We are still early in the impeachment saga, but we are at least beginning the next phase. Over the past weeks, Democrats have been conducting a closed investigation into some key evidence and witnesses. The “closed” nature of it was to the public and to members of Congress not on the particular committees (Intelligence and Judiciary) involved.

What comes next is the “public” phase of the investigation where witnesses are called, cameras are allowed, and some forms of cross-examination will occur. This is where Democrats hope to build a popular case for removing the president.

I am sure it will be contentious for some, but the evidence put forward so far strongly suggests the President engaged in a transactional approach to his relationship with Ukraine. He makes it clear, and it is almost unanimously supported by those surrounding the notorious phone call and the policy itself, that US foreign aid and a White House visit were conditional upon Ukraine’s investigation of the Bidens. For Democrats, this alone will be enough to impeach and remove the President. For Republicans, it will not.

The Republican reaction to the investigation has been embarrassing. They have sought to defend President Trump on two fronts. Some (like Lindsey Graham) have tried to argue substance. Either the President was not engaged in a quid pro quo (that has mostly collapsed, especially after the President asked China to the same thing publicly), or if he did it was not that big of a deal (see Bill Bennett here). Other Republicans (like Matt Gaetz, Jim Jordan, Rand Paul, and Steve Scalise) have attacked the process so far. They have claimed they were frozen out of the committee hearings (when they were not) or the President has been denied the right to see evidence or cross-examine his accusers. These complaints are persuasive only to those who are unfamiliar with the difference between a congressional investigation and a criminal trial. Even if this were being conducted like a criminal trial, the investigation would occur outside the defendant’s purview. Grand jury proceedings do not involve cross-examination, for example. The President and his lawyers would see evidence and cross-examine or call witnesses during the Senate’s trial phase.

Maybe the most disturbing part has been the President’s claim, taken up by his acolytes, that impeachment “overturns the 2016” election and that it amounts to a “coup.” Fox News hosts, Trump’s Twitter feed, plus Reps. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Peter King (R-NY), Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Mark Green (R-TN), have all used the language recently.* These claims deserve scorn. Impeachment is a constitutional process that is left largely up to the U.S. House to define. The Senate has similar latitude as it conducts a trial to determine removal. The powers of impeachment and removal exist to serve as a check on abuses by the other branches of government. In the case of the President, of course a removal would overturn an election, but that is the design of the process. Some things are not left to elections, but to an act of force carried out by another duly elected branch of government.

Such powers, naturally, can also be abused. It may be possible Democrats will overplay their hands. They could craft a process that is unreasonable or unfair. Maybe the Democrats will impeach the President on a party-line vote when there is an excellent chance the Senate will refuse to remove the President. All of these things would bring suspicion to the impeachment itself. Ideally, impeachment should be used when conduct is so grave or abuses so obvious that some bipartisanship would naturally develop. So far, the Democrats have been unable to pass the political test. No matter the possible abuses within the White House, the Democrats are stained by the impression that many partisans wanted to impeach and remove President Trump just moments after his inauguration.

At the same time, Republicans have also rushed to judgment in their defense of President Trump. Senators especially should hold at least their words if not their thoughts until they see the evidence. They will serve as jurors. They should wait before they pronounce President Trump as pristine. Investigations have a way of turning up uncomfortable details.

Our leaders face a challenging task. In their shoes, I would want more information. In particular, is this a habit for the Trump Administration? Has the President used similar approaches with China? Turkey? Russia? Saudi Arabia? Have the President’s personal interests become so intertwined with American interests that he cannot distinguish them in such settings? If this is the case, he should be impeached and removed. But it is also possible President Trump’s misguided obsession with Ukraine, and its marginal, but discredited, connection to the 2016 election has produced a unique set of circumstances.

Either way, President Trump would be wise to take Jonah Goldberg’s advice: apologize. For at least a moment, back off the bravado. Admit a mistake and promise to learn from it. A moment of contrition would defang the investigation in some ways and give Republicans a much easier leader to defend.

*To be fair, Democrats used the same language sometimes to describe the Clinton impeachment in 1998 (See Jerry Nadler, Nina Lowey, etc…) in the same link above for Republicans.