For Clinton, it was Lindsey Graham (who was in the House at the time), so I'm guessing it might be Schiff?

Not sure if any GOP member have to be included.

The house presents its case, the president/his attorney presents his defense, the senate debates, then votes- I think that's how it worked for Clinton, very quickly, on a short timetable.

I, for one, would love to see Trump try to defend his conduct before the senate.

He will rig the proceedings to give maximum coverage to Senators who vote to acquit.

And here is how he will do it: The GOPers will claim that this or that rule around the impeachment proceedings is ambiguous (even if they obviously are not). They will claim a rule means X (where X is something very advantageous to Trump, like "no live witness testimony" or "a very short limit on the time duration of the proceedings," etc.). Now, it takes a 2/3 vote to *change* the Senate rules, but when there is an "appeal to the chair" to *clarify* a rule, it takes a simple majority to assert what the rule means. That's how he McTurtled the nuke of the filibuster on SCOTUS nominees. He'll use it here too, in wildly ridiculous circumstances like "We've always been at war with Eastasia" and won't even blink in embarrassment for doing so.

And even more ominously, after opening statements and before any witness testimony or documentary evidence is introduced, it is likely that someone will introduce a motion to dismiss. They will point to Clinton, who did likewise. But unlike Clinton, Trump's party has the simple majority and it might work. It would be over, with an acquittal, on the first day.

This is why the House proceedings must be thorough, public, and maximally inflame the electorate against Trump, the GOP in general, and the GOP stooges in both houses of Congress (so that they pay a penalty for their stooginess) -- because the Senate trial is going to be very, very much rigged.