Everything Trump touches turns to crud. History will label the Republicans as supporters of a corrupt president. They’ll plead ignorance, but they know what the deal is. Support Trump or support the Constitution. Hopefully some of them have a conscience, well maybe one or two?
3
The story is "incomplete" for two reasons. 1. The story continues. 2. There is no bottom to this barrel of monkees.
An important question in these hearings: Is intentional maladministration the equivalence of malfeasance? When a President and staff know what they're doing is illegal but seek legal rationales...does it rise to the level of criminality?
1
@JUHallCLU
Perhaps the Impeachment provisions in the Constitution should be updated to include Civil RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act). Some of these tools, in the modern era, are needed going forward to stop corruption within the federal government. If some of this were adopted, the states would also adopt in their own codes.
1
the real danger of failing to impeach, is Trump's continuing stretching his violations against the Constitutions combined with his open desires to rid the limitation of no more than two terms for a President and his oft spoken ambitions to be President indefinitely.
like his buddy Putin, Trump will nibble around the edges of Constitutional protections until he becomes the de facto dictator for life. Given his predilection to use sanctions and tariffs to rule not only the US, but also Russia (who should beware of tactics used by Hitler to stay hands off until it is too late), China, the middle East, and our European allies, etc.
voters, its up to you to stop him while you can!
2
Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath about an illicit affair in the White House and tampering with the jury. We have come to accept Trump lying, Trump’s illicit affairs and vulgar language, tampering with the witnesses, but most important is that it’s not about any of these transgressions. Trump’s impeachment is about dealing with a foreign country and undermining our democracy. Granted, disgusting behavior in the Oval Office is nasty, but come on, withholding allocated military money to Ukraine in order to get dirt on an opponent carries a little more weight in the security of our country.
3
I laugh every time I hear someone refer to Parnas’ “lack of credibility” and the fact that he is a liar. What credibility does The Great Orange One have after 15,000+ verified lies?
2
A rush to cover up. SAD!!
3
Welcome to the slippery slide to dictatorship, a gift of the G.O.P.
1
Shouldn't McConnell and Graham recuse themselves since they said they would definitely vote for acquittal before taking an oath to be impartial? Isn't that lying under oath? Didn't Ken Starr call for impeachment of Clinton and didn't the House vote for impeachment because they believed Clinton lied under oath?
2
If Hunter Biden is called to testify, it seem to me only fair that Ted Cruz be required to testify regarding the participation of his father in the Kennedy assassination.
After all ---
One good turn deserves another.
1
Even some Democrats are tired of this being dragged out, a tactic clearly adopted to disrupt a presidency. They're also embarrassed by the childishness of their leaders.
So you don't like the man and you're angry Hillary didn't win. Get over it.
It's time to act like adults and get down to some real governance, instead of all this obstruction.
2
What we have here is what's known as a "Cult of Personality." Facts don't matter. It's useless to expect anything based on any kind of rational analysis. Every lowlife with his own agenda, victimhood, or axe to grind, is given a free pass by belonging to the cult and giving unwavering support. The lowlife will always be around, but they can't run wild without that Personality in charge. That's why his removal is so critical. I have some hope for the next election, but not much for the impeachment process, though I'm glad they took responsibility for initiating it.
2
Impeachment, in my understanding, is a bi-partisan issue requiring more than what has been presented. The final quote completely tied the white washed "evidence" in this case. Just because a man can be rash and a bit imprudent with his words doesn't make him criminal. Besides, he is not a politician and never has been. He is a business man and a good one at that.
1
No matter what, the story will always be incomplete. Where we draw the line is determined by what best serves each of us. The rest is partisan posturing.
From all reports, it seems the President’s defense, and the position of many Senate Republicans, is that it doesn’t matter what the President did or didn’t do because it was all ok if not “perfect”.
Leader McConnell said the whole impeachment was meaningless because Trump had not committed a crime, even though an impeachable offense doesn’t have to be a crime. Now, those in a position to say deem that at least one action the president took was indeed a crime.
Further, Republicans claim the motive for the impeachment was of high crimes and misdemeanors but reversal of the 16 election, or spitefulness - a strategy of distraction and misdirection.
The tennis ball flies across the net again: doesn’t matter what Trump did, what orders he gave or implied, what his minions did, crime or not, because - executive privilege and (supposedly) Article 2 means the president can do anything and Congress has no recourse, eg, Trump has all the rights and privileges of a king. So sayeth William Barr.
I’m no lawyer or constitutional scholar, but this sounds like a mighty weak case to me, even with a team of top legal Republican apologists for the defense. Their best move is forcing the trial to become a kangaroo court, a trial with an admittedly prejudiced jury colluding with the defendant, no evidence, and no witnesses.
Chief Justice Roberts presiding.
1
Senate has to stop this mess. Americans must be objective. Trump has failed to deliver on the main issues he campaigned for and I will highlight areas that did not involve Democrats blocking his policy.
Trump campaigned to clean up Washington, "clean up the swamp" Instead, he brought in his own swamp at same time he got rid of the good ones that wanted no part in HIS swamp. Can't blame democrats for that!
He campaigned to put an end to never ending wars. He chose not to involve the house in his decision to further involve US in conflict with Iran. Result, more troops deployed, exactly what he campaigned against. Again, not democrats fault?
He campaigned that he would decrease government spending. Debt increased.
He campaigned to have Mexico fund the wall. I could go on, but feel I made my point.
I like to be strength based, so I will credit his administration for an improved economy.
What we have learned from President Trump's 3 years in office is that he is failing to achieve what he campaigned for and has no one to blame but himself. He ignores experts and reacts are gut and emotions. We also learned he lies excessively and he acts like a toddler when challenged. Not qualities any leader should exhibit. Finally, for those that just don't get it...who cares if we have a strong economy when we have lost integrity and respect on the world stage as well as increased social problems in OUR country.
Just be kind and do the right thing.
3
That the story is not complete is due to Trump refusing to allow the testimony of key witnesses. This is obstruction of justice, which just happens to be the first of two articles of impeachment against Trump.
Not being a legal/Constitutional scholar, I would ask Baker where in those two articles of impeachment is there an indictment of Trump's actions regarding Ukraine, such that the House investigations were not complete? How many offenses do we need to get Trump out of office. And if the two glaring indictments are not sufficient for the Republican Senators, will any number of indictments change their minds.
Trump is destined is to forever abuse every law, norm, person in sight so there will be no end of revelations. And has Trump not already been his own worst witness; out of his mouth have come ugly, disgusting truths disguised as jokes. My point is we've seen enough and there will never be an end to Trump's offenses.
Let the revelations continue; if the public ever takes notice, they may give courage to Republican Senators to serve the interests of our country.
I agree: the House should not have shifted their responsibility to check presidential abuse of power to the Mueller. When Mueller that their responsibility back, the House should have acted instead for walking away with comments as Trump doesn't deserve to be further investigated.
But that's all water under the bridge now and let's hope these two articles of impeachment get us to the goal.
@citizen vox Democrats didn't appoint Mueller; republicans did.
This week the Senators could have learn something from Major League Baseball. Major League Baseball, after a thorough investigation, uncovered what they determined was cheating by the Houston Astros. They determined that a continuation of the practices would ultimately ruin the game. And while the major league officials will punish the club (Houston Astros) with a fine, the club punished the manager and general manager - the “adults in the room” who were fired not for participating in the illicit activity but for knowing what was happening and doing nothing. It was a breath of fresh air! The club owner understood what was at stake and was willing to make a difficult decision. It is ironic that they were committed to saving a game - albeit a truly American game but one that requires a very large financial investment - but still a game.
The Senators are entrusted with a much graver responsibility; preserving respect for honored and revered institutions. It’s a heavy responsibility and, the question is, who will stand by and let bad behavior continue and who will they exhibit the leadership that is so sorely missing from our political landscape. Americans need to know there are lines in the sand that someone is willing to defend.
6
GOP should convince Trump to resign and save the Republican party's fortunes. By doing that they will at least have some hope of continuing a Republican Presidency in 2020. The alternative will be having a Democrat President and a Democratic Senate. A Democratic win in 2020 is a given. Especially considering a lot more evidence will be forthcoming between now and November 2020. It's a no brainer for anyone who has brains, that is.
2
Democrats won the popular vote with more than 3 million in 2016. After 3 years of Trump the popular vote will far exceed that number. It's a given.
3
What makes this case perilous for the GOP is that there is a very low (nonexistent) probability that future evidence will come out that exonerates Trump. In fact, future revelations will likely show him in worse light. So, when the GOP Senate acquits him, the decision will look worse as time goes on.
In a sense, it is not Trump on trial, but the Senate. Once they have acquitted Trump, more corrupt worms will crawl out of the can, line up and salute them
6
McConnell's legacy is already beyond repair and as far as I can tell he doesn’t care.
2
Even some Democrats are tired of this being dragged out, a tactic clearly adopted to disrupt a presidency. They're also embarrassed by the childishness of their leaders.
So you don't like the man and you're angry Hillary didn't win. Get over it.
It's time to act like adults and get down to some real governance, instead of all this obstruction.
2
@Raz: What Democrats like myself are tired of are the endless lies, flagrant violations and assaults on normalcy. If this has gone on too long for your taste, you have only the Republican Party to blame. Trump is a cancer that has been allowed to metastasize. He should have been removed long ago.
Now that the precedent is set, Mr. Bolton surely could "testify" on MSNBC and CNN.
2
This was, for the most part, a thorough, thoughtful take concerning the facts on the ground as we head into the next stage of this constitutional emergency. Unfortunately, it's infected by the same implicit bias that seems to plague all of the reporting on this matter: the unwarranted certitude that the results are a foregone conclusion and that senators will betray their oaths.
The mainstream media, perhaps out of fear of being #owned later if the President has acquitted, has gone completely in the other direction and decided it is inevitable that he will be acquitted. The author writes, without citing any evidence, that "the quasi-jurors who swore on oath on Thursday to do 'impartial justice' for the most part have already signaled their partiality." Also that "most of the senators … seem to have made up their minds about Mr. Trump's actions." I do not know either of those things to be true and doubt there is solid factual support for saying it. I know, that in addition to their public oaths, Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Lamar Alexander, and Ben Sasse have all pledged, in some form or another to be impartial. A bunch of other GOP senators, and I'm following many of them on Twitter, have been saying nothing publicly about how they will vote. The evidence, as you note, is now overwhelming. Therefore, taking the Senators' oaths at their word, we are only 15 or 16 senators away from removal. Please stop saying things are helpless unless you show evidence.
2
Do you seriously believe that the Republicans would ever allow Trump to be removed from office and hand power over to the Dems? The first thing the Dems would do is go after Pence. The Reps would die before they would ever hand over the country to Pelosi, and I don’t blame them.
1
"As for Mr. Bolton, no one knows for sure what he would say if he did testify. While he was described as critical of the Ukraine pressure campaign by other officials, it is not known whether he would implicate or exonerate the president himself." Well, if Bolton told anything like a version of the truth, we DO know.
1
Whether Mr. Bolton’s testimony supports the prosecution or exonerates the President is irrelevant. The fact that he is an individual who has information germane to the proceedings is. The purpose of a trial in our system which is deliberately adversarial, is to draw out the truth by careful evaluation of all the pertinent evidence and testimony. There is no trial without this process and those senators who stand in the way of this process are a disgrace to their oath of office and the United States of America. They should be ashamed but they don’t appear to have any shame.
The whole Trump administration has been a history of cover up. The impeachment trial is simply one more episode in this total effort of concealment by Trump and party. The Republican Party has already done severe damage to our democracy and Constitution. We must now rely on the conscience of the Republican individual senators to comply with their oaths.
1
The story on Trump will always be incomplete for three reasons. He has been successful in obstruction. He is constantly committing new offenses. Finally, compiling all his offenses into impeachment articles would be too cumbersome. But make no mistake, Republicans are well aware of this, they have just chosen to ignore it.
2
The fact that there more witnesses and evidence to be seen does not make the House case any weaker. It makes it stronger. They had enough to impeach on what they had. The existence of more information strengthens their case. It’s not their fault this administration has so much evidence against it. People get convicted on circumstantial evidence all the time. The president of the United States needs to be held to a higher standard than them. Let’s hear from the witnesses and not exclude evidence simply because of obstruction or obfuscation. Due diligence is needed to clarify what is actually going on at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. The people need to know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Also, calling Hunter Biden and his father will do nothing to help the GOP. They have no exculpatory evidence to give. If anything, it will probably blow up in their face when they’re seen bullying a weak man and his father in reference to a tumultuous time in that family. This will however do the work Trump was trying to accomplish in the first place by extorting Ukraine by hurting Biden’s chances to be the nominee. The GOP will do what President Zelensky had the courage to refuse to do, at least until the 11th hour.
The Senate better get this right for the good of the nation. Anything less delegitimatizes our government and exasperates the public’s frustration with inept politicians who seem dead set on winning at whatever cost to democracy.
3
Can the House start a new impeachment investigation once the Senate completes its trial, and use its previous arguments and testimony for impeachment but call for additional subpoenas and witnesses?
1
It’s too bad that the Dems rushed their investigation. They were more interested in timing than in getting all the facts. It made a bad impression. Now new facts are emerging, and the Democrats are pushing the Senate to do their job. They’ll probably be forced to introduce new articles which will rightly be dismissed at this point. You get only one bite of the apple.
1
Of course, now is the time for the Monday morning quarterbacking to start in earnest. Had Democrats started earlier, the evidence that emerged in the last week would have probably shown up after the trial was over. If they delayed or slowed down the investigation, they would have faced increasing criticism and the eventual loss of the short attention span of the American electorate. Either way, a Senate with this current composition would be unlikely to convict. At least at this point, the likelihood is that the shameful acts of the McConnell gang will be as much front and center as anything, and that can remain the focus until November as Democrats work to flip the Senate and oust the Orange disaster.
4
@Joe It isn't too late. Keep the pressure on. Call/tweet/email your senators, which, right now, is all of them. Tell all your friends to do the same. The rule of law is too important to let die without at least fighting for it.
If witnesses are called, the Democrats should welcome a request by the Republicans to invite Hunter Biden. There is nothing to hide and his cross examination would make that clear. If asked about his reported $500K salary, he could say that like God, corporations work in strange ways. He could point to Donald John Trump earning $200K when he was 3 years old as an example.
1
For those who despair of Trumps conviction in the Senate, I’d like to recall a few points:
1. Swing state Republican senators may vote to hear from Bolton.
2. We don’t know how damaging Bolton may be.
3. Trump May choose to testify and make a fool of himself, admitting all and saying nothing he did was wrong. He may also get abusive or ramble wildly, make paranoid accusations or just sound so angry and incoherent that he’ll appear dangerously crazy and in need of removal.
4. We don’t know what else may come out. That includes leaked documents or further eyewitness interviews given to the press. A lot of people hold a lot of cards regarding Trump’s guilt on this and other matters going back to his days of dealing with the Mafia in New York and New Jersey. That includes Nancy Pelosi, who may well have Trump’s financial records, and Vladimir Putin who may well have kompromat both old and new (Helsinki).
Happy Impeachment Watching.
2
This article, while accurate, unfortunately tends to normalize Republicans' willful ignorance. They float trial balloons here, trying to put the House on trial for 'sloppiness' and not completing the job. They criticize this as a political witch hunt.
None of those criticisms is pertinent to the facts of the case.
And any sloppiness on the part of the House is clearly attributable to obstruction on the part of the president--the second count of the impeachment. Any argument that the president is not guilty of obstruction is absurd on its face.
He has publicly obstructed Congress in every way he could. He has bragged about it.
But the president is guilty. Senators know that and they should know that revelations of his guilt will continue to accumulate.
Of course, Republicans have perfected the art of normalizing the president's lawless behavior.
4
Facts or the truth has never been an obstacle in the way Mr. Trump wants to tell his side of the story. And his base will believe him, regardless of how incredible his story is.
The real fight here is who can convince the independent voters that Mr. Trump is harmful to the United States as a country and to its population. I, personally, think that one become an independent voter because of one's mistrust of traditional parties. And, any truly independent observer should have no problem seeing how erratic, incompetent, and inept Mr. Trump has been.
Remember what Kim Darroch, the last Britain's ambassador to the US, said about Mr. Trump:
“For a man who has risen to the highest office on the planet, President Trump radiates insecurity … There is no filter [that prevents Trump making offensive comments] … We could also be at the beginning of a downward spiral, rather than just a roller-coaster; something could emerge that leads to [his] disgrace and downfall”
That emerging "something" leading to Trump disgrace and downfall is apparently the Ukraine fiasco.
3
Once upon a time,
We, the people, elected a new President.
He said ‘Try me, you’ll like me!’
He said it with a lot of conviction.
We tried him.
We didn’t like him.
We impeached him.
Now,
He says ‘Don’t try me! You don’t like me!’
He says it...’No conviction!’
We’ll try him again.
Hopefully get a conviction,
And live happily ever after.
2
Yesterday I heard a Fox female say the Dems want more evidence to be allowed to dribble down.
Isn't the main goal of this circus supposed to be getting the evidence so we can arrive at the facts?
What kind of people are so rigid and so mesmerized that they are willing to deny the truth to maintain their belief system?
The trumpers are now equivalent to little children yelling while their fingers are stuck in their ears. Nannie, Nannie, BooBoo!
1
Gee ... I hate to bring this up - but we already have enough evidence and smoking guns over the past 3 years to lock up the Trump family and most of the Republican Party already. Why does anyone think that "new revelations" or witnesses are going to cut through the reality that we are firmly in the grip of an American fascist-lite coup that rolled into the republic long before Trump?
The Senate "trial" will look like this:
Democrats: Here is a mountain of irrefutable, unchallenged evidence.
Republicans: Nuh-uh. Case dismissed. Now - let's get back to corrupting the federal court system while we still can.
The American news services continue to nibble around the trees & still won't report on the forest fire. We have a crisis far bigger than the approaching Senate trial sham.
2
We know either Donald Trump is outright lying or Lev Parnas is. We don't know which one it is, but we do know that only one of them has a record of telling more than 3 lies/day over the past three years. And it's not Lev Parnas.
2
If a defense team thinks the prosicution’s case is just so-so, why would they want to see evidence that supports it? Never happen!
The only chance this country has to move forward as a nation is for some Republican Senators to do their sworn, patriotic duty and look at ALL the evidence. Again, never happen! With people like this, America would be a group of British Colonies and George Washington and the signers of the Declaration of Independence would have been hung as traitors.
2
And the death knell for democracy continues to toll in Washington, D.C.
1
Incomplete? Nonsense!! He admitted it on national TV. Remember?
1
The “funny” thing is that NONE of these republican senators are unaware of all the facts that have widely and repeatedly reported. So, no, they will not sit in judgement lacking a 360 degree awareness of all of “trump’s” crimes. They do not live under rocks, rather they live under threats and promises of future paybacks.
So, no, they are not “innocents”, rather it’s more convenient for them to not have to squirm in their seats listening to damning testimony and be revealed as horrifically conspiratorial when then conclude the “trial” and crown “trump” king in completely stark terms before all Americans. This is the biggest con job of “trump’s” entire criminal career. So sad they are letting him take our beautiful country. WE ought to do something to stop this.
2
Wow, trust the NY Times to repeat right wing talking points.
The headline should be: Republicans Hope Preventing the Complete Story From Being Told Will Protect a Guilty President
3
It is true that the Senators will judge trump on the articles of impeachment and the case House has already made. Because that is what they are charged to do. If you want to roll in new evidence and charges then you will have to impeach again. It is the articles voted by the House that are on Trial.
2
@Mkm I, and I think everyone, would agree that the President should not be tried in the Senate on charges the House did not impeach on. To say, however, that there cannot be new "evidence" that pertains to the original charges is to say, essentially, that there should not be a trial at all. The whole idea of a trial necessitates the presentation of evidence, whether through testimony, documents, etc.
Try the following thought experiment. Imagine, hypothetically, the President had been credibly charged with using his office to accept cash payments in exchange for issuing a presidential pardon. Say that the House amasses evidence of the cash-for-pardon scandal and impeaches him for it. Now, imagine that, on the eve of the trial, a new witness comes forward who says they have video evidence of the lawyer for the pardoned person handing the President a briefcase full of cash (again, this is obviously just a hypothetical). Under that scenario, would you really say the Senate should not hear or see the video evidence of the crime for which the President was impeached just because the evidence was not yet made available at the time of impeachment. What end of justice would that possibly serve?
1
If impeaching a president for extorting criminal investigations of his political rivals lowers the bar for impeachment, then the bar was set way too high. Every future president should know that this favorite trick of two-bit dictators the world over is off limits in our democracy.
40
I’m astounded reading former Senator Danforth’s comments. Refusing to cooperate in any manner in a legal Congressional investigation is absolutely Obstruction of Congress and most definitely deserving of impeachment consideration, or all future Chief Executives will thumb their noses with impunity and stonewall Congress whenever they feel like it. The same with soliciting election assistance from foreign governments. This directly threatens our democratic process and can’t be allowed for any reason.
I don’t remember Mr. Danforth’s position or role on the Clinton impeachment, but I don’t remember any Republicans worrying about the effect of that process on future Presidents.
I guess it’s like the Republican view of deficits: it’s only bad when their opponents do it!
30
The majority of voters is Democrat, as evidenced in the last election (for instance). Will the partisan Senate Trial bring out more Democratic voters in swing states in the next election? I hope so. The present government needs a strong electoral rebuke in November. I thik they'll get it.
2
This was, for the most part, a thorough, thoughtful take concerning the facts on the ground as we head into the next stage of this constitutional emergency. Unfortunately, it's infected by the same implicit bias that seems to plague all of the reporting on this matter: the unwarranted certitude that the results are a foregone conclusion.
The mainstream media, perhaps out of fear of being #owned if the President is acquitted, has gone completely in the other direction and decided it is inevitable that he will be acquitted no matter what new evidence emerges. The author writes, citing no evidence, that "the quasi-jurors who swore on oath on Thursday to do 'impartial justice' for the most part have already signaled their partiality." It also says, "most of the senators … seem to have made up their minds about Mr. Trump's actions." I do not know either of those assertions to be true and doubt there is solid factual support for them. I know, apart from the oaths sworn by everyone, Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Lamar Alexander, and Ben Sasse have explicitly publicly pledged, in some form or another, that they will be impartial. The evidence, as you note, now overwhelmingly suggests impeachable offenses. Therefore, if we take these 5 senators at their word--the respectful thing for a journalist to do--in combination with overwhelming evidence, we are only 15 senators away from removal of the President. This isn't inevitable. Please stop reporting it as such.
1
Maybe Donald Trump will become the first president to be impeached twice. Certainly far more information will be forthcoming over the next several months regarding Trump's myriad excursions into illegal activities. For instance, no money trail has yet been found. Does anyone believe that Trump hasn't made some type of deal that will financially benefit he or his family? What about the enormous loan from Deutche Bank to Trump's son-in-law? Did the Saudi's guarantee said loan, because it came out of nowhere. Plenty of things left to investigate where Donald Trump is concerned.
2
"For the Senators Who Will Judge Trump, an Incomplete Story to Consider"
No worries! At the right time, the "incomplete story" will become complete. But, before that happening, let's first get all Republicans appear on evening news defending Mr. Trump and accusing Democrats of manufacturing "a hoax". For their constituents, those on-camera statements will be powerful testimonies to their true allegiances. And no doubt the Democrats will find them handy come next election.
Even better, Democrats may wait until the Senate fully "exonerates" Mr. Trump. Once that is done, they may choose to put out every piece of evidence they have, in the hope of wiping out the entire Republican party in the next election.
In short, expect so many "other shoes to drop" that they exceed the inventory of most shoe stores.
1
We all know what will happen - the GOP will rush this through to specifically AVOID getting more evidence. They are working on strategies now that will let them acquit without looking ridiculous. They most certainly are not working on getting the evidence out. They are coordinating with FOX to create a uniform message so conservative news dupes see that all conservative outlets agree with each other. Part of the problem in the past has been that different outlets and individuals had different stories. This was the issue during Katrina. It took about 4 days for FOX to define the story line and even David Brooks on the PBS News Hour was parroting the FOX line by that Friday.
When you lie, you need to share the story to keep it straight. The truth doesn't require remembering anything.
1
It seems to have reached the point where the facts are not much in question and R’s are relying on the claim that there is no there, there. Danforth specious claim was, “My view is that whatever the facts, these two articles are so subject to future abuse that the Senate should dismiss them on their face,”
So let’s review: The President broke the law by holding back money that Congress had approved. He clearly did it to pressure a foreign country to open (though they weren’t even required to prosecute) an investigation into one of the President’s political rivals. He did it, it was illegal, and it was for personal, not policy-related reasons.
So the R’s conclude that these acts are not clearly outside the pale?
Perhaps Trump is not lying when he claims it was a “perfect” call. His moral compass is so skewed that he may not, in fact, see anything wrong with what he did. Lots of R’s, however, know better, and need to think long and hard about allowing themselves to be soiled by the residue of his moral cesspit. He, on the other hand, does not seem to possess the capacity to view issues as having any importance beyond their benefit to him.
The judgement of history is likely to be merciless on this, and time is running out for R’s to get on the correct side. Trading momentary political advantage for the permanent taint of corruption does not seem like their best choice.
4
There's tons of commentary implying the GOP Senators enabling a Trump cover-up will be judged harshly by historians. Well, my fellow citizens, the rest of the world will be judging the merit and worth of our Democracy in real time. Years and decades won't have to pass.
Trump has already dragged down our country's reputation for human rights and moral decency.
Is he going to succeed in totally thrashing the world's view of our ethical and legal standards, too?
I'm somewhat resolved to the expected acquittal vote as flipping 20 present day GOP sycophants isn't in the cards, but if at least 4 GOP Senators don't have the courage and morality to let America (and themselves) see the facts of the case, as presented by the heretofore obstructed witnesses, this trial will surely mark a mortal cliff.
4
Why did the Hose present incomplete impeachment evidence to the Senate? The Senate should consider extant evidence and not redo a flawed investigation. This has evolved into an interminable ad hoc drama with a bombastic, Twitter-addicted POTUS and sanctimonious Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, et al. Or should it be said, politics as usual.
@W. Ogilvie The House presented plenty of evidence that the President committed high crimes and misdemeanors. It's here. Read it before you critique the investigation.
https://intelligence.house.gov/report/
This thoroughness was in spite of the fact the White House engaged in unprecedented obstruction to block the investigatin.
Since then, more evidence has emerged of the President's criminality because (1) an objective, nonpartisan governmental watchdog has determined definitively what always seemed to be the case: that the President's freezing of the Ukraine aid was straight-up illegal; and (2) One of the President's indicted co-conspirators has decided to talk because he's been caught, something incredibly common in criminal conspiracies, particularly in cases where low-level people carry out crimes on behalf of powerful people pulling the strings. It's how they got Gotti. It's how they'll get Trump as long as we keep maximum pressure on the Senators who will decide his fate and ensure that they know we know they know we live in a nation of laws and that the President is not an elected king.
The House came up with a weak impeachment case. Now they have scrambled to bring up more issues. That is the strategy to continue to throw up accusations until the election. They voted on the articles of impeachment that were thrown together in haphazard way. Changing as they tried to make them "crimes." Ultimately the Democrats are going to have to live with these articles. Nancy Pelosi's accusation that Mitch McConnell is a Russian operative is a bizarre affirmation of the anti Russia hysteria she continues to try to stoke.
I hope they call witnesses. The four Democrats I want to see called are Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, Adam Schiff and the whistleblower. We might as well get this all out in the open. I'm afraid if the real truth were exposed it would mark an eternal end to the Democratic party.
@RS
So you want to hear from 4 Democrats but you aren't in the least interested in hearing testimony from Republicans. Especially Republicans who were in on the deal, like Pence, Mulvaney, Bolton, and Guiliani. Oddly enough, I want to learn the truth of this. You seem to want to hide the truth. Why is that?
2
@RS Respectfully, your witness list all consist of people who have no relevant testimony to provide concerning the cash-for-investigations scandal that the President is accused of. Therefore, calling them would be a waste of time and taxpayer money. You may believe, in your heart, that the former VP's son is corrupt, or even, without any evidence, that the former VP is corrupt, but there is a time and place for such investigations and it's through the American criminal justice system. If the FBI believed what they did was illegal it would have investigated and charged them. It didn't. To permit the President to run a rogue investigation outside the oversight of Congress and the courts is a derogation of his responsibility to see that laws are faithfully executed. Unlike the Bidens, who can be tried in court if they did something wrong, the only way to try Trump for using his office to enrich himself is through impeachment. To sully that process with witnesses who have no relevant evidence about the President's abuse of power would be a grave mistake.
1
@RS Schiff, Biden and the whistleblower are not on trial for wrong doing. Trump is. All the whataboutism in the world is not going to change the fact that Trump broke the law.
1
“Rush to impeachment”? Evidence of Trump criminal involvement will continue to bubble to the surface long after all these people are gone. If she had waited until all the evidence was in, the indictment would never have been delivered. History will be the final judge, if there’s anybody left to write it.
2
Democrats can't have their cake and eat it too.
The only thing rushing the need to go to the Senate with their crimeless impeachment articles is the date Pres. Trump signed the Phase-One China deal.
They have made their decision, now they will have to live with their decision.
@batazoid Are you so concerned with process arguments that you are not at all concerned that the President violated the law?
The nonpartisan GAO just reported that his freezing of Ukraine's aid violated the Impoundment Control Act.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/703909.pdf
It was illegal, plain and simple. And his reason for doing it made it worse. I assume that you like him and that's great, but we should not condone illegal actions from our elected leaders just because we may personally like them. In this country, no one is above the law.
No amount of evidence will produce 20 GOP senators voting to convict Trump. So the outcome is given, regardless.
No reasonable person would argue this case on the facts or on the law. Trump provided a transcript of this phone call (expanded and supported by some people in the room). It clearly demonstrated his demand for help smearing a likely opponent in the next election. The law is clear that receiving such help from foreigners is illegal. He then blocked the investigation by refusing to allow any testimony or documents about this incident to be released to congress (again neither the facts nor the law on this can be argued by any reasonable person).
The desperate attempts of GOP to try and cover up the facts of this case will backfire. They will not be able to hide the simple facts of actions, laws and responsibility - and will look foolish trying. The weakness of any attempts to argue on facts and law will shine through to all but their Fox-bot base.
It is much better that Bolton get blocked from testimony now and instead release his "testimony" in a book this summer (and during countless interviews about his book). It is a lot worse for Trump and McConnell when evidence blocked from the trial slowly trickle out all the way to election day. It will help keeping the issue (as well as democratic anger and GOP embarrassment), on the front burner.
2
@Ivan In my view, it would be more helpful if you would stop being so certain how GOP senators you do not know will vote on evidence that has not yet been presented. If you believe the evidence is strong, great. So do I. Let's put maximum pressure on our elected representatives to do the right thing, expose the President's wrongdoing, and vote him out of office for his constitutional crimes. We don't need to convince millions of people. Just 20 out of 53, that's 38% of the GOP senate. And we likely already have Romney, Murkowski, and Collins. Many GOP Senators have not commented yet. Let's continue to exert maximal public pressure on them to make the right decision by letting them know through public protest, civil disobedience, whatever it takes, that their constituents will not stand for them rubber-stamping lawless executive conduct.
Democrats discovered clear evidence of a crime in progress, attempting to enlist a foreign government to influence the 2020 election. Since this was a repeat offense, they couldn't wait any longer.
4
The Senate's responsibility is provide a fair trial and administer impartial justice. It is not possible to do either without receiving and studying all available evidence and hearing all appropriate witnessess. Senators failing to both will be rewarded on election day 2020 by remover from the U.S. Senate.
3
Let's be honest: It doesn't matter how much more evidence is uncovered, the GOP is NEVER going to remove trump. The Mueller report was extremely thorough and was more than enough to dump this crook. But it only turned one in the GOP, Amash. One out of hundreds.
Funny how trump's GOP complained incessantly about how long the Mueller probe took, then complained that the House Dems rushed their investigation.
3
For a representative democracy to be successful the truth and facts are the foundation of an informed citizen. If the GOP continues to battle against them our only hope is that there is enough of a "free press" remaining in the USA to defeat this unpatriotic organization which denies its oath to support and defend my Constitution!
2
A few points: first, the trial should be limited to the House's basis for the impeachment. If not, the Senate is asked to perform an investigative function beyond its purview. It was the House's job to collect the material on which to make the impeachment. Second, recent "disclosures" come from a questionable witness (Parnas) and from the GAO, which cited Obama seven times for having broken the law. Finally, the House prosecutors can make whatever case they wish, but only the Senate can decide on what should be judged.
Isn't it interesting how in every Dem effort something comes up at the eleventh hour to keep things astir?
@David On your first point, there is really no basis in precedent for what you suggest. Even in the case of the Clinton impeachment there were additional witnesses after the case came up from the House. Second, never forget the Democrats did not choose Parnas, this "questionable witness." Trump did. Just like he did with felons Cohen, Manafort, Stone, Flynn, and Papadopolous (sorry, if I left out any convicted criminals who worked on the Trump campaign or administration. So many). As for the GAO, I've seen this "seven times" talking point often bandied about regarding Obama and I find it interesting how, instinctively, when the evidence of the current President's malfeasance is so strong, how his defenders always fall back into whataboutism to blame his predecessor. What exactly are you hiding from? Why, I wonder, won't you defend Trump's conduct on the merits? Anyway, I don't know about Obama's previous citations from the GAO, but I'm fairly certain they weren't for using his office to engage in a political hit job.
On the third point, I'll agree with you. The Senate will be the judge. And history will judge them harshly if they ignore the fact that the President abused his power, a fact as clear as a cloudless day to any rational mind.
Put up the findings against Trump as the Democrats have them. They thoroughly identify the president in breaking laws. If the Senate is dishonest, he will be acquitted. If they are impartial with regard to the facts, Trump is out.
2
If I understand this correctly, the House did not want to wait for the courts to decide if some witnesses should be forced to testify because Trump is a danger to the country. Now they insist the same witnesses be called by the Senate. Huh?
Let's stop kidding ourselves. The Republicans tried to steal the next election and they got caught. Republican Senators want the Presidency even if it makes a mockery of democracy. Along with Supreme Court decisions that have allowed the wealthy to buy our representatives and to allow gerrymandering that disenfranchises millions of Americans, while pretending they're nonpartisan. Where Republicans hold state governments they have passed voter id laws that prevent the poor, young, old, black and brown Americans--Democrats from voting. Their excuses don't stand up to scrutiny, while the Supreme Court looks the other way.
These Senators privately claim they dislike Trump but he is delivering what their owners want. What these Senators dislike is that Trump is a human failure and can't help but do their dirt openly. Even the wealthy might have trouble buying elections if the public catches on.
Don't look for integrity and honesty in the US Senate. These guys reject getting “the truth, the whole truth,” but it certainly exposes what they have become. Their Oath of Office, their Oath to be Impartial Juries are meaningless; they have no shame. Their excuses are undermining justice. They sure don't want the media cameras exposing them to the public.
Imagine our legal system ignoring evidence, judges and jurors chosen for their prejudice. Or is that what the Senate Republicans have been up to appointing incompetent like- thinking judges. Is this what we want for all America?
2
The story is not incomplete. Parnas just confirmed what all of the documents and testimony proved in the House hearings. He's guilty. Republicans ignore that at their own peril. Our democracy is literally at stake when senators ignore their oaths to the constitution and refuse to hold an honest and legitimate impeachment trial. They are making a mockery of our laws and constitution and basically telling the country that they are liars and frauds full stop. Like Trump, they spit on America and hope cheating in the next election is going to save them from drowning, but the voters are watching and we will not forget their betrayal to us and our country.
2
If you have a GOP Senator, here's what to write:
Dear GOP Senator,
Please vote against a fair trial and stand for the new GOP brand: Crony Capitalism, foreign interference in USA elections and obstructing Congress's duty to provide oversight of the Executive Branch.
Like it or not, the GOP has changed the image of the USA into an autocracy of criminals, corruption, and mental illness. Mitch McConnell and his wife Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao have worked hard in the last 8 years to impede oversight of businesses and government, particularly legislation that might inhibit foreign interference into USA elections, public health, energy policy, or gun safety measures.
In just 3 years, through their fanatical support of the Trump power grab in Washington, they've been able to line their pockets with tens of millions of federal dollars in highway projects - specifically in Kentucky where they own transportation construction firms.Search domain www.nytimes.com/2019/10/16/opinion/elaine-chao-mitch-mcconnell.htmlhttps://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/16/opinion/elaine-chao-mitch-mcconnell.html
Should you favor a fair trial or vote for impeachment, you end their corrupt spree and depriving this odious couple and Chao's Chinese relatives of their right to enrich themselves through nepotism and crony capitalism.
2
Why is Trump not on the witness list? Clinton was deposed.
Mr. Word Salad not have the courage to face the senators?
1
Well, it sure proves the point that thr house dems were rushing to push through this scam without fully investigating or bringing more witnesses into the fray. If course, they didn't let the republicans bring any witnesses tivdefenf thr president. I hope the dems reflect upon that for the next 5 years.
@John S. thanks for your uncredentialed prognostication. Now, I wonder, if you'll defend the President's conduct on the merits or if you're fine, instead, with repeating specious right-wing talking points about process rather than recognizing that a nonpartisan government watchdog, the GAO, has just declared that the President broke the law, and one of his hired thugs has just confessed and implicated the President in the conspiracy. It's over. At least as far as history is concerned, the President has already lost. Time to get on the right side. Not too late.
It's true that the Democrat's rush to impeachment left many stones unturned. However, I don't think it makes any difference. The new revelations appear to be wrongdoings but don't rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. The Democrats made this a political event by not involving the Republicans on a equal basis. The Senate will reciprocate. Trump will be found innocent. The length of the trial will be calculated by the Republicans based on who they want to run against Trump. If they want to run against Biden, they will prolong the trial, handcuffing Sanders and Warren to the trial chambers during important primaries. If they don't want to run against Biden, it will be a relatively short trial. Trump's base has been invigorated by the impeachment process donating more money to his campaign than all of the Democratic candidates combined and the most in history. He won't lose many if any of the votes he received in the last election. And he'll get many new votes. Many disillusioned Democrats won't vote or will write-in their favorite candidate. Trump will win and win easily. Impeachment or not.
5
Blackmailing a foreign country to help one’s political campaign, lying about it, and obstructing the investigation by refusing to let witnesses testify is the very definition of impeachable offenses. Trump is guilty. That’s why he kept obstructing. Innocent people don’t act like that.
4
Trump will not be found "innocent". He's already been impeached. At most he will be aquited. Big difference.
3
Another person with a magic crystal ball who knows what everyone else does not, despite being blindly hyper-partisan. I would rather wait and see.
3
McConnell PROMISED to violate his oath to be impartial before he even took it.
He said that he would violate his oath, then put his hand on the Bible and took the oath anyway.
No Republicans are calling for his removal.
Is this the respect that Republicans have for oaths, the Constitution, and the Bible?
25
The Dems are already setting the stage for their loss in the impeachment trial by dragging new and improved testimony after the trial has started. It'll give them something to point at and perhaps start a new impeachment hearing next year.
4
Yes, as long as new crimes are being committed, and new testimony and facts remain uncovered, that's what an investigation means.
2
I'm not important at all, I'm just a citizen of the United States, but there are roughly 350 million of us unimportant citizens and we deserve to know the truth about the man posing as our president. We need to know exactly who and what he is and what he has been doing to our nation. And why. I understand that justice isn't equal...a poor man stealing a loaf of bread because he's hungry could easily be sentenced to 10 years in prison while a rich man who steals millions would probably get probation. However, that "standard" should not apply to a man who can influence the lives of all 350 million of us. Witnesses must be heard...all of them, documents must be produced and shown to the public, and the Senate must hold a legitimate trial. If that doesn't happen, and it looks like it won't, then America is no more. I weep for my country and for my countrymen, we are being tossed onto a trash-heap just to satisfy the ego and criminality of one very sick individual.
19
"Yet there are still so many loose threads to be pulled that the story feels incomplete."
The story of Trump's impeachable behavior will always feel incomplete, because he adds to it on a daily basis. This is by design, as it makes it highly unlikely that the public will focus on any particular transgression for the sustained period of time needed for Congress to take corrective action. This is why Pelosi et al were wise to move forward as quickly as they did.
14
This is an overt attempt to turn our Republic into a "real" Democracy by undermining a Presidential election through Constitutional
Does that sound appealing to you- living in a true Jeffersonian paradise where all men are created equal, and people produce according to their ability, and receive according to their need?
However, looking at current trends and with continuing open borders, over time a "true" American Democracy would be dominated by " minorities" and an immigrant-driven underclass (now an overclass).
Run by the likes of AOC and Bernie Sanders, chaos would ensue, if not open rebellion, as these leaders went about seizing assets for the purpose of re-allocation and social engineering.
Is this what we want?
Don't kid yourselves, there is a well thought out reason why the Pelosis of this world want to control what people hear and see on the media and internet, and the type of weapons that they have.
When things deteriorate to the point of personal safety being threatened on a mass scale, then we will see REAL change and not in a Jeffersonian way.
3
@Steve Scots-Irish philosophy.
What we know about the criminality of Donald Trump is but the tip of a metaphorical iceberg. We will begin to see with a slow but steady unfolding of information, The truth about Donald Trump who has always believed he was above the law. The record speaks for itself if you know your history about this man.
This is not about the hatred of an individual this is about the objective understanding of a sitting president in the oval office who consistently believes that he is above the law.
8
Hands over ears , eyes shut and loud la la la from mouth as any evidence presented. Then, "can we vote now?"
5
Every substantive defense of Trump's actions has quickly collapsed under the weight of new evidence. The Republicans' defense has devolved to: the impeachment is invalid because the House didn't find all the incriminating evidence Trump is hiding.
6
With a little luck, and backbone, McConnell will dismiss the action immediately and end this circus.
The only thing to be gained by a trial is the calling of Joe and Hunter Biden, and that will be handled by Durham anyway.
The articles of impeachment are meritless and as such are subject to immediate denial, which is the appropriate course.
The House leadership should be taught a severe and embarrasing lesson.
4
Whether the House did not do a thorough enough investigation before voting articles of impeachment is not the issue today. It is the Senate's job to decide whether or not Donald J. Trump committed unconstitutional crimes or misdemeanors that make him unfit to continue in the office of POTUS. Any additional evidence whether in defense or prosecution of this president must be considered by the Senate. Otherwise the Senate and the entire government will lose support of the American electorate.
63
@RLW Nonsense. The Senators can consider whatever they want--or nothing at all. What will happen is that each side will make its case, and the Senators will vote to determine guilt or innocence. And you already know the outcome.
In the Republicans’ “view the articles of impeachment simply do not add up to high crimes and misdemeanors and would lower the bar for future presidents. “
This president has said multiple times that Article 2 allows him to do whatever he wants and he has acted on this belief many times. In this case, he withheld congressionally approved funds and has refused to provide any documents and ordered anyone from his administration not to testify. Thankfully brave career national security officials and others defied him or we would have a lot less information.
The problem is IMPOTUS has already lowered the bar for future presidents. Democrats are struggling to use their constitutional power to prevent future presidents from abusing their authority.
6
Democrats and anyone else interested in the rule of law and the preservation of our democracy should do five things:
1) Urge that Chief Justice John Roberts enforce the oath which he and all of the Senators took by ruling at the outset that a “Trial” by the Senate in an impeachment means taking the testimony of witnesses sought by the House managers and receiving documents previously requested by the managers.
2) Demand that the testimony of all witnesses who appeared before the House be heard and subject to both direct and cross-examination by Senators, chosen by the Republican and Democratic caucuses in the Senate.
3) Demand that any witness who has indicated a willingness to testify before the Senate, if subpoenaed, be allowed to testify under a subpoena issued for that purpose.
4) On any issue for which a procedural decision is to be made by vote of the Senate, the individual voice vote of every senator be taken and recorded.
5) On the vote to convict or acquit (remove or not) the individual vote of each senator be taken, along with a statement of three minutes or less of that senator’s reason for voting as he or she did.
4
Personally, it think there will be no political price for the Democrats. It’s not at all like Clinton’s car. People liked Bubba, even if they did not like his politics. People don’t like Trump, even when they agree with him. And it just isn’t hard to see how Trump has brought this on himself.
Finally, nobody even tries to argue that Trump would never do something like this. After all, he openly advertised that he was open to it. And he has a sketchy reputation when it comes to ethics.
6
Mitch McConnell and his GOP minions will practice "jury nullification" despite the evidence that Trump did exactly what the impeachment articles claim.
3
This is a "political" process which means that facts don't matter. Emotionalism and Tribalism are on full display. Nobody really seeks truth if it makes them uncomfortable. Humans make factually bad choices most of the time.
2
Well, what was the rush to impeach before getting all the evidence? Seems like a big mistake on Pelosi’s part.
3
"For the Senators Who Will Judge Trump, an Incomplete Story to Consider"
And that will be the ONLY way McConnell and crew will be able to exonerate our fallen executive branch, by making sure only part of the story is exhibited.
This is the only way a failed casino owner can survive, by stacking the deck
8
Well the American people will then judge (harshly) these Republican senators on election day in November.
5
There are lots of allegations concerning Donald Trump and his quid pro quo with Ukraine. Let’s not pretend. There is nothing too far fetched. Everybody knows. We have to ask ourselves, “Is this sort of behavior by presidents of the United States of America going to be acceptable?” Isn’t this what it comes down to?
6
I find the arguments of individual such as Senator Danford to be specious and ridiculous. Once Donald Trump decided not to cooperate with the House's investigation, and to prevent witnesses from testifying and withholding documents, Trump was guilty of obstruction of Congress. Congress has exclusive constitutional authority to investigate and bring forth impeachment charges. It is not the prerogative of the president to block this procedure and it is an unconstitutional exercise of power and abuse of office for the president to do so. Clinton sat for a deposition, and many many witnesses were interviewed by the independent counsel investigating the clintons, and thousands upon thousands of pages of documents were released. Has Trump done anything like this? No he hasn't. Why? Because he's guilty. That is an impeachable offense. To tear down this particular charge claiming that it is without sufficient evidence to support it, is akin to allowing every criminal defendant to claim that the charges against him should be dismissed, because they were able to suborn witnesses, and destroy evidence. We don't allow such a thing to occur under any circumstances. Why should we allow Donald Trump to get away with it?
6
Keeping the Republicans in Line
All Trump has to do is threaten to take Mike Pence down with him. That would put Nancy Pelosi in the White House. Hard to imagine any Republican allowing that to happen.
1
I have a theory.
The Republican Senators find themselves in an alternate universe where lies, distortions, and Trump's body of work coalesce to form anti-reality. There is no interest on their part to hear witness, listen to reason or seek truth. The facts conflict with the unnatural laws of black hole Republican politics.
At the center of this black hole is the most dense man in the universe. He exerts strong force that bend the rules of law to the point of breaking them. At some point, the evil physics of new Republican politics will implode around its incredibly dense center to form a singular point of dark history on the continuum of time.
We cannot see into the future, but the end is near. Call it impeachment, elections, or celestial intervention. The implosion is coming. QED.
8
This Democrat infused cocktail charade needs to evaporate. So many bigger items worthy of addressing; healthcare, inequality, homelessness, repairing foreign relations. Impeaching or the act of doing so is less than nothing.
4
@Nature
Removing the major obstacle to USA healthcare, inequality, and improving foreign relations seems like a good start for the Democratic Party.
2
For the Senators Who Will Judge Trump, an Incomplete Story to Consider"…….
Could it be that some of the senators starting with Mitch McConnell don't want, have never wanted the complete story……
Otherwise they would have pushed for and supported the testimony and document requests that were totally blocked by the Trump administration………..
"You shall know the truth and it shall make you free"
But apparently not in this case………….
5
The Impeachment Trial in the Senate may not be a serious trial. Republican Senators may not live up to their oath as jurors or to their oath of office.
In that case, the Trial will show the country that Republicans are not, from Trump on down, fit to rule this country.
If, after that has been made abundantly clear, Trump and his Republican enablers are returned to office, then we will get what we deserve, a king once again.
And we might as well use our Constitution as a trash liner.
5
And now we will be offered entertainment, a la Perry Mason, with Dersh -- of OJ and Epstein fame-- , and Starr, the prude who indicted Bill. Wow! Americans are fed up (at least this one) by the Trump Mafia legal gyrations. If we cannot find Trump guilty of SOMETHING then we deserve 4 more years of totalitarianism and Orwellian speech, bad taste, nepotism, corruption and oligarchy.
3
I am so glad Trump is draining the swamp! With 0 republican Senators behind this it tells you a few of things..
1) Trump did nothing impeachable
2) Trump will be exonerated
3) Trump will win re-election
4) Wishing it wasn't so wont make Trump go away. Millions of us like him as President and will vote to see him hold a 3rd or 4th term!
3
I think a person can only serve 2 terms, but I could be wrong. Is this a Vladimir Putin government model you are hoping for?
3
@RS
Heck, Putin's rewriting his country's constitution, so why not Trump.
His admin has already rewritten the Statue of Liberty's inscription to read: Don't give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, but, only send those who already can pay their way.
2
"Yet there are still so many loose threads to be pulled that the story feels incomplete."
Keep pulling on those loose threads, Mr. Baker. You're gonna be at it a long time. See the latest in Talking Points Memo, observing that Lev Parnas was out to get Marie Yovanovitch fired way back in Spring 2018, before even Rudy G. was on the case. He appears to have been working for someone interested in clearing Paul Manafort. Now (stroking chin), who could that be?
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/parnas-before-rudy
Apparently Trump doesn't know anyone: Lev Parnas? Never heard of him. Michael Cohen? Don't know him. Michael Flynn? Doesn't sound familiar. Rudy Giuliani? Doesn't ring a bell. Melania Trump? Not sure I ever met her. Stormy Daniels? Might have met her briefly, discussed a magazine, but nothing more. Trump is a real piece of work.
2
Not only did Trump obstruct Congress, it appears that AG Barr obviously ordered this guy Parnas arrested to keep him quiet – his lawyers so generously supplied by the WH (Down and Downing) told him in no uncertain terms to shut up and not talk to the impeachment inquiry.
Parnas got rid of those lawyers and then begged the judge to let him release his documents to the House Intel committee. The judge did, just in time for them to be sent over to the Senate as the trial of Trump begins.
3
"For the Senators Who Will Judge Trump, an Incomplete Story to Consider"
This would most likely be a case of catching your republican senators, who swore a false oath, red-handed who previously pledged to reject fairness by going along with McConnell saying he was coordinating with the White House to vote Trump innocent?
It might be worth a few moments, between now and Monday night, (the trial starts Tuesday) to write, email, phone your republican senators and let them know that if they vote "not guilty" in the Trump Impeachment trial, you will be contacting them and asking this simple question: "Where are the witnesses and documents that exonerate Trump?" and that you will be expecting an answer from them.
You could also let these republican senators know that you will be asking your news paper and TV news people to also ask this same question of these senators since there is an election this November.
Here is the link to find your senators contact address: https://www.senate.gov/senators/contact
1
the reason we are in such trouble is that thanks to the outstanding intellectual work on propaganda and mass manipulation and the destruction of antitrust in every sector including media we now have the fascist fake news Network as the leader in so-called news. so what are we going to do about it? we need an army of citizen journalists in organizations dedicated to getting the truth out every single day despite all of the influence of money being dedicated to the contrary agenda
1
John Danforth vouched for Clarence Thomas, who had perjured himself under oath during his confirmation hearings,
So even this mild mannered highly respected Republican "moderate" is more partisan than concerned with the facts of the case.
I too would like to know more --- about the timing of Trump's secret conversations with Putin and the emergence of his anti-Ukraine behavior, but there already is plenty enough evidence that Trump withheld Congressionally approved essential aide to an ally fighting an invader, and that he did it to benefit himself, not the United States.
4
Pelosi et al threaded a narrow needle with great skill. Falling for Trump's standard trick - litigating until the opponent is exhausted or the matter is moot - would have been a mistake. By the time the courts resolve the "privilege" issues, Trump would have done even more lasting harm than is already the case.
The emerging evidence would probably not affect the outcome. After all, Trump's guilt is not exactly a classified secret at this point.
But here's my prediction and hope: As Trump is acquitted, and the evidence continues to flow, the Republican Senators will look increasingly and willfully corrupt. Trump will continue in office, but the public recognition of his illegal and unconstitutional behavior will grow.
Continuation of the investigation will dramatically improve Democratic electoral prospects in November, both for the presidency and in Congress.
The truth will out. The momentum is clear, and the Senate trial will not stop it.
136
@Barking Doggerel I think I am in your camp on this impeachment business. I hope upon hope for your "prediction and hope."
Most importantly, "Continuation of the investigation will dramatically improve Democratic electoral prospects in November..." and I think this must be Speaker Pelosi's viewpoint as well, or I hope it is.
However, I wish Speaker Pelosi was more aggressive about using the House Intelligence Committee, and others, to continue a full court press of investigations, and simply start building the historical record because we will only know what the press and the House investigators reveal.
Justice Department is AWOL; expect nothing from that quarter.
The House should investigate for investigation sake starting with subpoenas to Giuliani, Bolton, Jared, Don Jr., and all other relevant actors.
Finally, formal impeachment inquiries should have been opened long ago for Pompeo (lying about Ukraine shakedown) and Barr (lying about nature and content of Mueller Report); and an investigation of key findings of the Mueller Report in Part A especially should never have been abandoned.
Spine and cunning is of paramount importance for the House leadership.
8
@Barking Doggerel It gives, drain the swamp new meaning and needs to repeated on the campaign trail early and often.
4
@Barking Doggerel You are so right about so much, including that "the truth will out." Why then be so defeated about the inevitability of acquittal? We need 37% of our elected representatives, the GOP senators, to do the right thing. Don't let this article fool you. Most of the GOP senators are not yet on record on how they will vote. Let's not let them off the hook. At least three of the twenty we need, Romney, Collins, and Murkowski are pretty likely to do it. Why allow the rest of the GOP off the hook by not putting maximal pressure on them to do the right thing right now? We don't have to convince the diehard Trumpers just 20 out of 53 people, all of whom, undoubtedly should no better.
4
If the Senate does not hold Trump accountable, it will mark the end of the Republican Party. It will take a few cycles, but the truth will prevail.
Good riddance.
10
Saying that the impeachment is a 'hot mess' is disingenuous. The House was stonewalled by Trump and his minions, and waiting for the courts to rule would have taken years. The House already had enough information to move for impeachment, so they did what was possible. The fact the the den of thieves is larger than first imagined does not mean that there in not enough evidence for conviction.
6
The Republicans want to get it over ASAP:
- Trump will say he is vindicated, continuing his fake news that this is like “Cold Case.”
- Republicans can get back to their real agenda: using Trump to rubber stamp political judges and promote local candidates to erase the constitutional balance of powers.
- Republicans don’t really care about the rest, Trump has shown that his deal making is to force renegotiation, then trumpet do nothing deals as wins.
2
"The quasi-jurors who swore an oath on Thursday to do “impartial justice” for the most part have already signaled their partiality."
This is what it looks like when the system totally falls apart. Its only a few short steps to the anarchy of a Venezuela type system.
4
Seems to me that the only issue might be whether Americans have the courage to convict the President and risk the stock market - even though the P/E ratios is in the twilight zone right now.
I read yesterday that FORBES magazine had a European Poll out on the trustworthiness of Donald Trump.
For all of Europe, the President stands at 4% -
96% do not trust him. No, please don't answer me,
check it out yourself.
Now, that's scarry to me!
3
So far, the only thing that remains clear is the fact that Republicans are not interested in the evidence, and the Senate will clear Trump no matter what.
Apparently he can shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
3
Attention Mike Bloomberg. Have your ad people saturate the airwaves with the message that a trial needs witnesses.
3
Mitch McConnel, Graham and many other Republican Senators committed PERJURY the moment they swore to- and sign- the OATH to be IMPARTIAL! This is a fixed trial in a Republican controlled Kangaroo Court made up of corrupt clowns putting their party's interests before the country's...
3
Is it true Jared, in addition to his misuse of state secrets to help his personal finances, abused programs meant for poor and working class people? I'm sick of this family in the WH. All of them.
4
The Republicans argument is ridiculous on its face.
It would equivalent of a prosecutor refusing to look at any evidence that wasn't presented to the grand jury.
2
Senators may judge Trump on an incomplete story...may be the most obvious headline in the history of print journalism.
1
“I’m not an impartial juror”
- Mitch McConnell
“I won’t pretend to be a fair juror”
- Lindsey Graham
These are the Republican leaders.
7
It's not the Senate's obligation to bolster the case for impeachment. The President is not required to put up a defense. After the Senate votes to acquit the House can pursue a new Impeachment inquiry if it wishes to so. It can give Lev Parnas all the time he wants. Of course, that would bring their credibility down to the level of Rachael Maddow.
how can they take that oath to be impartial jurors, and live with themselves?/Are they so inurred to reality by FOX that like the arizona gop, who called a question from CNN just partisan hackery, are they so inurred that they cannot see?
When will Barr be disbarred? when will Guiliani be disbarred, and when will the right of america understand that you can't use public money for your private gain? It is not rocket science..Just like global warming - it is just the greenhouse effect, that is all..6th grade science...Let is GO Exxon, et all..We need to move forward as a species, and that involves protecting our earth, and all the species we live wi th..
2
Nice try Petey. Ain't gonna happen. Dems will align against, and thankfully, GOP will align to acquit. It'll be over quickly and probably painlessly - unless you're a Liberal, in which case you were already fairly deranged to begin with.
3
Whose idea was it to administer a swearing-in oath for the Impeachment Trial calling for “impartial justice” while mentioning the name of G-d?
The very idea of holding a swearing-in ceremony for the Republican Senators who have already decided to hold their noses and support Trump, strikes me as a shameful assault on
G-d, who is already fully aware of how much the words honor and impartial justice count for these jackals.
5
While the Republican argument that the House investigation was "rushed" and that Dems should have pushed legal remedies to compel witnesses testimony, has some validity. However, these arguments do not recognize the fact that any move to obtain court rulings to testify would likely have prolonged the hearings beyond the 2020 election (the McGahn subpoena is still in limbo 2yrs after being served), and totally ignores the fact that the evidence obtained was compelling, convincing and warranted impeachment. Additionally, these complaints by GOP Senators does not justify a decision that would have the Senate not do its job by filling whatever blanks exist in the House's case. To quote my mom, "2 wrongs do not make a right!"
6
In making ethical decisions, we never have the whole story - having to act as though we do is baked into the human condition.
In making legal judgements we must act within the four corners of the case, the limits of the law, and precedent.
In an impeachment trial there are still limits on our knowledge, but greater latitude in presenting evidence. Because the Founders wanted us to be able to remove an executive run amok, they did not afford the president the same protections as an accused defendant in a court case.
In his rank partisanship, GOP leader Mitch McConnell is no respecter of law, precedent, or even fair play. The Republican trial strategy is to pass judgement on the articles of impeachment rather than to judge Pres.Trump's actions. To this end, they will continue to suppress evidence.
Each senator must now decide whether they will demand the easily available evidence they need to make a fair and accurate judgement of Trump's official actions. Each of us should contact our senators to demand that the witnesses to Trump's actions be called and allowed to testify.
2
At the end of the day, the new evidence seems to implicate Rudolph Giuliani and is merely hearsay on the President. Also, at the end of the day it’s up to the senate not only to decide if Trump is guilty of the articles passed by the House but if the articles are sufficient to remove the President. It is perfectly legitimate for the senate to decide that Trump did what the House says but that the offense is not up to their standards to remove him. It’s all up to the senate.
2
Without allowing witnesses to reveal the truth of or to rebuke the charges in the impeachment, the Senate will fail to represent the will of the majority of citizens it is elected to represent. It is not the will of a political party or the President or Mitch McConnell or Lindsey Graham to decide but rather for each and all Senators collectively as a body to decide according to their sworn oath. Period,full stop!
2
It may be "incomplete" but what we already know should be sufficient to vote "aye" for conviction and removal. That is, if the Republican Senators honour their oath.
7
The Constitution does not, I repeat, does not use the words, or refer to the concept of "executive privilege" ...
While there are reasons like "national security" or "in the public interest" that the idea of executive privilege might make sense ...
I'm pretty sure the protecting a president from accusations of misuse of power, and possible criminal acts should come under the protection of excutive privilege ...
3
The stories at trials are often incomplete under the best of circumstances. Prosecutors, good ones anyway, are painstaking and thorough in investigations and preparation so that everything is teed up well in advance of trial. The idea of showing showing up, answering ready, and asking the Court to conduct the rest of your investigation while the trial is ongoing is of course preposterous. This isn't misdemeanor or traffic Court or some forum where you should wing it. And then so many are surprised when so few are able to take the matter with the seriousness such proceedings should normally deserve.
1
How can anyone doubt that Trump did what he is accused of?
The republican senate simply does not want to remove him from office for it, and that is their prerogative.
2
If you consider that the senate’s dismissal of trump’s act of extortion and obstruction of congress to be judged merely as their prerogative than you might as well consider that America has no character of “Truth, Justice and the American way”. Go ahead and spit on it.
1
The dilemma here is the Republicans really like Donald Trump's program, and they want him reelected. Mitch McConnell, who think the articles of the constitution are mere nuisance factors, is holding up all the Democrats legislation because they do not want it, but they do not want to demonstrate their opposition to popular legislation by voting on it. So, Mitch McConnell's job, which he is the absolute master of, is to get Trump through this crisis so the Republicans and the plutocrats who really call the shots, can get him reelected. Right now the odds are 50-50 in favor of the plutocrats. Ambiguity intended.
3
Senators should judge Trump on the evidence presented. Whose fault is it that the senators are presented with an incomplete story by the US house of Reps, due to their abuse of power? Is the article suggesting that speaker Pelosi sent an incomplete story? It is never the job of the jurors to fix the "shoddy work" as Sen. McConell rightly characterized it over 30 days ago, of the US house of Reps. An admission that there was insufficient evidence when the partisan impeachment vote was taken, the grounds for dismissal are strong. As Jonathan Turley asked the most important question " Whats the hurry? and not involving the judiciary to get some key witnesses to testify will be an abuse of power not by the president but by the US house of representatives"
The rush to judgement by the US house of representatives has come back to haunt them and they have expectations that the senate will cover for their own negligence and lack of sincere effort to do everything right, I would say speaker Pelosi should declare the partisan impeachment with a bipartisan opposition null and void (something I had said 30 days ago) and revisit the articles of impeachment and gather evidence that will actually support the articles of impeachment. Either that or let the senate do its consitutional job and let the chips fall where they may. The cannon has been misfired at the white house and only the senate can stop it from damaging the white house.
2
@Girish Kotwal
What is insufficient about the evidence?
You can’t possibly believe every witness conspired to lie under oath.
Just be honest- you know he did what he is accused of.
If the senate does not want to remove him, that is their right and I am fine with it.
How anyone can deny what is clearly obvious is beyond me.
1
They are correct to have a fast trial and a fast acquittal as this is political rather than legal in nature.
1
If the House had such a compelling case to begin with, Parnas’s 20 minutes of instant fame on Rachel’s show the other night is beside the point. All I saw in that interview was an otherwise unassuming nobody suddenly turned into a “somebody” by somebody using them strictly for their own calculated purposes.
This useful summary analysis misses the main point of it all -- everything the Republicans are doing is for the sole purpose of retaining the Senate in the 2020 elections. They're playing the dangerous game of defending the criminal Trump enterprise because that enterprise is protecting their legislative advantage in the Senate. With the mood of the country turning against Trump regarding his Ukraine behavior, Republicans are in the media war of their careers trying to look and sound reasonable to Americans as a whole while they also energetically defend to their electoral base a criminal to the point of open hostility to basic principles of justice and jurisprudence. Republican senator Senator Collins bet wrong on Kavanaugh and is probably going to be defeated in her 2020 election, so her case stands as a warning to Republican Senators who move too far right.
But it needs to be clearly stated that the Republicans have been fully, visibly corrupted by Trump. With ordained Episcopal priest and former center right Republican Senator John Danforth recommending dismissing the impeachment articles as trival, Democrats need to get clear on the fraudulence of Republicans.
They schemed to place a 25 day limit on time to transmit articles to Senate. So Nancy delivers them. Then they complain "not complete." OK, got it. This is a political war being carried out under smiles. We get it.
Republicans are defending a criminal enterprise to defend electoral turf in 2020.
5
Revaluations still coming in! Who didn't make a considerate case and didn't pursue witnesses to the full extent of the court system? The house! The house failed to do its job! Don't try to shift the blame and put the onus on the Senate. The Senate is the trial, the building up and development the case is up to the house.
1
My question is, what happens to the Senators that swore to “impartiality,” but have already made up their minds and stated them on national TV their views. Is that considered perjury? IMO, it sounds like some sort of jury tampering. I’m almost wondering if the “higher ups” are threatening the “newer” Senators to see things their way.
1
It is not the Senate’s job, Republicans say, to do what the House failed to do.
Looks like the Republicans are trying to make up plausible excuses to support their plausible deniability. They really are the excuse party anymore.
2
How could Lindsey Graham & McConnell sign that oath when they have already said on record that they will not be impartial? They should already be suspect of perjury. Also just noted that trump added kenneth starr to his legal team. Starr was disgraced for covering up sexual assaults at Baylor & had to leave from there. Yeah he's a good choice for trump. trump doesn't need a defense team because we all know he will be acquitted & claim vindication. But there is no limit on the number of times he can be impeached. If he keeps saying he can do what he wants, he may be impeached again. Hope so...would go down in history as only president to be impeached twice. A thing "no president before him has ever done."
3
I cannot help but mourn the rule of law. Republicans have chipped away at it for decades. In the last several years they have demolished it. They plan to bury it soon. What will we do when the rule of law is gone?
3
@PatriotDem We'll still have "rule of law." It will, unfortunately, be the law of the jungle.
Good to see that former Senator John Danforth, an evangelical who forgave Clarence Thomas’s sexual proclivities and foisted him on an unsuspecting public as Supreme Court nominee, now vouches for the harmlessness of Donald Trump despite an obvious cover-up of evidence against him. I’d say Senator Danforth has done enough damage to the Republic for one lifetime and should refrain from being complicit in Trump’s crimes against the American people.
6
Republicans are proving they can sink lower and lower as time goes on. How is the House's work "sloppy" when the President publicly orders his administration to obstruct Congress? The House requested all of this information, only to be stonewalled, leaving them no choice but to request witnesses in the actual trial. Its becoming clear to me, that the Republicans do not want to hear witnesses, not because there is a chance the Senate will vote to remove Trump, but because the American people will vote him out if the information becomes public. As long as these spineless Republicans hold office, our Democracy is dead.
4
This trial boils down to two questions. Does objective truth still matter? Do our elected officials, Senators in this case, want to find out the truth? If the answer to either is no, then the American constitutional republic is a dead duck. If there is no objective truth, then there are no facts, and political debate must ultimately devolve into propaganda, then intimidation and violence by one party to the other, with the party with the greater power winning. If our elected officials are demonstrably uninterested in seeking the truth, then why should we people care who's in office or not? Our vote doesn't matter. The cynicism and distrust of government, already present on both the left and right, will increase by ten- or hundred-fold. Without trust and without facts, how does the rule of law stand? It doesn't, because it can't without truth. So it will be replaced by the rule of one powerful enough to propagandize, intimidate and exercise violence on his behalf.
1
Before the Les Parnas interview with Maddow I kept coming back to the GOP's willful ignorance and protection of Trump at all costs was because stacking the courts with Conservatives was worth it, a coup that will pay off for decades. But in the Parnas interview every sentence out of Parnas's mouth added new names to the list of those involved in the Biden investigation quid pro.
- Pence, Burr, Pompeo, Nunes, Graham- Wow! Its a cover up by the entire GOP to protect themselves not just Trump.
4
every Republican in the House and Senate has engaged and instruction of Justice along with the most egregious violators of transparency, Trump. the oath the senators took before God and the country to be fair and impartial jurors and to hold a fair trial is a mockery both of their commitment to their oath and to the Judy the Constitution calls upon them to execute solemnly
2
The Senate, following Trump's lead, have demonstrated that they have no interest in seeing or hearing a complete story.
2
The Senate judging on incomplete evidence .... that’s been the plan all along.
It was the plan of Trump and Barr and Pompeo, who know Trump is guilty and are stonewalling.
It was the plan of Republicans, who want to be able to say in the future, “we didn’t know, I backed Trump because nobody told me about all the stuff that just came out.” Shocked, shocked to discover there is gambling at the casino, right?
And of course, who will Republicans blame for their “surprise” that Trump is a stone cold criminal? Democrats. We should have made them listen!
2
They impeached Clinton for lying under oath about an affair. There were no grand betrayals of his presidential duties and impeachment was essentially over his character.
And they call impeaching Trump for extorting dirt on a political opponent from a foreign power and then covering it up lowering the bar? Trump betrayed our constitution and violated our laws in multiple ways here.
The only bar being lowered here is the one that measures the Republicans’ faithfulness to our constitution and our country.
3
You are too kind when you call the House farce scam impeachment investigation an “incomplete story”.
The House impeached, and clearly would not have done so without overwhelming evidence of actual crimes and corruption, right?
Yet, the Democrats can’t actually articulate what they impeached Trump for, their story changing daily as they grasp at the latest shiny metal reusable straw.
Realizing the only fact witnesses heard during the House farce exonerated Trump, they know they are stuck, thus the clamor for new witnesses and new evidence as their only hope.
The impeachment scam is not an incomplete story it is another Democrat fairy tale where they can’t get themselves to accept the ending that will be.
1
I agree that people have chosen sides. But, if the republican senators did the right thing for the country and called witnesses, they could prove and convince all, including themselves, that impeachment is the proper course of action.
7
The point of "Obstruction of Congress" is that the evidence is incomplete because Trump blocked it. How can Republicans complain about an incomplete investigation when the charge against him is he wouldn't allow an investigation?
27
@My Country Tis of Thee The usual method for Congress dealing with a President that isn’t cooperating is to take the issue to court, not to impeach the President. The House did not subpoena Bolton and others and they didn’t fight to get the information requested. They rushed through to get an impeachment before the end of 2019.
@My Country Tis of Thee
Exactly. Thanks for putting it so clearly.
3
@John
Trump’s obstruction of Congress would have run out the clock, which was the point of the obstruction.
Trump is not a king.
He essentially forced his own impeachment.
3
If there was more to learn the House should have done its job. The President blocked witnesses from testifying. The proper process would have been to go the Supreme Court to attempt to compel testimony.The House was in such a rush to vote on impeachment that they didn’t do that. It is a bit disingenuous to ask the Senate to do the job that they didn’t do.
5
Giuliani and Punas just came back from the Ukraine. How would it be possible to know for certain, that trump sent them there following the House’s Impeachment verdict. This further information can still be admitted into the trial. There are republicans finally breaking free in order to review the evidence so far provided, and they want to see more evidence, and hear from witnesses. That is the way to run a trial.
2
Is it as disingenous as pretending that nay of you were every going to cooperate with any court, two years down the line?as much a lie as pretending this isn’t just delaying tactics?
2
So he could fix the 2020 election while they waited?
2
It is still betraying their oath.
It is not acceptable.
11
Trump told George Stephenopolis last summer ON CAMERA that he would have no problem accepting aid and information from a foreign country to help in his re-election. The facts of what took place with Ukraine won’t change anything for Trump and the GOP because they’ve been clear that (like with ordering the assassination of a foreign leader) “it doesn’t matter anyway.”
11
Let’s just be clear, Jackson and Clinton didn’t suppress info or access to documents. Nixon did try and was exposed by WaPo. Trump has stonewalled to suppress evidence (which is clearly NOT exculpatory). Thank goodness for Rachel Maddow and the free press. The most concerning aspects of the Lev Parnas interviews have been how widely this scheme potentially goes: Pence, Pompeo, Perry, Nunes, Barr, Giuliani, McConnell, Graham, etc. The fact that part of Parnas’ indictment includes super pacs in places like Maine also sheds light on responses from Senators like Susan Collins... Continued investigation into this is something we can’t afford NOT to do!
16
@Nancy Mullin - Oh please, Congress litigated Clinton to the Supreme Court. That was Clinton's right. Just like it is Trump right. But the Democrats decided their case was so strong they didn't need the testimony.
1
How did Republicans become such sniveling, groveling servants to this president?
Republicans no longer serve the American people.
They have now obviously pledged their blind and undying loyalty to their master, Donald Trump.
They clearly forgotten that they took an oath to serve and protect the U.S. Constitution, not Donald Trump.
Congressional members are constitutionally bound to "check and balance" the president. Their job is to provide oversight to insure the president obeys the Constitution and operates within the rule of law.
Instead, these congressional Republicans not only defend and cover up Trump's daily lies and corruption, they embolden him to be more defiant and act even more outrageously as he tramples the constitution and undermines our national security.
Republicans have truly created a ravenous monster.
And the world has seen the creation of a monster before in history before.
14
Not the Senate’s job to try to get all the available evidence? Why did they swear an oath at all yesterday? Didn’t they once upon a time swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States? Not getting all available evidence now, including having witnesses the mafia king has denied them access to, flushes their oaths into the sewer. They will be punished by voters for their lack of principle and integrity. I thought Republicans were supposed to be Conservative minded which to me means they’d want all the relevant facts. Shame on what you are doing to the rule of law in your country.
8
The story is incomplete because the House, for political reasons, rushed its investigation and failed to build a compelling case. It's not the Senate's job to do what the House failed to do, but to evaluate the case the House sends over. If their investigation was inadequate so be it.
4
@J who says that the senate’s job is merely to try the case the house sends? Where is that written?
7
@J
In fairness, the White House stonewalled requests for information and subpoenas (clearly illegally) and was preparing to litigate the refusals past the 2020 election.
The House had no choice but to go forward when they did.
14
Agree. Yes, the House did rush, but is it proper for the Senate to ignore evidence looking them in the face? As Americans do we care? Is the credibility of the Senate at stake? Yes we care and second the Senate can not be blind to evidence that is worth a review AND public discussion.
10
Everything hinges on Chief Justice Roberts! Will he be a toadstool or will he assert his authority, however limited, over these enormously important proceedings.
Without witnesses and documents there cannot be a fair trial or indeed anything that could remotely be described as any kind of trial. Justice Roberts is entitled to make determinations on motions for documents and witnesses. He must do so and act as a tie breaker in the event of an overriding vote from the Senators that results in a 50-50 tie.
2
Many have passed through Americs's courts and gone to prison for life or worse based on incomplete evidence; but Republican politcians can go free based on incomplete evidence, even when a trial is presided over by a leader of the supreme court. It will be disheartening, to say the least, to see such an open display of the lack of justice in the country.
10
Of course we haven't heard from the key witnesses. Donald won't let them. If that doesn't reek of guilt, I don't know what does. Our laws need to be fixed so that a president must comply with Congress and testify and hand over all documents.
It is the only way to save our democracy.
12
One thing both sides have in common: that these articles of impeachment and this trial pose potentially prickly problems for our constitutional republic. The Republicans think the articles are overly invasive of presidential prerogative. The Democrats think the president’s prerogative, if left unchecked, will lead to a loss of equality between the branches of government. Each side thinks there are dire consequences to result.
So it really does come down to what one wants from their leaders. Do we want leaders who do what we want, even if it is wrong? Or do we want leaders who do what is right, even if it’s not what we want.
Isn’t this the same dilemma a child faces when a parent checks unacceptable behavior? Good parents frame the dilemma to the child in such a way that the child must decide, then accept the consequences of their choice. That results in “growing up” and “knowing the difference between right and wrong.”
So here we are. Growing up is hard to do.
2
I believe Sen. Danforth is fundamentally wrong. In that Mr. Trump's actions in the Ukraine matter are undeniably high crimes, the claim that future Congresses will likely abuse the power of impeachment is not a reason to dismiss the present case unless you want to abandon the Impeachment Term of the U.S. Constitution. That is a defeatist position I am unwilling to take, notwithstanding that it highlights the evils of partisanship at all cost. Killing the nomination of Judge Garland was bad enough. Backing away from impeaching this President because the present Senate majority is unwilling to be faithful to our constitution is a bridge too far.
11
If relevant witnesses and documents-- currently being held by the White House administration, and still coming out--are introduced at least the senators will see the facts. If not, won't voters see the process as yet another attempt at a COVER-UP?
3
If the complicit, oath dishonoring republicans, refuse to have documents and witnesses, the 2018 congressional election that was the largest democrat landslide in history, will look like nothing compared to what's about to happen to republicans this November.
6
You do not get to stonewall an investigation—as the White House did in the House’s impeachment investigation— and then claim that the investigation was shoddy, as McConnell and Senate Republicans are now doing. In many garden variety criminal investigation, new evidence often presents itself after the trial has begun and is routinely entered. Like the murderous child who killed his parents and then argued that he is now a pitiful orphan, having hamstring the House investigation, Republicans should not get to hide behind the fig leaf that the investigation was poorly done.
7
Do not fool yourself, for a minute, that these Senators don't know every detail of the crimes committed by their dear leader. They are all involved, now, and can't afford to be found out by the public. But, as we have seen in the past couple of week, the evidence will leak out, one way or another. If they are really in fear of losing their jobs, they would do well to save themselves and try the criminal, fairly. It will be their only way out.
8
The evidence is clear Trump committed extortion and obstructed justice. Just remember any Senator who votes to acquit Trump is as guilty as he is.
7
More than Trump, it is the GOP Senate that is on trial. Will these Senators do the right thing and allow the key witnesses (Bolton, Pompeo, Giuliani, Parnas, Pence) and associated documentation to be presented or will they sweep it into the cesspool that they are currently floating in.
4
The Republicans do not believe that Pence can win the presidential election in November, nor do they believe that they can muster support for another successful candidate, so they are going to continue to support Trump. It's that simple.
7
Whatever the evidence, and whenever, if ever, it is produced, the verdict is clear. The Republicans will not vote to remove Trump. He will remain in office.
That perspective puts a different light on perceived risks such as the nature of Bolton's testimony. That testimony will not change the outcome vis-a-vis Trump. It will, however, change the verdict of history. For that reason alone Bolton should be heard.
For the same reason, the verdict of history, other witnesses and documents should be produced and examined by the Senate and, vicariously, the American public.
The article concluded with an argument from former Senator Danforth that the charges don't merit hearing. His argument can only be proved if the evidence is found wanting. That cannot happen if the evidence is suppressed. Without evidence, his argument will only remain an assertion. With evidence on the record, it might become a precedent.
I am skeptical that Republicans will allow all the evidence to be heard because the risk-reward ratio does not favor them. It favors the verdict of history and they have demonstrated great fear of that verdict.
160
@thomas briggs We don't know that yet. It is possible U. S. Senators sworn to uphold the Constitution will in fact uphold the Constitution, and will ask for witnesses and documents in an impeachment Trial.
12
@M They won't do it because of the seriousness of their oath -- they'll do it if the evidence against Trump becomes a big enough stick that their electoral opponents can beat them with. Above anything else, these second-rate lawyers want to hang onto what are the best jobs they could ever hope for.
15
@M My wife says the same thing. I am happy for both of you -- that your belief in the values of the founders and subsequent defenders of democracy survived Trump. Mine did not. Trump and his fellow traveler-autocrats have shaken me to the core.
18
Quietly, there is someone who is getting a free ride as the current US domestic storm rages on, with the President still giving the appearance of being friendly with them, and other despots.
Putin is rearranging the seats at his table, becoming the CEO for life, watching the mayhem in the US, ready to pounce again to use the up-coming election for his benefit.
A unified "US" democratic example stands a much better chance of determining its own future if it were united, purposeful and truly run like the model its Founders envisaged.
The one who is creating the disparity is still blustering and lying his way along, even as more facts continue to be uncovered.
The current rush to judgement as a side show is surely not the best way to heal and restore the essence of what makes the US what it was and can be, as an example for all.
7
No, we don’t have all the facts, but even if we did, do I think for a moment it would make a difference in the outcome? Absolutely not. The Senate will not remove Trump from office nor would they even if they were to have all the facts. Sadly, Trump will view all this as exoneration. A greater man would take the process as a slap on the wrist and modify his behavior; unfortunately, it will only embolden Trump. Ultimately it will be up to the voters to decide. Maybe they don’t see reason to remove him from office, but if a substantial majority take exception to how he has conducted himself in office this term they may voice their displeasure at the ballot box in November.
6
Democracy, itself, more than Trump is on trial!
Trump, the "escape artist" hero, may win yet another round.
But as Trump wins, he encourages dictatorship around the globe.
I urge Democrats to focus on the Trump democracy threat.
They might use the "Democracy" song of Leonard Cohen (1992).
"Democracy is coming to the USA"
With a new democracy wave in 2020, we may save ourselves.
"Democracy is coming to the USA"
3
There will ‘always be more to be learned’, as the depths of this administration’s corruption knows no bounds! Trump has been breaking rules, norms, and laws his whole life and continues unabated. He’s never made a vow or took an oath he intended to keep. He lives authoritarians because they don’t have to answer to anyone or be accountable to anyone. He openly flaunted his bold illegalities, by doing precisely what the Mueller Report stated they had done with Russia in the last election, the very next day. He attempted to enlist help and support from another foreign country to get help in the next election, except this time he had the powers of the presidency at his disposal. No, we won’t know all the truth ever about the depths of his corruption, as it will be disclosed over decades, just like it was with Nixon. Yet, we are about to learn the truth about our senators and how they’ve been corrupted by outside lobbying and illegal donations through the NRA. Anyone not towing the party line will gain extreme pressure tactics from the President and he will make them a deal ‘they can’t refuse’. The Republicans look like the character ‘Schultz’ in Hogan’s Heroes, saying Is see nothing, nothing, nothing’, even though it is clear violation of our Constitution and laws right in front of their noses. As for Evangelicals, which one of God’s laws has Trump NOT violated? How about which of the Ten Commandments has he NOT broken? Justice will be served. The day of reckoning will come.
9
Among the most telling moments of the Parnas interview on TRMS was that since Barr was confirmed, people are scared. In addition to the conformity, complicity, re-election, and tribalism among the GOP, this factor must carry weight for why the entire GOP Senate and House are displaying cowardice proportionate to the likes of which was displayed in 1933 Germany.
7
Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, has flat out said in regard to this impeachment trial, “I am not an impartial juror.”
Why is his recusal not being demanded by Democrats, or even the Chief Justice?
12
Probably because House Democrats made very clear, before the impeachment proceedings in the house even began, that they were in favor of impeaching Mr. Trump.
What’s good for the goose .....
2
The senate under the Republicans is a sham. Any Republican that supports a "no evidence presented" trial needs to be held accountable. If there are no laws governing this then they need to be created. It is a complete farce when McConnell openly says he is not impartial. He just took an oath to be impartial! Banana State!
8
It’s a case of hyper partisan politics on display. Our nations dirty laundromat. Capitol Hill. Republicans see nothing wrong in their president bullying foreign leaders or any democratic opposition figure. They impeached president Clinton on obstruction charges yet republicans do not see trumps obstruction but have nicely labeled it an investigation of corruption. It’s a lot like calling a rape, a massage. They all drank the trump kool aid, now they no longer are capable of distinguishing truth from lie or fact from fiction. Legislation from rubber stamp.
4
No, Republican Senators will not judge Trump on any evidence, complete or incomplete, they will just vote to acquit. Possible importance of the evidence will be in its bearing on the 2020 election. The media should not rely on the "trial" to get the evidence out.
6
If new evidence comes in, absolutely it should be included. Just as new evidence can be included in a trial after a grand jury has submitted an indictment. To do so would be needlessly irresponsible in the nicest of terms.
6
Impeachment deserves COMPLETE evidence.
The Democrats rushed the investigation, not calling all witnesses (most notably Hunter Biden) , than stalled for weeks in transmitting their incomplete results
This is NOT how the process is supposed to work
1
@Lisa Hunter Biden and Joe Biden are completely irrelevant to the actions of Mr. Trump. The witnesses they called were relevant and the evidence they gave was sufficient to find the President in breach of his constitutional oath of office.
1
Any Senator to vote against allowing witnesses who can be cross examined, should be judged as morally and ethically deficient and an accessory to coverup and an obstruction of justice. Senators have not just a right to hear all relevant testimony but an obligation to hear it and indeed question it and test it. Anything less is an offense to democracy, the Constitution and their oath of office. President Trump campaigned for his office by promising to "drain the swamp" so if Senators vote down the right to hear witnesses it will prove the Swamp has settled in at Capitol Hill.
7
A) If the Senate convicts Trump and votes to remove him from office (which most certainly won’t happen) - Advantage Republicans.
B) If they don’t and find him not guilty - Advantage Democrats. In fact the more Republican Senators portray Trump as an innocent guy who’s a victim of the “deep state” (a term more descriptive of the Right), the more outrage is generated amongst Democrats.
I’m hoping for B. It will enliven Democrats and will get out their vote in a way never seen before.
If you thought the 2018 sent a message to Republicans, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
4
If the House can impeach Trump based on incomplete and presumed evidence, Senate can also acquit based on that evidence. Pelosi was celebrating the impeachment of the President saying that she made a scar on him by impeaching him and distributing pens. Will she undo the impeachment if more evidence clear Trump. She won't, so Senators should vote only based on the evidences House managers are presenting.
5
The testimony of Lev Parnas, an indicted felony, is only credible in the documents that he provided that back up the testimony of other credible witnesses like Fiona Hill. The most important credible testimony that is missing is from former National Security Adviser John Bolton who was in the inner-circle and "in the loop" when all the major events of the Ukraine conspiracy occurred. Even so, there is enough evidence to convict Donald Trump. Republican Senators have the chance to free themselves, the nation, and the world from the fear, corruption, vindictiveness, and blatant criminality of Trump in what will be the most consequential vote of their and our lives. To acquit sends the clear message that Trump is officially "above the law," and that our Constitution and the democracy it supports have been usurped by the tyranny of Trump.
6
@Paul Wortman
If Bolton were a true patriot and concerned about his country, he would have testified with or without a subpoena. At times like this quibbling about a subpoena is childish.
1
@Solon Is there a Republican out there willing to step forward for a a "Profile in Courage" award? Lots of cowards, but so far no heroes.
1
The majority of the Senate has already judged Trump yet they get to sit as part of the jury. It'a apparent that the Senate is liken to Trump and feels it's above the law. Hopefully this entire whatever it is will be a wake-up call for all government from bottom to top to start acting like government once again.
3
Why are we incapable of doing this in a way that surfaces all of the evidence? The GOP and others holding back information should be held accountable, with jail time.
2
Does the story not suggest that the House did not do its job, came up with a partisan indictment instead of a documented impeachment, and so the whole joke should be dismissed for the political romp it is. If the House didn't do its job, it's not the Senate's responsibility to fill in the blanks.
1
@JOHN
The House was unable to complete it's investigation because of the interference of the White House. What can't you understand about this? The country needs to know the truth from a truthless administration even if the truth has to be determined in the senate.
1
Our greatest fear is that the Senate Impeachment Trial of President Donald John Trump will be foiled by the Republican majority under the tutelage of Senate Leader Mitch McConnell. Sen. McConnell has been a wrench in the works of the Senate for too many years. We've already previewed how this trial, starting next Tuesday, may well be unfair and partial as it is a further exercise in political power by Trump and his cadre of enablers. America's third presidential impeachment trial is an unavoidable hot mess in this presidential election year.
If Trump's undeniable high crimes and misdemeanors are swept under the Senate rug, Donald Trump may be re-elected. The impeachment of Donald Trump is only a political reality against our democracy. The truly existential reality we fear and can't deny is that Earth's climate is changing and threatening life on our planet. Climate-warming is called a hoax and a sham by our president and his loyalists. Isn't climate change an undeniable reality today when it's warmer in Moscow, Russia than in Washington, DC?
1
The Senate's job is to conduct a trial. A trial means getting all of the relevant evidence out in order to make an informed decision. The Senate has the power of subpoena to get all relevant information. The judge can review sensitive or national security-characterized evidence privately before it can be placed into evidence.
If the Senate now complains of an "incomplete" record, then they are clearly participating in a coverup. It is a very disingenuous argument to make, considering that they were watching as the House issued many subpoenas to get relevant information yet was stone-walled by this corrupt president...and the Senate majority said nothing.
Withholding the Ukraine funds for Trump's personal political gain was an abuse of power. If fighting corruption was the cover, then why use Giuliani and Parnas to bring the heat to Zelinsky? There was a long-established group of official State Department expert personnel whose job is to do exactly that kind of presidential tasking.
The Senate owes it to the American people to conduct a complete and fair trial with all relevant documents and witnesses. The Senate played along with the evidence and witness stone-walling and tampering as a political backstop for a corrupt president so they need to fix it by bringing all evidence and witnesses to the trial.
It is foolhardy to think that the American people are not watching and will do nothing should the Senate majority conduct a sham of a trial.
3
Smart move from Pelosi. GOP Senators are in a bind. If they choose to ignore the new unearthed evidence ,their goose is cooked in the public's eyes. If they choose to consider the new evidence and still acquit Trump, their goose is still cooked. As one Republican Senator remarked to CNN : "We will only consider the evidence as submitted to the Senate by the House in the articles of impeachment". In other words, if the new evidence exonerated Trump, the Senate would consider hearing the new evidence. Otherwise not. After that he walked into the Senate to take his hypocritical oath to deliver his selective "impartial justice". And that's where we are today. Now it really is up to the citizens of the United States to shape their own destiny. If the people do not protest outside each Senator's office in their home State in numbers , then the people deserve what they get with their complacency. The Democrats have done all they could. The media had done all it could. The people have still to do what they can, depending on what their aspirations are. In other countries, even today, people protest in the streets: Russia, Iran, Hong Kong, China, you name it. They stand up for their beliefs. Are Americans so complacent or tired enough today that they have no more beliefs to stand up to? Sad. Very sad. We deserve what we get.
1
A bind? It was up to the house to do the required investigative work. But neither Mr. Schiff nor Mr. Nadler wanted to take the time to do a proper job.
Speaker Pelosi should’ve gone with your instincts and shut this down early. Now we almost live with the consequences of a poorly constructed house investigation.
1
@Roger
Well, we got Trump.!!!!!!!
At the risk of stating the obvious, Senators have “incomplete information” largely due to their own adamant refusal to have it presented.
6
I still do not understand why the House doesn't subpoena John Bolton - NOW. Whatever his testimony is, we need to hear it.
2
I don't understand the end game. What does the GOP have to gain by telling blatant lies? trump is not the be all, end all of anything. This country was just fine before trump, we'll be just fine after. This country has had great economies before trump, we will have great economies after trump.
So, what do they have to gain by blowing it all over trump? Or are they afraid of all the power Barr gives him?
1
It might be possible to have a better President than Donald Trump but I don’t see one on the horizon. He reminds me of the husband who is not adored by his wife but is a “good provider.” I do not need to like the person but I can like the policies. Democrats have a difficult time understanding this and until they do they will keep going down a rabbit hole.
1
@Confused Good comment! One thing, you are not confused, you are logical! Thanks!
@Confused
You are certainly confused. You may like the policy of a trillion dollar deficit; a national debt of around 25trillion dollars. Do you know what servicing 25trillion dollars amounts to?
1
It is a show trial pure and simple. The democrats in the House are on trial not Trump.
The democrats never amaze me on how they shoot themselves in the foot helping Trump get re elected.
They should have never impeached since a bare majority of swing state voters want it.
If the republicans don't put on the Trump lackies under oath that the democrats want (and so do 70% of Americans) boycott the trial.
2
Have you been following the news? He’s been committing crimes left and right and should be held accountable.
3
@hicountryho thank you for your reply. In a show trial you cannot hold the guilty accountable. It is a show trial.
Yes Trump is an alleged serial criminal but the public (assuming the republicans won't let Trump lackies testify under oath), would prefer to see Trump removed next yr in the election.
It doesn't do America any good if democrats go thru with a show trial and do their duty and Trump gets re elected in Nov.
1
Trump doesn't have to be thrown out now (but it would be okay if it did happen), we will take care of that in November 2020, but the majority of Americans want a fair trial, which means relevant witnesses and other physical evidence. Sorry the witnesses list shouldn't include the Biden's unless they were listening in on trump's perfect phone call, but those that were YES. I am thinking if they really want the Biden's to testify, then that would be admitting that trump's call was about getting dirt on them. Even if both side already have there minds made up on how they will vote, we the taxpayers/voters need the truth, anything less is just a sham or cover up.
1
This is just like the kabanaugh investigation. The republican senators willingly limit the investigation
Anyone remember ken Starr and that rambling years long go nowhere investigation. Democrats please remember all this and Merrick garland. Let’s get tougher. No more welfare for the flyover states
2
@Mary M You shouldn't foget that 1/2 the people in "flyover states" did not vote for him. trump won by a tiny margin in those states.
Republican senators like Jodi Ernst are making the case to black box just the evidence in the House impeachment inquiry and close their eyes and cover their ears for anything new or contrary to that.
Voters and history will obviously take a broader view of the evidence of Trump’s crimes and judge both him and the Republican caucus accordingly.
4
A question for Republican Senators in the impeachment trial : Are you going to take Trump lying down?; or, are you going to take Trump's lying down?
History will judge the verdict in this trial, and in November the voters will judge the role of their Senators and House members in the case.
1
I am puzzled by this "rush to judgement" nonsense. The facts have been clear for weeks that Trump did exactly what the whistle blower said he did. The witnesses in the house hearing substantiated that and any new evidence that has happened since further supports this. If Trump didn't do it, why is he stopping his entourage from testifying? There may be an argument about whether or not what Trump did was bad enough to remove him from office. But there is no question he did it.
6
It’s apparent that republican leaders in both houses are really just followers and not leaders at all. Theses are the same folks who perpetuated the lie about President Obama. These are the same people who did nothing about children being separated from parents & then caged. This is a small slice of what our country has come to, now that is sad.
2
Is it still a democracy when people don't really care about the decisions that others make for them, even knowing that those decisions affect their lives? Even the prisoner and the slave care about how their lives are affected when those in power make decisions. Are the McConnell Republicans unmoved by this crisis? Do they plan to ignore it until it goes away and then ignore us, as we ignore them, until democracy goes away?
Nobody's responsible but we are, for the current climate in American politics. No people are better being cry-bullies than wealthy Republicans and a president who leads them in a Greek Chorus of, "It's just a witch hunt because they can't get over having lost the 2016 election, and blame the failing New York Times and the fake news journalists." Trump understands how the mob can rule (which is why he's a mobster, not a real president) and that democracy is the real enemy. Sorry America, I bet on Trump, which is to say, I bet against democracy.
2
The president isn't going anywhere. The verdict has been predetermined. So why not have the vote on impeachment first, clear the president, then call all the witnesses? That would give the senators the opportunity to flap their gums about how shocked and disgusted they are at the president's actions without removing him from office.
Let us assume that Trump played an important role in pushing Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. And let us assume also that holding the military aid to Ukraine was not in accordance with law. But given that Joe Biden is NOT the Democrats'candidate yet, the connection of Ukraine with the November election is a bit thin.
Finally, these are minor matters. Not remotely comparable to the Tonkin Bay lie of LBJ and which led to a painful and expensive war with Vietnam.
The BIG things with Trump are his pulling out of the Paris accord and putting excessive pressure on Iran. But you are not charging him with THAT.
His demand for a wall on our southern border is something I put on the positive side of the ledger and the Democrats are foolish to essentially insist on open borders.
So "vote him out" is a perfectly legitimate strategy. But "remove him by impeachment because we are afraid he will win in November" is pretty sleazy.
I wish the Democrats would cease their internal squabbles, and come up with a candidate whom the nation, (and I) can support.
And frankly I do NOT believe that Sanders made any such sexist statement against Warren. Let Warren and Sanders shake hands, make friends and work as allies.
And stop attacking the Chief Justice who will only be doing his job which is to ignore the Democrats' hysteria.
18
@Ludwig "But given that Joe Biden is NOT the Democrats'candidate yet, the connection of Ukraine with the November election is a bit thin. "
Let's assume you haven't been following the whole story.
56
@Ludwig
A couple of points...
First- Trump didn't want an INVESTIGATION of Biden, he wanted the ANNOUNCEMENT of an investigation by a foreign country. A real investigation would have been performed professionally, thoroughly, and most importantly discretely, and would have likely resulted in no findings of wrongdoing on Biden's (or anyone's) part. As an example, just look at the multiple investigations of Clinton that Trump ordered, which once again showed no wrongdoing on her part after three years of investigation. Trump didn't want a quiet "investigation" of Biden, he wanted a spectacle he could use to smear Biden at every one of his rally's... with the dream being a "LOCK HIM UP!" chant that Biden would be powerless to refute because it would be the Ukraine doing the (non-existent) investigation.
Second- We already have the Russians caught red-handed hacking into the Burisma servers, doing who knows what, but once again likely acting to aid Trump in this election scam.
Third- we have the public testimony of Lev Parnas, who was at the center of this entire scam, stating clearly that it was in fact a scam designed to smear Biden in anticipation of the 2020 election.
And fourth- This is only what we've found out is going on behind the scenes in the Trump White House because a whistleblower had the courage to come forward. What else is going on that we DON'T know about?
Why are you good with letting this happen?
70
@Ludwig ..."Finally, these are minor matters. Not remotely comparable to the Tonkin Bay lie of LBJ and which led to a painful and expensive war with Vietnam."....The consequences of Vietnam were certainly greater, but I strongly disagree with your assessment. The lie about the Gulf of Tonkin event was not planned, but rather an opportunity to take advantage of events which presented themselves. Trump's actions were planned.
34
Speaking of judging. Did you notice how nervous Justice Roberts was delivering the oath. The page he was holding was nervously flittering like a school child’s speech at graduation.
He was giving an oath to several senators who admitted partiality, so what’s the point?
Pants on fire.
5
@DavidJ
Why criticize Justice Roberts? You can see the video below; Roberts, who appears at about 16:49, is a human being who simply does not have ice water flowing through his veins.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?468210-4/highlights-us-senate-impeachment-trial-day-1
1
It's not an incomplete story, it's a DELIBERATELY incomplete story.
That's the scoop here, that Republicans alone want to limit evidence. Just like they did with Kavanaugh.
And we all know why.
8
Another bent magazine piece on the front page. The articles of impeachment and the supporting evidence provided by the House to the Senate represent the record of what cause the House to impeach the President. The Senate now hold a trial based on that record. It is in fact those articles transmitted by the House that are on trial. The Senate cannot amend the articles, it cannot add or subtract articles.
5
Democrats will get every bit the fair hearing afforded to the Republicans during the House investigation, that is, zilch and goose egg.
4
This is simple politics. The Democrats control the House. They could, at the very least, have called Bolton et al but not gone to the courts but they turned over an incomplete case to the Republican Senate and now they can only sit and watch c-Span. I entirely agree that all the Senators swore to uphold impartial justice and now will proceed to render a partisan verdict. What a sham! They could actually have been working on health care, immigration, gun control etc. The saddest thing about this is that we can expect more impeachments of future Presidents as a partisan tool instead of the solemn resort to that part of the Constitution that specifies high crimes and misdemeanors. The DNC, surely with Hilary's knowledge, employed an English spy to use his Russian connections to seek dirt on Trump in Russia!. The only smart thing Comey did was to not recommend indictment of her. He should have just kept his mouth shut about it.
1
@alan brown You conveniently forget that Trump ordered all his hirelings to ignore House subpoenas. and refuse to turn over documents.
2
The information isn’t “missing.” Trump is withholding it through blatant obstruction to try to conceal his crimes. Big difference. Keep it real please.
8
This is America. We are so used to cover ups. We lived through the Iraq war cover up by George W Bush administration. Lies that were supported by Nyt and other media. What could the public do? They marched a bit, held peace protests, grieved and mourned a bit. That’s all. Our children did not learn a single lesson. That it is not ok to lie. That it is not ok to attack a country that did us no harm. That it is not ok to be responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths displacements loss of historic relics and the untold misery the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have caused humanity. To this day America has not apologized.
So why should we not expect the Republican senate to lie further about trumps involvement, trump administration cover ups? They can easily mislead the gullible public (nunes did so blatantly). They can easily lie to the whole world and get away with it. Because America is a rich powerful country where the wealthy are super connected, infiltrating our government and administration, they will do anything illegal to lie and protect Trump.
Peter, seriously, we don’t have much hope for our country and for humanity. Rich people can get away with anything especially if they are white republicans. And the media lets them.
4
The argument put forth by former Senator Danforth that the wording of the impeachment articles against Trump will subject future presidents to unfair impeachment attempts overlooks the critical point that, whatever the wording, an impeachment case depends on the facts. If a future president does what Trump did, he should be impeached. If he/she gets caught cheating at golf or, for that matter, encouraging stupid policies or denying climate change, no one would be able to mount a successful impeachment drive.
2
The story is not incomplete...we all know exactly what happened and by whom. There is nothing that will come out at the Senate trial that will change the outcome unless the American public stands up and tells their Senators that they have seen enough of this President's corruption.
3
Of course the story is incomplete. Trump refused to let "senior" officials testify before the House. It is Republican stonewalling that is making the process incomplete. The big question is: What is it that Trump is hiding?
5
This whole process was rushed, incomplete, partisan, and inequitable. The shoddy work in the House is being exposed at every step.
2
Maybe had the President turned over even a single document or allowed even a single witness, maybe you wouldn't be still blaming the House? Maybe.
2
If the Bidens had this episode occur in say Ethiopia, would Trump have also asked for Ethiopia's cooperation to fight corruption in Ethiopia? And all the other countries which are corrupt? Has Trump addressed these countries? No.
2
Decisions are either made on the best available information or arbitrarily. If the Senate shows evidence that it did not want all the best available information and rush to judgment (like Trump's tax reform law), then they should hope the public has a very short memory.... and based on best available information, they'd be right.
However, to deny removing Trump from office would be to deny him the most powerful career move he could ever hope to have. As a living, breathing, irate talking martyr, he'd get his own circle in Dante's Inferno.
1
Would additional witnesses make any difference in the outcome of the Senate vote on impeachment?
No.
As some Reality Show gone awry, the Trump presidency has created an alternative universe. Showmanship has replaced statesmanship.
American politics is replete with examples of bitter confrontation. But technology has elevated the ability to deceive and confound.
The Senate has decided to be less transparent than the House. It is highly unlikely that they will entertain additional testimony. GOP leadership has the goal of bringing a swift end to this “witch-hunt” and the outcome is certain of Trump’s acquittal.
With the 2020 election approaching, 3 years of Trump’s alternative reality has captured the GOP. Appealing to the worst in our nature, nativism and racism are hallmarks of this administration. There is not one piece of legislation that Trump can exhibit as concern for the public—not health care, not the environment, not global warming, not a social net for the least of our population, not infrastructure etc. He gave enormous tax breaks to the wealthiest, avoided companies’ failure to pay their fair share, and certainly did not “drain” the political swamp of DC.
Trump’s farce claims of the House will be out-shown by the Senate’s conduct. The 2020 election, and not just for the presidency, can be a watershed for out nation. We can continue with Trumps’s substitution for reality or we can make a resounding statement by rejecting Trump’s Shangri-la.
1
The story is incomplete because there is no evidence to complete it. Just because there's a line of people who don't like Trump and would love to testify doesn't mean they have new or credible evidence to give. It's just a ploy to create an endless line of accusers to keep headlines fresh.
Of course the story is incomplete. There isn't a court in the land that has no power to subpoena documents or testimony. Courts cannot function without subpoena power. Due to the total obstruction by the Trump administration, the most revealing and incriminating evidence has been excluded.
The Constitution gives the House the power of oversight over the Executive. Trump has totally ignored that power with the excuse of Executive privilege, which is a direct attack on the Constitution. This is a totally specious argument. If fact, the argument is so ludicrous that it defies reason.
The House investigated Hillary for nearly 30 years. It was one bogus investigation after another. They found nothing.
The House should open up another investigation as new evidence is uncovered and witnesses volunteer to testify. The purpose being to illuminate and inform the public. When Trump is finally removed from office next November, the information can be handed over to the courts for criminal prosecution. Trump may win this battle, but absent a complete pardon, he will lose the war.
3
We can be sure that though Mitch McConnell and the GOP senators do not want to hear witnesses and see documents come to light, in the case of Lev Parnas they just did, and there is lots more to come. There's nothing to stop the Impeachment Managers from playing the videos of Parnas and even Trump himself at the trial. Nor presenting the testimony that Bill Barr is smothering the Justice Dept and interfering in the Southern District of NY office, while being a participant in the Ukraine debacle.
The people will see to it that Donald Trump's criminal conduct is being abetted by the GOP and will make them pay dearly for that corruption.
3
Can the Senators be held in Contempt if Court for refusing to listen to testimony, or making statements about what their decisions will be before the proceedings have even begun? Something like this seems the only hope for this supremely biased process!
2
There's nothing stopping Bolton from going on, pick a show, and telling his story now while it matters. I get the "his book is coming out", but if he, as he claims, is American through and through, then now's the time to talk. No subpoenas necessary.
1
Very few can reasonably argue the premise that an innocent man would want each and every document and witness to his innocence to publicly exonerate him.
When all bring forth any person of thing that can bolster our claim that we've been unfairly maligned. The administration's refusal to allow testimony, its secreting of call records and its withholding of subpoenaed documents do not support what our guts tell us: Trump does not behave like a man without fatal secrets.
2
Correction, for adults we any modicum of intelligence, we have the story, the full story, the story and the evidence to convict. What we don't have is the will to convict.
I think the basic facts are clear to everyone, Trump held up aid to Ukraine, at least until the whole thing came to light, pending an investigation into corruption in Ukraine especially regarding Hunter Biden but also others. The only hole that Republicans are clinging to is what was Trumps motivation. Was it to get political dirt on Joe Biden and the Biden family or was he sincerely concerned about Ukrainian corruption? As implausible as it seems, that appears to be the defense. Donald Trump, fed a conspiracy story by Rudy Guiliani, and supported by Fox News really believed it. So
i suppose the question is, "is Trump evil or just stupid".
3
"An incomplete story to consider" is understatement. I believe one day, likely after his death, we will find out much more about the extent of Trump's ties to Russia, and how those ties have directly influenced the directions this country has taken since his election. I think people will be shocked.
10
To be fair, that's not the Senators' fault. The House Democrats rushed his through based on an election schedule, not based on what would make for the most thorough and complete investigation (which would have ultimately put more pressure on Republicans in the Senate).
1
@Mike If the Senate makes a decision based on incomplete information it will be because the McConnell and the rest of the GOP leadership choose not to allow testimony from relevant witnesses in an effort to gloss over what aught to be a serious trial. It's not the Democrats who are trying to stifle that information.
2
@Mr. & Mrs. Smith "It's not the Democrats who are trying to stifle that information"
Strawman. They didn't try to get it either.
If the Senate, under GOP direction, declines to subpoena witnesses and documents, the House should re-open its impeachment investigation and proceed with court hearings to end trump's stonewalling.
10
The House told us they had overwhelming evidence.
So overwhelming they needed to rush through their impeachment to prevent damage to our country.
They said they did not have time to go to court to overcome certain witnesses being protected by Presidential privilege.
Now they sat their evidence is not overwhelming and demand the Senate take the time to hear the witnesses they refused.
A strategic blunder.
7
The author should focus his criticism on the House, which for a series of ineffective reasons rushed through a political impeachment process. The alleged “high crime” — using Presidential power to hold appropriated funds to cause investigation of a rival — is serious and demanded that the House perform its constitutional impeachment duty fully and carefully. The House should have pursued all avenues, including going to court to enforce its subpoenas, to complete a thorough investigation. All the whining about the target taking actions to thwart the investigation is simply making politically convenient excuses to justify the failure of the House to take its impeachment duty seriously. Trying to blame the Senate now for this failure is simply wrong. And politically motivated.
4
@Bill Bluefish
I find it very strange that ALL of the Trump defenders say the exact same totally spurious talking points, almost as if they have been coached, are paid shills, or are brainwashed.
The facts are that Trump obstructed justice by refusing to allow the House to get testimony from the Trump inner circle. Trump also obstructed justice by refusing to turn over documents the House wanted.
When the president obstructs justice so the House can't do its duty, and the impeachment includes this obstruction, to blame the House for holding an "incomplete" inquiry is the epitome of shameful gaslighting and trolling.
4
I am a vigorous opponent of Trump. Sorry, your reply fails to acknowledge that Presidents have the right to assert positions like executive privilege, Congress has the right to assert rights to compel testimony, and when there is a conflict, Courts have the power to adjudicate such disputes. Trying to short circuit the resolution of these disputes by raw political assertions is inconsistent with the legal state of the issue. The Constitution provides the House with a remedy — the courts — your argument that “we simply couldn’t wait” has no basis in the actual legal setting. Imagine if a prosecutor said I’m throwing this defendant in jail because getting all the evidence simply takes too long. You must call things straight or else we all lose legitimacy.
1
@Bill Bluefish We are stull waiting for the courts to decide on McGahns' subpoena. It would take years of waiting and appeals for the courts, which is exactly what Trump and his lawyers wanted; let the clock run out and let Trump get away with his crimes.
The Senate has the ability to bring in witnesses as part of the trial now underway. The ship has sailed. The list of witnesses that should be called is getting longer by the day. These witnesses are not minor players, but are know to be directly involved in the pre case actions at the core of the care against the President. In each case, there is more than sufficient corroborating evidence to support the claim that these individuals must appear before the Senate and truthfully answer questions. Any claim that this trial is a witch hunt or is trying to reverse an election is false and a diversion. The Senate members just took their oaths, so do they care more about their salaries (and will do anything to keep their jobs) or will they put this country first. Not just a small portion of the country, but the entire country's best interests first. History will not hold back on its assessment. This is NOT a matter of policy differences, but of crimes against the country. We will see which side the Republican Party chooses, as they control the Senate and can decide if an honest collection and assessment of facts will occur. The decision is simple - if real evidence points to a crime, the President must be removed. There is no maybe, its a yes or no vote. This is not a matter of Party - that time has passed. It is now a matter of rule of law for all.
6
Mitt Romney, as Presidential candidate back in 2012 called DJT a "fraud" and although he accepted his endorsement when he was running for the Senate, I do not find him to a part of this "cult". I am hoping he and a handful of few other moderate GOP Senators will follow in the footsteps of Senator McCain and do the right thing. One day when all this is said and done, one should be able to look back and say, I made the right call, I did the right thing.
6
The House could have called additional witnesses but was in a rush to obtain the impeachment soon enough to effect the 2020 election. The House could have finished its investigation but chose not to in order to rush to impeachment. Now the House, realising that their case is too weak to justify removal from office, would have the Senate do the House's incomplete job and is hurling all sorts of abuse at the Republican Senators for not wanting to do the House's job. We'll see how many Americans agree that the will of the voters as expressed in a national election should be abrogated in favour of rank partisanship.
3
Nonsense. Acts taking place after election are the subject of this impeachment, as have been previous impeachments. In this case, it was clear this guy was going to go completely off the rails, so defenders have an argument that people knew what they were getting when they voted for him. However, that doesn’t mean we should ignore or excuse all transgressive behavior. Calling people names and the shows he puts on at rallies are demeaning and degrading but expected. The Ukraine affair is jaw-dropping. If Obama or Hillary had done the equivalent, Republicans would have needed medical attention.
1
That is exactly what the Republican law professor testified to. The democrats should have waited until the courts decided the subpoena issue.
2
Any story like this will by necessity be incomplete.
In this case, Adam Schiff made it quite plain why earlier this week when he told reporters that had the House pursued subpoenas against administration officials, they would have been tied up in the courts "for years" to come.
Nancy Pelosi should have gone with her instincts. Instead, she and her colleagues did what they said was the "right thing," albeit without the required evidence needed in a case as important as this.
That's pretty sloppy, in my opinion.
3
There was going to be a complete story because Trump blocked the story at every turn. There should be laws that fast track these cases in the courts. Cases against a sitting president should be fast tracked. Trump knows how to play the courts like you play a fiddle. Trump knows it takes years for cases to be adjudicated in our current system.
7
The Democrats were able to put together a story of corruption and obstruction in spite of the Republican's withholding witnesses and documents. The smell of a cover-up is strong.
In spite of this obvious attempt to keep the facts hidden, the Democrats have put together a believable account, that has proven consistent with the new facts that come to light. To criticize the House for not getting all of the Parnas testimony sooner--as Susan Collins has done--is absurd , considering the roadblocks set by Republicans.
McConnell now faces the problem of putting on a show that could be interpreted as trying to get the story as fully as possible, while actually keeping the truth hidden as much as possible. He did this in the "thorough" investigation of Kavanaugh by the FBI , before ramming his nomination through the approval process. That's the way he works; he cares naught about legacy or principles.
5
People fire themselves an old manager once told me
The GOP is doing exactly that
See you in November
Post Blue Tidal Wave
7
When you have a nefarious, blatant international crime syndicate involving Trump and his gang, there will always be more to learn, and the Senate trial should be like a real trial in a real court room, with all facts and witnesses necessary.
On the other hand, based on what we already know, Trump should be removed from office NOW!
8
@Steve Davies
The NOW of Trump’s removal; cannot come soon enough!
The danger is too grave.
1
“Trump broke the law.”
Sen. Schumer’s comment, “simply put,” stands as the alpha and omega of Donald J. Trump’s life - he’s been a tax cheat from his earliest years; a serial bankrupt real estate developer who cut every corner he ever saw starting with stiffing vendors and contractors; a presidential candidate whose campaign was rife with crimes and coverups from conspiring with foreign adversaries to affect the outcome of the election committing outright bribery to prevent his adulteries from being known; and now to the open-and-shut extortion and obstruction case before the Senate.
That’s Trump, a “one man crime wave,” a person rotten to the core and, many people are saying, not in possession of all his faculties. The question now before the country is, who are We The People - slaves or citizens? And who are the men and women elected to represent We The People - co-conspirators or leaders of good faith and conscience? We’re about to find out.
4
The Republican Senators apparently subscribe to Trump’s statement (affirmed by his lawyer In court) hat he could shoot somebody on 5th Avenue and get away with it. Witnesses? Documents? New, on point revelations? Meh, they intone. Meh.
2
We will never be done uncovering evidence against Donald Trump. It will take decades if not a couple lifetimes to uncover all he and his administration has done...
5
@Rowdy Burns Another rigged election is possible, without any action. I say NO to that.
3
This is not news. Every court case ever has been decided on “an incomplete story.” Indeed, every important decision ever has been made based on incomplete information.
We’ve been getting wall-to-wall news coverage of this silly Ukraine thing since September. Let’s get it over with and get some news about things in the world that actually matter.
I think we need to be clear. As a previous commentator mentioned, impeachment is a political matter. Everything the House and Senate have done; everything the democrats and republicans have done is with an eye on politics. The issue isn’t right vs. wrong it’s will this help us or hurt us politically.
Having said that, isn’t the real question, why did the House rush to impeach the president with incomplete facts? The urgency was not there (especially if we assume the outcome is already determined). If they had done a full, deep and complete investigation, perhaps the Senate trial would potentially have been better and the results ‘fairer’.
Why did the House fail to throughly Investigate the President ?
3
@Common Ground because of obstruction by trump, all the subpoenas by congress were ignored turned down by Trump.
9
@Common Ground: The House did not fail to thoroughly investigate the president. That being said, the House could had even more evidence than they collected already, but the president did not allow key witnesses to testify which got him the “Obstruction of Justice” article. Also, the House could not wait to impeach due to the fact that the very elections that Trump’s malfeasance was corrupting (again), are less than a year away.
2
Because the president blocked witnesses and relevant documents from being reviewed.
4
So the charade continues, and Trump will be aquited, and escape justice.The Republicans will win & Democracy will lose.
The Republican party will hence forth be known as Traitors.
4
Proceedings in a court of law are designed to elicit the truth of the situation. By comparison, congressional proceedings are slapdash affairs designed to attain some political goal. If one side or the other in a court case failed to call important witnesses or present other important evidence, they would rather quickly find themselves out on the street.
2
In exchange for calling material witnesses such as John Bolton, Rudy Giuliani, Lev Parnas, and other officials associated with the Trump White House, the Republicans are insisting that Senators also hear from Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, Tupac Shakur, and Alex Jones.
3
The GOP is now the ostrich party with its head firmly planted in the ground so it can’t see nor hear anything related to facts.
6
If my Ohio republican senator (Portman) is any indication, these men have pre-judged the outcome without hearing the evidence. That is utterly shameful. I wonder how it felt, deep inside, to take that oath.
8
@js why should any of us now feel that swearing an oath, say in court, needs to lead to our speaking the truth? What role models these republicans are
2
More, more, more to be learned. Of course there will be more...there is always more with Trump. There's no end in sight of his despicable behaviors and those of his minions. He's doing wrong stuff right now...as we sleep and go about our days, he's doing wrong either directly or thru his proxies. He's doing wrong while on the porcelain throne tweeting!
There will always be more. However, there has been enough! There is enough that would have gotten any other President, much less the mayor of Dogtown USA, to be censured, Impeached, and if not removed from office, then thoroughly cordoned off (like an ill-trained dog) from causing any other harm. Eagerly done by the very elected employees, within their Institutions they should be as eager to protect and shore-up against such thoroughly bad behaviors!
Enough has been done! It as plain as the day is long.
Unless you're one of the current crop of Republicans, who have thoroughly bowed to this cowardly President, whose only real power is an ability to stir-up a rabid base of sycophants fans.
Enough has been done. But apparently the Repubs are waiting for him to actually shoot someone, or directly thru a proxy, and in broad daylight, on camera, with them as the witnesses. (because no one else can be trusted as being there!)
That of all people to bring ruination on them and this nation its this guy, whom nearly all of them denigrated a few years ago, and most of them its reported still despise.
Enough has been done!
5
The impeachment and "trial" of Donald John Trump is revealing just how corrupt and unjust America is. Republicans are proving to Americans, and the world, that we are not a land of law and order. In fact, we are a land of the wealthy and powerful. Laws are for suckers. Order is what the wealthy and powerful dictate.
Republicans are the party of the wealthy and powerful. Once upon a time they could be shamed into limiting their abuse of power. In the Age of Trump, Republicans no longer fear shame. They arrogantly lie and show contempt for anyone who tells the truth.
While Republicans defend Trump's attempted extortion of Zelensky by claiming he had legitimate concerns about Ukrainian corruption, Ukraine has announced an investigation of possible crimes of unlawful surveillance and harassment of Ambassador Yovanovitch orchestrated by Donald Trump. Adding to his corruption, Republicans are engaged in a blatantly corrupt, cover-up, sham trial.
Ironically, Ukraine is more interested in pursuing justice than America. While Ukraine is upholding law and order, Republicans are sweeping corruption under the carpet. They have contempt for the law and arrogantly proclaim they have the power to impose their own order.
10
Then there's Dowd and Sekulow. approved by trump to represent Parnas. And Parnas firing them in his jail cell when they basically warned him to keep his mouth shut. What else don't we know? How will we learn the extent to which Graham, Nunes and heaven only knows who else (McConnell?) are implicated?
6
Durning interview with Stephanopoulos in June Trump said on national tv he would take dirt from a foreign country but what he didn’t say was that he would betray his oath of office and with hold aid already earmarked by American tax dollars which is treason.
1
Republicans, if they are honest, can see the pattern of evidence that the House assembled plain as day and it points to a chief executive out of control. Trump will never release the most senior witnesses unless compelled by the Senate to do so and maybe not even then. The story to tell here is not that the House has done an incomplete job. They followed the roadmap provided by the whistleblower and extraordinarily brave public servants defied being muzzled to come forward and corroborate that account. Have the Senators forgotten that these lower level workers testified under oath and were systematically smeared by this President? Have they no disgust regarding the treatment of Marie Yovanovtich? Is Fiona Hill a liar? Bill Clinton had the courage to testify under oath and be subjected to a DNA test like a criminal suspect to get to the truth while we are expected to accept Twitter rants and Fox News spin as exculpatory evidence. The Senate must not attack the messenger but seek the truth about the Presidents actions. The future of democracy demands it.
316
@Rose The future of democracy depends on the House doing its job, not engaging in a half-baked indictment and kicking it to the Senate. The acquittal should be swift.
@Rose
A "pattern of evidence that the House assembled plain as day" which "points to a chief executive out of control" does not / not mean illegality or criminality.
Big, big difference. Which the Democrats appear to have forgotten in their haste to bring impeachment before Xmas.
2
@JOHN :
Wow. I thought the future of democracy would depend on people putting country over partisan squabbles, Rule of Law over Rule by Cult personality.
I know it is not, so I agree, acquittal should be swift. No one cares about Rule of Law except liberals.
17
What strikes me most about all this are a couple of things. First Parnas is like all the others involved with Trump: Cohen, Mnanafort, Flynn, etc. They are all criminals. So we are told what they know is irrelevant. That's like saying that the testimony from Al Capone's gang members should be irrelevant because they were criminals and they lied at various times. Criminals lie. It's what they do. And who is the guy with 13,000 lies under his belt. The liar in chief. Secondly. What is the long term implication here? That a president IS , in fact, above the law. Guilty or innocent. A president never has to account for his actions. The Republicans will see to it that they can get away with anything. The house should subpoena everyone. They should continue to investigate. And let the facts trickle out. And take Trump to court. Roberts may be a figurehead in the impeachment. But someone needs to determine if the executive branch can ignore the legislative branch's oversight. The American people deserve to know where the courts stand in all this. Unless, of course, they are thirsty for this kind of thing down the road. If you think the Democrats won't want payback or that only Democrats are corrupt, you are naive. The courts are the only thing that can stop it.
6
The utter hypocrisy of the Republican Party is on full display here. They don’t want witnesses but criticize the House for not calling them, even though Trump claimed “executive privilege “ and ordered witnesses, including Bolton, not to testify. The Republican Senators, in particular McConnell and Graham, took a public oath to serve as impartial jurors in spite of the fact that almost all of them have publicly announced that Trump is innocent. If a Democrat president had done what Trump has done, these Republicans would be screaming “Lock him up!” If voters can’t see the Republican Party for the debased bunch of partisan hypocrites that it is, then we’re doomed to four more years of this GOP nightmare. It’s time to pray and vote.
7
Of course senators will judge Trump on incomplete information. He has obstructed every investigation at every turn by prohibiting testimony by key witnesses and refusing to provide documents. In an ordinary civil trial, such behavior would be grounds for sanctions, including a judgment against the non-compliant party. But Trump's senate champions support his contumacious behavior and ridicule efforts to ensure a full and fair adjudication of the facts. It is a sad day for the rule of law
229
@Allan
I agree with your assessment, but I don't think that is the inference of the article by Mr. Baker. I view this article as second-guessing the decision to proceed with the Impeachment rather than wait for the Courts to decide the "privilege" issues raised by the Administration. The obstruction you correctly recite was a stall by the Administration to drag out the investigation to a) put it in the same category of the drawn-out Mueller Investigation (can you imagine the criticism for "taking too long" to complete?); and b) to drag out the investigation beyond the 2020 Election. It is easy to second guess and provides no solution to the problem. Had the Democrats waited for the Courts to rule on the privilege issues, then this article would be second-guessing the decision to wait. No way to win.
17
@Allan
It makes no difference if the info is incomplete or incorrect.
Trump's lapdog in the Senate will vote to acquit. Full stop.
14
@Allan
It's mind-numbingly devious: the trump party is relying on one of the crimes, obstruction, to defend their client. How does a person live with themselves engaging in such epic injustice?
Will the Chief Justice be loyal to our laws, or to the (R) behind his name? More than likely he will be passive in order to claim "impartiality," so that the day after an acquital where the criminal used his crime to win he can look at himself in the mirror and still believe he's a real judge.
21
The truth will set us free. Trump, not so much
11
Let me get to the bottom line:
No one is asking the only question that matters: should Trump be removed from office for holding up money to Ukraine until Its government publicly commits to investigating Biden?
I wonder if even this paper will take a stand on this question.
Instead they are arguing about whether the process is fair. In the House, Republicans were arguing it was unfair; now in the Senate, Democrats are arguing the process is unfair, and when the Senate acquits, they will argue it’s a cover-up.
Of course it’s not a cover up. Even my 90 year old grandmother knows all the facts like the back of her hand as it played out on television for weeks.
We all know what Trump did. Now get to the only question that matters!
22
@Steven Roth
There is a second question, which is "did the President actively obstruct the Impeachment Inquiry." Every American, including your 90 year old Grandmother, knows that he did; "Like nobody has ever seen." He ordered current and former White House staff and Cabinet members to defy requests and lawful subpoenas for testimony and documents. He has been openly hostile toward Congress, tweeting up a storm every day attacking Democrats, calling them childish names, and calling the whole Investigation "a hoax." So the answer is, YES, he did actively obstruct Congress, which is the second Article of Impeachment. Not convicting him on this Article RAISES the bar for future Presidents, signaling to them that they are not subject to Congressional oversight, nor are they subject to following the the law, to compliance with lawful subpoenas, or telling the truth to the American people. I guess that is OK with almost half the country, but not for the rest of us.
3
@SportsMedicine: The Bidens were not engaged in corruption. That spurious claim has been debunked a long time ago. Even if they were, that does not exonerate Trump’s law breaking. If I get punished for stealing something, I can’t point at someone else who wasn’t, to escape my punishment.
2
@SportsMedicine Biden's actions were not personal. "Vice President Biden was overseeing American policy toward Ukraine at the time, and he did push for the removal of the country’s top prosecutor, who was seen as corrupt or ineffectual by the United States and Western European governments."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/29/business/media/fact-check-biden-ukraine-burisma-china-hunter.html
There is an immense difference between the two affairs.
2
I never understood why the House seemed so obsessed with getting the impeachment investigation and vote over with in December (although it was a nice christmas present to learn that trump's legacy is indelibly stained). And as time goes on and more information comes out, I get more and more perplexed. Would it not have been better to have questioned Parnas under oath, now, and then hold the vote?
McConnell is out of line even suggesting that the trial may have no witnesses, but why, Dems, why, did you hand the GOP a golden opportunity to criticize you by not even issuing subpoenas to everyone involved (Mulvaney, Bolton, Pompeo, Pence, ...)?
16
@RickyDick I agree and still don't understand.
Trump is not the only candidate we should 'keep in mind' next November. Let us not forget every Repblican member of the House and Senate who subverted justice by preventing facts from emerging during this impeachment process. In in They thrive on the backs of voters besotted by Fox News and their ilk. What comes first: A country with a democracy or a country with the Fox News supported Republican Party? Both are supported by the same oligarchs. The impeachment process is testimony to the power of the corrupt-oligarch supported media's ability to corrupt the Republicans who thrive on this. Both imperil our democracy. Vote them out this November.
67
I can’t believe this is where we’re at. I’ve long lamented that Congress, consisting of people old enough to be my grandparents, is out of touch. But this impeachment reminds me of a mock debate put on in a high school history class.
“Regardless of the facts, this opens the door to future abuse”
Translated - la la la not listening, just wait until we can do this to you!!
19
Correct me if I am wrong, but is not one of the articles of impeachment, Obstruction of Congress. Logic dictates that if someone (Trump) is not providing requested and subpoenaed documents and individuals to disclose and testify; then how can every fact be known. Waiting on court challenges is not an option, when they can take years to work their way through the legal system. Obstruction = guilty.
When most people receive a subpoena, they show up or provide documents, because most people abide by the law and they do not have the financial resources to pay attorneys in a protracted fight. Trump, apparently under his hero, Roy Cohn, learned how to weaponize the legal system, aided by his wealth. So, maybe it would be nice to have additional facts, but in the mean time Trump will continue his malfeasance, in spite of the fact he admitted to a shake down with tax payers money (illegal) and we have heard from very credible, honorable people about his "drug deal". Who are you going to believe, a man who has lied 15,000 times since taking office or career, non-partisan diplomates, serving their country.
62
@SLF
Waiting on court challenges IS an option, and it's what happens in a democracy.
When most people receive a subpoena, it's for a real court proceeding, not Congress. Congress is not a court; they're law makers, not law enforcers. It's the courts that enforce the law - including laws relating to presidents violating their oaths of office.
If waiting is not an option, then what does it matter if Parnas and the others don't testify and the information is incomplete? Obviously there was enough to hold a vote on impeachment, and write up the articles.
No grand jury in the land has an open list of indictments where they can just add additional charges as they feel like it. The line is drawn at the point the grand jury vote is held. Once they voted to indict on those charges, that's it. No more, "wait, there's more!".
@Viv
The House is not a grand jury and can add charges as they come up. New crimes are committed every day, so impeach him on each new crime every day. I'm Ok with it. He wants to keep breaking the laws, he should keep getting impeached for it. I cannot fathom how you are OK with him breaking our laws.
5
@Tracy
The House is very much like a grand jury, and articles of impeachment are very much like indictments.
It is not a matter of what YOU are okay with, but what the Constitution and the rule of law dictate.
1
If this were a criminal trial no competent judge would reject the prosecution's placing Mulvaney, Bolton, Giuliani, Pompeo, Parnas and all the State Department personnel who testified before the House on the witness list. But this is a political trial and the Constitution's founders did not anticipate we would ever have a president who would commit criminal acts of bribery and extortion. But here we are, and our president will enjoy acquittal by a rigged jury composed of his party's sycophants and hypocrites who most assuredly would have convicted a Democratic president on the same charges.
31
@nzierler
I wonder if the Constitution's founders would have had the Senate act as jurors in an impeachment trial if political parties had existed at the time. Because it seems utterly baffling to have a trial where the leader of Team A is being judged by members of Team A and their arch rivals, Team B. Oath or not, they are all in conflict of interest.
2
How outrageous, that the Republican party selected Trump, a person of the lowest moral and ethical character to represent them. They have become an internal enemy, working to divide Americans over conspiracies and misinterpretation of our Constitution.
29
Trump didn’t get due process in the house. No cross examining and they weren’t allowed to call their own witness’s. Why should Republicans be any different? Hearing Dems whine about the Senate’s process is laughable. Republicans have the Senate, Supreme Court, and the Presidency. That’s 3-1. If you actually believed this was going anywhere you’re naive.
4
@JOSEPH
"Trump didn’t get due process in the house."
Joseph, that is such a bogus argument. The Impeachment Inquiry in the House was properly conducted according to House Rules. Republican Congressmen and Counsel were given equal time as the Democrats for questioning witnesses. Calling the Whistleblower would have been illegal; there is a reason for the Whistleblower Law. Calling the Bidens would have been a sideshow; they had nothing to contribute as witnesses to the President's behavior. Finally, Trump chose not to participate in the House proceeding, and ordered those who worked in his Administration to defy subpoenas. Every Republican Talking Point you wrote is baloney.
3
@JOSEPH: The House investigation was not a trial, so the concept of due process is irrelevant. When police conducts an investigation, they typically don’t allow the suspect to have a say in what evidence will be collected, and how and from whom.
3
@JOSEPH Trump had the opportunity to define himself before the a House and rejected it. This you must know.
3
It would seem the House did a poor job of investigation in their hurry.
5
@hannstv
It would seem they were obstructed, no?
6
It would seem you need to find a reputable news source. The Democrats were as prepared as they could be working with a republican senate that is wholly dishonest and unethical.
3
Must this nation remain a place where Red states and Red Senators prevent learning? As if to find out the truth would go against their party’s propaganda?
This is the problem! Our nation is becoming a place where intelligence and experience and wisdom are denigrated by one party. Where evidence is prevented and covered up. Where even in an Impeachment, an actual “Court” could become a place of nothing but propaganda allowed?
This is folly! This is nonsense. It’s craziness in the guise of governing.
This cannot endure. Or we, as a Republic, will not endure either.
26
@TheraP
Well said!
1
Witnesses? Let the Republicans call Hunter Biden, irrelevant though that might be to the charges. It was wrong for him to serve as he did with Burisma, but what does that do to justify what happened with Trump and his crew. And if Joe Biden suffers for that dumb move, perhaps that's fair under the circumstances. Irrelevant though it might be, it is the basis for a good trade. On the other side, the Democrats can call Bolton, Mulvaney and others, but the real fight should be over Trump as the key witness. Can Trump invoke the Fifth Amendment to decline to appear and testify? No. This is not a criminal proceeding, as the Republicans are fond of saying. Sure, Trump can raise the Fifth, but, unlike a criminal trial, an imputation of guilt nevertheless can be drawn. Yes, his base will be instructed that it is unfair, and will say that the burden of proof is on his accusers, but the real question for public opinion is what does Trump have to hide since his removal from office is not the same as going to prison (at least not until later proceedings take place). If Trump is called and refuses to testify, his goose will be cooked politically in 2020. He got away with not testifying during the Mueller investigation, but this is a very different arena. Picture this: cool Adam Schiff, a successful federal prosecutor, cross-examining Donald Trump, the loudmouth liar. The TV ratings would break all records.
15
@Barry
//was wrong for him to serve as he did with Burisma, but what does that do to justify what happened with Trump and his crew
It justifies it plenty. The whole premise of the Ukraine thing is that Trump was asking for BOGUS charges against Burisma/Biden or an announcement that charges were coming against them.
The legitimacy of the allegations against Burisma/Biden is therefore central to the issue at hand.
1
@Barry Hunter Biden has nothing to do with impeachment. He is irrelevant. Calling the Trump kids on their machinations during the last 3 years IS relevant. Emoluments IS relevant. Let's go there if you like.
2
Most of us out here in what the NYT thinks of as "flyover country" are deeply saddened by this spectacle, and I say that coming from a family of lifelong Democrats. It's like Monica Lewinsky all over without the sex. Everyone knows what the outcome will be, but political class seems enthralled by what many of us see as little more than a political parlor game. Why not concentrate on the 2020 election and what that means for the nation, not some goofy political drama with a predetermined outcome.
4
@John Jabo
Goofy political dramas make their subscription numbers go up, their stock price goes up. The prosecutors involved get enough money to buy their own vacation islands.
I don’t know how you can possibly compare this to Clinton’s impeachment. Clinton’s crime was having an inappropriate affair and lying about it. Big deal. Trump held up foreign aid that was designated by congress in order to further his own political goals and in the process had an American ambassador followed, threatened, and fired with now cause. Regardless of how the traitor Republicans vote, how are these two situations equivalent?
1
@John Jabo
It sounds like you are saying that those of you in "flyover country" don't mind the President extorting a foreign Government with taxpayer funds to investigate a political opponent, do not mind his ordering his Administration not to testify or provide documents in response to lawful subpoenas, do not mind his lying constantly, "governing" by tweet, constantly ridiculing and sliming his critics, and just, in general, dragging the whole country down into the mud with him. Many Democrats realize that people in "flyover country" have been overlooked. The recent trade deal includes pro-worker provisions not in the original NAFTA. It is not helpful to represent "flyover country" with arguments like "Everyone knows what the outcome will be." That Republicans have obstructed the Investigation and have pre-determined the outcome regardless of the evidence shows that they want to make America a tin pot dictatorship.
1
The far left Democrats pushed Nancy Pelosi into a rush to judgement against what appeared to be better sense otherwise. The unending quest to reverse an election was ready to seize on anything and everything. More time in the investigative phase might have produced a real case. This charade is costing us, the taxpayers, more than we can calculate.
8
@Rowdy Burns In theory, you are right. But if the investigation ran past the election and then Trump was impeached after winning a second term, that would have been a disaster for Democrats. The Democrats had a choice: show the cards they had or hold the cards. The one thing about the voters is even without witnesses, the facts show guilt. The fact Trump wouldn't mount any defense shows guilt. Look at any crime in your community. How many defendants are exonerated when the evidence shows guilt but the defense offers nothing in rebuttal.That should be all the voters need to get them to come to the polls. It isn't the Senate that will convict Trump. It is the voters who have seen enough. The Democrats made a calculated decision. But so too did Trump and the Republicans.
1
@Rowdy Burns Nowhere near as much as Trump's frequent trips to his properties and golf courses. while Mnuchin is hiding the costs, estimates are about $130 million so far. The old "taxpayers dollars" is not very effective these days when Trump has created back to back trillion dollar deficits with his tax cuts for the ultra wealthy.
1
@Rowdy Burns
So far the American people have paid 400 years of Presidential salary in golf trips to (mostly) Florida. That does not include the cost to all the communities that are impacted by the entourage and traffic. The tax payers of the town or county pay that.
Non-inquisitive inquisitors! By refusing to fully accept witnesses or even allow witnesses or statements that have more recently come to light, the GOP completes their betrayal of the ethics and morals they’ve sworn to uphold.
79
I wouldn't discount new articles of impeachment emerging from the House if the Senate fails in its job to try the case impartially. And, at this point, it sure seems like the Senate will do just that. Maybe Don the Con will become not only the third president to be impeached, but he could become the first president to be impeached twice.
Why not?
49
@Watchful
Why not, indeed.
It's not like they would run out of crimes. Might as well find out just what makes a crime a "high crime."
6
So the House did not provide a complete story; They rushed it artificially. A strategic mistake in the end, was always my thought!
6
@PersimmonJam
Well that and an administration that refused to allow any semblance of the complete story to come out with little hope that additional information would be forthcoming. That and the White House's own telling in the summary that was released was an admission of the crime.
But as I've said, Trump could admit to all, sign documents saying that he did it all, and it wouldn't matter.
1
For those who wonder how regimes devolve into autocracy or dictatorship, this is how. And it has only taken 3 years.
179
@Jazzie
Well, it has really taken 40 years, beginning with the election of Ronald Reagan. But otherwise I totally agree with your post.
7
I would argue that it's been 30 years in the making by every GOP administration starting with Ronald Reagen
2
Anyone notice Putin's made his move, too?
Well, it seems to me that if one effectively agrees to being impeached without all the information being made available, then one has tacitly agreed too to accepting presumptions, assumptions, and hypotheses certain to be made by those charging the President with impeachment.
I mean, when the accused does *not* want witnesses called, it is just about as close to saying you don't want any more incriminating evidence seen. Might as well just step down and stop the circus.
God, I would have never thought that Nixon (!) had more honor than any other President, but apparently, he's has trumped Trump.
That's a legacy, indeed.
71
As egregious as the Lev Parnas evidence is, the Senators have more than enough to impeach Trump any way. The rest of the country has had more than enough of Trump for a long time. More evidence, more crimes, are not going to convince those who refuse to be convinced.
36
@Jeff M And why, pray, should the Senate preempt the voters?
You are afraid that Trump will win in November and he may well win. I share your worry.
But that is how democracy works. It is the voters who have the final say and not the readers of the New York Times.
@Ludwig Democracy is when the person with the most votes win. Trump lost the popular vote by over 3 million votes.
3
The truth nor the constitution is of no use to Republicans and their supporters. No matter what facts are revealed, they will continue to find every excuse under the rainbow to justify keeping their chosen one at the helm.
19
The Republicans are evidently waiting for evidence as clarifying as the Nixon Tapes in which his voice was clearly heard endorsing the cover-up! There is ample evidence from State Department employees who testified that Trump called Zelensky and asked for his help getting compromising information on Biden and that Trump withheld authorized funds until he got the statement he wanted.The GAO ruled that withholding the funds was illegal.John Danforth and others who argue that searching for election help from foreign states is a low bar are wrong-they need to reflect on the history of our country which has fought so long and hard for our independence and defended our Constitution.
14
@JANET MICHAEL
I agree. It is especially important to raise the bar on soliciting the interference of a foreign Government in our election when a foreign Government interfered in our last election, helping the current President to be elected.
2
I agree but the House that did not do their job well. The key factor is intent. Did Mr. Trump intend to investigate corruption (as did - arguably - Andrew Jackson in 1804 and Richard Nixon in 1968) with political gain a pleasant side effect, or did he intend political gain? Intent is the nail upon which the trial hangs and it was the House’s job to drive this nail firmly into the Senate’s chamber door.
Evidence found by the House (in effect a Grand Jury) is sufficient to bring Mr. Trump to the Senate (in effect a trial court) were this an ordinary legal trial. However, Impeachment is a political process and the evidence collected by the House is insufficient for the Republican-controlled Senate to convict and remove.
Mr. Trump will walk not because he’s innocent but because the House didn’t do their job well.
6
Factually false. The House was unable to get a full understanding of what occurred because Trump blocked multiple people with firsthand knowledge from testifying - i.e. witness tampering (another charge on which Rump is surely guilty). But the House only tees up charges. Whoever heard of a trial without witnesses????? It is the Senate’s responsibility to hold a fair trial and to follow the evidence - both submitted and continuing to come to light - as far as it will go until all the cats are out. Anything else is a dereliction of the Senate’s duties and nothing more than an ostrich putting its head in the sand, refusing to see reality, no matter how fiercely it waves itself before the GOP’s eyes.
23
@Chris I agree. Given that Biden is NOT the Democrats' candidate yet, the connection between Ukraine and the November election is a bit thin. And no one can see into Trump's mind, or his motives.
Frankly, if someone SHOULD be impeached it is Obama who cost Crimea to Russia because of a foolish attempt to recruit Ukraine, Russia's sister state, into NATO.
To call Ukraine "our ally" is just as stupid as would be if Putin were to refer to Mexico as "our ally".
Ukraine, Germany and Russia should come up with a relationship with each other which respects everyone's security and is economically beneficial to all three countries. It is the vengeful and bullying America which is preventing that good outcome.
@Chris
As far as intent, the content of "the call" would be the best window into this. Witnesses to the call stated that the Bidens were mentioned several times during Trump's call with Zelensky, but general corruption was not mentioned. The redacted "transcript" (it was a summary, not a word for word transcript) the Administration put out minimized the extent to which the Bidens were the focus of the call. The recording was hustled to a super secret server. Let's hear the recording, and then we can all determine intent.
1
The Trump Party Senators do care about any thing except a vote to exonerate their supreme ruler. Democracy as we once knew it in the United States no longer exists.
60
Even if -- a big IF -- Bolton, Parnas, Mulvaney, et al actually testified, and their testimony were extremely damaging and beyond challenge, the GOP Senate still will acquit Trump.
That's the real story voters will have to keep firmly in mind in November. Trump, in effect, is getting away with shooting someone on Fifth Avenue in broad daylight.
215
@PaulB67
The Senate may acquit, but that's no reason not to hold their feet to the fire about considering evidence – and turn up the flames. If Senators are going to duck for cover, let's make what they are ducking as clear as possibe.
8
@PaulB67 and why pray should the Senate take the decision about Trump out of the hands of the voters? It does not look like the "Democrats" believe in democracy.
I would LIKE Trump to be voted out. But I respect the authority of the voters. And I do not trust the hyper-partisan Democrats.
@Ludwig Do you think Republicans are NOT hyper-partisan?
It looks to me like both sides might be doing it, but only one is trying to find out what happened and uphold Democracy--and it ain't Republicans.
8
The only sentence in these comments is the second sentence of the third paragraph: "The quasi-jurors who swore an oath on Thursday to do 'impartial justice' for the most part have already signaled their partiality."
Waste of taxpayers money. Kangaroo Court, Cover-up.
31
@esp
Good point. Seeing the Republicans swearing an oath administered the the Chief Justice of the SC to be impartial, when many have already stated publicly that they will not be impartial, make the whole spectacle a farce. Are there consequences for violating such a sacred oath? If not, why bother?
3
Perhaps instead of putting Trump on trial, Mr. McConnell should be tried for wielding his power to dis-enfranchise our Democracy. He is every bit as guilty for Obstruction of Congress as Trump. He refuses to have a fair and open hearing, with witnesses, so the American Public will know who did what, to whom, when, how and why.
Furthermore Guiliani, Pompeo, Barr, Mulvaney, Miller et al should be served with subpoenas, as should Trump and Grisham and made to testify to what they know. If they don't show up throw them in the capital jail.
I wish I were a Kentucky voter.
255
@Jean Agreed. McConnell has been getting away with a lot more and for a lot longer. I would pay to see the look on his face were he to lose KY in 2020. Sadly, I have a feeling that he won't. What a stain on American Democracy.
52
@Jean Agreed. He should have been ousted when he refused to allow Obama to seat a new Supreme Court judge.
44
I wish I could help remove Senator McConnell from office, but I am certainly glad I am not a Kentucky voter.
10
The fullest version of the story need not come out at this point. DJT has already committed offenses of a serious enough nature to be removed. Whether you believe that he should be removed because of disregard for our constitutional order and judicial process or that he’s solicited election assistance from foreign governments (obstruction of justice or bribery, respectively) there’s already sufficient evidence to toss him out on his ear.
Once he’s removed from office there is all the time in the world to discern the truth of this man’s life and bring him up on the many crimes he’s committed as private citizen, candidate, and president.
57
No, Trump's phone call with Ukraine’s Zelensky was not “the perfect phone call” as Donald Trump announced yesterday.
There’s nothing perfect about telling a foreign country we’ll pay them to do dirty work to win a United States presidential election, and that’s essentially what Trump did.
Donald Trump is clearly off his rocker. That Republicans support this man, and that the US Senate is apt to uphold this man is crazy.
And that the citizens of this country might be barred from seeing this trial and proceedings live while it is going on because there is threat to do this in private is preposterous. We pay these people with our hard earned tax money and deserve transparency. Hasn’t enough damage been done “in privacy”?
What a fiasco. And no, Donald, it’s not a hoax.
150
It seems to me that the Republican argument of too fast, too incomplete is bogus. We already had a special counsel of impeccable qualifications. His work was stonewalled and produced little impact. What concerns me, as but one American, is how systematically Trump has rendered America's Democracy's institution including Congress and the Judiciary and spreading to a multitude of agencies like the State Department, Intelligence, etc., irrelevant in lies. I have no delusions, Trump will not be impeached. We have lost for the moment a bipartisan Congress. In the end, I have but two acts to defend America's Democracy; vote and exercise free speech. I don't care if the Democrats put up Mickey or Minnie mouse, I'll vote for anyone but Trump.
128
Unfortunately, as Hamilton noted: "Impeachment is a political, not a legal process." There are no rules of evidence, no set procedures, just a paragraph in the constitution that is rather vague.
Since it is political nobody is held to the basic standards of reasonable doubt, innocent till proven guilty, or evidence that is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth...
The only thing that stands out with Trump is his lifelong association with persons from Russia - spouses, friends, associates, investors, lenders, agents, and even a mysterious visit from a Russian attorney prior to his election and the Attorney General taking what was a "Rock Solid" case against Russian Mobsters from the Southern District of NY and settling it for a fine.
At the core is the Ukraine, a former Russian state that is now under pressure from Putin. Americans are being convinced that the Ukraine is so corrupt that perhaps Trump and his friends could convince us all that defending Ukraine just isn't worth the cost or effort.
As to the Bidens: let's investigate the employment of all the children and spouses of elected officials and see what that turns up.
308
@George N. Wells
Throughout all of this circus, not one law maker has suggested that perhaps it should be illegal for their spouses and children to "cash in".
I suspect that this is a rock nobody wants to turn over.
159
@College Dad
I would add those children of the wealthy, privileged class, who attend elite schools because their parents are wealthy, start their careers at or near the top rung of the ladder, etc. To be clear, I am not suggesting that all children of wealthy parents seek or receive privileged treatment. Many work hard and earn their own success. I am simply suggesting that this privileged access to wealth and power extends well beyond the children of lawmakers. Just look at the recent College Admissions scandal if you doubt that.
14
@Michael I believe the point about looking into lawmakers is that because they are elected officials and, well, making the country's laws.
2
Again, just imagine if it was Obama on trial for the very same allegations. Every Republican Senator would be demanding witnesses and documents.
561
@William disagree...they'd have convicted Obama and removed him from office without witnesses or documents.
48
True. But, would every Democrat be stonewalling and obstructing the process? Personally, I do not believe they would, especially not to the extent the Republicans are here in the face of pretty dramatic evidence.
30
@William: I have come to believe that The Senate, like The House of Representatives and The Supreme Court, votes on every issue according to the mandated party lines, with thought going no deeper.
10
If Senator McConnell continues to ignore the overwhelming evidence of Trump's guilt he will go down in history as the man who destroyed our constitutional system of government. If that's what he wants as the legacy of his Senate career and his Republican party then so be it.
563
Not “so be it.” One man doesn’t get to make that decision and just throwing our hands up isn’t acceptable either.
139
@Pluribus No "so be it" is totally fatalistic and unacceptable. McConnell's ego and legacy are infinitesimally small and completely unimportant relative to the fate and future of the country and the democracy. We have to try our utmost -- rallies, demonstrations, communication with our senators and representatives to try to head off this so called leader's megalomania.
70
@Pluribus: I can't even fathom how "history" will play out with the takeover of the GOP by Trump. Will there even be a history, or simply a concocted series of alternate facts and realities written in some new edficace devoted to propaganda, just like Brave New World or 1984?
It's frightening to see the old become new again, as in the new relevance of books like this written in the immediate aftermath of worldwide fascism.
60
To think that Republican senators are going to “judge “Trump is laughable. He’s a dictator and they are his servants. They have shown repeatedly no interest in doing what’s right for the country. They are only interested in protecting Republican power. So does it really matter if there’s any more evidence? This present should be removed from office for 100 reasons, and we listen to McConnell and all of his minions deflect and deny how bad Trump is. Democracy really is no more. We are at a fascist state now from a Republican perspective.
76
@MR If "He’s a dictator" then where is the wall? Any number of justices, many appointed by Obama, have crossed Trump and Trump has, however reluctantly, gone along, rather than send the FBI to arrest these judges.
"He’s a dictator" is little more than a fantasy and a dangerous one.
The truth is that you are afraid that Trump will win in November and if he does, it will not be because of McConnell's corruption, but because many voters are fed up with the circus which is the Democratic party.
@MR ---Trump is just a Kleenex that McConnell is using. 2 SC justices to McConnel's liking. Lots of lower courts with judges to McConnell/Republican ways of thinking. HB held up in the Senate.
Etc.
Its just a matter of time before Trump is thrown away.
”Mr. Wisenberg said the House Democrats should have...issued subpoenas to Mr. Bolton and anyone else they wanted to question.”
Erm...
13
This “hot mess” is Donald Trump’s decision to stonewall at every turn. A cynical play for time while he figures out another way to cheat in the 2020 election...and that’s even with Facebook happy to oblige.
Pompeo, Bolton and Mulvaney need to testify. If the Republicans want to tit-for-tat with Hunter Biden, then Rudy Giuliani and Jared Kushner need to testify, too. The problem for the Republicans is that they have a much deeper bench of kooks/amateurs that can be called as witnesses.
28
@Dudesworth
For the nth time, just like every president, the prerogatives of the Executive are guarded. The House can lawfully subpoena, and then wait for the judicial process to take its course. In its wisdom, the House decided it couldn’t wait for such niceties (before sitting on thing for a month), and so here we are in the midst of a rushed bill of impeachment and foolish accusations of stonewalling. Not only that, if Pompeo and the rest are now genuinely subpoenaed and avail themselves of their legal right to challenge, the incompetence of the House inquiry will cause even further delay.
Were Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, and Jerry Nadler always idiots, or is it just the TDS?
@HMI ...and for the double nth time, nowhere in the Constitution does it mention “prerogatives of the Executive”. Nor does it mention that the House must wait for “the judicial process” in order to impeach. That’s just something Republicans have grabbed onto, not unlike the “WMD” argument, in order to advance their entirely bogus, entirely corrupt way of governing. But carry on, your GOP vote matters not in Brooklyn.
4
@Dudesworth There must be some part of the idea of separation of powers you haven't yet puzzled out. You ought to work on it.
Be it the impeachment farce, or any other issue, the liberal media is playing fast and loose with the term 'evidence', which often is nothing more, than an 'assessment', a 'conclusion' or 'more likely, than not' mumbo-jambo.
In the current theatrical performance, the elevatation of a an accused criminal of shady background to the level of 'reliable witness' is beyond the pale.
The world is not watching. The world is laughing, sadly.
8
Indeed - as evidenced by Trump’s buddies Putin and Assad laughing at Trump. The rest of the world is in mortified terror at Trump and his GOP enablers.
4
@waldo the"lib media" should get all the enabling republican senators on record stating that trump's actions and obstruction are perfectly acceptable when a democratic administration does the same behaviors. We need them to openly admit to deeply lowering the bar for future leaders, or that the rules change when a "real American" is in office.
Exactly who are we trying to kid here.
Exactly zero is how many Republicans will vote to remove Trump. Trumpism is a cult.You cannot leave.Look at Epstein.
17
For more evidence it truly is a cult see the proposed Oklahoma MAGA and KAG license plates.
We were told by the Democrats that this gross impeachment procedure needed to be fast tracked in order
to save the republic.So fast that Republicans were essentially allowed to be spectators as was the President
a fine display of fairness.If the democrats want to introduce more post impeachment evidence,let them
then the Republicans get to call the Biden’s and the whistleblower to see how big a set up this is.
8
@Able fairness? Ask Merrick Garland about fairness. Or Anita Hill. Or Hillary Clinton who had to testify for 11 hours for the totally bogus, years-long Benghazi “investigation”...lots of fairness to go around.
94
@Able
No Whistleblower. He/she is protected by the Whistleblower law. If it weren't for Whistleblowers there are all kinds of things that the Public has a right to know that would be forever hidden by our Politicians, like the reason for the Iraq War,,,,, Just for starters.
13
Trump blocked all witnesses that presumably would have accurate information. Fairness is laying all of the cards on the table and letting them speak for themselves. Trump is only about secrecy, not fairness. His ‘transparency’ is disclosing all information that will help him and burying all else.
1
One thing that has become abundantly clear in the last three years is that our Constitution is woefully due for an overhaul! The founders simply could not have imagined that a president could be so lacking in character and intelligence, morally and ethically corrupt, while at the same time an entire party of congress is happy to turn a blind eye to his pillaging if the country. Justice is not only blind but deaf and dumb as well. The time for a new Constitutional convention has arrived, and my suggestion is that the new attendees include a cross section of “lay people” who have no stake in keeping their elected government jobs. This little experiment in a government by and for the people is broken, let’s all hope it is not beyond repair!
35
The phone call transcript of July 25 is an impeachable offense: inviting a foreign power to intervene directly in a free US election. Full stop.
However, you are clearly correct, the full story is still emerging, in large measure because the Administration is actively obstructing the inquiry, yet another impeachable offense. Second Full Stop.
There are two clear reasons to remove Trump from office. He has committed an offense against the integrity of our democracy for personal gain, and he has obstructed the attempt to uncover his misdeeds.
Now, sadly, it will take months perhaps to unravel the full scope of his treachery. Thankfully the Ukrainians, realizing that THEIR sovereignty as a nation has also been breached, are investigating as well from their end.
But the outlines of the story are clear enough, and the direct involvement of Trump is patent. How do we know? The phone call. That was and is the sufficient reason to remove him from office. He sold out our free election. He will do it again.
106
@Paul C. McGlasson
It must be wonderful to be so sure of things. Perhaps you ought to be made Lord High Executioner and then we could substitute your undoubtedly certain certainty for all those pesky differing opinions, obviating the need for any trial.
Full stop, indeed.
@HMI --Many Americans are wonderfully sure of criminal behavior when we see it. Trump broke the law. Full Stop.
7
@Paul C. McGlasson
Every time we talk about the "transcript" we fall into the Republicans trap. Let's hear the tapes, we have no idea what was said, including the omitted parts. Let's remember many of those who produced the "transcript" are themselves implicated in this investigation.
3
The GOP will try as hard as it can to keep the story as incomplete as possible. The more complete it gets, the harder it will be to justify acquitting him.
33
Senate leadership could easily raise the veil covering the actions of President Trump by simply filing subpoenas requesting the President's four close advisors to testify concerning their actions and the President's motives. It appears that the President tried to blackmail the Ukrainian government for his own political purposes, using our foreign aid as bait. When confronted with his illegal action, he has covered it up by refusing to respond to the House investigator's lawful requests for documents and testimony. All the Senate need do is call for testimony from Pompeo, Mulvaney, Giuliani, and perhaps, Barr. They could easily defend the President's actions and clarify his motives to the American people.
17
@Patrick Stevens
You mean, the Senate could do what the House failed to do? Why? Wasn’t the bill of impeachment actually fully formed and sufficient?
1
@HMI Why would a jury want to hear all of the evidence? The House certainly convinced me, but a more thorough questioning of the participants might shed more light on the President's actions and motives. What's the harm?
3
My mother used to quote a friend in situations such as this: "My mind is made up - don't confuse me with the facts."
The Senate is on a path to auto-acquit, and the primary reason is not that they President was within his rights to withhold aid in an attempt to dig up political dirt on an opponent, but rather a desire to survive their primaries, and to re-elect the weak and capricious President. Keeping power is more important than protecting the nation, protecting Constitutional checks and balances.
So we get this scripted farce, with pre-set positions, and idiotic reasons not to actually try to find the truth.
And as a result, future Presidents will be able to use the power of their office to illegally subvert opponents; and future Presidents will be able to scoff at and ignore Congress's power to investigate and call witnesses, by simply declaring they don't have to.
What a mess. What a loss of moral spine. The GOP is a farce.
195
@Cathy Doesn't seem to occur to the GOP that the future president might be a Democrat.
7
@Cathy I agree, the GOP is a farce and with Barr leading the Justice department, acting as Trump's personal attorney, they are now also a criminal enterprise. As Lev Parnas said, since Barr took over the Justice Department, Trump has become more powerful than ever before.
5
@swilliams
Oh, the rules, the standards, the norms, and everything else will be different then.
1
The only thing that the GOP controlled Senate is interested in is voting to acquit Donald John Trump of all charges. Period.
35
God forbid there is a next time with this president. The standards are so low, he may be able to achieve what has taken Putin decades (everlasting leadership). We already know the Republicans will do 'whatever' it takes to stay in power. Next Jared and Baron will take over.
22
@Igyana If there is a "next time" for this president, it will be because the Democrats, instead of putting up a good candidate for the coming November, have concentrated on reversing the election of November 2016.
1
@Ludwig
Nobody is reversing anything. They're trying to remove a man who does not follow the Constitution or the rule of law. He's been breaking them since day one. And we cannot have a criminal in office. Criminal Senators and Congressmen get removed all the time. This is no different.
1
Trump and his GOP will do their best to hide as much as possible.
17
Yes, there's so much more that could be unearthed about not just the Ukraine extortion but dozens of other corrupt, lawless and totally impeachable offenses by this grotesque demagogue and malignant narcissist. But there's enough already on the plate to warrant his removal from office. Yet, the former R party--now the nauseating un-American Trumpist Legion (or is it Lesion?)--is so deep in the swamp that there's virtually no chance of a just outcome to the Senate trial.
If the trial was at all close to fair and impartial, most of the Rs in the Senate would announce they recuse themselves because of falsely swearing impartiality, and others including Jay Sekolow would be excluded because of their own involvement in the Ukraine matter which means they are actually fact witnesses. If this was fair, there would be several witnesses and many documents--all of which has been previously blocked by the accused, who is by the way guilty as sin.
The fate of our democracy and our society seems to rest with this trial and the election later this year. I can't say I'm optimistic about the millions of people who continue to behave like Trump cultists seeing the light. Not the gas-lighting; the light of truth and human decency.
39
Republicans do not have an opinion on Trump's impeachment worth listening to. They have demonstrated zero curiosity about Trump's obvious corruption, obvious criminality, obvious being a national security risk, obvious authoritarianism and obvious contempt for the Constitution and rule of law throughout the Trump presidency.
Now, they seem willing to disregard the ever broadening story about the involvement of high ranking government officials being revealed. Rather, Republicans consider this impeachment process a hateful, partisan attack on a Republican president.
14
There IS a crime. Namely, bribery which consists of offering a thing of value (A White House visit and Arms for Ukraine) for an illegal act (Interfering in the US election)
If there are loose threads, it is because Trump obstructed justice by denying all requests for documentation and forbidding all his administration from testifying.
The Republicans in the Senate should allow the full story to come out, but they probably won't. They will ignore the oath they took and whitewash the whole sordid story.
53
The GOP has no use for the truth and facts. They know Trump is guilty. They know he has obstructed justice. They know he is a criminal. They have consciously chosen to uphold Trumps rule of law. If that defies our laws and constitution, so be it. They will continue to destroy our democracy.
We, as citizens, cannot let them get away with it. Speaking out doesn't seem to be heard by Trump and the GOP unless it's someone from Trumps' base who think Trump is a-ok.
Vote them out in 2020 and hope that we still have an election. Forget about a fair election. We didn't have one in 2016 and the Russians and Trump are proudly announcing that other countries are influencing our voters.
11
"Mr. Wisenberg said the House Democrats should have authorized an impeachment inquiry earlier and issued subpoenas to Mr. Bolton and anyone else they wanted to question. “They wouldn’t be in this hot mess,” he said."
My blood boils at this argument. One of the articles of imeachment is contempt of Congress, and for good reason: as Peter Baker notes, the president blocked every document and witness that could have shed light on his Ukraine extortion plan.
The argument is, is circular, the equivalent of blaming a robbery victim for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Democrats had no choice: court battles would have taken forever, extending hearings beyond the election and raising Republican outcries on that point too.
There's no comparison between the Clinton and Trump in terms of presidential misconduct. Behavior, unheard of until now, will be exonerated, in the interests of raw power.
The world is watching and based on comments here, is as aghast as I am at the preordained outcome.
377
@ChristineMcM
The argument isn’t circular; it is obtuse. “Court battles would have taken forever”? Who knows? Schiff and Nadler and Pelosi didn’t even make the least attempt. Your own argument amounts to the assertion that the judicial process has no time to go through the judicial process. Now, *that’s* circular.
2
@ChristineMcM ---Good comments. But I think that it didn't matter whether or not the courts would have taken forever to hear the case etc etc. Trump plays that game all too often. No. Refusing to comply with subpoena is obstruction of Congress. Congress didn't have to go to the Court system to prove that to the public. It's plain to see.
18
@HMI: I beg to disagree. They did go to court to get Mueller witnesses, and just the adjudication of whether McGahn could refuse a subpoena took well over a year. Your comment has no validity based on the facts, that anything in the Trump era that goes to court--which is, essentially everything, because he fights everything, even on the most specious of grounds, as in, 'I have absolute immumity from oversight, which was laughable to even the judges" because he knows that every month he can prolong a fight in litigation, is one less month for truth to out. You know it and I know it. As for circular, it is in the sense of Catch-22--the solution to a problem resides in the problem itself, which means, it's unsolvable.
28
Regarding the last point about fear that impeachment will be used more often in the future, I’m wondering why this idea is put forward without further explanation or rebuttal. Is it fear of the specter that we will see more Presidents behaving like or worse than Trump has? Is it fear of how our political system can be invaded turned upside down by foreign governments who hate our system and therefore we will see more presidents like or worse than Trump? Is it fear of how America is educating and raising its children and therefore the battle for the soul of America will intensify? I just cannot figure out why your last idea is being thrown out there as if it is a rebuttal to this particular impeachment now at this moment of history.
6
I didn't vote for Trump, but the House chose to end its investigation. They decided not to go to Court to compel testimony. They decided to rush. Then they decided to wait.
Now they have to live with it.
This "trial" cannot be an endless parade of "new" evidence that must be investigated.
It is not fair to Trump. Sanders. Warren. Or Klobuchar.
IF this new evidence requires, the House should add another Article of Impeachment.
Investigation by the Senate- whose job as "jurors" is NOT to investigate, helps no one.
9
@profwilliams That's exactly what the Republican partisans wanted..a prolonged court battle that would be settled in years not months. And the Senate's role is not simply jurors as they have the ability to set the rules and even overturn the Judge. Though I do agree, there should be a steady stream of Articles of Impeachment until justice is served.
18
ProfWilliams: a jury does not call witnesses, the prosecutors do. The juries job is to listen to the witnesses that prosecutors call to testify. It is not to block those witnesses from coming forward. Everyone knows that testimony in a trial may uncover the need for more witnesses. The charade being perpetrated here by the GOP is the preordained outcome, and so refusing to follow the facts through witness testimony....wherever it may lead. As has been pointed out in other comments, one of the articles is obstruction of congress. Seems to me the “jury” has no business helping the defendant continue to obstruct!
17
@Shlyoness You realize you are making my point, right?
Since when has America truly cared about procedural consistency and quality execution in matters of the rule of law?
11
The President was mistaken and his aims were fouled – his removal required
His greatest humility will be to defended by Democrats in this trial
I do not know whether he can escape being penalized through taking some break – send over duties to a Mr. (impoverished) Pence?
1
@Mark C. Major But he should not be defended by anyone partial
3