It was a big day at a time, when they had been dreaming of since the president was inaugurated nearly three years ago they rushed into a partisan impeachment a process and now ty are trying to make up for the mistakes that the chair man and Speaker Pelosi made in the first place for example they want to relitigate things like executive privilege and whether the testimony of other witnesses should be included in the trial. The house wants to tell the senate how to conduct the trial. They had its job to do and frankly i think thats handled it butth now they have no say in the way that the senate conducts the impeachment trial when and if they decide to send them over here. 12 weeks is all it took to come up with what they believed was enough evidence to warrant a vote on the articles of v impeachment. I think they are experiencing some buyers remorse. During the 12 weeks we heard House Democrats see how urgent the matter was. Seemingly using urgency as an excuse for the investigation. They were sent to the senate promptly. Now this will be the third time in American History where the senate is actually come beaming a trial on the articles of t. Impeachment. So, this is kind of a new novel process for most of us here in the senate. I think theres only 15 senators who were here during the last impeachment trial. We try to figure out our duty under the constitution as a jury to decide whether to convict or acquit. This is serious stuff and here we are before the next general election it strikes me to have 535 members of the United States to remove a president that was voted into office with about 63 million votes. This is very serious. Despite the house leadership and members stating time and time again for the Christmas Holidays how pressing the matter of impeachment was, there hasnt been an inch of movement in the house those articles of impeachment were voted on so here we were 3liter following ththe majority leaders announcement that every republican senator supports using the same framework that was used during the clinton impeachment trial and the speaker as you might imagine wasnt particularly happy because the gambit obviously didnt work. She had a zero leverage and zero right to try to dictate to the senate how we conduct the trial just like we have zero input into how the house conduct of its responsibilities. Speaker pelosi told the caucus the process is both unfair and designed to deprive senators and of the American People of crucial documents and testimony. Clearly she doesnt think the documents and testimony were crucial enough to bee included n the house investigation in the first place, but i digress. The speaker is trying to make the most out of a very bad situation of her own creation. Its demonstrably false. It would be a double standard. To allow the president to present their case and present the senators to ask questions through the chief justice under the model that will be used in the trump impeachment trial the members need more information they would hope to hear from additional witnesses. The senators voted to hear from three additional witnesses who were then deposed and whose sworn testimony. It makes me a little crazy when people say this is a question of witnesses were no answers. There were 17 witnesses as i counted them that testified in the house. If they decide to do as they did in the clinton impeachment authorized but is still the senate prerogatives which is int foreclosed inin the least by ths resolution. Presumably they are proud to this isnt a matter of witnesses were no witnesses as some of our democratic colleagues and the media attempt to characterize. This is a matter of letting the partys impeachment decide how to try their case. I had the great honor over the period of 13 years serving as a state court judge. I presided over hundreds of jury trials during the course of my experience never have i seen a model they sit there and listen to the evidence presented by the parties and that is exactly what we are proposing here so this idea of letting senators decide how to try the impeachment managers case for the president s case is something totally novel and unheardof. Setting the rules on who we hear from as the speaker wants to do on the front end makes no sense. Let me try an analogy it would be like asking an nfl coach to outline every play in the super bowl before the game actually starts. That is impossible. This is simply not her prerogative. I know the speaker is a powerful political figure it outlines a bicameral impeachment process with each having a separate and independent responsibility. As i said, just as the constitution gives the house the sole power ofea impeachment, tht is a quote from the constitution, it also gives the senate, quote, the power to try all impeachment. Supreme authority to decide the process, yes, she has been very influential leading up to the t vote on the articlescl of impeachment but which the senate had no voice or vote. Nows her job such as it is good to send the articles of impeachment to the senate. The speakers refusal unless the demands are met as a violation of the separation of powers. And its an unprecedented power grab. I must say i have some sympathy with the speakers position. Last march, she said in impeachment was a bad idea because it was so divisive and unless the evidence was compelling and the support for the articles of impeachment was bipartisan, it wasnt worth it. Well, that was in march of 2019c obviously things changed. And the best i can tell, she was essentially forced by the radical members of the House Democratic caucus to change the position, and now she finds herself in an embarrassingly unsustainable position, so this is not entirely her fault. She has been playing games with the articles of impeachment she has been infringing on the president s constitutional right to the due process of law. Its based on the fundamental notion of fairness and that is what we accord everybody be a right to th a speedy trial may t strictly speak and apply to the impeachment trial of the whole fund notion of fairness does fly. The right to a speedy trial and its clear while she dangles these articles over the impeachment, this isnt fair to the president and its not fair to the senate. Its not fair most importantly, to the American People. This distraction has consumed so much oxygen and attention here in washington, d. C. That it prevented us from doing other things we know we can and should be doing that would benefit the American People. Ive come here on two occasions to offer a piece of Bipartisan Legislation that would lower outofpocket costs for prescription drugs by eliminating some of the gamesmanship and patent systems only to find its a bipartisan bill voted unanimously out of the judiciary committee. To think the time is up for Speaker Pelosi to send the articles of impeachment over here, there is bipartisan agreement here in the senate thabutits time to fish or cut. Speaker pelosis said she shouls send them over. They should send the articles over and i think we all share the sentiment expressed by the senator from maine who said i do think we need to get this thing going. He has a gift for understateme understatement. Its time for the speaker to quit using these articles of impeachment as a way to pander to the most radical fringes of herse party. Theyve completed their constitutional role and launched during query and they told a partisan vote. Thats their prerogative. I dont agree with it, but thats their prerogative and theyve done it. So we can perform our responsibilities under the constitution in the trial. I yield the floor. This is an interesting time. He has been impeached bonaudible] ive been asked not just about president trumps actions in ukraine but also about how the senate will conduct the trial. Holding a genuine fair trial worthy of our constitutional responsibilities. A i would remind senators that at the start of the impeachment trial, we each played a role to do impartial justice according to the constitution. In my 45 years in the chamber, ive taken this oath six times. I take this role extraordinarily seriously. The majority leader has vowed and boasted he isnt an impartial juror there will be no difference between the president s position and our position as to how to handle this. Ignore the fact the United States senate as a separate and inpendenindependent body but the majority leader said through the criminal defendant to be allowed to set the rules for his own trial for the judge and jury given this, i understand why they didnt rush to send the articles. It is in no ones interest and not even in the president s interest. It exonerates no one and serves only to deepen the risks within the country and it eviscerates the senates constitutional role. How thel senate conducts a trial will be up to each of us. It isnt up to one or two senators and certainly not to the president. The duration including whether they are compelled to documentod protection decided by the supermajority of the United States senate. Im one of the many on the side that said we should postpone and the agreement on what it says that argue that so why not now. Ithere were all those troubles some things. Today following theey instructi, nine key witnesses with firsthand knowledge have refused to cooperate with the house investigation because of coesident of trump they are told that they are not allowed to testify. Compare that with the clinton trial then every key witness including president clinton providing testimony under oath before the trial. We had a massive record to consider 36 boxes of material covering the most intimate details of the president s life. Every witness testified as compared to the trump impeachment even though he said he wanted to testify, of course he never did. Now, the senate did end up from hearing the witnesses in the trial was me tell you how that worked. These are three witnesses thatvo already give testimony. She testified before the grand jury for three days. Jordan testified before the grand jury for five days and also was deposed by the independent counsel. Monica lewinsky testified before thee grand jury was the post by the council who was interviewed by the independent counsel 20 times. Now lets be clear, i remembered these days very well even republicans at this timeow acknowledged they did not expect to learn new information from the witnesses. I know republicans, democrats picked a small group of senators to be there for the depositions. I was one of them. I resided over the deposition. And one of the house managers and republican managers said of the witnesses areey consistent, they will say the same report into the previous testimony already before the senate. Obviously you testified extensively in the grand jury and repeat things today. The third house manager told mr. Jordan i know about every question that could have been asked has been asked and they were correct. We didnt learn anything material from these deposition. Now unlike the claims made on the other side of th, the situan today could not be more different. They do not have any prior testimony from the witnesses. John bolton, nick maldini, robert blair and all people that have significant information about what donald trump has been charged with. We dont have a single document. We dont have a single minute of testimony under oath, and by . Because they directed them not to cooperate with the house, not to testify under oath, not to say anything. If these witnesses have performed the legal duty. Benefit hearing from witnesses to say all of the them after the relevanhave directrelevant infot president trumps with respect in ukraine and there is no reason to postpone the testimony. The former National Security adviser so my question for all of senators is a key was personally involved it hasnt been discussed and the testimonies this far. We already know that includes the conversation they described it and we nowil know hes willig to talk to us for the first ti time. How can we say if we dont even ask, c how can we ignore such critical firsthand testimony . No matter how they vote on guilt ore innocence, keeping the American People in the dark to make the United States senate complicity in a coverup would shape the system of checks and balances for decades to come and haunt both democrats and republicans. Senate republicans must [inaudible] we should be senators and follow our own to uphold justice. This is a deep partisan but that was true during the clinton impeachment trials and the johnson impeachment trials. T whether we label democrat or republican we are first and foremost United States senators. Theres only 100 of us to represent over 300 million americans. Thats why i believe that the senate itself is now on trial. Ive never seen a trial like this where the facts are in dispute. Ive tried many, many cases both inct private practice and as a prosecutor. Ive never tried a case where there areo no answers. And more to the point, the senate has never held a president ial impeachment trial without hearing from witnesses. The senate and the American People deserve to have their story. We shouldnt be complicit in the coverup. I wouldnt suggest to any senator that his or her oath requires at this time a specific verdict. That is independent from the trial. But i strongly believe that our oath requires a belief in partially. All senators supporting fair trial, one that places the pursuit of truth above this or any other or set the rules for the time to come. The senate has the chops to do and it is and in favor of against is that the trump. And peach that is the only constitutional mechanism that congress has to hold president s accountable. Whether or not the senate ultimately votes to convict if they firs first enabled a enablp of the sham trial, then it means its placing one president of the constitution. In doing so the center t to give you the senate for the foundation of democracy has thus far survived for 240 years no one, no one is above the law. Madamadam president , i will yied the floor. I see there are other senators waiting to speak so i will yield the floor. We have the vote once the impeachment trial has begun to pass a resolution essentially the same, very similar to the 1000 vote in the clinton trial. Wants all of the evidence was presented as they deliberated behind closed doors leading to a final vote on each article of impeachment. Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer responded to senator mcconnell. Break now the republican leader and i have very different visions about what it means to conduct a fair trial. Democrats believe that a fair trial means that all the relevant facts come out and witnesses and documents are part of the trial. Whoever heard of a trial without witnesses and documents . If you are afraid of what might come out