Amy Klobuchar: “Mr. Chief Justice, I submit a question to the desk directed to the House managers. The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you. The…”

“Mr. Chief Justice, I submit a question to the desk directed to the House managers. The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you. The question is from Senator Klobuchar to the House managers: I was on the trial committee for the last impeachment trial in the Senate, which involved Judge Thomas Porteous, who was ultimately removed. During that time, the Senate trial committee heard from 26 witnesses, 17 of whom had not previously testified in the House. What possible reason could there be for allowing 26 witnesses in a judicial impeachment trial and hearing none for a President's trial? Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Mr. Chief Justice, Senator, as you know, I am quite familiar with the Porteous impeachment. Someone asked me the last time I tried a case. The answer is probably 30 years ago except for the impeachment of Thomas Porteous, when I last spent some quality time with you. There is no difference in terms of the Constitution. I would say that the need for witnesses in the impeachment trial of a President of the United States is a far more compelling circumstance than the impeachment of a judge. Now, you might say, well, in the impeachment of a judge, how is it possible that the time of the Senate could be occupied by calling witnesses; that, as precious as your time is, we would occupy your time calling dozens of witnesses, but in the impeachment of a President, it is not worth the time; it is too much of an imposition.…”