REP. JOHN RATCLIFFE: I think what all the senators in there agree is that regardless of what happened over here, House Democrats didn’t do their job over there. On December 18th, we warned them. We stood on the floor of the House and said, “There isn’t enough evidence and testimony to impeach this President,” but they …

REP. JIM JORDAN: Yeah, I would just say she same thing, 17-to-0 is enough. The good news is the Senate is now not going to call anymore witnesses. They don’t want 18-to-nothing, they don’t want 19-to-0, they don’t want 20-to-0 and we know that would be the case. If another witness was called next week, then …

CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS: The question for Senator Sullivan and the other senators for the Counsel of the President. Given that the Senate is now considering the very evidentiary record assembled and voted on by the House, which Chairman Nadler has repeatedly claimed constitutes overwhelming evidence for impeachment, how can the Senate be accused of engaging …

PATRICK PHILBIN: Mr. Chief Justice, senators thank you for that question and the short answer is, I think I’ve indicated the couple of the times I’ve been up here, is yes, this entire proceeding here is now the fruit of the poisonous tree. It is the fruit of a proceeding that was fatally deficient in due …

PAT CIPILLONE: They violated every past precedent. They violated all forms of due process. Now, they say that’s a process argument, and it is, but it’s more than that. It’s more than that. If you feel confident in your facts, then why do you design a process that completely shuts out the President? Why do you …

PATRICK PHILBIN: I think that we’ve gone through the evidence that makes it quite clear that—both with respect to a meeting with the President, a bilateral meeting, and with respect to the temporary pause to security assistance—the evidence just doesn’t stack up to show that President Trump linked either of those. Both took place: the meeting …

PAT CIPOLLONE: We’ve never been in a situation where we have the impeachment of a President in an election year with the goal of removing the President from the ballot. As I’ve said before, that is the most massive election interference we’ve ever witnessed. It’s domestic election interference, it’s political election interference, and it’s wrong. They …

JAY SEKULOW: There are some in this room that are days away from the Iowa caucuses taking place. So we’re discussing the possible impeachment and removal of the President of the United States not only during election season, in the heart of the election season. And I think that this does a disservice to the American …

PATRICK PHILBIN: And it’s this fundamental theme running throughout both their obstruction charge and their arguments generally here that if the President stands on his constitutional rights, if he tries to protect the institutional prerogatives of his office, which he is duty-bound to do for future occupants of that office, that’s somehow an indication of guilt …

PATRICK PHILBIN: The Trump administration position, just like the position of the Obama administration, is that an effort by the House to enforce a subpoena in Article 3 court is a nonjusticiable controversy. That is our position and we would argue that in court. But that’s part of what would have to be litigated. That doesn’t …