is on the agenda when the house and senate return this week. the house has yet to decide on impeachment managers and sending the two articles of impeachment over to the senate. the senate will sit as a jury to hear the cases against president trump. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell, and minority leader chuck schumer spoke friday about the upcoming senate trial. have to address some of the deepest institutional questions contemplated by our constitution. we'll have to decide whether we're going to safeguard core governing traditions or let short-term partisan rage overcome them. back in december i explained how house democrats' splint into the most rushed -- sprint into the most rushed, least fair and least thorough impeachment inquiry in american history has jeopardized the foundations of our system of government.

last spring speaker pelosi told the country, quote, impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, i don't think we should go down that path. that was the speaker less than a year ago. back in 1998 when democrats were busy defending president clinton, congressman jerry nadler said, there must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported bid one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other. such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, said congressman jerry nadler 20 years ago. that was obviously the standard when a democrat was in the white house. but ultimately house democrats cared more about attacking president trump than keeping their promises. so they rushed through a

slapdash investigation. they decided not to bother with the standard legal processes for pursuing witnesses and evidence. they don't have time to do that. chairman adam schiff told the entire country on national television that getting a court decision takes a long time. he didn't want to wait. takes a long time to go to court. so they just plowed ahead, plowed right ahead, with an historically weak case and impeached a duly elected president with votes from just one -- just one -- political party. the democrats have left trump derangement syndrome directly fao a kind of partisan fever had that our founding fathers were afraid of. and then, mr. president, just before the holidays, this sad

spectacle took another unusual turn. as soon as the partisan impeachment votes had finished, the prosecutors began to develop cold feet. instead of sending the articles to the senate, they flinched. they flinched. that's right. the same people who just spent weeks screaming that impeachment was so serious and so urgent that it couldn't wait for due process now decided it would wait indefinitely while they checked the political whims and looked for new talking points. this is another situation where house democrats have blown right past the specific warnings of our founding fathers. alexander hamilton specifically warned about the dangers of a,

quote, procrastinated determination of the charges. in an impeachment. he explained it would not be fair to the accused and it would be dangerous for the country. speaker 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, they're searching desperately for some new talking points to help them deflect blame for what they've done. we've 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. we've heard claims that it's a

problem that i've 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 it's okay to have consultation with the prosecution but not apparently with the defendant. oh, and we've 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 hand-design the trial

proceedings in the senate, that's obviously a nonstarter. what i've 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 100-0 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 100-0. 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 100-0. i believe we should simply repeat that unanimous bipartisan precedent at this time as well. that's 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, let's 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 nation's 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 senator's 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 short-termism, 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 long-term 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 precedent-breaking theatrics that house democrats chose to engage in. but here's where we are, mr. president. their turn is over. they've done enough damage. it's the senate's turn now to render sober judgment as the framers envisioned. but we can't hold a trial without the articles. the senate's own rules don't 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, the senate begins this new session of congress preparing to do something that has happened only twice, twice before in american history. serving as a court of impeachment in a trial of the president of the united states. president donald trump stands accused by the house of representatives of committing one of the offenses the founding fathers most feared when it came to the stability of the republic. abusing the powers of his office for personal gain, soliciting the interference of a foreign power in our elections to

benefit himself. the house has also charged the president with obstructing congress in the investigation into those matters. the consequence of an unprecedented blockade of relevant witnesses and documents, flatly denying the legislative branch's constitutional authority to provide oversight of the executive. as all eyes turn to the senate, the question before us is will we fulfill our duty to conduct a fair impeachment trial of the president of the united states or will we not? that is the most pressing question facing the senate at the outset of this second session of the 116th congress. will we conduct a fair trial that examines all the facts or not? the country just saw senator mcconnell's answer to that question.

his answer is no. instead of trying to find the truth, he is still using the same feeble talking points that he was using last december. the country just saw how the republican leader views his responsibility at this pivotal moment in our nation's history. the republican leader prefers finger pointing and name-calling to avoid answering the looming question, why shouldn't the senate call witnesses. the republican leader hasn't given one good reason why there shouldn't be relevant witnesses or relevant documents. we did not hear one from leader mcconnell today or any day. once again leader mcconnell tried to bury his audience under an avalanche of partisan recriminations and misleading references to precedents. there is only one precedent that

matters here, that never, never in the history of our country has there been an impeachment trial of the president in which the senate was denied the ability to hear from witnesses. let me repeat that. that is the salient fact here. there is only one precedent that matters. there has never, never in the history of our country been an impeachment trial of the president in which the senate was denied the ability to hear from witnesses. yet the republican leader seems intent on violating that precedent and denying critical evidence to this body and to the american people. leader mcconnell has been clear and vocal that he has no intention to be impartial in this process. leader mcconnell reminds us today and in previous days that rather than acting like a judge

and a juror, he intends to act as the executioner of a fair trial. thankfully the rules of the impeachment trial will be determined by the majority of senators in this chamber, not by the republican leader alone. the crux of the issue still is whether the senate will hear testimony from witnesses and receive documentary evidence directly relevant to the charges against the president. since congress recessed for the holidays, there have been several, several events that have significantly bolstered my argument for four specific witnesses and specific categories of documents. nothing, nothing in that time has bolstered leader mcconnell's argument that there shouldn't be relevant witnesses or documents. on december 21, the senate

republican integrity received e-mails from a freedom of information request that shows that michael duffy, top o.m.b. official and one of the four witnesses i requested, asked the defense department to, quote, hold off on sending military aid to ukraine 91 minutes after president trump's july phone call with ukrainian president zelensky. on december 29, "the new york times" report included several revelations about the extent of chief mulvaney's involvement in the delayed military assistance, about the effort by lawyers at o.m.b., justice, and the white house to create legal justifications for the delay in assistance and about the depth of opposition too, and indeed alarm about the delay in military assistance from parts of the administration,

particularly the pentagon. then just yesterday there was a new report about a trove of newly unredacted e-mails that further expose the serious concerns raised by trump administration officials about the propriety and legality of the president's decision to delay military assistance to ukraine. one of those e-mails released yesterday was from michael duffy, one of the witnesses we've requested to the pentagon comptroller. and it read, quote, clear direction from potus, the president, to continue the hold. clear direction from the president to continue the hold. is what duffy wrote. what constituted clear direction? did michael duffy get an order from the president, or did someone like mr. mulvaney get an order from the president that

was passed on to mr. duffy? were there discussions by administration officials about covering up the reasons for the president directing the delay in military assistance? these are questions that can only be answered by examination of the documentary evidence and by the testimony of key trump administration officials under oath in a senate trial. these developments are a devastating blow to leader mcconnell's push to have a trial without the documents and witnesses we've requested. each new revelation mounts additional pressure on the members of this chamber to seek the whole truth with these new e-mails, we're getting certain portions of the truth. we need the whole truth. for example, much of the evidence that was obtained by

the recent foia requests has been heavily redacted. here is an e-mail chain between officials at the pentagon regarding the "politico" article that first revealed the trump administration was delaying military assistance to ukraine. it is completely redacted, every word crossed out, not available, can't be seen. here's another e-mail with the subject line apportionment between officials at o.m.b. and the pentagon. completely redacted. none of the words can be seen at all. we know now that some of these redactions were covered up but only some of it. why did they redact the sections they redacted?

who ordered the redactions? why are they covering up? what are they hiding? these questions must be asked. when you are accused of something, you don't suppress evidence that will exonerate you. the fact that the administration is going to such lengths to prevent such e-mails from coming out is extraordinarily telling. it seems like they themselves feel they are guilty. getting the full documentary record would undoubtedly shed light on the issues at hand. these were senior trump officials discussing the delay of military assistance to ukraine. who ordered it, why it was ordered, whether or not it was legal, and how it was connected to the effort of presidenting ukraine to announcing investigations into the political rival of a president.

and these e-mails represent just a sliver of the documentary evidence that exists in this case. there was an exceedingly strong case to call witnesses and request documents before the senate went out of session for the christmas break. in the short time since, that case has gotten stronger and remarkably so. we are not asking for critics of the president to serve as witnesses in the trial. we are asking only that the president's men, his top advisors tell their side of the story, and leader mcconnell, once again, has been unable to make one argument -- one single argument as to why these witnesses and these documents should not be part of a trial. now, i want to respond to one suggestion by leader mcconnell, that we follow the

1999 example of beginning the impeachment trial first and then deciding on witnesses and documents at a later date. first, to hear mcconnell say no witnesses now but maybe some later is just another indication he has no argument against witnesses and documents on the merits. will leader mcconnell commit to witnesses and documents now and discuss timing later? second, leader mcconnell's comparisons to 1999 are hopelessly flawed and inaccurate. there were witnesses in 1999, leader mcconnell. you want the president of 1999, there were witnesses as there were in every single impeachment trial of a president in history. it would be a break in precedent for there not to be witnesses.

third, there was even a greater rationale for witnesses in the clinton trial. in 1999 the witnesses in question had already testified -- they had already testified under oath extensively and there were also bipartisan concerns about the suitability of the subject matter for the floor of the senate. there's no analogy to today's situation. the witnesses we requested never testified under oath and the documents we've requested have not been produced. fourth, we have a tradition in america of a fair and speedy trial. that's why we've requested only the relevant information up front so that the trial can truly be speedy and fair. it makes no sense, and in fact it is a ruse, to suggest that the senate wait until the end of the trial to settle the hardest question when it might take time for witnesses to prepare

testimony and for the senate to review new documentary evidence. we can and should begin that process now and ensure that the trial is informed by the facts and does not suffer unnecessary delays. fifth, and finally, when leader mcconnell suggests we have both sides present their arguments and then deal with witnesses, he's essentially proposing to conduct the whole trial and then, once the trial is basically over, consider the question of evidence. that makes no sense. that's alice in wonderland logic. the trial must be informed by the evidence, not the other way around. the house managers should be able to present all of the evidence to make their case, not make their case and then afterward ask for evidence we know is out there. so if we don't get a commitment

up front that the house managers will be able to call witnesses as part of their case, the senate will act as little more than a nationally televised meeting of the mock trial club. if we leave the question of witnesses and documents until after all the presentations are complete, leader mcconnell will argue that the senate's heard enough, we shouldn't prolong the trial any longer. at that point you can be sure he'll label anyone who wants to subpoena evidence as a partisan, who wants to drag the whole affair out. i know this because he's already told us what his position will be. this is not a mystery. quote, after we've heard the arguments, leader mcconnell said on fox news, we ought to vote and move on. does that sound like someone in good faith who intends to have

the senate reasonably consider witnesses at a later date? no, it does not. leader mcconnell's proposal to vote on witnesses and documents later is nothing more than a poorly disguised trap. after we've heard the arguments, leader mcconnell said, we ought to vote and move on. all of my fellow senators, democrat and republican, should take stock of the leader's words and remember the commitment he made on national television to take his cues from the white house. so i say to the chair, it may feel like we are no longer -- we are no closer to establishing the rules for a senate trial than when we last met, but the question -- the vital question of whether or not we have a fair

trial -- ultimately rests with a majority of the senators in this chamber. the president faces gravely serious charges, abuse of trial, abuse of his public trust, solicitorring a foreign power in our elections, obstructing the powers of congress, and if convicted, the president faces the most severe punishment our constitution images. we have the sole power to discharge this most difficult and somber duty. will the senate rise to the >> the impeachment of president trump continues to follow the process on c-span leading to the senate trial. unfiltered coverage on

c-span, on demand at c-span.org/impeachment, and listen on the free c-span radio app. >> the new york times reported today the iraq he parliament voted to and u.s. troop presence airstrikeser u.s. kill the top iranian commander at baghdad airport in iraq. u.s. tensions with iran was the main topic on today's sunday morning news programs. we will begin with reaction from secretary of state mike pompeo.