The grammar here is interesting. It's almost a word salad. I think it's a type of persuasive technique, perhaps related to Neuro-Linguisitic Programming.
"We had to answer the question TO the senators" -- No. The House wasn't answering the question. The Senate wasn't asking a question. The House was volunteering an assertion of guilt.
"house managers, you've proved him guilty" -- No. The senate determination was exactly the opposite of this.
The House made a claim and declared the claim proven. No one agreed, but Schiff claims total victory.
He also makes it seem like President Trump subsequently murdered 50,000 people with his bare hands. Just because that's a good story.
I know those are big words and difficult concepts for bacteria like Adam Schiff, so maybe he can have Mr. Rogers explain how the whole thing works.
Shiff’s nonsense is in no way a Neuro Linguistic Programming language pattern (I’m an NLP Trainer who learned from one of the Founders of NLP) it’s typical lawyer speak where he’s using a lot of words to essentially talk assert the same BS he always has, guilt without evidence and saying they proved something that had no basis in fact to begin with.