with eight want to allege. So now, Senate Democratic leader join apparently like our chamber, to do House Democrats homework for them. It was a volunteer sentence time and energy. On a fishing expedition to see whether his own ideas could make chairmanships sloppy work more persuasive than chairmanship himself. Ff then he bothered to make it. So madame president , this concept is dead wrong. The senate and the jury to hear a trial not to rerun the entire backgrounding investigation because of angry artisans rushed sloppily through it the trajectory that the democratic leader apparently wants to take us down, before he is even heard or opening arguments, consent and precedents for ourti institution. If the Senate Volunteers are are says to do House Democrats homework for them, we will only incentive eyes there impeachment in the future and we would invite future houses to paralyze future sentence. With frivolous impeachment that will. This misunderstanding about constitutional roles remind me back something raised earlier. This letter to me by the way of press literally misquotedon constitution. Exercise ander said we should the soul power of impeachment on constitution with integrity and indignity. He attributed to the senate quote the soul power of impeachment. There is the problem that a president , this the brawl the constitution actually gives to the house. Not to the senate. Article one section two says the house of representatives should have the sole power of impeachment. Doesnt sound ambiguous to me. If my colleague wants to read about our responsibilities here in the senate, you need to turn to the next page. Article one, Section Three says the senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. We dont create impeachments over here mr. President. We judge them. The house chose this road, it is their duty to investigate and meet that bar for undoing and national elect. As Speaker Pelosi herself once said, and is the house obligation to quote build an ironclad case to act. That is policy. It is a houses obligation to build an armed clad case to impeach. If they fail, they feel. Its not the senate job to search deep desperately for ways to get the it would hardly be impartial justice. In fact that our colleagues already desperately to sign up the senate new fact founding switch House Democrats themselves are is it too impatient to see through, will suggest something to me. As suggested even democrats do not like thisin president are beginning to realize how grammatically insufficient their houses rushed process has been. Look, i hope the house of representatives see that is it too. It has to impress case is this deficient, this then, the answered has brought for the judge and jury to curate over near the senate. The answered is i who should not impeach on this basis in first place. The house plaza head, and the senate in the senate, we certainly do not need jurors to start brainstorming witness list from prosecution. And demands a lot of the men opening arguments. I still believe the senate to try to follow the 1999 model. To resolution. Two. First things first. The middle and the end of this process, will come later. So i look forward to meeting with the Democratic Leaders very soon and getting our porton