Why didn’t Schiff subpoena all these people he is whining about who need to testify now? I am absolutely stunned that the house didn’t subpoena Mulvaney, Perry, Pence, Barr and Bolton and they have no right to cry about the republicans not gathering testimony that they themselves should have at least tried to obtain. This is why the dems always lose. They never go for the throat when they should and then they cry about it later. They had their chance. It seems the dems continue to “go high while they go low” which isnt good policy in politics if you ever want to actually win.
Alan Dershowitz, now on the republican defense team in the Senate impeachment trial, will argue that "Abuse of power" and "Obstruction of Congress" do not qualify as impeachable offenses in the Constitution, and therefore, Trump should be acquitted immediately. While Adam Schiff or other House managers could probably make a good case that they are, in fact, impeachable (as most constitutional lawyers agree), Dershowitz specializes and has a high profile in constitutional law; countering his argument will likely need to be based on historical details of the Constitution, our founding father’s intent, Federalist Papers, etc. Democrats would be wise to bring on board someone with similar credentials and notoriety to give a strong and convincing counter argument. Candidates could include Neal Katyal, Laurence Tribe, Noah Feldman or Michael Gerhardt. That could minimize Republican Senators using Dershowitz’s argument as a pretext to vote for acquittal without a trial. It also would provide Americans a more balanced presentation, enabling them to make their own decision.
5
What is really weird is how I keep reading articles that point out what stupid or illogical things Republicans are saying on shows like "Face the Nation", but you don't report the follow up question from the journalists who then point out how inaccurate what they have said is and ask them to clarify. Is this because you're not reporting it, or because the journalists aren't asking it? And if they aren't asking the obvious follow-up, isn't it incumbent on you to either provide that missing information or just not report the lies the politicians say on these programs?
2
I sincerely hope everyone takes this Trial serious and provides witnesses. As for rushing it......it should move steadily without any pressure from either side.
1
Everything done in the House investigations is, in reality, analogous to the workings of a grand jury. The total refusal of the Trump side to cooperate means that testimony is missing. It is perfectly logical, reasonable and necessary now for the Senate to call witnesses. Executive privilege is based on tradition and vague interpretation of parts of the Constitution relating to executive powers. Impeachment is a power with far more authority, written specifically into the Constitution, grounded in common law, and the subject of much discussion documented in the Constitutional Convention and in the Federalist. Witnesses are therefore mandated.
If the Senate Republicans and Trump do not allow witnesses, there should be no State of the Union address. Trump can write a report of the State in longhand with his Sharpie.
6
I think people are apoplectic for one very simple reason. Both the legislative branch, and especially the judicial branch, have this thin veneer which projects the illusion that at some point, if the truth is blatant enough, and the logic is inescapable enough, that truth and logic will win out.
What we are in the process of learning is that those assumptions about truth and logic are hopelessly naive, and that we are in an era where the ONLY thing that matters is raw, uncheckable power.
5
Among the first provocative items Senate Democrats should bring up for a vote is the question of whether only crimes are impeachable.
There have only been two impeachment trials in the Senate, and this issue is unresolved. Trump's legal team posits his impeachment is illegitimate because he broke no laws, of course ignoring the recent GAO statement that he violated the Impoundment Control Act, solicited a bribe on the record, etc. And the fact that there was no US criminal code when the constitution was written.
Regardless, the world's 'greatest' debating entity can argue the merits and then set the future precedent for all to see.
Then they can move on to whether obstruction of Congress is impeachable and what the standard should be, again all on the record.
I just want the standards for presidential behavior to be clear and applied equally to Democratic as well as Republican presidents.
2
There has been a lot of discussion about whether Republican Senators will vote their conscience at the Trump trial (with the possibility of NOT being re-elected) or take their cues from Mitch McConnell.
Honestly, if I were a Republican, and enough Republican Senators rallied and voted Trump out because the evidence was so strong, I would probably vote Republican again for having the guts to admit their president abused his power AND obstructed justice.
4
The Republicans need to be reminded it is the public (not the base) politicians are sworn to represent. As they seem intent on maintaining control, breaking laws, ignoring their Constitutional duties and all oversight obligations, there is only one remedy. Vote them all out in November!
5
The House should have subpoenaed everyone they wanted testimony from and if that person refused, the House should have gone to the courts to have the subpoenas upheld. The House should have subpoenaed all the documents they felt necessary and if they were being withheld, they should have had the courts enforce their subpoenas. Instead, they put together a weak case and now expect the Senate to attempt to strengthen the House's case. That's the prosecuting attorney expecting the defense attorney to bring to light evidence that could convict their own client. Are they kidding?
2
All the Democrats had to do was slow down and subpoena the witnesses they wanted.
If Trump claimed Presidential Privilege (as all presidents have claimed for their most close advisors), the Democrats should have taken him to court.
However the court ruled, both parties would have to live with it.
Regardless, the House said they had an overwhelming proof of an impeachable crime(s) and offense(s).
They then delayed the release of the Articles for a month, and now say they don’t have a case without more witnesses.
Huge blunder.
2
How is it a political sham by the Democrats, when by removing Trump, you allow a another Republican, without a national security concern and thus more electable, to assume the high office of President of the United States? Pence is much more electable than Trump.
1
I wonder if there is a volume control for Trumps moth? A mute button would be better! Perhaps one of his courtiers could tell him to stop shouting; it doesn't make him sound any more credible.
2
The funds were released within the legal time frame (in fact, two weeks before the deadline set out by law), no investigations into the Bidens was started, and no law was broken.
So what is the President being charged with again? Oh yes - I know, winning the 2016 election. Sorry - for the democrats that is a crime.
1
@Randy
Try reading the Articles of Impeachment. They are very clear.
3
Neil Eggleston (Obama WH counsel) suggests that the House pursue criminal contempt proceedings against witnesses who have no claim to immunity but refuse to appear. He said the criminal contempt penalty is a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail with a minimum one month in jail. The statute of limitations is five years so if a democrat is elected in November the ability of the next administration to prosecution is appropriate and very much on the table. "If I were one of those witnesses, I would want to know about that," Eggleston said
2
@Ann
Contempt charges may be pursued only against witnesses that refuse to comply with a legally valid subpoena. The problem here for the Dems is that they failed to go to Court to enforce the subpoenas in the first place. They say that this was because of time constraints, but if they were honest they would admit that they were also afraid of losing in Court.
So sure, they can pursue contempt charges. But first they have to get a court to rule that the subpoenas were valid in the first place, and that is not a slam dunk.
If Trump & McConnell are so confident about Trump's innocence, why do they not want relevant witnesses to testify?
6
It is unlawful to solicit something of value from a foreign national in connection with an American election. That's exactly what Trump is charged with doing. Why all this beating around the bush about potential impeachment offensives?
1
The defense team's only argument appears to be that this is a "charade," a hoax, accusing Democrats of violating the Constitution, of trying to subvert the "will of the people." Okay, prove the accusation. Prove that it's a "hoax." Or is it a hoax simply because they say it is? They are making an accusation, but unlike the Democrats, who have gathered irrefutable evidence despite the crime of obstruction, Cons are offering no proof that this is a "hoax."
1
We will be living under an entirely new Constitution if the Republican Senate succeeds in creating this absurd limitation on the Congress's power of impeachment and removal.
A president who uses foreign interference in our election was the principle reason the Impeachment Clause was written. If it is acceptable for Trump to pay a foreign country to dig up dirt on his political opponents, why couldn't he pay a foreign intelligence agency to attack his enemies in the US intelligence agencies? Why not a foreign military to topple his enemies in the American military establishment?
2
As the Sundance Kid said to Butch Cassidy at the end of the movie, "Butch, I have a bad feeling about this."
We all know Trump is not going to be removed. So, for everyone (the political players as well as the civic-minded), the only question is, will this impeachment hurt or help Trump and his Quislings in November?
Ii have the sinking feeling that the answer is, "help."
2
"Republicans called those complaints proof that the case against Mr. Trump was so weak that Democrats were scrambling to bolster it."
On the other hand, Republicans seek to dismiss and undermine a real trial, block new evidence, block testimony, block documents and block the truth because they know Trump is guilty as charged and that he is an out of control, dangerous, unfit, immoral man. They complain about lack of evidence while actively trying to suppress it. All impeachments challenge an election outcome.
They know he committed impeachable offenses. They heard the compelling testimony in the House proceedings. They know there is more there. That is why they are afraid of exposing the truth about Trump. If they really thought the case against Trump is so weak, they would prove it with a fair and complete trial, like all other impeachment proceedings. But they won't because they can't.
The Republicans already have a biased Senate for Trump regardless. Acquittal is a pre-determined outcome. Clearly they are covering for Trump and afraid of the truth, so they don't want a real trial at all, even with knowing the outcome. A pathetic ploy of Trump's lawyers and McConnell that is not lost on the American people.
We need to restore integrity and honesty in the Senate. Vote for Democratic Senate candidates and remove the cancer destroying our government and democracy that is Mitch McConnell.
3
Stonewalling Congress is a crime in and of itself. Is our legal system not robust enough to remove this criminal?
5
I've come to see the Republicans as basically the thieves' party. Is someone trying to make a profit at the public's expense? Republicans will all too often protect their "liberty" to do so. Maybe that's why there seems to be tolerance for the Russian klepto-thugocracy that serves Vladimir Putin. Sure, the Republicans will approve a deal to sell Ukraine some of what Trump in Riyadh called our "beautiful weapons", but corruption only seems to be a concern if it can be tied somehow to a Democrat. Like an ambitious businessman, Putin wants to grow the power and "market share" of the FSB-mafia brand as far and in whatever way he can. Remember his fist bump with fellow murderer Mohamed bin Salmen at the G20? And, his presumptuous relegation of liberal democracy to the ash heap of history? This was around the time his asset Trump had been "exonerated" by the Mueller investigation. If Congress wants to get a handle on what's really going on, hearing from Lev Parnas and Rudy Giuliani is just the smallest thread of what they could and should unravel. But, that might endanger the interests of thieves, so of course, they will find some excuse to vote against hearing about how their government - that is, our government - is being hijacked.
2
The biggest unanswered question is which Chief Justice will present himself as The Presider over the trial proceedings. The judicial one or the political hack?
In the Enron case appeal the former posed this question to Enron’s CEO Skilling’s counsel, “He [Skilling] acted dishonestly in a way that harmed them [Shareholders]....There has to be a right to honesty. It’s not just in the abstract?”
Years later. he accepted a flagrantly unlawful Constitutional nominee for SCOTUS! Most recently he publicly chastised The President in writing for inferring The Court was his personal political instrument.
Will he accept the false premise that this Senate Trial is a political proceeding and not a special judicial venue similar to a military court martial status? Does he believe that The USC specifically named The Chief Justice only in trials of a President but not any other Public Official Impeachment trials for no reason? Does he believe that Congressional ‘rule’ making is superior or inferior to our Nation’s Constitution & its unequivocal mandates.
Enough of with the dumb stuff!
@Samuel Owen
"Enough of with the dumb stuff!"
Exactly.
One could naively think that only obscurantist countries allowed talibans to thrive. But obviously the US do the same with their Republicans. Shocking.
3
"Laws are for other people!", said the GOP.
3
It turns out the GOP does not view bribery, extortion and treason as High Crimes.
The framers of the Constitution would not agree with that view.
3
Who hid the call in a protected "server" or hard drive, what have you?
Get Hunter Biden up there, why not? And then get Bolton up there and he'll tell the truth.
1
Like Republicans, most of whom believe humans rode dinosaurs, are going to be swayed by facts.
I am constantly surprised how the mainstream media are so willing to toe the liberal Democrat line, only focusing on what the Dems want to focus on and ignoring what the Dems want to ignore. The Dems want to ignore anything that might cause one to ask questions about the Bidens that could lend credibility to seeking an investigation. Has anyone at CNN or NYT or NBC or CBS et al asked why Burisma (a company both Ambassadors Taylor and Yovanovitch said was headed by a corrupt CEO who the Obama Administration believed paid millions in political bribes) paid Hunter Biden millions while his dad was VP in charge of Ukraine policy for the Obama White House? He had no experience or expertise pertinent to the job. And yet no media outlet even asks the question. They just recite the talking point that such questions were debunked. By who? Can you cite me the story that answered the mystery of Hunter Biden's Burisma job? The Dems want to ignore any question of conflict between Executive privacy rights v. Congressional oversight rights. So no media push challenging the fact that the House didn't bother to take those claims to the Courts to be settled. Nope just diligently blast the Senate for not wanting to do the job the House chose not to do. Why would the House rush its action and leave it up to the Senate to fight this Executive v Legislative rights battle? Because this has been a political game to damage the President and Republican Senate for the Nov. 2020 election.
1
Democrats don’t seem to appreciate the fact that the United States has a Clinton-era treaty with Ukraine that provides for ‘mutual legal assistance in criminal matters’....including corruption investigations.
So how was it illegal for Trump to request an investigation into Hunter Biden’s grifting in the Ukraine while his papa was VP and Obama’s Ukraine point man?
1
Democrats are doing everything they can to sabotage their own case. Democrats have no killer instinct. They think they are back in the 20th century playing by 20th century rules of decorum and civility. Rudy Giuliani should be front and center. Congress had in their possession, courtesy of State Dept. IG Linick, the "dirt" that Giuliani concocted. The "dirt" that Democrats dismissed as irrelevant. Let "crime fighter" Rudy Giuliani now testify and explain his cowardice in not taking ownership of said "dirt" and why it was necessary to extort Ukraine's president to "work with Rudy" and take ownership of the "dirt" that Rudy Giuliani would spoon feed him.
1
This is not on topic, but since comments weren’t allowed on The Times endorsement of Warren and Klobuchar, in addition to the never ending impeachment drama, screams desperation on the part of the establishment political machine of both parties, pro Israel lobbyists that support the defense industry never ending wars for profit in the Middle East and the neo cons quickly losing their powered and imperialistic position. They’re all scared to death of a Bernie Presidency that spent defense trillions on Americans rather than American mega donors.
1
I was just having a conversation about exactly this and realized how sad this made me when I burst into tears. Thank you for speaking up. The NYT reports on the amounts raised by Bernie compared to every other campaign as an apples to apples comparison. It isn’t. Every dollar raised by Bernie represents poor or vulnerable Americans who have already been brought to their knees, or know people who have, or, like me, are afraid they will become homeless if my follow up tests tomorrow show I have cancer. My daughter’s office mate who works 80 hours a week, asked her how he’s supposed to pay for desperately needed dental work, student debt and rent? He can’t. We millions who fund Bernie know that if Warren was being honest and cared about how much suffering there is, she would have helped enact these policies four years ago and saved that much degradation of the environment and how many millions from suffering. How does one fight the power of the NYT, who help control the national narrative? But, we have nothing left and have to try. Bernie2020
trump and his supporters know that the only defense is to repeat cry “foul” no matter how damning the evidence to the contrary. It is a boring and unimaginative tactic employed by the guilty when they don’t know what else to do. As the Democrats and patriotic Republicans convene at trump’s impeachment trial this week they will move together to bring witnesses like Bolton and Mulvaney forward. Good luck to them and all Americans wishing to see a fair trial.
1
Oh please, an article with so many facts is sure to go unread and tomorrow we will see how cowed the GOP are of the Tweeter in the WH. I loved the facts, but the past few years have left me jaded.
Why does Dershowitz keep appearing on Russian propaganda channels? [ThinkProgress]
The president's most prominent legal defender has found a new outlet for his views.
Dershowitz’s multiple appearances on RT (RussiaToday) over the past few months come as questions continue to swirl about the Trump campaign’s relationship with Russia.
Dershowitz’s multiple appearances on RT (Russia Today) over the past few months come as questions continue to swirl about the Trump campaign’s relationship with Russia. Special counsel Robert Mueller submitted his final report on Russian interference last week, and Attorney General William Barr’s four-page synopsis cleared the campaign of collusion while also describing the multiple ways Russia attempted to influence the 2016 election.
Following Barr’s letter, Dershowitz appeared on RT to condemn the entire investigation. “It was a mistake to appoint a special counsel because there was no evidence of a crime,” Dershowitz said, calling for contempt of court proceedings to begin against those who lobbied for FISA warrants.
1
The Dems should start investigating a need for the impeachment of Pence and Barr if the Senate fast-tracks the Trump impeachment.
2
I haven't read it. It all circus anyway.
Does anyone else wonder why this country would allow an impeached President to run again for the same office? Would we allow a convicted bank robber to run a bank? Would we let a convicted child abuser be a teacher?etc. Should be a law that if you’re impeached,you should be banned from holding any public office.
2
Stuttering Biden and his son will be made to answer for their corruption before the American people.
2
More evidence won’t accomplish anything. The GOP will simply ignore it. Call it fake news. There is a huge criminal conspiracy among Republicans and Russians to subvert the rule of law. They are all guilty of treason. Nothing less.
1
If you care enough to look, the Russian trolls in this comments section are saying exactly what the GOP Senators have been parroting on national TV, proving what Senators Cruz and Kennedy have already admitted in separate interviews: That the the
GOP is getting its talking points directly from the Kremlin.
2
Can the Democrats seek the council of Professor Lawrence Tribe of Harvard Law School to counter the argument Alan Dershowitz is making?
Can he speak at the trial rebutting Alan Dershowitz whose arguments seem so preposterous even to someone who is not versed in the law .
2
This is exactly what's wrong with the Democrats and with this impeachment.
Instead of complaining about the U.S. fomented coup in Ukraine (under Obama & Biden, BTW), these paid-for politicians complain that we didn't give money to the disgusting paid-for politicians who we put into office there.
The Democrats have caused so much hatred of themselves by their revolting hypocrisy and utter corruption that it's totally understandable why less informed people support Trump and why people hate and don't trust the corporate media.
I would like anybody to withhold funds from any country without the consent of the people. It's our money, after all.
I find it amazing that people don't really care about where our money goes and how Washington spends it.
And, that's partly because people believe government money just comes from something called the government, but, it does really come out of our stolen wages, doesn't it?
Western Ukraine is a rogue state run by literal Nazis.
Are Democrats saying that withholding aid to a Nazi regime is bad, or merely unlawful according to corrupt U.S.law?
We're not sending them sacks of rice and bread, but military hardware, which, itself, should be a subject of scandal.
The morality is clear.
While Ukraine is not going to conquer Europe, aiding Nazis is straight out of the late 1920s.
2
Voter turnout is the only thing that matters. Check your registration- show up and be counted.
I am exhausted by the handwringing from pundits of color bemoaning that their folks may not be motivated. Hello - there is a racist in the White House working day and night to take away your rights- how are you not motivated?
And don’t even get me started on Latinx
Let the fake trial begin . The GOP lawyers and Senate are in denial Trump is a traitor and committed a felony. The Rambo rally crowds Trumps creates needs to be shut down. The horrible gun rally in Virginia today should never have been allowed to occur. Fox News is talking right now every day this can be the GOP civil war they keep promoting. Stop the sale of bullets now to these crazed GOP gun owners and lock the denying traitor up.
1
‘What Happened to Alan Dershowitz?’[Politico]
He’s met Trump at Mar-a-Lago, and he dined with him at the White House the day after the FBI raid on Michael Cohen’s office. He’s a regular presence on TV, especially Fox News, where he’s a reliable voice on the president’s side against the investigation. In April, following the Cohen raid, Dershowitz appeared on “Hannity” nine times—including three days in a row.
2
Oh good, the unTrump media just aired the 1998 clip, where Alan Dershowitz outlines why his client, DJ Trump, must be impeached.
'course, Dersh was targeting Bill Clinton at the time. Natch.
This can be used in the so-called Trial in the Senate, and watch the Nutty Professor shows his dance steps.
Senator Lindsey Graham speaks openly about impeachment!
(Before he was taking Russian Money)
--He has sullied our legal system in every way.
--Let it be said that any president that cheats our institutions,
-Shall be impeached.
--The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena,
-Is the day he was subject to impeachment,
-Because he took the power from congress…
--You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime
-To lose your job in this constitutional republic.
--Impeachment is about cleansing the office.
--He encouraged people to lie for him, he lied…
--I think he obstructed justice!.
1
Will our leaders pl. wake up?
All of America knows that Trump has broken the law again and again. He still has the full Republican support so he will not be thrown out of the White House. America is tired of our leaders playing politics and wasting precious time and money for a lost cause. There is enough evidence already to drive home the Democrats point. They must finish this soon and move on to solving the problems facing the country.
The elephant in the room that needs to be made center stage is the fact that Trump is the symptom of the biggest problem that needs to be addressed. Trump has a brilliant mind along with an emotionally challenged brain. Eighty percent of Americans have similarly emotionally challenged brains, from mild to severe.
It is amazing that no one has asked the question why when civilization is improving, the social ills have remained as messed up as ever. It is because while mind education is cutting edge, brain education is not even on the radar screen and the brain is even miseducated. There is focus on mental health as it is the function of the mind. As the brain education is missing and is messed up emotional health (EH) which is the function of the brain is messed up.
EH is the foundation of health and so a healthy society and yet there is no testing or manual for EH.
It is by focusing on EH/brain/wisdom education.
We need EH departments, universities and hospitals.
https://medium.com/@sajidalikhan2/what-is-wrong-with-the-world-3b05ca111a75
See Tom Harkin's excellent opinion piece in the Washington Post ...
Senators in impeachment trial serve as judges not jurors.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/18/tom-harkin-senators-are-not-jurors/
Wasn't it wrong to keep saying that Obama wasn't born in this country when he actually was? "It doesn't really matter!"
Wasn't it wrong to suggest Second Amendment remedies for Hillary Clinton if she had won the election? "It doesn't really matter!"
Wasn't it wrong to ask the Russians to help you win the 2016 election? "It doesn't really matter!"
Wasn't it wrong to say on international television that you believed Putin over your own intelligence services in regards to that interference? "It doesn't really matter!"
Wasn't it wrong to use the Office of the Presidency solely for your own personal enrichment? "It doesn't really matter!"
Wasn't it wrong to say that racists who attacked people in Charlottesville were good people? "It doesn't really matter!"
Wasn't it wrong to take children away from their parents, put them in cages, and then have their parents deported without keeping any records of it? "It doesn't really matter!"
Wasn't it wrong to insist a war-criminal be given an honorable discharge? "It doesn't really matter!"
Wasn't it wrong to extort a foreign government, using millions in military aid, unless they agreed to help you smear your main political rival? "It doesn't really matter!"
Wasn't it wrong to have a bunch of people assassinated even thought they posed no direct threat to this country? "It doesn't really matter!"
And what are your fellow Republicans going to say about all this lying, moral penury, and illegal activity? "It doesn't really matter!"
2
NYDC. Now is time to indict Rudy J.
2
These rep. senators are a disgrace to America just as their 'boss' is.
2
We dont know what went on because Trump is stonewalling Congress. He should be impeached for that, and that alone; the evidence is obvious, openly available, and undeniable.
If he answers this charge by cooperating with the investigation, he should be impeached for other things if the investigation uncovers them.
If Senate Republicans will not convict him for stonewalling, then they have decided to change our form of government to a (perhaps temporary) dictatorship. The voters will then get to decide to approve this dictatorship by reelecting Trump and Republican senators; if they do, then our Constitution will take on the form of the Russian constitution. If they disapprove, we get back to business as usual, which might be gridlock and further Republican attempts to change the reality of our form of government into an unthreatened, unlimited-by-law oligarchy.
10
@sdavidc9: This scheme of government was contrived to perpetuate slavery at the option of states.
@sdavidc9 this is such classic liberal debate. Don't argue your policies and points, instead throw out mostly false scare tactics and demean your opponents. So if Constitutionally authorized American voters disagree with your desired outcome (as the majority of voters in 30 of the 50 states did in this last presidential election) we are "changing" that constitutional form of government and becoming a dictatorship or oligarchy? Really??? That has to be the silliest argument I have heard in a while. It just supports what many have pointed out about this whole fiasco, this has been a predetermined drive to impeach (which among some democrats predated his inauguration) in search of a reason. You even backed that up... He should be impeached for "stonewalling" and even "if he answers this charge by cooperating... he should be impeached for other things."
Impeaching a president because you opposed him in the election and lost, or because you don't like his policies or his style (both of which were very obvious to the voters during the campaign) is the real threat to our Constitutional form of government. Get over it, present and debate your policy views, try to win in November... and if you don't... get over it and try again. That's the way our government is supposed to work.
1
1. If Trump did nothing wrong (he did, many times over), then he and his "team" should be happy to supply witnesses and documents. Instead, he and his team continue stonewalling. This process is akin to a guilty plea.
2. The "demand" from the American citizenry is plain and simple: Speak the truth, and nothing but the truth.
The Trump team's refusal to do so, is akin to an admission of guilt.
To the Republican senators, the old adage of "no guts,no glory" is startingly obvious.
12
@Alan C Gregory Wow... so in a trial (which happens sometimes) the defense attorney files for dismissal based on the prosecutors lack of evidence as filed at the start of trial, that is "akin to an admission of guilt"? Or after the prosecutor has presented his evidence and witnesses to the jury (as the House Intel and Judiciary committees did for weeks) the defense attorney, believing the prosecutors haven't built a credible case, simple stands and says, "Your Honor, the defense rests." That's "akin to an admission of guilt? You have a very strange sense of what our judicial principles of "innocent until proven guilty" and "burden of proof" actually mean.
They already passed on their article of impeachment to the Senate so what is all this? I suppose they realize they have a weak case so they will continue impeaching maybe even into 2021 and beyond if he is re-elected. it seems desperate unfair and ultimately stupid to say nothing of time-wasting. They hate hi so they will continue to try to find a reason to impeach him. Your know, this is not how it is supposed to work. It is setting a very very bad precedent. I am and ticket-splitter but I will think twice about voting for Democrats after this.
6
@robert brusca: It is unfair to be governed by a psychopath elected by a relic of slavery.
2
It's not a weak case. It's 67 votes needed to convict - a high enough standard that no President is at the mercy of an opposition party hijinx. That 67-vote mountain is what's easily undermined by partisan delinquency. The Republican Senators blatantly reneged on their duty to be independent jurists when they publicly announced that they are not impartial.
@robert brusca mouths the propaganda machine's "hater" explanation because there is no explanation for the Trump administration stonewalling documents and testimony concerning the professed "perfect call". "Hater" is all Trump's got; and it's the thinnest of veils. Seek warmth in that shroud at your nation's risk.
The truth is that if a Democrat had launched a personal attorney / campaigner into a Funds-for-Dirt gambit antithetical to the world's greatest democracy -- Republican heads would be exploding.
When McConnell drop kicks Trump's sins across the politically reachable goal line without a whiff of interest in the truth, the electorate is going to explode. Make Democracy Great will win in the end.
If the Republican Senators shoot down the possibility of Subpoenaed testimony taking place in this Impeachment Trial, then the Democrats in the House of Representatives ought to commence a 2nd, Brand New, Impeachment Inquiry -- the day after the GOP inevitably acquits Trump.
Eventually, the Supreme Court will be forced to render an Official ruling on a variety of Hot-Button issues, especially related to Trump's absurdly expansive claims of Executive Privilege. These claims relate to efforts to hide Trump's Tax Returns, along with financial documents from Deutsche Bank and other lenders, Trump's Tax Returns, documents being held within the State Department (and various Intelligence Agencies), and of course, the testimony of various Trump Administration officials and Trump associated, where they will be questioned under Oath. Nancy Pelosi refrained from putting forth numerous potential articles of impeachment, and it is plausible, even probable, that newly gleaned information from the above sources would make a compelling case that new, different, and additional Artickes of Impeachment are merited. These new Articles could be unambiguously based on what are incontrovertibly defined as Criminal Charges. The Trump apologists would not even be able to resort to the current cynical talking points, the next time around. It's easy to imagine that any of the suppressed documents or censored testimonies could end up being dramatic game-changers, and cost the GOP the support of many.
2
@Outerboro with that level of wild speculation you could be a reporter or recurring expert guest for CNN. But since some of us like to deal in facts... "These new Articles could be unambiguously based on what are incontrovertibly defined as Criminal Charges." So... why don't you share with us the incontrovertible evidence to these very specific criminal charges. No generalities, no speculation. Share with us the evidence for clear criminal activity by the President. Because for many of us, we struggle seeing what you find "easy to imagine." And we certainly struggle with the fact that the Democrats are trying to impeach the duly elected President based on what they find easy to imagine.
@Outerboro
Now there's a new idea! But can you
imagine the howls of f-x induced outrage at
such a decision? And would that actually lead to
any new testimony? Would bolton et al reply
to a new subpoena?
What would be very interesting to discover is
how the country would respond to the travesty
of a witness free, speedy, pro forma acquittal.
@Outerboro: Trump's tax returns would already be exposed if the Supreme Court hadn't created more stall time by taking a case delaying it.
1
I suspect that if the sought after documentation and testimonies were obtained, that they would prove so damaging that the Trump, and possibly Pence, would be removed from office, even with a Republican majority in the Senate. If the witnesses and documents merely confirmed what we already know, the Republicans can claim to have conducted a fair trial and that Trump's actions still didn't meet the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. What they're attempting to hide from us is bad; really bad. If the Democrats are successful in getting a majority of the Senate to support documents and witnesses, look for McConnell to not just throw Trump under the bus, but drive the bus himself. Mitch isn't going to lose his job because of a sleazy con man.
3
@aviron
"I suspect that if"
That is the summary of the Democrats case.
So now they realized they have no case and want witnesses.
1
Basically the Senators who have already decided to vote against impeachment, should all be voted out. They won’t even allow testimony from witnesses who have more to add to the case. Try to imagine a court that wouldn’t let jurors hear ALL testimony. ALL our politicians need to realize they work for us.
7
@SLD
Try to imagine a court case with the prosecuting attorney telling and expecting the defense attorney to uncover damaging testimony, witnesses and evidence that could convict his own client because the prosecutors were either too rushed, lazy or incompetent to uncover it themselves. Any rational judge would throw the case out.
Mick Mulvaney made the startling admission during a press conference. All administrations do these sorts of things so "just get over it." This statement should be enough for Senators Murkowski, Collins, Lee, Alexander and Mitt to require witnesses testify and WH documents released.
4
Presidents serve us as inspirations, and they also serve us as warnings. They provide bad examples as well as good. The nation, the Supreme Court has said, has "no right to expect that it will always have wise and humane rulers, sincerely attached to the principles of the Constitution. Wicked men, ambitious of power, with hatred of liberty and contempt of law, may fill the place once occupied by Washington and Lincoln.
From the book "Rutherford B. Hayes", page xvi.
1
Trump is attempting to make bribery legal, further turning our representative democracy into a third world run by cartels and oligarchs. We must find a way to stop him. Voting for the opposite of Trump in almost every way might be the best way. Bernie2020
4
The President's brief filed on Monday appears to show that the defence intends to argue that he may have asked Zelensky to announce investigations into the Bidens but that his Presidential powers allowed him to do so. This was to be expected but it may backfire. The democrats cannot win without republican votes. As it stands this seems unlikely but if Trump wins, it will clear the way for him and all future Presidents to seek assistance from foreign governments to interfere in the U.S. voting process. One small step maybe to a break with your democratic processes but certainly a giant leap to dictatorship. The trial therefore has far more import than drop-kicking a lying, bigoted despot through the goalposts of historical infamy. Everything the U.S. constitution sought to achieve will be irrevocably undermined if he is not summarily turfed out of office.
2
A bit too late, isn't it? The trial has started and Democrats have no decision making power. They should have done their homework during the investigative process.
Bu, all I remember is the giddiness of Pelosi, Omar, Ocasio Cortez et to harry up and do it so that, as Pelosi said, "Mr. Trump would be impeached FOREVER." Well, take the result now!
4
@Rose M
I think the Dems have done a great job bringing impeachment to this point.
"Giddyness...??" what I saw were serious deliberations among Pelosi and the House Committee Democrats throughout the process.
Btw, Mr Trump is impeached forever.
Boy we sure see things differently Rose!
1
We can't trust anything our government officials tell us. I have been around for a long time and never had that feeling before Trump came along.
3
It was a perfect call.
That ‘s why Trump secreted away its full transcript and audio recording inside a codeword-protected server in the dead of the night.
You can’t make this stuff up.
6
New Headline:
Trump Legal Team Asks Senate for Speedy Acquittal in Impeachment Trial
So, is this the first time in US Legal History that a defendant's legal team has asked the judging body to acquit speedily? Why should this be considered normal? The Senate needs to tell his legal team to go jump in the Potomac. McConnell himself is well versed in "I won't be in timma dated" so where's he now when the President's "legal team" is telling him what to do? McConnell won't even stand up for himself.
2
The Democrats had their chance for “fairness” during the house investigation, but they went undercover and refused to hear any testimony from Republicans.
So how does that shoe feel now?
2
Do you mean all those witnesses that Trump prevented from testifying.
Stop listening to Hannity who’s lying to you about the Democrats.
2
The Democrats have established a very dangerous precedent here. No law was broken - the funds were released two weeks before they were obligated to do so - and no investigation was started into the Bidens, by the Ukrainian Government. In fact - the President of the Ukraine has even publicly stated he felt that there was no undue pressure exerted - and in the end - everything happened the way it should have.
Was the phone call inappropriate - yes. Was there any crime committed no.
So based on a phone call - that led to nothing - the Dems want to kick out a President - that they have been wanting to Impeach from the night of the election. Can you imagine the damage this has done for hundreds of years - that any Congress who wants to Impeach a President - can now look back at this as authority to do so.
Totally utterly insane. The Impeachment process has to change. This cannot happen again.
2
@Randy: The Electoral College and Senate apportionment are both proving to be off the deep end of insane.
1
If conspiring with Russian mobsters to extort the beleaguered, nascent democracy of Ukraine in order to force them to publicly announce an investigation into a political opponent-- not to investigate but to publicly announce an investigation, in order to sway a US election-- isn't grounds for impeachment, if not actual treason, and if obstruction Congress to hide the evidence isn't also impeachable,
WHAT IS?
Trump's republican zombies have lost their minds.
7
It certainly appears that a lot of trumpicans would not
at all be bothered to participate in a trial whose farcical, oh so solemn, staging and predetermined outcome would be very similar to the stalinist purge trials from '36-'37. This analogy is surely not lost upon our master string puller putin.
Of course, one difference is that it appears they are
intent on making it very hard to witness the "trial" whereas
stalin wanted people to know what was happening.
A second formal difference is that those show trials were needed to pronounce verdicts of guilty on innocent victims, whereas in our rendition of a judicial farce, the verdict
of "innocent" will be pronounced upon someone very far
from being innocent. And these senators just can't wait to
get it over with too...
Will this party be forced to pay the electoral price of imposing
such a travesty upon all of us? That is really the only
essential question the society needs to answer between now and November.
2
'Now is the time for every good man (woman) to come to the aid of their country,' not their party.
Have a good look in the mirror republican Senators. Like what you see?
3
@LaPine
Have a good look in the mirror House Democrats. Lile what you see?
Actually, I'm sure you do. Which is more the pity.
It is clear from pro-Trump comments that Trumpism is a religion not a political movement. Facts are irrelevant to these supporters. Here is Donald Trump who wants to build an alligator and snake-filled moat at the Mexican border and authorize the shooting on-sight of suspected illegal immigrants. Here is Trump who is ignorant of the law, tells lies constantly, has a history of molesting women, refuses to reveal his taxes, obstructs justice and disobeys the Constitution with his false claims of executive privilege. Trump lovers find all of this acceptable behavior.
The GOP has no shame as they use the same tricks that Donald Trump uses to stir up their base of low education, Fox News voters. McConnell, Graham, Collins, Cruz, Rubio, McSally… are all shameless as they reject decency and the Constitution seeking power and money at the expense of our nation.
Trump supporters see Trump as a religious martyr, not the ignorant incompetent wannabe dictator that he is. Sad!
6
The only way forward: “swiftly reject” the impeachment charges and acquit the President.
Time to move on.
Vote in November.
5
No. Our Constitution is at stake here.
Impeachment does not require a criminal offence.
3
How is a President unlike a King or dictator, with penultimate power, if the people cannot demand documents and testimony about his affairs on the citizens behalf?
5
Convict him and get rid of him once and forever. A terrible stain on American history.
3
Maybe someone can help me on this question.
Trump's defenders say that the impeachment does not allege commitment of a crime.
But what about 52 U.S. Code section 30121(a), which says that it is unlawful to solicit a contribution of anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U. S. election. Isn't that exactly what he did?
In other words, it is not simply that he violated the law in withholding military aid until an investigation was announced. Simply requesting the investigation of a political rival is itself a crime.
What am I missing?
21
@dt The only thing you’re missing is that they don’t care. Facts, evidence, truth...none of this matters because they don’t care.
3
@DT
You are missing nothing as you are 100% correct, DT!
Great comment!
1
@DT: God authorizes everything a Republican president does.
I am just waiting to watch John Cornyn, and all the others who blindly follow Trump. They will trample all over the constitution. They do not care about our country. They are such foolish men. Vote’em out!
16
@Weiler: Two thirds of the Senate isn't even exposed to the voters this year. It is another horse and buggy scheme for the space age.
The exact procedure of the trial of Bill Clinton will be followed, for fairness. There were no witnesses then, there will be none now. Schumer was part of the defense then, and will have to follow his remarks from that time.
The only difference is that then they had a crime, and now they don't. And even with a crime, it still failed in the Senate.
Larry Flint offered then $1 million for dirt on any of the accusing representatives. 3 or 4 long term affairs and illegitimate children came up, and the very righteous representatives accusing the impeached had to resign.
Clinton remained in office, and the accusers lost the next elections.
9
@novoad: You are the perfect Conservative juror. Your mind was made up before you saw any of the evidence.
21
By that test, he's also the perfect Democratic presidential candidate from the Senate. After all, Booker, Bennett, Harris, klobuchar, Sanders, and Warren all have publicly stated that they believe Trump should be removed from office, even before the trial has begun. So let's just stop with the hypocrisy
4
@novoad
Clinton testified under oath.
On November 3, 2020 I will give my response to this ludicrous impeachment. Nixon and Clinton - they were valid impeachments.
11
Seriously?
A. Nixon was never impeached, he resign in disgrace first (you know,SHAME, the thing the current White House occupant has none of) and
B. Clinton’s was hardly ‘high crime’ - lying under oath about an affair with a staffer? Which came out of a sexual harassment charge from before he was in that office (later deemed without merit)- how many of THOSE has the current guy racked up - of course his fixer would pay them off so....
Not quite the same as using relationships with a foreign country for personal political gain.
Get a clue - the guy is one short of a mafia boss. And even they have more integrity.
29
@Olivia: So, you feel that Bill Clinton lying about having an affair with a White House aide is worse that the claims that Trump used his power as the President to try to destroy Joe Biden as a Democratic Party candidate for President?
22
I think both Clintons set a precedent that lying and bullying from our leaders is okay.
2
This all reminds me of the Monty Python dead parrot sketch.
Republicans play the part of the shop keeper who sold a dead parrot to the customer, played by the American people, who now sees the dead parrot for what it is but the pet shop keeper, despite all the evidence of his own senses, refuses to acknowledge that the parrot is indeed dead, with every possible denial or excuse just as the Republicans do about Trump's guilt.
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2hwqnp
27
This is really a farce since Vice President Biden's leveraging of funding aid to the Ukraine to remove a Ukranian judiciary official Biden accused of "corruption" cancels out Trump's interest in uncovering Vice President Biden corruption in the Ukraine - including through Hunter Biden - possibly also referencing Ukraine aid.
Well, I'm happy to see Trump will have a chance to leave a mark on impeachment, too.
6
We all know what happened here. And apparently everyone in the administration did too. The question now is how many Republican Senators will decide to vote their conscience at trial and then probably lose re-election.
589
@AVT Good question because as many as 18 GOP senators from swing states are up for re election in 2020, their votes to acquit will be advertised and they will lose the elections OR
possibly with a secret vote they will do the right thing and join democrats to hold trump accountable and remove him form power.
114
Might we have justice if there were term limits for senators?
72
@AVT
Exactly!
It's beyond argument that Trump is guilty of the charges against him. The real question is whether they warrant his conviction and removal from office as high crimes and/or misdemeanors. The answer is yes, not least because there is a clear pattern of behavior from Trump.
44
If you need 111 pages to explain just two Articles, you already lost, and neither one meets the Constitutional standard of high crimes and misdemeanors
Turn off the lights on the way out
29
@hawk Last I check working with a foreign government to defrauding the American people is one of the most serious crimes, it is called treason.
Abuse of power is also a serious crime and one of the best reason to impeach a president that is why trump is impeached and a senate trial will not remove that stain.
Last black mailing is also a serious crime and an impeachable one, and the only reason there are only two articles is because trump list of crimes is so long it would take years to investigate them all.
288
@hawk
Right; in the "post-truth" era, the Articles should have been communicated via Tweet.
18
@hawk
Ironic as the President chose Ken Starr and Bob Ray who brought impeachment agaist Clinton on a lesser stardard to be his counsel.
BTW, "bribery" is ennumerated as a Constitutional ground and extortion rises to that high level of crime. The May Giuliani letter to Zelensky could be dispositive proof. The burden should be on Trump to disprove Giuliani's apparent authority to act on his personal behalf.
25
Mcconnell and Trump, birds of a feather. How can we violate the constitution and obstruct congress today? Any which way we want.
Trump, living large on the big stage, personifies the GOP.
McConnell, behaving badly behind closed doors, is the GOP.
The GOP needs a time out of power to reform itself - to stop being the dirty tricks party of god, guns, and greed and get back to being the party of Lincoln, TR, Eisenhower, and Margaret Chase Smith.
Ethical Republican was not always an oxymoron.
9
The public didn’t show any sign of interest during the house impeachment tv show. Even worse Trumps approval ratings went up during the impeachment. One can bet on who will win the presidency. Trumps odds have never been better. Money is betting on Trump.
The house TV show failed so bad that Pelosi waited a month to send the articles to the senate. A sequel to a failed tv show would completely tank so close to the end of the original failed show. And they need some changes made. A different cast of witnesses will do the trick they hope. But the only witness that would have people tune into the senate TV show is Hunter Biden. Not a good position for the democrats to be in. Unlike the accusations made of Trump what Hunter did is easy for the public to see the wrong in.
3
I'm deeply concerned for the mental state of anyone who could possibly ever think Trump is innocent at this point in time, and while we're debating his guilt or innocence, the damage he creates continues at an alarming rate.
12
"Mr. Giuliani has insisted that his conversations with Mr. Trump are protected by attorney-client privilege."
The scurrilous Guiliani attacked our Founders' system of governance when he inserted himself as an ad hoc personal attorney to the highest government official. Rudolph was not, is not, and never will be Donald's personal attorney ON MATTERS OF STATE.
The President is a cog, albeit a big one, but nonetheless a cog. No cog gets what it wants. It operates on the wheel of our Constitution and that wheel turns. Whether it's November 3rd or elections thereafter, it's the cogs that get busted and replaced.
3
The Senate should send the case BACK to the House if they wish to investigate further. The fact that House Democrats were too impatient to actually finish litigating privilege claims in a mad rush to jam this through is not the Senate's problem.
3
The Democrats have incredibly weak articles of impeachment. Obstruction of Congress did not occur. The House has only itself to blame for not going to Court to get rulings on its subpoenas. How do fact witnesses help that article? Abuse of Power is a vague catch-all most Presidents have been accused of. Specific allegations of wrongdoing in this case don't seem wrong and in any event don't amount to high crimes and misdemeanors. Presidents often take foreign policy actions that have some political benefit and there is no statute against that. Again Congress should have gone to court to get a ruling on how long a delay in disbursing funds to foreign countries would make it a violation of law.
2
@Caleb Mars
Was there "political benefit" to the U.S., or the constitution, in overtly requesting Russia and China interfere with your country's voting process, and covertly seeking the same from Ukraine? And do you truly believe this amounted to "foreign policy actions"? And I believe there was no delay in releasing the approved funds, it was Trump's decision to block payment that amounted to an unlawful action.
2
If Republicans want to get this over quickly. They should call Donald Trump. I think it would be over very quickly. But as it is, I think that if you vote to acquit you are part of the cover-up and it will be remembered by the electorate. If we should happen to win this, Democrats don't cheer. Republicans, don't cry. Mike Pence will become President. It will be a sad day for America but we will restore hope.
3
Trump had no interest in getting to the truth. He was obsessed with identifying the whistleblower, getting dirt on a political rival, and blocking Congress from documents and witnesses.
On Twitter he insulted Democrats, issued repetitive denials, and demanded his version of the truth. Instead, what he got was impeachment.
5
I was shocked to learn this morning that Alan Dershowitz has had alternate views on presidential impeachment. We need to thank CNN for searching their video archives to expose the blatant discrepancy.
It's not too late for Alan to redeem his tattered reputation. In his upcoming opening statement Mr. Dershowitz could clearly state that based on the preponderance of evidence that has presented thus far ..... he questions the rational for President Trump's removal from office. However, Mr. Dershowitz could also state that the weight of evidence might persuade him differently if the White House, Justice Department and previously subpoenaed and requested witnesses and documents appeared as required by law.
4
Every Trumper and every so-called Republican, knows that this sham of a trial and Trump's orders to cover up evidence and ban witnesses would never be tolerated if this was a Democratic president and a majority Dem. Senate pulling this travesty of justice.
This is the actual "coup" and "deep state" that Trump blathers about. Him projecting. If Trump and his partners in crime are not held to account now, we will have lost all that the United States stands for. Don't count on a fair election in November if Trump is exonerated. He will cheat and will be backed by his sycophants.
7
Unfortunately, republicans themselves are trial here. Their support for the Don has been so consistently inappropriate, they know a verdict of removal indicts themselves too. There is no bar too low as they scramble for cover.
4
Trump is a reality show con man. This reality show hearing has purpose in the eyes of Trump where diversion, lies, and manipulation will be in the lights for all to experience. Trump is attempting to make people believe that what you see in his reality show... it is normal to be that way. Trump wants you to believe that what he has done... it's just normal... everybody does it.
Reality television, according to Brad Gorham of Syracuse University, has an effect on the behaviors of people in society. He claims that people are easily influenced by reality television because they eventually copy the behaviors portrayed on television and use them in real life.
According to Philip Ross of International Science Times, reality television has a detrimental impact on our perceptions of the world based on an observational study from University of Wisconsin. In this study, 145 students from the university were surveyed based on reality television consumption. This study concluded that reality television viewers believe that the argumentative and conniving behaviors portrayed on television shows is "considered normal in today’s society".
Reality TV Can Be Unhealthy for Participants as Well as Viewers. [HealthLine]
Joshua Marks, MasterChef contestant, suffered serious psychological issues following his appearance on the show and died from suicide a year later.
Glenn, another contestant said it was “An experiment in power and submission and subversion over which I had no control.”
5
After months of complaining that there were no first hand witnesses to the crimes alleged by Democrats, Republicans lead by the President are now prepared to deny this select group from testifying in the Senate trial. If that isn't a sure sign of guilt and obstruction, what is?
7
McConnell on Obstruction of Justice
(Before he/wife were taking Russian Money)
Mr. President, I arise to today to call attention to a serious and deeply troubling crisis in our country. This is a crisis of confidence, or credibility, and of integrity. Our nation is indeed at a crossroads. Will we pursue the search for truth, or will we dodge, weave and evade the truth? I am of course referring to the investigation into serious allegations of illegal conduct by the president of the United States. That the president has engaged in a persistent pattern and practice of obstruction of justice. The allegations are grave, the investigation is legitimate, and ascertaining the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the unqualified, unevasive truth is absolutely critical. The search for truth is led by... Kenneth Star. Mr. President I am deeply troubled today because Judge Starr’s pursuit of the truth is being undermined every step of the way, every single day in the press by those whose sole mission is to attack and impugn the court-appointed independent prosecutor and the congressionally-created process. And these attackers are not the journalists or the broadcasters. Mr. President, what troubles me most here is that these reckless attacks, these ruthless onslaughts, are being carried out by the closest advisers to the president of the United States.The smear campaign is being orchestrated by the White House.
6
The quest for more evidence and more witnesses could end up badly hurting the Democrats. They may get the Senate to subpoena witnesses, but the White House will shield them with Executive Privilege. It will take weeks and rulings by the Supreme Court before they testify if they ever do. On the other hand, the Republicans will subpoena Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, and Adam Schiff's staff. None of them have a similar privilege. We may hear their testimony. As the clock ticks, Democrat Presidential candidates will be stuck in the Senate unable to csmpaign or attend debates.
2
@Caleb Mars
The "delays" in evidence and testimony are squarely in the purview of the Republican Party.
Impeachment is an archaic procedure that started in 1376 as the British parliament tried to limit the power of the king to appoint ministers. Only sporadically used for centuries, the procedure fell completely into disuse after 1806 as democracy strengthened and the power of the king declined.
The problem of impeachment is inherent: a legislature as a political body cannot be an impartial adjudicator of facts in a criminal trial. There's just no way around that problem.
We see that same problem today. The House has used the criminal law to stain the president for political gain. The House knows the Senate will never convict the president. The House doesn't care. "The president is impeached for life", Nancy Pelosi gloated. Mission accomplished.
Abusing impeachment as a political weapon is nothing new. The House did the same thing to Bill Clinton. And to Andrew Johnson in 1868. This shameful, disgraceful behavior has been bipartisan.
Richard Nixon, it should be remembered, was never impeached. Impeachment articles were drafted, sure, but they were never needed. There are plenty of other checks and balances of presidential power. Impeachment should be an obsolete procedure here just as it has long been in Britain.
But of course the Democrats know this. They chose still to abuse the power of the arcane, archaic impeachment process for political gain. Shame on you. You're a disgrace.
4
Do the Dems in the House regret disallowing testimony from Rep chosen witnesses? Do they regret not allowing Reps to question witnesses during the inquiry? Seems to me, those actions brought on the response from the Senate Majority.
Political? Yes. Makes many including me sick of this whole thing, and very suspicious of Dem motives. Especially after watching Pelosi sign the articles. PS What is obstruction of Congress; where was that law written?
4
The Trump/GOP position is that it was perfectly legitimate for Trump to use a vast sum of tax payer money to blackmail the Ukrainian government into getting fake dirt on his political opponent, Joe Biden. What has happened to this nation such that there is even the possibility that a major party- the Republicans- would so blatantly spit in the rule of law and common decency?
6
It seems apparent that the Senate isn't interested in the truth! If it were otherwise they wouldn't have the bans on televising the trial. This is a transparent attempt to control the narrative, with the benefit of preventing the public from seeing their disgraceful performance while they make a mockery of the US Constitution.
I watched Jim Jordan, the sainted Devin Nunes and other Republican senators ridiculed and disrupted the process in Congress. With these thugs controlling the trial of the impeached Mr. Trump, it promises to be a real gong show. There will be no defense; just a lot of deviant opinions.
4
Deb, there is no ban on televising the trial.
2
@John Smithson
There is indeed a ban. Even C-Span is not allowed to air the proceedings. The camera allowed is a senate controlled camera - and I’m guessing Mitch will have a say on what is edited out and what is left in for public consumption.
GOP = Corruption
2
@John Smithson
Looks like the Senate does do want the public to see much.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-nw-nyt-senate-impeachment-trial-tv-coverage-20200119-lzs2j3yjmzatbkjy5uq6ujmbue-story.html
Civil and criminal trials in America are so complex, with so many rules, that lawyers train for years and end up with a doctorate degree just to understand these difficult rules that are different in all 50 states. There rules have been the basis for fair and impartial trials across America for hundreds of years.
So, in less than 24 hours, trump's impeachment trial is to begin in the Senate and the trial rules for this impeachment were, by Mitch McConnell's own admission, completely made up by him and the President's lawyers and yet they have not even been revealed yet!
Plus, how is all of this going to fit in with the Senate's 'Oath of Impartiality' that every Senator took last week?!? Chief Justice John Roberts should, and must, recuse McConnell and senators like Lindsey Graham from participating as they have publicly stated that they will refuse to consider the evidence as they want the President acquitted from all charges at all costs.
The Trump fix is in! History will eviscerate McConnell, his Senate and the Oval Office and should pave the way for a democratic landslide this November!
4
Guilty as Sin! Never have so many gutless Senators purposely chosen to ignore facts and put forth ridiculous rationale for Trump's many sins. Because these people fear Trump's rath and are not willing to risk their job, they continue to echo Trump's assertion that he did nothing wrong and that Democrats are pursuing a witch hunt. The Republicans want to quickly vote to dismiss impeachment charges and sweep it all under the rug. Newsflash: Trump will be voted out of office as will many of these gutless Republican senators. They forget that they are on trial as much as Trump and both are guilty as Sin.
5
Democrats are victims of short-sighted thinking. Their rush to steamroll this President with these barely intelligible articles of impeachment will necessarily have profound repercussions for all future presidents. The Democrats have been impeaching this president before he was even sworn in. Don't they know that THEIR presidents in the future will be similarly constrained by hostile Congresses in the future, or haven't they thought it through to that extent. My guess is the latter.
2
MESSAGE TO CONGRESS:
Stop wasting time and money on this impeachment nonsense, and get back to work. We are just so sick and tired of hearing about impeachment, which has no chance of success in the Senate. Spend your time doing something to help the country and the people.
4
If we already know we’re going to acquit why have more evidence of guilt.
1
Impossible to read the tea leaves here -- swing Senators are Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, Mitt Romney of Utah and possibly Cory Gardner of Colorado, with Rand Paul of Kentucky as a "wild card" and Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee as an "institutionalist" who might vote to call witnesses.
We'll soon know whether they lied about their true intents to try to pander to both sides of their voters, or really serious. If they lied, no more witnesses, and it'll be done fast. If they didn't lie, more witnesses and the full donnybrook will ensue.
Simple as that, vote Democrat.
5
By requesting more witnesses House Dems are admitting they have no case. It does not even include charging Trump with crimes. The case should be summarily dismissed. Schiff, Nadler, and Pelosi are like the keystone cops.
The Dems just can't get over Hillary losing the 2016 election through her extreme incompetence. She did not even campaign in Penn. Mich, & Wisc.! Must have been all the Russian troops stationed on the border of those states preventing her from visiting them.
3
So, the accused and his agents meet with the Senate jurors and openly tampers with them?
He puts pressure on the jurors in the form of reelection threats?
If I were a state attorney general I'd sue McConnell and Barr for allowing and participating in jury tampering. I would not sit back and allow my Senators to be victims of what's nationally held to be criminal activity.
Heck, I might even send my state troopers to arrest them.
3
Welcome to the end-game of the vast right-wing conspiracy. They are all in on it.
7
Dear Chief Justice Roberts,
You have described the duty of a Judge as one who calls balls and strikes but when it comes to your role in an impeachment trial the “strike zone” is largely undefined and calling balls and strikes becomes a metaphor without meaning.
As a voter I have very little responsibility for who sits in your office but you, on the other hand, are deeply and personally responsible for the confidence I can have in the rule of law, my government and my vote. Rather than being “largely ceremonial” your duty of presiding over the impeachment trial of our president, I would argue, is both an obligation of your office and a personal responsibility.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist was right to congratulate himself by saying, “I did nothing in particular, and I did it very well.” But that was a different case. In the present case, “doing nothing in particular,” avoids the moment. How to interpret, “shall preside,” is a responsibility left by the constitution up to the chief justice alone.
The senate writes the rules but still you shall preside. I write now to ask you to recognize that a full and fair trial is the beginning, middle and end of what the constitution asks you to preside over. There is no strike zone and the constitution allows for your personal opinions as well as your knowledge of the law. It is an awful responsibility but one you alone can accept.
Sincerely, a voter.
6
@IfIhadaplaneIdflyabanner Well said, but sadly, the 51-49 senate majority rule that can override virtually any Judge Roberts ruling effectively neuters him. It will certainly be a new experience for him, and very likely, quite embarrassing.
@Michael C Thanks for the, "well said," it provided some consolation. We can still hope that at least three republican senators are honorable men / women and that the Chief Justice will vote with them for witnesses and evidence both. I'm sick to my stomach at the thought of what is happening to our country.
What was the rush to push this through the house, where Democrats had total control of the process? Subpoena Bolton et al and force Trump to defy a court order. Puts GOP on the back foot and public opinion swells. Instead, the NYT, CNN, WAPO froth all over themselves anointing Pelosi the genius prematurely, when it is McConnell who oversees the proceedings, which predictably will be a mockery. The purpose wasn't to pat yourself on the back and cement the Democratic base. The objective always had to be to convince a sizable majority of independents and moderate GOP........whereby a shortened process in the house all but assured that likelihood is diminished.
The headline is misleading.
The Dems desire to "seek more testimony and evidence" obscures that the case they have built is damning. And - this is despite unprecedented stonewalling from the co-equal branch of government.
The real story here is that significant evidence is already on the record - but there would be even more if the Trump Administration acted in ways consistent with the norms of past administrations.
6
When was the last time you heard a Republican tell the truth about anything? For me, it was in 1961, when Eisenhower warned us all about the Military/Industrial Complex.
4
Alan Dershowitz’s Old Comments About Impeachment Come Back To Haunt Him [HuffPost]
In 1998 ― when President Bill Clinton was facing impeachment … “It certainly doesn’t have to be a crime if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty,” Dershowitz said on CNN at the time. “You don’t need a technical crime.”
Dershowitz also said impeachment was “like a nonviolent revolution” and had to be limited to great offenses of state.
“We look at their acts of state, we look at how they conduct the foreign policy, we look at how they try to subvert the Constitution the way Iran-Contra did by going behind the back of Congress, by lying repeatedly and by misstating to the American public matters of great state issues,” he said.
Dershowitz added that Iran-Contra, a scandal under President Ronald Reagan, was not an impeachable offense. However, his concession that abusing the trust was an impeachable offense seemed to be at odds with his current belief that abuse of power.
2
The detailed report by the Special Councilor robert Muller,
is critical evidence,
in any Impeachment trial,
of Mr. Donald Trump,
for blatant acts of Treason against the United States of America.
2
Steven of the Rockies, the Mueller report is totally irrelevant to the two articles or impeachment.
1
Parnas has been parading himself on cable news as as potential star witness.
The subject of the interviews, like the articles of impeachment, were narrowly focused on his pressure tactics in the Ukraine to commence or announce investigations craved by Trump, but failed to plumb the depths of corruption and bribery.
In it’s rush to impeach, Congress also failed to follow the advice of Watergate’s Deep Throat to “follow the money.”
Yesterday, The WSJ published a forensic audit of cash that found it’s way to the accounts of Lev’s otherwise worthless shell companies. We are talking millions to a guy you wouldn’t buy a used car from.
The recall of Ambassador Yovanovich was likely intended to achieve much more than clearing the way for digging up dirt on the Bidens. In exchange for “pro bono” legal
services, Trump allowed Rudy and his clients to dangle access to the center of US power in exchange for “opportunities.” Hefty campaign PAC contributions appear to be “tokens of gratitude” further entrenching Lev in the Mira Lago crowd, and proximity to power.
Lev diligently served Trump’s campaign tactics as a loyal Rudy agent.
The Donald, like a mafia don, works through his consigliere Rudy, capos (enablers like Pompeo and Mulvaney who enforce his schemes in official channels) and soldiers like Lev and Igor. The Founders devised impeachment to remove an abusive President. Congress passed RICO to dismantle crime syndicates, such as that run out of the Oval Office Social Club.
5
It is not hard to understand why POTUS Trump and the GOP do not want witnesses in Trump's Senate impeachment trial. Facts are poison to this man.
6
Hey Mitt—remember how Trump both publicly ridiculed and humiliated you when you were eyeing for the Secretary of State’s position? And on top of it all, you picked-up that dinner check. Asking for a friend.
4
I’m going to repeat this for the thousandth time, hey Pelosi what was the rush and then the delay, now all of a sudden more testimony. Sorry your time is up. Let’s have the trial without additional delaying tactics.
3
So.
The Trump administration just dropped the defense brief that says “Of course Trump is a corrupt president but corruption is not an impeachable offense.”
You cannot make this stuff up.
5
A complete waste of our Senate and Supreme Court. Our government is a joke.
2
It's clear Dershowitz wants Trump to have a wide swath to maneuver corruption. Dershowitz kept telling Stephanopoulos on This Week no Constitutional Law was broken. So it's apparent unless Constitution names Trump literally--he's scot free. That's the minutiae of detail necessary for Trump's Crime apparently.
3
@Copacetic
Well, Trump is in suitable company with O J Simpson, Claus von Bulow (sp) and Mike Tyson also defended by Dershowitz.
The Democrats did not do a competent job in preparing their shaky Trump impeachment case and now they want the Senate to continue their perpetual impeachment investigating as an ongoing political losing strategy against trump. Trump was spot-on in efforts to make sure Ukraine had stable leadership with much less corruption before our tax dollars flowed there. Trump also was demanding more of a financial role of NATO countries in helping Ukraine. Giuliani was an excellent choice to appropriately investigate Biden and his nepotistically laden son. Who could Trump have called on to investigate? Comey? Strzok?McCabe?Brennan?Clapper?
2
'Now is the time for every good man (woman) to come to the aid of their country,' not their party.
Have a good look in the mirror republican Senators. Like what you see?
3
This isn't a trial in a criminal court.
The House has had all the time and opportunities it needed to call witnesses, document testimony and physical evidence, and prepare properly documented and researched articles of impeachment.
There is no requirement or necessity for witnesses in the Senate proceeding and no accomodation should be granted in that regard.
The accusations do not rise to the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors, and the entire House process has been a cynical farce.
The House managers should be sent packing, and an acquittal vote taken immediately.
3
If our system of checks and balances allows for such abuses of power, then we should be looking to change the system before attempting an impeachment.
2
@John Virgone: The Electoral College should have been abolished in 2016.
I think what you meant to say was that in 2016, Hillary Clinton should have known that the Electoral College had not been abolished. Like a fifth grader knows.
1
Is it possible that we live in a world where the White House shenanigans are more suspenseful than the top rated soap opera of the day? We're acting like our whole lives depend on it. But, of course, it does.
3
In the six-page filing responding to the House impeachment charges, Mr. Trump’s lawyers said, “This is a brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 election, now just months away.” This statement ignores the fact that these charges have been authored by the members of the House of Representatives... and every member of that body was elected by the American voters in the 2018 election. This is the most recent national election and that fact alone validates its relevance.
6
@Mark
Wouldn't all impeachment proceedings challenge an election result? Besides, Trump was not duly elected, Russia interfered to put him in office and questions about his behavior and impeachable offenses have been at the forefront since he took office.
1
I have a wonderful idea. Once this is all over, let's let these people in Washington, DC run our health care.
4
@TravelingProfessor: Trumpists claim to know what God prescribes for health care.
Parnas adds nothing new. It's simply another example of sensationalizing old news to benefit Pelosi and Schumer's goal of turning the four vulnerable Republican Senate seats over to Democrats. The same kind of smear campaign against Trump, Kavanuagh, Starr, Dershovitz, etc. that left-leaning media have been waging will set their sights on these four senators.
Steny Hoyer Hoyer, the number-two Democrat in the House, defended the House's impeachment inquiry last month by remarking that Trump was afforded "every opportunity to prove his innocence." The belief "guilty until proven innocent" is so anti-American I wonder if Democrats have been duped by the Russians into their philosophy of "justice." When other countries leaders do it, we call it "purging" and that is exactly what Democratic leaders are attempting. And in the name of the Constitution, for goodness sake!
Sure, Trump alienates people and calls them names. Sure, he is an aggressive bully. But he is working for America and many positive results are ignored by the mass media. Democrats could have calculated better by recruiting Republicans to their side rather than alienating us with the same tactics they accuse Trump of.
3
@Locals4Me "But he is working for America and many positive results are ignored by the mass media."
Could you provide some factual evidence please?
1
@Locals4Me: 3 million votes were purged to "elect" a jerk has not once told the whole truth about anything in his life.
1
I'm sorry; I just don't get it. Can a lawyer comply with attorney-client privilege when he knows that in doing so frees his client to continue his fraudulent behavior? Can a trial defendant, through his lawyers, block pertinent evidence from being introduced and testimony from reliable, relevant witnesses from being heard due to his position in government? If so, why are we even having a trial because this would then be nothing but a staged-for-TV fiction with a fixed outcome orchestrated by a Senate corrupted by pathetic, spineless GOP senators following orders from the defendant. If Trump is not removed from office, everyone, and by this, I mean the world, will know that it’s because of the corruption that has seized our government. If the U.S. cannot provide a fair and honest trial, why waste the money and the time that would be better spent in cleaning up the corruption so fair and honest trials can once again be possible.
9
@Wally Wolfd Yes, and a related question. How can the defendant, DJ Trump, be allowed to prejudice the jurors, during his own trial, not under oath, by attacking and threatening the prosecutors?
1
At this point the US Senate stonewalls its own unfair malapportionment and the unfairness of the Electoral College voter-power adjustment scheme.
4
If the placeholder in the Oval Office were innocent, then why does he block the appearance of subpoenaed witnesses and the release of subpoenaed documents? to any rational human being these are the actions of someone who is guilty, not innocent.
To Senator Cornyn of Texas I say "what are you afraid of"? If the placeholder is innocent, then you ought to have no objection to witnesses and documents. But you know and I know he is guilty. One only needs to look at Trump's track record of corruption in everything he has done up to running for POTUS to see he's a crook. Leopards don't change their spots. And the excuse for the investigation into the Biden's: looking for corruption is rich, coming from Mr Corruption himself.
9
@John Smithson- Two quite recent ones are trump university and trump foundation. Both were investigated and shut down for fraudulent practices. That's quite some corruption just right there. You could also go back to his settlement for racial discrimination in renting practices. He's also notorious for stiffing contractors and workers. If you can't find corruption in trump's life, you're not looking. There is a reason he is so disliked in his hometown.
1
LaPine, I've looked at Donald Trump's track record leading up to his election to the presidency and now as president. I do not see any convictions for corruption, any criminal investigations for corruption, or any evidence of corruption. Not a single blemish.
What track record are you looking at? Please share it with us.
3
This is the Kavanaugh coverup on steroids, amphetamines, and memory blockers.
Republicans have to pretend the public hasn’t been paying attention.
That Trump and Rudy weren’t engaged in a virtual drug deal.
That the Trump Ukraine agenda isn’t an actual Russian intelligence op.
That Trump is a corruption fighter at the same time he wants it legal for our international companies to be able to bribe foreigners.
That Trump isn’t bending democratic norms and our constitution to the breaking point.
And that an exonerated Trump will somehow be chastened rather than more unhinged going forward.
We don’t live in interesting times. These are the most dangerous times in the life of our republic.
11
"I didn't do anything wrong!"
This summary of Trump's defense is pretty much how a 5 year old child would defend his obvious guilt.
11
The GOP is now insisting that Hunter Biden be brought forward to testify in the impeachment public hearings supposedly because it relates to the Ukrainian ‘quid pro quo'' matter. Don jr. should also be brought forward to testify in the same public hearings for the same reason given recent revelations of his involvement with Giuliani's shenanigans there. Besides that, trump's attacks on Biden and son fly in the face of his repeated assertions that his own son (Don jr.) is totally exonerated by the Mueller report. How does he know this? AG Barr is still sitting on the real (ie unredacted) Mueller report. It was supposed to have been released to the Congressional Judicial Committee several months ago. All critical parts of the report related to Don jr. have been redacted (ie covered up). Go figure
8
The Republicans are covering up for the Con occupying the White House. As I've heard some say, the Senate is on trial, not just the president.
This trial will truly make or break America as a democracy. The stakes couldn't be higher.
The GOP strategy is to basically say, there is nothing there. Yet, were it Obama or Clinton who had done what the Con has done, the GOP would have been all over impeachment and removal.
The GOP needs to be shut down as a party. They are rogue, and they definitely are not honouring their oath to the constitution. They are a danger to US democracy.
15
Who are democrats trying to convince? Clearly the public.
It's now a PR campaign; otherwise why would democrats still be introducing new evidence? Or are they simply trying to keep impeachment "alive" so their angry base doesn't engage in an election mutiny and stay home in November?
15
@AACNY
Likewise the Republicans with the Derschowitz tour, which gives cover to the Republican acquittal.
1
@AACNY
New evidence of Trump’s criminality and abuse of office keeps popping up. Do you propose that such evidence be ignored, or that the House put up additional articles of impeachment?
1
@AACNY there’s a criminal in the White House. He know he can’t win re-election without cheating, so he will continue to cheat and cheat and cheat. That’s all he knows. So the Dems have to keep on top of that criminal to save the country.
Righting wrongs matter sometimes much more than we can predict. Imagine for example if our founding fathers had dealt with slavery more effectively instead of looking away. Even today the U.S. struggles with the legacy of the Civil War and slavery. The current prez., a child man who incessantly grabs for more and more power and his increasingly sheepish republican enablers gets more dangerous each day. Every effort, even small pieces of evidence, must be made to right our ship.
7
The Democrat strategy seems to be permeated by desperation. The weak slate of Presidential candidates almost guarantees a Trump win in 2020, so the hope seems to be to weaken Trump before the start of the campaign, perhaps by peeling of a couple of wavering GOP senators.... while keeping attention off the shady Biden clan business practices.
It doesn;t seem McConnell is letting them get away with it, so what we see now is helpless fury.
9
@Kai
What about everyone NOT represented by the Republicans? Do you think or care that the Republicans are dividing your nation? Helpless fury sustains war and civil unrest!
1
@Kai No, what we see is a desperate president who lies and proclaims his innocence while refusing to cooperate, blocking witnesses and the release of documents, i.e., a coverup.
1
The biggest unanswered question is whether Congress has the contitutional power to provide oversight of the executive branch, or if it does have that power, is the President allowed to declare that power null and void because you guys never liked me in the first place. I predict that this Senate is about to give Trump a get out of oversight free card and we will at the very least be living in a short term monarchy.
9
@kel: The Congress is a board of directors supervising a CEO and a legal department.
kel, the Constitution doesn't give Congress the power to oversee the executive branch.
4
Steve Bolger, better to say that Congress makes the law, the president executes the law, and the courts apply the law.
Whatever the legal or Congressional ramifications, any other president that defended Putin in Helsinki over our own security agencies would, if not have been impeached within a month, be branded a traitor for life.
The Bible warns against idolatry, but for some reason, the 'evangelicals' who support Trump love him so much, they're willing to cede our national exceptionalism to the Russians who they used to despise.
11
@Jtati: The God of Republican projection requires constant adulation lest it decree Judgment Day.
Important. Trump requested reform in one state receiving aid or in every state receiving aid? If in one state only, why that state? Not because a Democrat and his son were involved?
5
@M. C. Major Trump may need to explain it was – if true or so tacit Trump at the time did not notice such was being involved – a policy or tactic from a box of resources the President could apply, and which other Presidents have applied or publicly thought about applying.
@M. C. Major Perhaps Trump needs to explain this was -– if it was the case – a general policy. I understand the IMF lays conditions – the Washington Consensus – for its support. Why not the US?
@M. C. Major Perhaps President Trump now needs to hold back aid from other states where there is discernible “corruption” – which can show he did not try attack Mr. Biden – but that it could have been the beginning of a policy put back due to some complaint regarding incorrect procedure
The Republican senators will refuse to hear any testimony or accept them to be made public; because then the American people, and even Trump fanatics, would be clearly shown the truth, even if Trump claimed "fake news" or "alternrive truth" as he does constantly.
And for the same reason, no documents or other "evidence" will be admitted. The whole thing will be swept under the carpet.
The only way to remove Trump is for the American people to vote for his opponent in 2020.
11
@Max Lewy
That is ridiculous. The House impeached the President, and it gets to present to the Senate the complete record on which it based its decision.
Its clamoring for a do-over just goes to show that it that it realizes that it failed to do its job properly and did not have an adequate record for impeaching Trump in the first place.
1
From Manafort to Trump to Zelensky, Television certainly rules. Consider the possibility that Zelensky was also elected in a rigged Television election. Was it a close election? That would tell you. In such a case, Zelensky was being blackmailed by threats of disclosure.
2
@PATRICK: Like Trump, Zelensky gained name recognition on TV. He comes to office as an experienced actor.
3
Gamesmanship from Democrats. They had their chances to call witnesses in the House trial and now they want to drag this out in the senate. Hear the testimony and arguments from each side, vote, and be done with it.
17
@Hjb There were witnesses, who disregarded the president's blanket refusal for any witnesses, at the House trial. And if you believe the president is innocent in all this you should be clamoring for the first hand witnesses surrounding the president who were involved in the discussions and deciscions.Unless of course, you're afraid they might not say what you want them to say.
13
@Hjb
KEY WITNESSES CALLED TO TESTIFY DURING THE HOUSE INVESTIGATION REFUSED TO COOPERATE. THERE WAS NO REASONABLE REASON TO ASSUME OTHERS WOULD BEHAVE DIFFERENTLY.
NOW IT'S A TRIAL WHERE WITNESSES APPEAR AND TESTIFY. IF THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN, THEN IT'S NOT A TRIAL.
3
@Hjb: Do you really not understand that every witness-call is a lawsuit because Trump is obstructing?
2
Once again, I shall repeat (as I said I would) Trey Gowdy's quote on Trump;
"If he's innocent. why does he act like he's guilty?"
Don't look now, but even if Trump wins re-election, he will still be an impeached POTUS; and the Democrats who oust the incumbent Republicans in the Senate, will do whatever they legally can, to make Trump's second term a living nightmare.
16
@Ponsobny Britt
Do Dems really think that Trump or his supporters are worried about the stain of Schiff's, Nadler's and Pelosi'sf fake impeachment (it does not include any charges of crimes)? It's a badge of honor. And it has proven a fundraising gift from heaven for Trump.
6
@Ponsobny Britt
You're innocent until proven guilty. Our system is founded on this principle.
That democrats ignored it during the Russian collusion investigation and are now ignoring again tells you this is a purely political process and not based on "fairness" or the "rule of law" as democrats would like you to believe.
8
@AACNY
Once again the resident troll confuses and conflates.
The house investigation was akin to a grand jury investigation. These investigations are NEVER "fair" to the accused.
This is not a criminal or civil trial beholden to the "rule" of law, which Republicans conveniently ignore. They're not a "law & order" party any more and probably never wore.
But you got one thing right without knowing it. It IS a political trial based on the President's behavior that will decide if he is removed from office by the people who, per the constitution, have oversight of him. Trump as been proven guilty by the house. Now it's up to him to defend himself. And he's not even up to the task, he has to have craven, dishonest, reprehensible politicians protect him by any means possible.
1
If a local mayor was caught using an appropriation to get a city entity, say the leader of a Humane Society, to smear his/her political opponent in order to help their re-election chances, not only would they be tossed out, but prosecuted as well for 'breach of trust". With the president, it's a no brainer despite all of the Trump obfuscation!
16
@Bosox rule
That's big of you to say, considering how tolerant the Canadian public is of malfeasance from their elected officials, especially PM Trudeau.
6
@Viv Yet, Ms. Canadian Conservative, your candidate against Trudeau was an AMERICAN CITIZEN who didn't bother telling Canadians he held dual citizenship. He had to be 'outed' by the press. I don't recall reading where Canadian media demanded he be disqualified from the campaign for dishonesty or disloyalty. Canadians are sooo tolerant.....
@Viv
Yea? What did Trudeau do?
Democrats demanding the Senate to seek more evidence and testimony is like demanding a jury to seek more evidence on their own..something juries are strictly admonished not to do.
This invites investigation without end. The House had their opportunity to present evidence. The Senate is obligated to only consider that specific evidence.
18
@Lane - 17 witnesses testified during the House proceedings and not a single one of them was favorable to Trump. In any case the outcome is a foregone conclusion. The Democrats will vote to convict based on the evidence and the Republicans will vote to acquit in spite of it.
Sad.
13
@Lane Senators do not act as just the "jurors". This is a common misconception regarding impeachment trials.
4
rab, the senators act as the court in an impeachment trial. The court does not call witnesses either. The prosecution and the defense call witnesses, and they can only call those witnesses which they designate in advance.
You are right that impeachment trials are a little different. But the Senate is not an investigative body that looks for new evidence, whether it be witness testimony or documents. The House investigates. The Senate adjudicates.
7
In order for the President to be removed from office, 2/3 of the Senators must vote for either of the Articles. That is the vote that removes the President.
If Democrats believe they need more witnesses to make their case, that means the articles are providing insufficient evidence to remove the President.
And then they wonder why not one Republican will vote to remove??
It’s like the prosecution resting their case, than asking the jurors to come up with more witnesses.
Nancy Pelosi will rue the day she ever trusted Schiff with dragging her over the cliff to impeachment.
It was rushed through because of a political calendar, and are now asking Republicans to help with their ruse.
16
@ProGrowthCapitalism
This was not a ruse. This whole episode demonstrates why Trump should never ever be trusted with the control of government. Besides being a notorious liar, he has manipulated our country in every which way. The leaders of other countries cannot trust him. Every American should hold his head in shame at this excuse of a man.
1
@ProGrowthCapitalism
Employing McConnell-esque logic, one may arrive easily at that conclusion.
Most of the country wonders why not ONE republican, faced with the evidence, refuses to comply with the truth.
Is it possible that NYT readers really don't know the following:
1. Democrats could have pursued enforcement of those subpoenas in court? Our system was designed so that disputes between Congress and the Executive are resolved by the judiciary.
2. The House is tasked with the investigation. The Senate, a trial. In the US justice system, no judge would permit a trial to begin if the prosecutor hasn't completed the investigation. If, in fact, if new information arises during the trial, there is a process that evaluates it, first, and, only if deemed admissible, is a strict process followed to admit it.
For all their clamoring about "fairness", etc., it's democrats who have eschewed our system's checks and balances.
25
@AACNY - In the US justice system, no judge would allow the head juror to coordinate defense and the entire trial with the defendant. For simply discussing the case with the defendant, any judge would have McConnell thrown from the jury and probably held in contempt. In the US justice system, McConnell would have nothing to do but sit and listen, then deliberate. Epic fail on your part.
11
@AACNY
No indicted person has ever had the ability to deny the police or the FBI or the CIA access to provable documents of guilt or witnesses. This president is the only person who has asserted that right. It is the president who has "eschewed our system's checks and balances" by declaring that he can do whatever he pleases to do. And to assure that he can, he has stated that he has the senate in his pocket. Tell me that we haven't been reduced to the status of a banana republic.
7
@AACNY
Trump's bribing a foreign government with taxpayer money for personal benefit is just fine for Trump lovers. Donnie can do no wrong!!
4
There is already ample evidence to impeach Donald Trump, but further testimony will add evidence to fill our the charges and serve to keep the trial current in the eyes of the American public. The argument by his defense that the charges lack merit is only another distraction. Try him.
8
If the House botched its job because it rushed the impeachment process so as to fit its political calendar, then it should recall the articles of impeachment and get the job done properly before it sends them back to the Senate.
16
@Ian Maitland, then release all the new damaging evidence right on the eve of the November presidential election thus avoiding the claim of election interference. Political dirt is one thing, it’s how it’s decimated defines if it’s dirt or not as opposed to evidence. Trump should pay attention to how the game is really played.
4
Before anyone, the House in this case, writes up articles of impeachment against the President of the United States and submits those articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial they should have sufficient supporting evidence which they believe establishes that the President did in fact committed impeachable offenses. If the house doesn't have proper evidence or support for the articles of impeachment they sent to the Senate for trial they should wait until they do have proper evidence and support. If the House wishes to continue their investigation after they have sent the articles of impeachment to the Senate because they have "new" evidence or testimony that was not available or known to them during their period of inquiry and before they submitted their articles of impeachment, they should respectfully request the Senate hold up the start of the trial until they complete their investigation and submit their "new" evidence or testimony of "new" witnesses. Now is the time to do that.
6
@NYChap - The House provided evidence - Trump admitted to the crime, Giuliani admitted to the crime, Mulvaney admitted to the crime, and so did Parnas.
But the Republicans are not going to listen because they have the Senate majority and they are trying to take over the country the same way Putin is trying to take over his country and Xi took over his.
5
@NYChap
The senate will never agree to a delay. Trump has them in his pocket. He said so. And that's why he has refused documents and witnesses who could verify his evil deeds.
God help us if any emergency should arise and we are left to depend on this liar.
I am continually amazed that the Republicans have not presented the obvious about the Trump/Biden investigation. At the earliest it was presented that Trump was after Biden as part of his attempt to prove that his(Trump's) 2016 election was tampered with by the DNC and the Obama administration. Saying this was an attempt to damage a 2020 candidate seems specious is the former is true.....but what is true?
2
It seems to me the most salient question is why did Trump prohibit his advisors from testifying in the House Impeachment proceedings? And, why did Trump himself refuse to testify? An innocent person does not repeatedly cry "witch hunt" ad nauseam.
17
@Jonathan Campbell
By the same standard, why would Hunter refuse to testify?
If he did nothing wrong, why not?
What’s he hiding?
7
Jonathan Campbell, because the Democrats would have a field day cross-examining the president and his advisers. You can go on what is commonly called a "fishing expedition" for prejudicial evidence that is not relevant.
To prevent that, a party in court will make a motion in limine asking the court to limit testimony within certain parameters. Since Congressional hearings and impeachment trials are different than court proceedings, Donald Trump is doing the same thing here but in a different way. He's asserting executive privilege to prevent the witnesses from testifying at all.
Donald Trump's argument is that his deliberations with his advisers should not be made public. And he's got a point. The Supreme Court has recognized an executive privilege. The question is how broad that privilege is, not whether it exists.
As to your notion that an innocent person should not be afraid of an investigation, I take it you've never been involved in our criminal justice system. I have been. Innocent people should be worried and careful, especially when the prosecution is political, as they are here. Very worried and very careful.
1
@ProGrowthCapitalism "Hunter" doesn't testify as a Tactical Distraction for Trump at a Senate trial of Trump. He would appear at a trial duly constructed by the FBI, on the basis of evidence gathered by FBI professionals. Not at a circus organized by the Trump Defense.
1
Question: does anyone know if Bolton can publish his account in his book? I think that will be released before the election.
So senators can choose to call him and other witnesses now, or hand him an instant best seller.
Not sure what specifics he can provide given the claim of presidential privilege, but he sure can hint fairly directly at what he would have testified to.
2
I suspect Bolton’s testimony would be like Comeys, Muellers report and his testimony, much ado about nothing. Just publicity for his book.
1
@Sarah
He will be laughing his way to the bank.
I wonder if the Senators realize that it is They who are on trial?
21
@JohnV All Congress people are always being evaluated by the voting public. That’s a complicated matter though. A senator from California is being evaluated by the voters of California and a senator from Tennessee if being evaluated by the voters of Tennessee.
3
This claim of Putin disparaging Zelensky certainly has not been shown in the actions of the two leaders. As Putin agreed to resume natural gas deliveries to Ukraine and pay 2.9 billion dollars. The fact that the two sides have agreed to a cease fire in the deadly ethnic fighting in Ukraine. House Democrats obviously rushed their impeachment articles and now want to make the Senate do their job for them.
4
Republican senators are right to think they are risking everything with not calling witnesses. They are going to see those results in November. They are not going like the outcome.
29
As Republican voter I am for not making this a circus through endless new witnesses. I would be happy with a vote to dismiss. I believe the impeachment power is being misused. Biden should be investigated and separate from any unintended political benefits. That congress and the DOJ have not yet investigated the prosecutor firing bothers me and I commend Trump if he is trying too. Candidate Trump was investigated by the last admin and the investigation was very public in part due to leaks. Shouldn't we know whether the Biden's acted honorably or not before the election?
The Democrat house felt they had sufficient evidence to impeach Trump since they did. I am good with witnesses that had already testified to the house testifying to the Senate provided hearsay is not introduced. I am also fine with defense witnesses to any points made in the impeachment caae.
Since no statute violations (crimes) are sited I assume that this is not a criminal investigation and the Supreme court's criminal exception to executive privilege does not apply. I am not OK with anyone bearing witness in violation of executive priviledge.
Let's stick with any non hearsay witnesses we already have and defense witnesses. Let's also remember Trumps right to confront his accussers.
4
@John
Why not ask the EU if they concurred with the removal of the prosecutor?
1
I am very much enjoying the shoe being on the other foot. For weeks, we watched the Democrats use their majority to ram-rod, through the House, the impeachment of Donald Trump. It was frustrating to witness the raw power granted the majority as they brushed aside any and all Republican concerns.
Now the trial comes and Republicans are the majority. It will be quite satisfying to watch McConnell in action.
12
@William - Let's watch McConnell rush to acquit and then see some more revelations come forth afterwards that are even worse than what we have heard.
Any day now, "Anonymous" will reveal themselves and that will change things again.
2
@William: Watching paint dry is more energizing than listening to muttering Mitch.
@William
McConnell is an unprincipled twit and decency demands that he be drummed out of the senate.
In 1858, President Buchanan - who would face impeachment for charges of corruption and election fraud - was ultimately acquitted by a highly partisan Democratic Senate and in a much divided country that almost makes today’s contentious climate pale. But Abraham Lincoln saw right through Buchanan’s deceit - as well as his alignment with pro-slavery politicians trying to expand that evil into northern and free states. So the ever prescient Lincoln, commenting on Buchanan’s machinations, brilliantly observed that
“We cannot absolutely know that (Buchanan’s actions were premeditated)…but when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places, and by different workmen (the politicians aligned with Buchanan)…and when we see these timbers joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortices exactly fitting and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places … in such a case we feel it impossible not to believe that (Buchanan and his cohorts) all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn before the first blow was struck.”
We would do well to consider Lincoln’s words in light of our present circumstance in the White House.
7
Trump and his buddies were likely trying to pull off two things in the Ukraine.Damage Burisma,an oil and gas firm,in order to help get Rick Perry's friends lucrative oil and gas contracts there.At the same time, they hoped to damage the Bidens for Trump's political benefit.Rudy,Perry and, most likely,Kurt Volker were all in on the deal.Volker has to answer more questions.It's interesting that both he and Perry resigned so quickly after the scandal broke.
11
@Iamcynic1, did anybody really ask Sleepy Joe to run yet again other than DNC establishment cashing in on legacy because what they otherwise saw coming was too extreme and threatening to them? All this talk of “digging up dirt on ‘political rival’ Joe Biden” to me seems more just like another lame try by Democrats to manufacture dirt on Trump.
@John Doe "Read the Transcript".Trump did the digging only he may end up burying himself.
We have reached the absolute pinnacle of corruption with one political party refusing evidence the opposing political party needs to convict of crime. The Supreme Court, for some reason, cannot be involved or act as arbiter because this is political, not a legal struggle. Yet the GAO has decreed that Trump broke the law. Either we are a law-abiding country or we are not.
When this country was formed, one of it’s strengths was its adherence to law - law of the sea, international laws and civil laws. At that time John Marshall helped frame our legal strengths and establish fair jurisprudence as well as assure our citizens that laws would be administered as fairly as possible. Yes, we had to endure Andrew Jackson and others like him and there were terrible, tragic injustices.
Today it appears we have not moved the pendulum one iota toward a fairer, more just society. We cannot move forward, with fairer laws, whether for women’s rights, environmental protections, economic equity, fair taxation, voters rights, and on and on, until Trump and the corruption he represents is gone. This is the reason people don’t vote, don’t respect our Government and just want guns. Even gun-toting right-wing ultra libertarians realize something is wrong even if they can’t come to terms with the idea that people have to work together.
By refusing to adhere to the law, Trump’s presidency pushes us toward anarchy and no grown ups are in charge.
14
@Barbara Snider: There is no rational modern basis for the distortions of apportionment and vote-counting in federal elections incorporated to induce slave states to join the original union.
@Barbara Snider
Then why did Democrats refuse to allow any witnesses Republicans wanted to call?
The hearings were one sided.
That sound “fair” to you?
1
As far as I understand it, attempts to enforce "discovery" (or its congressional equivalent, whatever it's called) have been appealed and at least one case is headed from the Supreme Court (hence Merrick Garland - Republican stonewalling and repressive antics to get Gorsuch and Kavanaugh).
Apparently, on Fox and amongst the team-sports my way or the highway Republicanism, this equals Democrats didn't try, why didn't they, they have to be wrong, ad nauseam.
Making America dishonest, predatory, and dangerous. Toxifying the "swamp" and blaming victims. Nothing new here, move along and don't mind the truth. Truth is so awkward.
However, we live on a planet that is entirely governed by reality, and it's starting to react in a big way. The truth matters.
10
"The impeachment is not about what the Bidens did or did not do"
That is correct. The impeachment is the accusation.
What the Bidens did is not part of the accusation against Trump, but part of Trump's defense. In the US legal system, the defense is given priority.
Part of Trump's defense is that he had to stop the corruption in general and in particular that of the Bidens in Ukraine. As such, the evidence that this corruption needed to be stopped is an essential part of the defense.
You wouldn't deny in a trial the defendant his defense, would you? That would be very un-American.
7
Ok. Let’s call witnesses.
If things are as you, and the administration, claim. Then everything should come to light. All relevant witness testimony, all documentation.
I’m no fan of Trump, but I would be fine not having old Joe as the nominee if he was the root cause of this international incident.
Let’s see everything.
3
Trump could care less about corruption. All he wanted was an announcement that the Biden’s were to be investigated. Didn’t even care if they were actually investigated. The announcement by itself would be enough, in trumps mind, to give him an upper hand on his political rival. See how you feel about all this in 10 years, when all the information comes out.
1
So let us hear witnesses that he was in fact trying g to stop corruption in Ukraine. There are none.
If there are no facts presented or witness testimony, it's not a trial. What are the Republicans so afraid of that they want to smother the facts of the case? With McCarthy and Nunes within one degree of direct implication, this is hardly a surprise. And, how many more Mr. Graham?
8
@Romy It isn’t a trial. It’s an impeachment.
The irony of the statement in this article that Rudy Giuliani was "seeking out corruption" made me laugh. But of course this is no laughing matter.
I will be "seeking out corruption" in the November election by voting against every Republican on the ballot.
17
This article reveals two big-picture themes: how mightily Trump wields the power of the Executive branch, and how easily influenced he is by others (Giuliani, Putin). Add to this a sense of victimhood fueled by vindictiveness - his ire against Ukraine because Manafort’s fall - he fills the role of a dictator.
It’s frightening.
13
I strongly recommend that anyone of any political stripe now wrestling with this terrible Constitutional crisis we are in watch the Netflix documentary, "The Great Hack". It reveals - through easily-understandable interviews w/involved parties - the role Cambridge Analytica played in our election, in Brexit, and in elections around the world.
As Brittany Kaiser - a former employee of & key witness to Cambridge Analytica's role in trumps' election - says in the film, "last year data surpassed oil in value. data is the most valuable asset on earth".
Through our consumption of data, we are giving - for free - all of our data to the new Big Corporate Entities like Google, Facebook, Instagram, and What's App?, and they are commoditizing it - selling it - for trillions in profit. Not only that, but they are being paid by nefarious actors, like Putin, to use that data to sway elections in favor of corrupt politicians like trump, and destroy democracies. all around the world.
Does anyone else besides me remember having to cower in our elementary school hallways for atom bomb drills? I do. Russia is still trying to destroy America, but now, they have a much more effective weapon than any atomic bomb - our own data.
If you want to know how, please watch "The Great Hack".
10
@Kitt Richards - I remember "Duck and Cover" as a child. It left such an impact on me that when I got to high school, I started taking foreign languages and discovered that my German teacher learned Russian as a child after WWII. I begged him to teach me Russian (just in case they actually came) and so he started a Russian class in our high school for three of us students.
1
With all this evidence, it’s more important than ever that we know who the whistleblower is.
/s
That was about 9 GOP talking points ago. I can’t keep up with the daily new story lines.
5
I heard Dershowitz the other night. He press when he repeats the same non sequitur argument loudly and doesn't give anyone else a chance to speak. It's straight from the Republican playbook of the 2000 election. It worked then. Let's hope Americans can see through it this time.
9
It should read Democrats HAVE more evidence.
Any trial should have the right to bring in additional evidence as it comes in.
In this case people who once worked lock step for Trump are having second thoughts at the last minute about lying for him.
11
Tip of the iceberg. If one takes into consideration all the events this article goes into before that fated phone call on July 25. It should make the case even more incriminating as to President’s Trump’s actions, heeding the opinions of autocrats & dictators such as Orban & Putin. Makes you wonder which side the US is on, under Trump. To always take Russia’s side because Putin is rich & powerful. A billionaire, as is Trump. Looks to me like a struggle between David & Goliath. Please let us not forget the price paid by Ukraine for its Maidan Revolution! People lost their lives, held out in the square, to loosen themselves of Russia’s grip. How Russia just took over Crimea, & how Zelensky is now delicately trying to deal w/its arch enemy as to the so-called Republic of Donetsk in the East of what was Ukraine. The US, under its President, should help these fledgling democracies, not terrorize or blackmail them, w/unofficial, shadowy, personal “appointees”, like Giuliani. The more one reads about it in detail, the more incriminating.
9
This is the endgame the Republicans have been building toward for the last 75 years. They have NEVER gotten over FDR, and how he and the Democratic Party thwarted their progenitors' fascistic tendencies and aims.
All their cards are now on the table, and they are doubling down on their anti-democratic duplicity.
Timothy Egan nailed it last week: "Under Trump, the United States is a confederacy of corruption, driven by a thousand points of evil. And that evil is contagious."
And the Republican Party is the carrier and vector of that contagion.
14
Paranoid are we?
5
Exactly...I've been saying it for weeks. For the Republicans it's the ultimate fight to the death for unobstructed power and for the Evangelicals it's holy war for their narrow version of religious superiority.
2
@Larry M - Agreed. Trump wants to be president for life. He has more than once talked to this base at rallies about being around as president 5, 7, or 11 years from now and they cheer wildly. That is their goal.
1
If the placeholder in the Oval Office were innocent, then why does he block the appearance of subpoenaed witnesses and the release of subpoenaed documents? to any rational human being these are the actions of someone who is guilty, not innocent.
To Senator Cornyn of Texas I say "what are you afraid of"? If the placeholder is innocent, then you ought to have no objection to witnesses and documents. But you know and I know he is guilty. One only needs to look at Trump's track record of corruption in everything he has done up to running for POTUS to see he's a crook. Leopards don't change their spots. And the excuse for the investigation into the Biden's: looking for corruption is rich, coming from Mr Corruption himself.
GOP Senators are already looking to violate both their oath of office, and, the oath they took from the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS to be impartial. The House has a solid case.
It's going to come down to us as the voters to remind these scofflaws who they work for.
11
@LaPine
Can you imagine that Cornyn was once the chief justice of texas?
Of course they're seeking new evidence. Their whole purpose, from the beginning, has been to disrupt a presidency.
They want to drag this out as long as possible, especially since we are in an election year and the impeachment serves little purpose.
I think the Democrats are running scared. If Trump wins big in November, they are going to be in an untenable situation. How would they justify their actions to the American people?
10
@Raz: Trump's presidency is systematic disruption. Does pollution exposure make you folks project like this?
3
@Raz Are the Democrats running scared? Let's see. The approval ratings for most of the Democratic presidential candidates easily surpass Trump's current approval ratings. In fact, Trump's ratings are still under water, just as they were when Trump was "elected" by Trump and Putin. Who could have foreseen a Presidential campaign that ended with the winner of the popular vote (by 3 million votes) losing the election--while Trump's numbers remained in the toilet and Hillary's numbers soared? An honest count from the Electoral College in 2016 would have saved our nation from this thief/liar/traitor/adulterer and, of course, Republican. PS: The latest Gallup poll has Trump's approval rating down to 48%; that's not enough to get on the ballot in most states.
PPS: Yes, Hillary would have been an outstanding president, and just the person who deserved the job she won.
1
The Republican argument on this point continues to be circular and nonsensical.
If Democrats don’t have all the necessary evidence for an absolutely complete picture of the President’s actions, the obvious next step would be to authorize a fuller airing of the witnesses and documents that can provide it.
By denying the most basic elements of an impartial trial, and in fact having publicly announced that they’ve prejudged the case, GOP Senators are in fact abetting and confirming one of the two impeachment charges - obstruction of Congress - and undermining their own institution.
Mitch McConnell and his party are making an utter mockery of our Constitutional democracy. But since might makes right is the only remaining principle they understand, we need to vote them out en masse in November.
12
@David: Theocrats consider tautologies airtight reasoning.
I note the Republican Senators resistance to admitting witnesses. I view it as an affirmation of the claim they are intending Martial Law, by that, and the packing of the Courts feverishly that they have done.
3
I read the letters saying, If only a few of the Republicans vote with their conscious. What's amazing is the number of Republicans who are leaving office and still support Trump. Why?
6
When the Articles of Impeachment were approved Pelosi, Schiff & Nadler emphasized that the evidence against the president is overwhelming. When questioned why key witnesses weren't called they replied that it was urgent that they act immediately and the evidence they had accumulated made an air-tight case. With that framework the call for more documents & additional witnesses is ringing hollow.
11
@Richard A. Bucci "With that framework the call for more documents & additional witnesses is ringing hollow."
How so? Can you provide context?
5
It is Repubs who are saying it is not an air-tight case but they won't call witnesses to let the Dems prove it. Witnesses have been called in every impeachment trial in history of US.
1
@Jtati The House had the process on the fast track. When the Articles were adopted the House Committee Chairpersons emphasized repeatedly that the case was overwhelming. Witnesses weren’t called we were told because time was of the essence. We had to move immediately. Then Pelosi holds the Articles for almost a month. So we’re told the case is overwhelmingly & must move without delay & now are hearing the exact opposite. If witnesses are ultimately called the President’s team will be allowed to call those he thinks relevant including Hunter Biden. Ironically the Dems calling for witnesses are also trying to tell Trump who he can call. Another Jekyll & Hyde message.
‘There may be a few Republican Senators with a conscience’.
- John Kasich
It still remains to be seen.
7
Ardent GOP trump supporters including most GOP senators seem to think the Mueller investigation is no longer relevant. They are convinced that the impeachment
trial in the GOP dominated senate will go nowhere. However Mueller said on nation-wide TV that his report did not exonerate trump and that ONCE OUT OF OFFICE he was definitely liable to indictment for criminal deeds most pointedly the deliberate obstruction of justice described in considerable detail in the report! The extensive evidence in the report is geared to support this eventuality. The 2020 election itself then is the vehicle for bringing this trump criminal travesty to a just end.
6
Why are we not hearing more about the GAO report, which says in clear terms that Trump broke the law.
11
@Daisy
Likely because the GAO has ruled against actions of presidents before, including Obama.
3
@Daisy - Because the way our government now works is that anyone that was put into power by the other party is partisan and everything they say is fake. So, we constantly go back and forth over who appointed this ambassador or that judge. We should just split into two countries already and get it over with.
2
You “wish that he could be re-elected several times over” and yet you are worried about the Democrats turning us into a Leninist state.
Just brilliant.
9
The Articles of Impeachment, as presented to the Senate, are unconstitutional. They imply no crime as specified by the Constitution and or can be inferred according to US Code. They make up, as impeachable offenses, their own crimes "Obstruction of Congress" and "Abuse of Power."
These Articles have now triggered, for the umpteenth time, hysteria that has no rational basis. The Democrats are now yelling "we sent perfect Articles but we need more!" Now they bring up Lev Parnas, who shows, as part of his irrefutable proof of his close association with the President, a photo of an empty table with name placards one being his and right next to it, the President's. Well, there you have it! Absolute proof the President and Lev are linked at the hip! Not.
Let these Articles be contested as they are. With the facts contained therein. Not to allow the President to be held to their assertions and crimes, but to prove just how willing the Democrats are, to allow their own mental illness to lead America down a ruinous path because they really, really, really, really, really hate Donald Trump and for no other reason.
10
@Arthur Taylor
I don’t hear anyone yelling that “we sent the perfect articles and now we need more”
I thought the obstruction of congress charge indicated that they knew there was more evidence to obtain but not having the power to compel, as one has in an actual trial, they opted to send it to trial in the senate instead of dragging it out in the courts.
Anyway, the Mueller report seemed to bounce off of Trump. Aren’t you confident that the same will happen when everyone hears from the administration? It seems like everyone should be on the side of as much information coming out as possible -either for full exoneration heading into an election or to reveal the extent of corruption.
2
@Sarah The entire push for more evidence was preceded by Pelosi stating the articles were all they needed to CONVICT! If only they could get “impartial” Senators (Democrats).
And by the way, the Mueller report DID bounce off Trump because no matter how you want to spin it, Mueller found NO evidence of conspiracy. He left it up to Congress to charge obstruction and they have, apparently, chosen not to do so (because the American people would never buy what Mueller was selling as obstruction).
The entirety of Pelosi’s turn at the wheel has been failure after failure to “get” Trump. Whether it was shutting down wall funding, Russia, or impeachment- show us a single result.
She has absolutely been derelict in her duty as the leader of the opposition- which, by the way, I believe has it’s place and is absolutely necessary for a functioning democracy.
1
@Arthur Taylor
Where Have You Been?
You are clearly not paying attention to the facts.
Republicans have no credible, fact-based defense of Trump's actions - therefore the conspiracy theories run rampant.
This isn’t how innocent people behave
9
Mitch McConnell's chin is like Pinocchio's nose: it grows bigger with each lie, whether told or accepted, in the name of integrity. His chin symbolizes all that is fat, greedy, and oblivious to objective reality. It's a barometer of where the 42% are and plan to stay.
8
Trump is above the law and if he chooses, can abuse his power to cheat his way into another 4 years.
2
Judge me as you want me to judge you? The Constitutional, American version of that was supposed to be Rule of Law. Swift Boating, the Newt Gingrich win by any means, and money is votes too political campaigns; has seemingly changed that to Trump's Only he Knows how to save America. Fantastically Our Nebraskan Congressional Members version is straight from Harry Potter's Lord Voldemort. Never mention what the Great One does that used to be nasty, immoral, illegal. Maybe Government by force will OK if it is from my side. The question before the Senate is Who Is "WE"
1
Instead of waiting for the witnesses requested to just step up, why aren’t they being subpoenaed? The same with the evidence! Subpoena the WH to release the documents requested! The information that can be provided by both could either make or break this trial! Withholding either only creates doubt of innocence! Is there any wonder WHY the democrats are requesting either? Plus, here we have the GOP admitting they’re not going to be fair and just, then taking an oath under Justice Roberts to do just that! They took an OATH in front of the nation, to uphold the Constitution! They did NOT take an oath to be loyal to trump!
4
In the court of public opinion, the Senate is on trial along with Trump. The Senate's actions will be a critical part of what historians will study for a hundred years.
If the Senate holds pro-forma hearings without examining evidence, then acquits him on party lines, they will be found guilty of dereliction of duty.
On the other hand, if they examine evidence and hear witnesses, and if the final vote does not split on party lines, they will have done their duty, whether they remove Trump or not.
Their great grandchildren will remember them for what they do in the next couple of weeks. Who wants to go down in history as someone who took an oath then ignored it, possibly destroying the notion of checks and balances in the process?
3
Trump is guilty, and the senate is on trial. It's not looking good for them, either.
11
If Trump were judged in a criminal proceeding, he would insist on his Sixth Amendment right.
In this impeachment proceeding, he counts on an acquittal in the GOP-led Senate. What he needs to do is to reject Democrats’ demand for testimony from his aides and examination of further evidence – fearing more dirty laundry would be bad publicity for his re-election bid.
By doing so, he is denying Americans’ right to a fair trial.
1
@J. von Hettlingen The constitution doesn’t state that Americans have a right to a fair trial in an impeachment. It states that the senate has the sole power to try impeachment. If Americans aren’t happy with the results then the people have the right to make their feelings heard in the next election. That’s how democracy works.
4
So the Founders wanted the Senate to have a trial but it does not have to be fair? Give me a flying break!!
1
The Trumpist defense strategy to confuse the people is apparently working. You can see its effectiveness in some of the comments here. To those Trumpists who state that the House should have called the witnesses that the House managers seek to testify in the Senate, I remind you that all were subpoenaed by the House and were told by Trump to ignore the subpoena and to not testify. This is the basis for Article II. If the Senate wants to establish the truth of Article I, these witnesses that unlawfully ignored the House need to be subpoenaed by the Senate.
14
Exactly. Given that they were prevented by the White House to testify, it is indeed the Democrats position that in order to ensure a thorough & fair trial, these witnesses & the relevant evidence, should be an integral part of this trial, contrary to Mr. McConnell’s assertions that the Dems “didn’t do the work.” It becomes a disingenuous Catch-22 on the part of the Republicans. Certainly, President Trump knows how to fight “dirty”, while I do not cast aspersions on the Office of the President, itself. Congress is supposed to be a co-equal branch of government, designated by the Constitution to oversee any abuse of power, & after long deliberation, has finally acted, in the name of the American people. It has taken its role seriously. Reading this article, one can sense all the warning signs & the suspicious atmosphere before the July 25 call. Good for that whistle-blower. Some take their jobs seriously w/a sense of conscience. One cannot distort the truth that, influenced by Russia, moreover, Trump overstepped his boundaries. And he finally got tripped up. How history will definitely see this, Republicans notwithstanding.
1
@Joe Smith, too bad Dems impatience didn’t allow the courts to decide if those subpoenas were valid and force that testimony regardless of what Trump wanted. I suppose some could argue Trump forced the error, maybe that’s impeachable as well because maybe Dems are just getting tired of being made to look foolish . . . thank you Robert Mueller.
I just heard Nadler and Schiff both issue declarative statements that the evidence is overwhelming and conclusive.
So let's vote. They both just admitted we need no more evidence.
Or am I missing something here, or did they misspeak?
11
@Erica Smythe they called witnesses that didn't show - refused to testify AKA criminal obstruction by the White House which is the same as witness intimidation.
@Erica Smythe: How do you vote on the evidence?
What Trump supporters don’t know about the law could just about fill the Grand Canyon.
A trial should take as much time as the prosecution — in this case the House impeachment managers — needs to present all of its argument, present all of its evidence, and present all testimony of witnesses, and as much time as the president’s lawyers need to present their arguments and rebuttal. Moreover, the media must be able to give the public complete coverage, not some hamstrung TV broadcast. Anything less by Mitch McConnell will produce a sham trial. A sham trial.
2
@Richard: Mitch has already produced a sham judiciary.
Seems rather late to me to try to make their case stronger. They could exchange Hunter Biden’s testimonial for a much better case.
I’m sure everyone would like to hear about the drugs, prostitution, and huge amounts of money flowing out of a corrupt and destitute county.
14
Reality Check we shall see truth seldom seen by us deplorables who work lives away to pay taxs. You would think our president who is paid by taxs would be committed to tell whole truth but truth.When he was sworn into office should had it in writting signed by him. Putting america first an last . Example is NAFTA 2 presently being or has been approved. Millions of jobs on line for future generations of americans. Where in NAFTA2 does it say our government can not use taxs to purchase imports for government us?
Let them have John Bolton in exchange for Joe or Hunter Biden. I am sure Senators Klobuchar, Sanders, Warren and even Bennett would be in favor.
10
@David
What exactly would the Biden's have to say about Trump trying to blackmail Ukraine to falsely accuse them?
They have no more knowledge of it than we do.
2
The Swamp in DC is indeed, finally expelling a multitude of its buried treasures for all to see. Who says American Democracy doesn’t work. Now to rescue the middle class from the wood chipper.
4
Based on the addition of Derschowitz (sp?) top the defense team, they aren't even attempting to deny what Trump did. GOP senators need to harken back to their initial reaction when they first learned about the Ukraine scandal. The reaction they refused to share publicly. There have been so many other norm shattering moments since, it's all too easy to become numb to it all.
4
The Democrats must feel pretty desperate when they have to request more witnesses and evidence for the senate impeachment trial. Why did they wait until the eleventh hour to do so? Are they getting cold feet or are they afraid that the flimsy evidence they have against President Trump is not enough? They will never be satisfied and will continue going after our president until he leaves office in January 2025.
11
- Democrats want more evidence so that it will be even more apparent that Republican senators weren’t impartial and put party before country.
- New information is coming out now which wasn’t available before.
- Flimsy evidence? Really? Confessions, transcripts are “flimsy?”
- He may be this commenter’s “president,” but a majority of Americans regard him as a toxic clown.
Trump is the one who must feel pretty desperate since he continues to refuse to provide evidence that would exonerate him. He has the chance to defend himself but instead he hides. Think about that.
Dems can never match the wicked tactics of Republicans. Saying that asking for available more evidence indicates that Dems don’t have sufficient confidence with the already available evidence beats any argument I have heard so far. Republicans have told Dems , it doesn’t matter what’s out there it’s not enough. The moderate Republicans like Susan Collins are just a show. They are first Republicans to the core. They will put up a show and then say the evidence doesn’t rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanor. There is no crime that Mr Trump perpetrates would ever be labeled by Republicans as high crime and misdemeanor. Mr Mcconnell may as well say we don’t remove Republican Presidents. period.
8
Why do people keep calling the pundits that are paid too much money for trying to defend trump 'a legal team'?
As if 'laws' are anything the so called 'legal team' worry about.
I also hope that it is not the U.S. of A. tax payer who has to cough up the obnoxious amounts of money that the so called 'legal team' will invoice.
3
@Marc Panaye The entire impeachment is costing all Americans an exorbitant amount of money. We are far better off letting voters decide the fate of President Trump in November.
6
@John The people have the right to know. Each day more evidence turns up. Trump cultists desire to sweep it under the rug and hope it goes away is not going to happen.
1
@John "...an exorbitant amount of money" is wasted every time Trump shows up at Mar a Lago .' Another exorbitant waste of our money is everything else Trump gets his greedy, grasping hands around. The problem is solved by convicting Trump as soon as possible. No halfway measures, full convictions on all three articles.
Oh, and small-town America who held and paid for all of Trump's"rallies"--you're never getting that money back from Trump. Ever. And you're still voting for him?
Laws, rules and the Constitution mean nothing to republicans. Remember that on 11-3-2020.
14
@Trump is Not My Type The constitution is actually on the side of both the Democrats and Republicans in this case. The House had the right to impeach the President and the senate has the right to conduct the trial as it sees fit.
6
@John You are wrong
3
Yes, even if it means getting away with a clear crime...
The silver lining in this is it is finally clear the US needs to amend their amendments, otherwise Kanye might perceivably end up #46..,
The article title should not be what it is. They are not seeking more evidence, they are seeking to be allowed to present evidence they know exists already.
This is not a search for evidence as implied. It is an effort to show the evidence they know exists, and is being hidden by all the presidents men and the republican caucus in Congress, to the American people.
A funny thing about that document written by a Mr Dixon at OLC in 1973 to protect Nixon from prosecution, which it fails to do even though allegedly bright minds in legal circles back up the conclusion tacked on to the end of it. The first 2./3rds of that document outline many grounds for impeachment most of which Trump has done. Almost his very first act as president was an impeachable act, the firing of Sally Yates.
https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/olc/092473.pdf
6
The Democrats, like most people choosing to live in reality, know that the Mitch McConnell controlled Senate does not have an interest in evidence. They also know that there is very limited possibility, if it exists at all, that Trump will be removed from office. That, however, is not the point.
The Trump Trial is actually a judgement on the Republican Party and by inference the American people. How the trial is conducted, whether it is done in an open, fair and impartial manner, will give the people another artifact to use in eventually to rendering judgement regarding the fitness of the Republican Party to govern. For the people, the 2020 general election, is a judgement on the kind of government they deserve.
4
The Democrats made a mistake in sending the articles of impeachment before securing an agreement on witnesses and documentary evidence. The conventional wisdom is that Speaker Pelosi had no leverage. But a Senate trial without Democratic participation would have shown it to be the sham it is quickly becoming and would have denied Trump the ability to claim exoneration. That would have been sufficient leverage.
2
@Allan: Delay delay delay is defense SOP in the shakedown courts of the USA.
2
I guess I didn’t. realize the circus was still in town. The Democrats could have sought testimony during the House impeachment hearings but chose not to do so. So now they want to strong arm the Senate into doing what they should have done in the a House. There is an election in less than 10 months, put the clowns back in the car.
Also, Nancy’s words about the solemnity of the decision is belied by her appearances on a talk show giving the host a high-five on the “victory” and her demeanor in general. Somebody should pray for this hypocrite as she claims to pray for others.
The Democrats are going to be very unhappy around the first part of a November and they will have brought it on themselves.
I don’t like Trump but the Democrats are no prize either.
14
@T Smith
Please recall that Trump has provided zero cooperation and forbid witnesses to testify.
Do you believe what was done by Trump in Ukraine should be ignored? I don't and I am an Independent.
Pelosi knows what the Senate is going to do. More information or witnessess will not change that.
The RNC has the money needed by the Seantor's come election time. McConnell is the disbursing officer. Need I say more?
I hope We the People will remember in November.
3
First of all, you’d think Trump is in Putin’s pocket, or at least in awe of him. He hates the victim, the vulnerable one. In some instances, he purports to defend them, as in Hong Kong’s pro-democracy protesters, or w/Juan Guadio’s valiant but waning efforts to save his country, Venezuela, from Maduro’s criminal mismanagement. And yet, Ukraine, trying to pull away from Russia’s orbit: it can ONLY be because there’s a Biden involved, otherwise the man, Trump, would not have bothered w/these machinations. Ukraine is a US ally. Under NO circumstances was the President allowed to overstep US Foreign Policy, especially at the behest of one, Rudy Giuliani, & withhold vital financial military aid, to secure his own political advantage for an upcoming election. This just proves that Russia did interfere to deny Ms. Clinton the Presidency and the plot repeats itself, this time wanting to besmirch Ukraine, a thorn in Russia’s side. Trump was born w/a silver spoon, a spoiled man, who does not know the true value of freedom & democracy, as he never fought for it. In fact he recoils from it. The Kurds did the fighting for him, & then he abandons them. He just knows profits & power. Not the true value, meaning, cost & sacrifice for freedom. His constituency are people feeling sorry for themselves. They need an education. Sorry for the US at the moment. The Berlin Wall fell. But who is Trump defending? Taking his cues from? Know which side you’re on. Truth or political games?
1
It is interesting to read this and similar articles and then watch the Sunday morning shows. The majority of the Republicans keep saying that it is not the job of the Senate to prove the Democrats case just because they were to quick to properly obtain the evidence. And yet, when could the Democrats impeach Trump if not when they did? Time was an enemy, an election is nearing, Trump could have stonewalled this for who knows how long. Parnas' testimony wasn't available at the time. And, the Republican held Senate wouldn't have cared, and still doesn't. It's the "people" who have to demand clarity, and they have not raised their voices to be heard by the Republicans. The Republicans say this impeachment is like Clinton's, but all of the documents and witnesses were heard back then. Let's hope for 51 votes to demand the evidence. I want to see what the Senate will do when Trump says No to them.
4
At this point Trump could shoot someone on 5th Ave and the Republicans in the senate would exonerate him.
4
@Kurtis E
It is to be hoped instead, that someone will shoot trump and be exonerated.
I suspect that had the economy started a significant downturn in 2019 the American opinion on impeachment would be considerably different. Of course that shouldn’t be a major factor in this trial but it is.
Presidents don’t control economic conditions but yet are revered or reviled based on them. Many honest citizens who dislike Pres Trump and find his behavior repugnant are wary of changing leaders when a steady paycheck is coming in. That ambivalence wins this trial and (probably) a second term. The frivolous God of Cash Flow will prevail.
6
@John Vance
"Presidents don’t control economic conditions but yet are revered or reviled based on them."
Amen. A sad dose of reality for those of us straining to see even a sliver of light at the end of this tunnel. Assuming it has an end.
3
@John Vance
Especially when you consider how dramatically a Warren or Sanders presidency would be.They would literally turn everything upside down. Talk about grinding our economy to a halt.
2
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere". MLK
How is it so that we have a criminal as our president?
7
@Nora: The Electoral College and Senate malapportionment are compounded injustices.
5
@Nora
He is not the first. He is the worst.
5
What makes me smile?
trump has been impeached. History will say so.
Anything he does going forward will have an asterisk. Most things he does is to hurt people. Our reputation is already soiled, so whatever.
Republicans in the Senate can get into lockstep all day with the man. The choice to do this will be a stain on their record also.
To say Democrats don't have ENOUGH evidence is absurd. They have MORE to bring to the table.
Sham trial? Let trump testify. Let Bolton testify. Come on folks...what is he hiding? My guess? A lot.
10
Who is paying for Trump's defense team? Are these big-name attorneys going to be paid at personal cost to Trump, or is he billing the American public? Can you please find out?
4
I’m already planning my Trump Re-election party on November 3, 2020. Shrimp or lobster? Both.
12
@Olivia Trump will win over impeachment and be re elected. America sold out to hate and greed. Rome vanished as a World Power. America went much faster
1
@Olivia
To be kind, we should also start a GoFundMe" page for therapy assistance. Many are going to need it.
2
@Olivia How about crow?
The Republicans are continuing to argue that none of Trump's actions fall under what the framers of the U.S Constitution deemed high crimes and misdemeanors.
Dershowitz's argument falls under circular logic, that the House Managers have not included bribery in their impeachment articles- specific to the terms necessary to removing a president from office. Regarding the acts for conviction of - Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
What Dershowitz is failing to include- are the "other" high Crimes and Misdemeanors. For example - the recent GAO finding that the Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid.
Dershowitz's claim is circular reasoning- same that Rep. Ratcliffe used during the House Impeachment hearings, that not once in all of the testimony does the word 'Bribery' Appear!
The intent is to use myopic legal vision to win their day!
4
This is clearly a partisan charade put on by the democrats and should be shutdown immediately. The democrats have been claiming that they would impeach Trump since he was elected, what a croc. Please Senate, end this now and let the country move on.
16
@G G
Yes, by all means, let our country move on to a Dictatorship under tRump and Republican rule. Talk about a partisan charade. It is the Kangaroo court in the Senate that is a croc.
3
If there is inadequate evidence and large gaps in the record, why was the president of the United States impeached?
The Constitution is clear: The House acts in the role of prosecutor to bring evidence and file the charges.
Then the Senate tries those charges. Nothing but chaos, political grandstanding and a mockery of justice can come of a process where someone is charged, a trial commences, then new evidence is thrown onto the pile every day.
Imagine if during the Clinton impeachment Republican Senators suddenly started calling Paula Jones as a witness, or Juanita Brodderick, or forced Susan McDougal to testify by the Whitewater land deals, or threw Hillary's grand jury testimony into her 'lost' billing records on the pile. Something tells me the New York Times would have taken the proper role of criticizing that display.
Every American is protected against such a slipshod and unjust process by the rules of evidence. So should a president be protected.
10
@PhilBoyd: The witnesses the country wants to hear, Bolton, Mulvaney,Pompeo, have relevant evidence why Trump withheld aid to Ukraine until President Zelensky announced an investigation of Joe Biden.
The bogeyman witnesses you mention in the Clinton impeachment, Paula Jones, etc., had no relevant evidence as to whether Bill Clinton had an affair and lied about it
Big difference.
2
I am hoping and holding out for someone, just one Republican senator, to uphold the law and fulfill their duty but it looks like they have all sold their souls. If any one of us as regular American citizens, flat out refused to show up for court or somehow bullied our accomplices into doing the same (most likely, we'd all be in a jail cell once charged) there is no question about how it would end for us. If no one is above the law, why is this all playing out so differently?
It's because Trump, Barr, Pompeo, and the rest of the crooked crew ARE above the law, or about to be made so by this Republican majority...ugly times for our country.
6
Another big unanswered question: The role of Bill Barr in all of this. He's claimed to know little about and have paid little attention to this Ukrainian matter. And if you believe that ...
3
Isn't it a little late to be gathering evidence on the eve of a trial?
Why did you impeach if you didn't have the evidence to convict?
The Democrats have just admitted to prosecutorial abuse of power.
14
Please senators save us the pseudo drama and vote.
This is clintonesque and should have been a censure
exercise of congress. Both parties probably agreeing.
2
@clarity007
It's all politics. Just saw a clip of democrats insisting that no more witnesses were needed during Clinton's impeachment trial. It would be a waste of time, money, etc.
You cannot make this stuff up. Then, again, you don't have to.
4
GOD fearing GOP seems to follow those rules of three monkeys on impeachment: “SPEAK no evil about Trump, HEAR no evil about Trump and SEE no evil about Trump”. Silent Majority: Please DO not let America break Again and DO not let PUTIN to win the US election second time.
2
Laurence Tribe @tribelaw.
@AlanDersh is grossly misstating law, history, and even the arguments in the Johnson Senate impeachment trial. He’s not to be trusted. Trump’s mendacity has sadly rubbed off on my former colleague. Read my @washingtonpost op-ed laying it all out:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/laurence-h-tribe/
3
It is insulting, shocking and absolutely shameful that Republicans are defending the continuous egregious, unlawful, unconstitutional, unconscionable acts by this reckless, arrogant, lying con man they call their president.
What is God's name is wrong with them?
8
Mr. Bolton Sir, speak up please.
5
If more information was needed from witnesses, why wasn't this done by the House prior to approving the Articles of Impeachment? Dem calls for witnesses now is disturbing and supports GOP claims that Schiff led a rush to judgement by a kangaroo court without the sort of diligence the American people expect for a proceeding of this gravity. In reality, this entire Congressional process functionally disenfranchises the voters. November is right around the corner and it's the voters who should decide Trump's fate.
11
@Mike F.
Because Trump banned all his people from testifying, obviously. The better question is why doesn't Trump want his people to testify? What's he hiding? And why don't Republicans want to question witnesses themselves? What's so dangerous to them about having more information? Seems clear they're afraid of what might come out.
I'd argue that the electoral college disenfranchised about 2.8 million voters last presidential election, but such are the rules of our government. Same with impeachment. The Founders had certain reservations about direct democracy and so here we are. Don't like it, advocate for Constitutional amendments.
2
Why? Because the evidence and witnesses are being blocked by trump and his WH. Everyone is afraid to speak the truth in the current administration. The GOP are afraid of trump and his wrath! Even one more year with him in office is a threat to the US! His impulsiveness is so unpredictable, he can’t be stopped. He doesn’t follow protocol, he just decides to do something, and doesn’t seek approval from Congress! Senators, the CIA, the NSA....they’re all afraid of what he’ll do! His anger is out of control, he REFUSES to respect anyone! He is incapable of compromise, or even listening to anyone for advice or listening to anyone’s point of view. To him, everyone is against him. His narcissist personality does not allow for him to hear the other side. In his opinion, everyone is out to get him!
4
@Mike F.
The US House of Representatives did ask for more information and witness testimony but Trump refused to provide it. He ordered his underlings not to comply with congressional subpoenas.
The convincing and compelling testimony of those witnesses who did appear during the deliberations of the US House of Representatives provided insight into the context and motivations of Trump's bribery of Zelensky (I'll give you $300 million if you do me a favor by pretending there is probable cause to investigate the Bidens).
The Electoral College disenfranchises the voters, tragically.
Losing an election is a different fate than being removed from office for abusing it and obstructing a congressional investigation.
4
The Senate trial comes down to which one of two forces will win out; evidence or the Mob. On one side is a sizable amount of available facts and potential testimonial evidence on Trump’s criminality. The other side is Trump’s mob, the diehard supporters of the rallies and Congressional allies who will eviscerate anyone not supporting Trump regardless his acts. The silence moderate Republicans, the tepidness media, the fearfulness of public servants all speak to the awesome power of the mob to silence dissent. All of Trump’s power comes from those many fine people in the mob who liberally use the power Trump has bestowed on them.
3
It shouldn't be easier to move Mt. McKinley than the Republican mindset when this all comes down to defending the U.S. Constitution.
5
@Marge Keller, you mean Mt. Denali? Cultural sensitivity, please.
4
@John Doe
Well done fellow punner. I like your version much better. Thanks for sharing.
1
The Congressional Dems should institute further hearings on whether to file more articles of impeachment and bring in all these witnesses under oath.
2
It is absurd to believe that "additional evidence" is going to change anything. The impeachment, which should have been a house censure, and it could have been non partisan to some extent, would have gone a lot further toward withering this terrible man than the obnoxious and partisan impeachment process, bound to fail in the senate. One can only hope that the public will side with the Democrats on this issue but I fear the ugliness of it will just make people dig in their heals.
3
It's a big waste of time and instead of hiliting Trump's ugly behavior against counytry like Venezuela which seems corrupt but has done nothing against the USA. Issue like healthcare where the Democrats hold a much higher ground is shoved aside. The Biden saga publicity is savaging his candidacy where he should easily be in the lead and win handily the Presidency. VP Biden should not have been involved in the Ukrainian prosecutor's dismissal but he had full knowledge/support of Pres Obama so he did nothing wrong.
I am looking forward to the Senate Impeachment trial. I hope it is as entertaining as the House show. The Republican-dominated Senate will listen to the nonsense and then vote to exonerate Donald J. Trump, the President of the United States of America. This impeachment folly will come back to haunt the Democrats because if they ever win back the White House, the Republicans will impeach their president as a matter of principle. And I hope they do! At any rate, President Trump will be re-elected President of the United States of America and I only wish that he could be re-elected several times over. I do not want to see the WH ever disgraced again by a Democrat, especially a progressive Democrat bent on turning America into a Marxist-Socialist-Leninist state. Thank you.
11
Ha! Ha! Ha! "Lordy," as James Comey would say, you can't make this stuff up...well, perhaps Schiff can...but I digress. The prosecution doesn't get to force the defense to add some of their witnesses after they have rested.
9
Mr. Bolton says - subpoena me. I'll testify, but for some reason, only in the Republican Senate. By what Constitutional authority does Bolton get to pick and choose?
If he'd testify for the Senate, he has no right to refuse the House. He should be held in contempt and jailed.
To add Constitutional insult to injury, the Republican Senators refuse to subpoena Bolton.
Republicans are the party of law and order?
1
All these strange and illogical reasons Republicans have listed for not calling witnesses are obscuring the real reason: they don't want to hear any more evidence against Trump. They don't want to listen while Democrats ask witnesses tough questions. They don't want to hear the potential answers that would incriminate Trump.
It'd be nice if they'd just be honest and drop the pretense here. This isn't about 'well, Dems should have called more witnesses in the House'. It is not about 'Dems just think their case is weak'. It's much simpler than that. Republicans simply do not want to go through what would almost certainly be a politically damaging process that, while unlikely to oust Trump from office, might drag down their election results in November. In even simpler terms, they fear what truths might come out.
3
Given the recent criminal activities of this administration towards Iran, activities he whole heartily endorses, there is no reason to assume Bolton won't just lie. Just because he has aspirations of being a war criminal doesn't mean he has any integrity.
2
The only way Republicans can avoid the contempt of the American people is if they allow witnesses, documents, everything - and Trump is still acquitted. Otherwise it is just a kangaroo court which Democrats, hopefully, will exploit to the fullest.
Benjamin Franklin estimated that this Republic would last about 200 years. Let's hope he was wrong. But if this is a sham trial, and Trump walks, and worse, he gets a second term, then it may be over: Trump will likely become Dictator-in-Chief.
1
If after three years of Democrats building and preaching a case against Trump they don’t have enough already to make one in the Senate trial then God help them. Beating the bushes for new “bombshells” for Brian Williams and Rachel Maddow to explode every night to keep their TV ratings up beyond the thousands that have already blasted my eardrums long ago is useless for I can’t hear anymore!
10
Indeed! A fair trial does involve evidence. But the Senate Republicans know that the evidence does not favor Donald Trump's acquittal of the charge of holding up already promised funds for Ukraine's military defense in exchange for the "favor" of publicly investigating his political opponent in the 2020 election. No matter how Republicans spin the evidence already in the public domain Trump is guilty of a stupid act of "Bribery", i.e. using taxpayers' dollars designated by Congress fora foreign country's defense for his own personal political gain.
3
This piece makes it clear that, in addition to digging up dirt on a political rival to influence our elections, Trump is undermining our national security by acting as Putin's agent to damage Ukraine.
Trump is major threat to our nation's security and interests abroad. This alone warrants his removal from office.
Add his violation of campaign finance laws (hush money payments), obstruction of justice (Comey firing, etc.), his wanton abuse of power, obstruction of Congress, and violations of the Emolument Clause, it is shocking that any House Representative or Senator should have any doubt that he needs to go.
America has lost its way and elected too many bad people who put themselves and their party over country and the people they are supposed to be serving.
5
This isn’t even about the GOP putting party over country, it’s Trump over democracy. I wonder how they’ll feel when they become the next targets of his, and whatever next set of goons he ha. The backups once the current set goes to prison, and he remembers that he doesn’t remember ever meeting them.
2
One of the most frighteningly insidious aspect of all this is the friendly communication even camaraderie between Putin, Orban, and Trump, as well as other dictators. Trump really, really, really wants to be America's dictator like those other two are in their countries, and if re-elected he will, or thinks he will.
3
Instead of a fair trial with actual witnesses, GOP senators want to mount a Roman-style deification of Trump.
2
The Dems didn't want to take the time to get those witnesses during the impeachment in the House, they should go to trial with the witnesses and evidence they have now.
If they want certain witnesses then maybe the impeachment was not ready for trail. They should go back and rebuild their case or go with what they have. They shouldn't be rewarded for having built a sloppy case.
As for Lev Parnanas, he is a Ukrainian and we really have no way of knowing whether he is telling the truth or not. He is not a reliable person. No research has been done to test his credibility, Appearing on Rachel Madow is not a test of credibility but rather a desire to get himself out of hot water.
8
None of this would have happened if Joe Biden was not being investigated for corruption.
This is all an effort from the DNC to defend their chosen presidential contender.
Make no mistake, this is the guy the DNC will run, he will magically get the Super Delegates needed to win.
The rest never stood a chance, as the DNC was never going to run Sanders, Warren, Mayor Pete or any one else.
This is just the DNC defending their anointed champion.
If he had not been corrupt and a nepotist, none of this would be happening.
5
The inertia of our corrupt political system will survive 4 more years of Trump, won’t it? The stock market seems not to care about Trump. I find the Democrats doom and glum a pathetic attempt blame Trump for all the wrongs of our corrupt political system that is simply for the money. In 2016, One state had 4+ million votes more for Hillary than Trump, let’s let go of the popular vote being important. One state has over 10% of the Democrats in Congress and of course no gerrymandering or overbearing influence for pushing its agenda on the rest of America. The billions being given to win the office of the President comes with promises (corruption). The issue of climate changes is weak sauce of the true issue, it’s too many people’s footprints destroying the planet, not carbon. Fixing climate through greenhouse gas emissions still doesn’t save the planet. We’re running out of everything from water, food to critical minerals and metals and our economic system can’t keep up or minimizes the ability of billions of citizens to be self reliant. Let the voters decide on the Trump future because most of us see this impeachment with current corruption of both parties in Washington, as a waste of time in addressing what’s really the issues to the voters. We our the ones who gave Trump the job, we will decide if he gets it again. Since the partisan politics created this Trump should be fine with how it plays out.
3
Another article links Russia to chaos and mischief in South America. Republicans, it really is Putin, no matter how much Comrade Trump, new oligarch of America, says.
3
We've been watching a recently made documentary about the leading events of WWII. It is eerily reminding us of our present state of affairs in this country. Near the end of the war in Europe, Hitler was getting a daily cocktail of cocaine and heroine from his quack doctor. He was deranged, paranoid and would rant and rave. Everyone around him knew he was nuts. His last plan to win the war in Europe was impossible. He had neither the manpower, machinery or gasoline to accomplish it. But no one around him dared to say or do anything. Thankfully, it all imploded on Hitler. Maybe we will be so lucky. It is so terribly sad to see history repeating itself 75 years later with another madman in the US of all places. Never say never. I am at the point where I just keep thinking of Dante's words: Lasciate ogni speranza.
4
Republicans are prepared to showcase their prowess at protecting the revered leader. They are well rehearsed at staying on the same page as they practice obstruction. And they have every right to gloat at the success of their obfuscation of actual events, actions and facts - no matter how damning - from the dissing of the Mueller Report to the stone walling of congress for documents and witnesses, to the outright snubbing of subpoenas. The talking heads sent to the front lines of the media are frayed and wearing thin in their daily deflection of mounting evidence and the proliferation of new charges. Now come the silver tongued lawyers.
The hope is that Leader McConnell can limit the input of witnesses, evidence and public exposure. If so, all obstacles to facts and the truth of who Trump is and what Trump has done can be protected and maintained, and we can look forward to weekly Nuremberg-like rallies showcasing the Commander-in-Chief in his full throated glory.
2
If Cons wanted to exonerate their leader, they wouldn't use his crime of obstruction to do it. They intend to excuse his criminal nature, not exonerate him.
4
There is a simple solution for an honest and rational outcome of Trump's impeachment trial in the Senate. Even if he were to be convicted of the crime of bribing a foreign government for his own political gain by a two-thirds majority of the Senate, he doesn't necessarily have to be removed from office. Instead of removal from office for the high crime of "Bribery", the Senate could vote simply to "Censure" Trump and let the American electorate decide whether to remove him from office by their November vote. Republicans could no longer use the silly argument about Democrats wanting to "overturn the 2016 election". (The 2016 election, btw, where 3 million more American voters cast a ballot for the Democrat rather than for Donald Trump)
It has gotten to the point that Trump and his Supporters will lie about what Trump had for breakfast. Reading the comments by Trump supporters is is clear that they want a Trump led Republican dictatorship. It all started with the Electoral College hijack of the last Presidential election. The Republicans turned America into a fascist state when they invalidated the election in which Hillary Clinton received more votes than Trump and installed Trump in the White House. We have an election coming up. The Republicans will again attempt to steal the election. If you believe in Democracy vote for whomever the Democrats nominate.
3
If we have video tape of the robber robbing the bank we don't need to know when he woke up that morning and what was the color of his underwear.
The first article is proven by the partial transcript released by Trump and the second is proven by the fact that he has refused to release any other relevant documents or allow people to testify. If that call was "perfect" and nothing illegal was done why would he block the investigation. Innocent people don't try to prevent testimony from eyewitnesses.
4
Suppose Bolton testifies that the allegation by Democrats are false, will they revoke their impeachment of Trump? They won't, so let the Senators vote based on the evidence the Democrats present. After all they said they had enough evidence to convict Trump. If they think they don't have now, nobody asked them to rush to impeach. Even if more evidences are produced showing that Trump asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son's suspected corrupt dealings in Ukraine and withheld military aid for a few days, Republicans do not consider that an impeachable offense. So, don't waste time, dismiss the case right away.
4
The Democrats have been preparing for this day for THREE Years! Now they want more time? Do the trial, do the election, let the people decide. Surly we know by now that whenever the Democrats say that the next accusation, the next investigation, the next whatever is going to PROVE Trump's guilt, it fizzles out.
7
In third world countries politicians act like and are judges. Courts are packed with political appointees with prosecutors who are the same. Our "rule of law" country apparently doesn't apply to this highly politicized show trial. The incentive for the punishment verses the crime, if there is one, is politicised. Everyone is conflicted.
The most convincing evidence is the way Republicans are all acting. The denials, the deflections, the alternative facts, the ever-changing stories - could they act any more guilty?
They are all in on it, the ones who are actively supporting Trump’s obstruction and the ones who dodge questions and say nothing.
The rot goes all the way through the Republican Party. If they are not all removed from power they will take us down.
3
Mr. Giuliani has insisted that his conversations with Mr. Trump are protected by attorney-client privilege. Have to love his selective memory of the law - client's communication to their attorney isn't privileged if they made it with the intention of committing or covering up a crime or fraud. Maybe they will be in the same cell....
2
What it needs to remove a corrupt and unworthy President from office is the impeachment that involves a nonpartisan dispassionate Congressional investigation and trial but, when the same president is unduly encouraged to play havoc with the established constitutional process, and allowed to intimidate the witnesses or with old testimonies by the ruling party, it is next to impossible to take the impeachment to its logical conclusion, however rigorous and foolproof the impeachment process may be. It is a great travesty of justice and mockery of the constitution.
1
The Senate process will certainly be as fair and impartial as the House was.
8
@Dr.John, finally something the two sides can find common ground on. Bipartisan hope springs eternal.
1
The major problem is that what used to be called "political spin" has morphed into outright lying in all branches of government.
And it is now accepted through legal loopholes and propaganda media outlets like Fox and others.
Facts don't matter in America, does anyone think this is going to end well?
8
I am amazed that we ask our young men and women to defend the US constitution with their lives, while politicians are loathe to defend the constitution and seek the truth, for their own gain. The senators might acquit the President but the American people still deserve the truth and a fair trial. If the senators choose to make a mockery of the constitution, then how can we ask our young men and women to risk their lives to defend it.
2
@Mike: Enlisting as a soldier is the most total voluntary abrogation of liberty there is.
Rather than question if Mr. Putin and/or Hungary's Viktor Orban soured Mr. Trump on Ukraine, why not ask if Trump paid back what many feel was, and could remain, quiet obligations to Putin by holding on to the military equipment funding. that Ukraine truly needed this help as Russia rolled into Ukraine's territory. A number of State Department witnesses blamed Lawyer Giuliani for Mr. Trump’s true or feigned animus toward Ukraine, saying they struggled mightily to counteract his influence. If not, why would the President wish to cripple the Ukraine military as he had already approved these funds? It may be true that Trump felt adverse about the highly corrupt former president of Ukraine, yet Trump was briefed and argued with by his own people more than once, that the new President Zelensky was elected for being as honest and working quite hard to eliminate Urkaine corruption even when running against his predecessor. This is extremely obvious to many since Trump approved nearly a billion dollars aide to Ukraine in prior years when the former corrupt president was in office. until July nearly three years into Trumps term
1
Election in less than 10 months. Let the electorate decide rather than a hundred self interested one percenters.
5
To Republican Senators who are considering a vote for acquittal without hearing or considering the evidence:
Do all Americans a favor before the Impeachment Trial. Go take a long walk through Arlington National Cemetery and reconsider what it really means to serve your country and to uphold an oath.
6
This is a tragic circus. Republican senators stone walling testimony and evidence is a greater breach of ethics than Trump’s corrupt and clumsy efforts to sneak around the law.
And, anyone with an “inquiring” mind can see the Republicans are trying to justify the unjustifiable. What they won’t do to hold onto power...what an indictment of a miserable part of the human condition. Any Republican hero’s still out there (remember John McCaine) ?
5
What blows my mind are:
1. The decision by Mueller,' based on policy', that a sitting president cannot be indicted. By 'POLICY,' by God?!
And
2. The position that a president cannot, by virtue of his position,
break a law.
The Devine Right of Kings. We're back to 1776.
9
This is the Russian Collusion Delusion all over again. Maybe it is good TV and good reading for the "anything but Trumpers" but for the rest of us it is wasted tax dollars and wasted opportunity to draft and pass laws to improve our lives.
8
Bribery: I'll give you what you want if and only if you do an illegal favor for me.
Extortion: If you don't give me what I want, I'll hurt you.
Blackmail: I know what you did and I'll spill the beans unless you give me what I want.
The three terms have been used confusingly when describing Trump's "perfect phone call". It was clearly bribery. Bribery is mentioned in the constitution as a cause for impeachment.
7
There's a lot that we already know, and more than half the U.S. populace thinks it's impeachable and worth Trump's removal from office. Yet the jury is rigged. Senate Republicans are in lockstep to keep him in the White House. But what if there is some later revelation that Trump has done something so truly awful even the most devout sycophant could not defend it? There is still a lot we don't know and one has to wonder what else Trump has done that is either illegal, unconsciounable or indefensible.
6
@Christy
"But what if there is some later revelation that Trump has done something so truly awful even the most devout sycophant could not defend it?"
Re: "something"
Just give him time.
Re: "could not defend it"
Just watch 'em.
Democrats don't get it. Seeking more testimony is a pathetic admission that there is insufficient evidence to support partisan impeachment with bipartisan opposition to impeachment in the US house of reps and more than likely in the senate. This Schiff , Nadler led gang in the image did not do a thorough job in preparing the article of impeachment but instead did a hasty, sloppy, defective job of not providing clean admissible evidence.
It is not the constitutional job of the senate to show any consideration for something incomplete or deficient in supporting the articles of impeachment. The senate cannot take the blame for not deliberating on this casket carrying the articles of sham incomplete of impeachment and it should be dead on arrival in the senate trial. In simple English, these particular articles of impeachment should be rendered null and void and the charges dismissed by the Chief justice Roberts. That said the articles should be promptly returned to the US House of Reps for further evidence gathering and completion along with another vote to support a newer version of impeachment if they so choose. As speaker Pelosi has said the house of Reps can impeach a president that they do not like any number of times. Well then try again and do it properly next time with getting all the witnesses you need. Frankly though, I would like American people to decide in Nov. whether president Trump stay in office for another 4 years or pack up and leave to Mar go Lago, Florida.
9
Are you interested in getting to the truth or are you just presenting a partisan, and flawed, argument?
4
@Girish Kotwal: You are the typical Republican excuser. What uyou are saying is that no matter how much evidence there is against Trump there never will be enough. I assume if the President was a Democrat and the Republicans controlled Congress you would be howling for the death penalty. All one has to do is look at the Republicans' impeachment of Bill Clinton for lying about having an affair. Trump has done many, many things much worse but the Republicans are accusing the Democrats of being a lynch mob.
8
@Girish Kotwal
Wake up. Trump stonewalled the investigation. The Senate may sell out but all the clowns will be tried in the court of public opinion in November.
4
The House Democrats have made a mockery of the impeachment process using slipshod discovery methods, parliamentary proceedures and timing tactics. Now they are brazen enough to think that the Senate Republicans are going to bend the rules to accommodate their petulant behavior. Rich.
8
Senate Republicans are locked in. It’s now up to voters.
5
Too late for all of that. The Democrats in such a messy hurry to impeach our President claiming he was a threat to our nation! The Democrats have lost all moral authority whatsoever. Anyone with half a brain can see that they are still trying to remove a sitting president that they said they were going to impeach before he was inaugurated! Be real people you can't be that stupid not to see what is happening here. We live in a america were you are presumed innocent. You don't have to prove your innocence to anyone! The Dems did not even impeach Trump on a crime! There indictment is ludicrous
8
@tom: Your comment is so funny! It is always the Conservatives that tell us that "If you have nothing to hide, you would be cooperating." But when it is one of their own being investigated they cry "witch hunt."
3
@tom Did you even go to school? There are so many grammatical errors in this, a 10 year old would be ashamed. We live in AN America WHERE. THEIR indictment. Now for some facts: Bribery is an impeachable crime. The House impeached Trump for Bribery, he offered the President of Ukraine the release of moneys that Congress had already voted to give, he offered a White House meeting. Those two items are attempted bribery, the fact it did not succeed is of no importance, it is BRIBERY, and that is what Trump is up against.
4
Jean,
Basic literacy is a chronic problem with Trump supporters.
If the phone call was perfect, why —
1—secret away all records from uncut
transcripts to audio recordings to a codeword-protected server in the dead of the night?
2—obstruct witnesses from coming forward by threatening to destroy them on Twitter?
3—send Nuñes and Giuliani and Barr on a worldwide disinformation tour funded by the Kremlin?
4—smear a US diplomat then threaten her and then fire her to create a power vacuum inside the Ukraine so Giuliani et al can smear the Bidens with impunity?
5—continue whining on Twitter like a grade schooler?
8
This trial is pretty straightforward. There are those that want the truth to come out and those that don't. Those that don't will have to run for reelection on a record of coverup. The only gaps here are questions about what else the Trump administration is hiding and why senators, who were not elected by Donald Trump, are helping him hide it.
12
Asking strictly from a voting perspective, the question of WHY continues to surface.
Why fight, block and resist information if the president has done no wrong?
It's the president and now the Republicans resistance and obstruction of information being requested/demanded that continues to resonant in my head.
Innocent people don't spend more time fighting the exposure of information that could illuminate their innocence than hiding or suppressing it.
Republicans are working so hard to keep information secret, the big question that continues is the why?
Don't think voters won't remember this blocking and obstruction of information come November 3.
6
@Marge Keller, talk about election interference, all Democrats are doing is trying to dig up dirt on their November political opponent right before the public’s eyes and on their dime. Talk about brazen. It makes Trump look like an amateur.
2
We know what the results are before this begins. The Senate in this case is the judge, jury, and the defense. The Democrats are going to have to find some way of framing what will ultimately be a farce as a phenomenon that will inform the historical record that this trial stands as a cautionary tale of what happens to checks and balances when hegemony, money, and bought and sold politicians grow more powerful than truth, fact, and the Constitution. The Democrats have to seize the advantage in loss and somehow send the message to the citizens of the United States that this is what happens when we let foxes run the hen house, when— aptly here on MLK Jr, day— we let intolerance and divisiveness influence the body politic. This is what happens when we don’t vote.
3
Why don't the Democrats in Congress subpeona Bolton, Barr, and others of Trump's minions? I understand it is thought that a president can't be forced to respond to a subpeona, but what gives his aides the right to refuse to testify ?
@Bonnie House Democrats took a short cut and decided not to pursue subpoenas or court cases to force testimony. It’s a political calculation.
4
@Bonnie You haven't been paying attention. Trump claimed "Executive Privilege" and refused to allow anyone on his staff to testify.
1
I wonder how much of the trial the Republicans will keep from the public. Given the rules they have voted in so far, they will block nearly everything. The Republican controlled Senate is more dangerous than Trump.
4
Perhaps the Senate will do what the house democrats did: take closed-door depositions.
2
@terri smith
They are already limiting television coverage a well as roping off reporters so that it is more difficult to ask questions and speak to Senators et al. Trying to hide as much as possible from the viewing public. Even ESPN is complaining.
1
More evidence and testimony? Why now? Democrats have a majority in the House and could easily have continued the process there for four of five weeks until January 20th. What was the rush to send incomplete evidence to the Senate? Democrats have been running a three year long attack process to get rid of Trump. Now they say that they forgot something. Will they be asking Stormy Daniels and Avanatti for sworn testimony next?
3
Schiff and Nadler want a trial filled with conjecture, so now they say that the CIA and NSA might be hiding something. It was the job of Schiff, Nadler & Company to get the evidence, but their desire to rush to judgment before the Christmas break took precedence. So, now they have to live with their ill-advised decisions.
6
@Brewster’s Millions - Trump stood in the way of evidence gathering, in case you don't remember. That's why one of the articles is obstruction of Congress.
5
Exercising your constitutional and legal rights, including invoking executive privilege as every president has done, is not and can never be obstruction.
3
@Brewster’s Millions - Trump never invoked executive privilege. And in any case, it does not apply to criminal acts.
Since the threat was supposedly imminent the Democrats said they had to rushthrough their impeachment.
Then they held the articles for a month.
Now they condemn Republicans for not allowing the witnesses they could have called - even if that meant they had to go to court.
Yet they refuse to allow Republicans to call the whistleblower or Hunter Biden - the origin of the entire impeachment.
Let the Democrats play these shortsighted political games with the Senate. And see what happens.
4
I don't understand how the GOP keeps its self-respect. Even if Trump were innocent, he has been impeached and deserves a real trial - not this kangaroo business the Senate is gearing up for. ("The term [Kangaroo Court] may....apply to a court held by a legitimate judicial authority which intentionally disregards the court's legal or ethical obligations." Wikipedia.)
2
Every minute Trump inhibits witnesses from testifying by telling them not to testify he's obstructing justice--he's laughing at the very notion that there is anything wrong about obstructing justice--and does it because McConnell and the GOP let him get away with it.
Which is to say: there is no justice left in this country's highest office. None. At all.
3
As Republicans stonewall and prevent Americans from learning the truth they might reflect on the precedent they are setting .
For example would they let it go if a future Democrat President withheld military aid from Saudi Arabia to get them to investigate Jared Kushner
Of course not.
It is an imperative that there is always a check and balance on the Administration otherwise we have an absolute Monarchy .
One last point anyone who believes Trumps call was perfect is overlooking not only his ‘ do us a favor’ but the fact he went off on a conspiracy theory about CrowdStrike being an Ukrainian company stealing servers so the FBI could not get to them ignoring the fact that Crowdstrike is American, the servers not one but a 147 have been imaged by the FBI and are safely here in the USA.
The fact Republicans ignore the obvious puts them at odds with the Truth , the Constitution and their sworn duty to be impartial.
3
It’s important to note that none of the “new” evidence has contradicted the charges underlying Trump’s impeachment. Instead, the new information has substantiated the evidence already gathered.
If John Bolton and others have evidence that would exonerate Trump, they and Trump (by claiming executive privilege) have done the nation a great disservice by withholding the truth and letting this process play out.
Assuming Bolton and the others are true patriots, one can only conclude that they have no such evidence.
4
The Ukrainians did no public investigation of the Bidens.
That public investigation will happen in the Senate trial, as part of the defense.
Certainly Hunter and Joe's testimony would help, but if the Senate decides to follow precedent and call no witnesses, like in Clinton's case, then the investigation will have to do without.
1
@novoad. Sounds to me you’d prefer to stick your head in the sand. You have a feeling that what might turn up is not good for your camp.
2
@novoad: The impeachment is not about what the Bidend did or did not do. It is about what Trump did or did not do in violation of the Constitution. In this country we do not prosecute the victim but the perpetrator.
3
@Jeff "The impeachment is not about what the Bidens did or did not do"
You are right on that. The impeachment is the accusation.
What the Bidens did is not part of the accusation, but part of the defense. In the US legal system, the defense takes precedence.
Honest and diligent people will want to gather the most relevant facts. The impeachment was like a grand jury. Now the trial may warrant additional witnesses. Those witnesses must be relevant to the impeachment articles and not a continuation of a political attack on Biden. The whole world is watching to see if our government works.
5
@Joe Barnett The question of whether or not the government does the right thing is left to the voters. That is what elections are for. That is how democracy works.
2
@Joh: Then why is the right to impeachment the President in out Constitution? Following the Constitution is also the way democracy works.
2
As a practical matter, the object is to get the impeachment hearing/trial beyond the date of the State of the Union address because no amount of additional evidence will sway the Senate vote. Short of trump resigning, the "fix" is in. trump will be prevented from taking a victory lap at the State of the Union and prevented from turning the Address into a campaign rally.
Beyond that, the Democrats do not care about the outcome of the trial at this stage because even if "new" evidence is presented (that is more incriminating), the "fix" is still in to absolve trump. The trial will end and then "new" evidence will be leaked all the way to the November election. The Democrats will not be criticized for having "dragged out the investigation" to the Impeachment Trial (during the election season); but will get the benefit of doing exactly the same thing because the Republicans "covered up" evidence.
The constant drumbeat of "cover-up" will play out, along with newly discovered evidence. The only criticism will be that the Democrats "should have waited"; but, again, no amount of additional evidence will sway the vote in the Senate.
trump will lose the election in a landslide.
2
In 2010, the Pew Research Center wrote "Clinton’s impeachment barely dented his public support, and it turned off many Americans". Deja vu. Trump's popularity polls have actually risen significantly since the impeachment process began. And, many Americans are turned off by the process. The reason in both cases is that most Americans don't think the actions of the two accused rose to the levels of high crimes and misdemeanors. Neither's actions threatened the security of the nation, harmed the economy, or healthcare, affected immigration or employment or any of the major concerns of Americans. In both cases, the actions performed were wrong and illegal. But worthy of eviction from office? Not in the minds of the majority of the people who have other more important issues they want addressed. So, the the impeachment process will drag on, Trump will not be convicted, the Republicans will be stronger and the Democrats weaker. Deja vu.
1
@B. T. The differne is that the REpublicans Impeached Bill Clinton for lying about having sex with Monica Lewinsky. While the Democrats are impeaching Trump for violating his oath of office and using the power of the US government in an attempt to destroy a political rival. If you can't see the different you are blind.
3
The Republican refrain one hears over and over is that the Democrats are "trying to undo" the 2016 election. It's a charge the Democrats must do everything in their power to refute. This impeachment trail is as much about educating the American public as it about judging whether the president is guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors." It is up to Pelosi and Schumer to make it clear that they are doing their constitutionally mandated duty to hold the president accountable for what plausibly appears to be a serious abuse of power. Not to do so would be disobeying the oath of offices they swore to uphold. Not to do so would set a precedent that would seriously weaken the power the founders gave to Congress when they created our system of checks and balances. I care less about the political outcome of this trial than I do about whether Americans can come to understand that what's at stake is much more than the survival of this particular presidency.
4
@Charles Michener: The Republicans already have undone the 2016 Election. Hillary Clinton received more votes than Donald Trump but the Republicans in the Electoral College ignore that vote and coronated King Trump.
2
I think it’s agreed President Trump withheld funds Congress appropriated for aid to Ukraine. It’s also been established that it’s illegal for the Executive to subvert the will and intent of Congress by refusing to disburse the appropriated funds. Though the Republicans love to accuse everyone else of “overreach”, if the funds were appropriated but intentionally withheld, what’s the difference what the President’s motivation was?
Any way you slice and dice what Trump’s defenders have to say, it comes down to the same thing: There is no crime in Trump doing anything he wants because he is the president, by which they mean the king.
Not only a weak defense to make in an unbiased trial, but deeply unAmerican.
3
Concerning evidence and witnesses the House investigation was rushed and should have gone quickly to the courts, including the Supreme Court, to validate its power and right to call witnesses and demand evidence sub poena. The whole impeachment process doesn't have much time because of the forthcoming election but I feel that more should have been done before going to the Senate.
2
Yes, of course, they are looking for more. What they found in the House inquiry is nothing.
4
"To Republicans, the latest claims and disclosures are evidence that House Democrats put together a slapdash investigation that did not cover enough bases before they rushed to an ultimately partisan vote on the House floor. It is not the Senate’s job, Republicans say, to do what the House failed to do." (NYTimes, 16Jan2020)
This is a red herring by the Republicans to duck their duty. "Congressional oversight is oversight by the United States Congress over the Executive Branch ... Congress’s oversight authority derives from its 'implied' powers in the Constitution, public laws, and House and Senate rules. It is an integral part of the American system of checks and balances." (Wikipedia)
The House, faced with obstruction by the Executive branch regarding administration witness, documents, attempts to force lengthy court actions, etc., did what they could to avoid yet more foreign interference in the next election. And made a very convincing case that the POTUS is guilty of abuse of power and obstruction.
But in any case, the Senate, as part of Congress, is required to provide oversight of the Executive branch. Ignoring evidence that has come to light after the House action is shirking their constitutional duty. Blaming the House for their inaction is pure partisanship, and unconstitutional.
2
If they need more, why didn't Schiff provide for it when the House was building it's case? Sorry, but that is not a fit excuse and makes the whole effort a sham.
4
@Samuel Spade: To use the Conservative talking point: Why, if Trump is innocent did he obstruct the investigation and refuse to allow his witnesses to testify? As usual the Conservative do not believe that the rule of law applies to them.
2
It is clear that under its present composition, the Senate does not want a full and deep investigation of Trump's actions. Any criminal would hope that the investigation of his crimes would be done in the same superficial and evasive way. Here , the objective of this whole hullabaloo of impeachment, as far as McConnell and the Republican Senators who control this so called "trial" are concerned is to put on a show, give the impression of deep concern for the nation, put as many obstructions in the way as they can (e.g. executive privilege) and dismiss as soon as possible. The objective is to do as little harm as possible to Trump.
3
The White House doesn't dispute the accusations. No one is denying what happened.
Trump's defense is the action does not constitute an impeachable offense. He was acting in an official capacity well within the constitutionally mandated range of executive authority. Ergo, more evidence is irrelevant. The case hinges on intent rather than substance.
The legality or illegality of Trump's actions is determined by why he took those actions. The White House claims Trump was fighting corruption. The House claims Trump's pressure was politically motivated. The only evidence now relevant to the Senate trial is evidence that either strengthens or weakens one of these two positions.
The easiest solution is to put Trump under oath and ask him. Of course, Trump is not a credible witness and he would never willingly testify under oath. Perjury is a turn off. Therefore, Democrats need to establish intent using secondary evidence.
Secondary evidence means any documents or testimony that can directly demonstrate Trump's intent. The GAO deemed existing evidence sufficient to conclude the President's actions were politically motivated. Unless the Senate has a higher bar for evidence than the GAO, the verdict should be self-evident.
However, in arguing intent, Republicans will claim no evidence is sufficient to prove intent. That's why the obstruction charge is relevant. You can't escape abuse of power by refusing evidence. Refusing evidence is guilt of obstruction. Rock meet hard place.
3
The real question is, Does any amount of evidence matter?
The Trump Party, holding the majority in the Senate, is intent on dismissing what in any other trial would be damning evidence. But not for The Chosen One in the White House.
6
Is that the same party as the Tax Cut Single Issue Party?
2
And don't forget the smear campaign that led to the withdrawal of Ambassador Vovanovich. The President has unbridled power to remove any ambassador for any reason. Yet in this instance, his personal lawyer, Giuliani, organized and implemented a campaign to wholly discredit Vovanovich. Why?
Lev Parnas, who executed the smear campaign, said it was because Vovanovich was seriously attempting to fight corruption in Ukraine, and would have nothing to do with the claim that the Bidens were engaged in some (unspecified) corruption. In the world of criminal gangs, this is called "shutting her up" or "getting her out of the way."
Worse, Pompeo did not even lift a finger in support of the embattled public servant, then or now. Why his silence? No need to have him testify; he's already shown he will lie to cover his actions and protect Trump. Besides, there is enough testimony already on the record from career diplomats that their colleague was fired in the most unusual and hyper-political fashion.
If there was nothing untoward going on within the Trump regime, does any of this make sense? Of course not.
383
@PaulB67
Let us remember:
After Watergate, a number of White House senior advisors went to prison:
Nixon's Attorney-General, John N. Mitchell, who ran the Department of Justice, was convicted and sent to prison (guilty of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury).
Harry Robbins Halderman - White House Chief of Staff (convicted of conspiracy and obstruction of justice.)
John Daniel Ehrlichman - counsel and Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs (convicted of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, perjury, and other charges, disbarred)
John Wesley Dean, a former attorney who served as White House Counsel (imprisoned and disbarred of course too)
Many other White House staff, government personnel, and people involved in CREEP (Nixon's 1972 re-election campaign) were convicted and imprisoned. None were pardoned.
35
@PaulB67 The President does not have any power to do anything corruptly.
22
@Ron You remember all that but you don't remember that Hunter Biden had no energy experience; no Ukraine experience; and no knowledge of the Ukranian language.
What did they do at Board Meetings, provide translation for him?
2
It astounds me how pathetically Americans cower from profoundly evil and incompetent public officials abusing public coercive authorities.
14
The Congressional Research Service published a report in November 2019 titled Impeachment and the Constitution. It is a good read on the subject of impeachment in America. It answered quite a few of my questions.
https://crsreports.congress.gov
1
Two years back; I was sued by a money hungry lawyer of a local oil company asking me almost $2000 for for the oil they delivered to an address (not owned by myself and have never rented that place or even visited). Lawyer's assistant figured out name match and just sent me a court papers.
I had to hire a lawyer and fight it into the court. Once it was clear that the lawyer sued the wrong guy; case was dropped.. I asked judge to have the oil company lawyer pay my defense cost; he denied.. and when I asked - why do I have to suffer or even defend the crime I never committed - he said:
This is how American court system works; you can be sued and you have to defend yourself in the system with the evidence.
Why is Trump not putting up any evidence? Not a single one and #MoscowMitch and his team will exonerate him.. in the biggest trial of the century ?
Now I realize that the laws are for all non GOP leaders.. they're the Devil's demons running GOP and working hard ot ruin my America.
11
@P2 "Why is Trump not putting up any evidence?"
His counsel was not allowed by the Democrats to be part of the impeachment. That was a kangaroo court, while you were actually allowed to defend yourself in court.
The defense of the President will come next week. It is outlined in the letter of response which was linked to by the NYT. By and large, the two impeachment articles are not crimes, and certainly not the high crimes and misdemeanors in the Constitution. And the corruption of Joe and Hunter shall be proved to have been so deep that the President was required to stem it before spending any money.
The Ukrainians did no public investigation of the Bidens. That public investigation will happen in the Senate trial, as part of the defense.
1
@P2 yes, at this point anyone supporting this president and the party behind him are evil. there simply is no decent excuse to continue to support them. this is no longer a matter of different opinions. this is the difference between right and wrong.
2
@P2: Your hatred of lawyers is unwarranted. The oil company sued you. They provided the incorrect information to their attorney. It is not an attorney's job to investigate the client. It was the Oil Company w who was at fault not their attorney.
Do you blame your doctor if you get sick?
And over it all is Cambridge Analytica’s involvement in Trump’s election. Just like Tobago. Just like Brexit. We need to go back to a democracy. One vote, one person. Get trump on that!
6
Obstruction. Continues.
9
The House should continue to gather evidence and eventually issue new articles of impeachment.
14
I wonder how many senators are familiar with the facts and details presented here.
Senator Collin’s comment that the Dems should have presented the Parnas findings during the House hearing makes me wonder whether GOP senators are truly ill-informed — or are just pretending to be.
I mean, having the circled the wagons and decided beforehand to blindly followMcConnell and to protect Trump at all costs, is it possible that some senators have deliberately shielded themselves from the information that would force them to confront their own violations of their oaths of office?
I guess I’m being naive, am still trying to account for the likelihood that in the face such overwhelming evidence —notwithstanding the gaps outlined in this article— GOP senators will knowingly endorse obvious farce of a “trial” that McConnell is trying to orchestrate.
8
@jaco
It is the senate’s job to hear and assess —and to make an “impartial” judgement based on— all relevant evidence.
(And trump’s non-cooperation —or obstruction— of the House’s investigation, the blanket defiance of subpoenas, makes the Trumpists’ “procedural” objections doubly disingenuous.)
If senators vote to deny relevant witness testimony it will be because they’re obviously unwilling to confront — and let the American people hear— the truth.
Simply: Trump supporters, layman and congressional alike, are afraid of damning facts; the rest is bad faith smoke and mirrors.
1
I can’t speak to Eisenberg’s motivation, but his actions ended up enabling the president’s corrupt and illegal actions and not protecting the national security.
When I see how easy it is for those charged with upholding the law, the Constitution and the people’s interest to just role over and instead profess fealty to an overlord, I can clearly see we are in far more serious trouble than just from one rogue, corrupt president. A whole system and party has been seriously degraded.
Putin certainly played a winning move to help get Trump elected and sow discord within our political system.
6
You realize that if Bolton testifies then Hunter has to as well. And Hunter is under executive privilege while Hunter is not. Even a Hunter taking 100 times the fifth, once for every pointed question, will not be good for Joe.
Whether you like it or not is irrelevant.
If there are witnesses, every side gets to call whomever they think fit. And on the defense side, those would be Hunter, Joe, the whistleblower and Schiff. The anonymity is NOT protected in a trial, since the defendant has the right to face his accusers. That is why witnesses go in witness protection AFTER they testified in the open.
5
Whistleblowers are not mobsters testifying against their bosses. If the penalty for bringing the abuses of government to light is that you have to spend the rest of your life in witness protection then do really think we’ll have any whistleblowers in the future? Is that what you want? Government may well be truly unaccountable in the future you’re imagining. Sad.
2
@novoad. You keep assuming that the chance of having Biden testify will deter Democrats from wanting Bolton and others to testify. Democrats have very little to lose here. There are other Democratic candidates that are possibly better positioned to unseat Pence.
1
If he was charged then there was supposedly enough evidence to convict. They should present the evidence and be done with it.
The problem for dems is there is nothing illegal about what he did. We threaten Mexico to withhold aid unless they investigate drug dealers. Joe and son were suspected of committing a crime in the Ukraine. Who else would investigate other than Ukrainian authorities?
These charges should be dismissed by the senate if the house managers do. It have enough to convict. Enough of investigations. Time to investigate Biden and obama.
3
@Hooey His administration didn’t break the law but it’s not a criminal law. The result of an administration having been found to have broken administrative law is to force them to comply which has already taken place. This is actually far more common than most would think.
Let's face it. The Republicans are afraid to let anyone testify. They are so afraid of the facts that they want to stifle any attempts of more information being revealed. Too bad we can't impeach them too....starting with Mitch McConnell.
15
@susan I want to reiterate what you said. ALL Senate Republicans are absolutely, 100% accessories to these crimes. If we truly lived in a nation of laws, all would be put in prison. Instead, they sit on the jury. It's absurd.
2
Watching Schiff and crew walking to the Senate reminds me of a flock of turkeys walking across the road. The turkeys, however, have enough sense to scatter when danger approaches.
8
Enjoy the Trump Treason, Bill.
Perhaps it's time for you to replace your American flag with a Russian or Ukrainian one.
29
@Bill Exactly. They embarrassed themselves beyond repair.
3
@Bill Schiff, et al, are all that is standing between you and a corrupt banana republic and dictatorship and complete erosion of our Constitution. People who have put Donald Trump, a con man no less, above the law and Constitution need to remember that.
6
Great idea spending all this time and resources on Trump's impeachment process.
Meanwhile, the Democratic Partys' electoral platform remains in limbo as they waver back and for the between left-leaning and right-of-center candidates.
Oh wait a sec: The Dems are fully cognizant of their never-ending internal feuds, so why not fixate on Trump!
Yes, the Dems also represent Wall Street, but Trump and the Republicans are worse.
It's a race to the bottom.
1
‘People Do Things. Things Happen,’ GOP Senator Says of Trump Soliciting Foreign Election Interference
That in a gist what we will hear from his loyal defenders, they have no other trails to explore, they're stuck in a box.
No way out...who knows maybe they can still sleep at night why the country is falling apart and the constitution is more brittle than ever.
Who knows...
6
And if all the Republicans violate their oath to be fair and impartial jurors, is that not another glaring obstruction of justice...and another crushing blow to democracy??
11
@Truthiness The senate has the right to try impeachment however it chooses. Supreme Court precedence on this subject is clear. Courts do not have the authority to try and determine how the senate conducted an impeachment.
1
Trump to the House: "You cannot have any evidence, evidence against me is a threat to national security"
Trump to the Senate: "You do not have any evidence, your case is weak"
23
@WeHadAllBetterPayAttentionNow
Yep. It was clear from the start how this would play out. He would stonewall any and every attempt to gather evidence, and Republicans in the Senate will acquit because of, well, not enough evidence.
It is also striking how closely this parallels the Mueller investigation. Obstruct investigators at every opportunity and, surprise!, they can't conduct a thorough investigation into what you did wrong.
1
It will be interesting to see how John Roberts presides as judge. He may very well allow the testimony and other evidence the Dems seek to admit. And should Trump launch into a twitter tirade about the way the trial proceeds, if I were Roberts, I’d issue a bench warrant and have Trump arrested for contempt and brought before the Court. After all, Roberts has an express duty to uphold due process and, being a lifetime appointee to the Supreme Court, is not going to lose his job and has nothing to fear politically.
10
“He may very well..” But we all know he won’t.
1
@Don Pirrigno I would not hold my breath that Roberts is going to do anything to make this a fair trial.
@Don Pirrigno: No President can be charged with Contempt of Congress while in office. I thought that we taught our Constitution in school.
The Democrats and Republicans are looking at this situation in two different and irreconcilable ways. For the Democrats, the alleged conduct of Trump related to Ukraine warrants removal from office and they are focused on getting more witnesses and evidence against him to conclusively prove the allegations.
For the Republicans, there is little doubt (whether they publicly admit it or not) that Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. That was likely improper, but insufficient grounds for removal - particularly less than 10 months from an election when the voters can decide the question.
The Republicans probably have the better argument, particularly since they are taking the same position as Democrats did during the Clinton impeachment. Clinton clearly committed a crime (perjury, for which he was disbarred from the legal profession) but Democrats didn't think the circumstances warranted removal from office.
4
The strong economy Trump voters had better take a look at Turkey’s GDP growth numbers 2010-2020, and then at what’s happening at the impeachment trial.
Trump and his Republican Party will keep chipping away at democracy and just like Russia and more recently Turkey before us, and we will hit a point where it starts hurting the economy. The first signs will be university enrollment and immigration numbers of the best and brightest.
5
@Anne
Yeah, new USMCA and Phase One of a China Agreement nothing to see, but check out what's going on in Turkey Trump Voters? Ok, Anne, will get on that shortly. Meanwhile, you check out those trade agreements ok?
1
Republicans just need to proceed "by the book", following procedures and precedent. Democrats had their chance, as prescribed by procedures, in the House. They need to go back to the House if they want to add new evidence; otherwise, it's over for them.
9
@AACNY
The Clinton and Johnson impeachment trials both had Senate witnesses.
The Republican Party should just move to Russia if they're so committed to sham justice and czarist rule.
6
@Socrates
What makes you think they won't have witnesses? Including Schiff and Biden?
4
@Socrates The House impeachment was the Sham of the Century.
1
Insufficient evidence is not the Democrats’ only problem. President Trump acknowledges that he asked President Zelensky to “look into” allegations against Joe Biden and Hunter Biden made by the prosector assigned to the Burisma investigation and to have his prosecutor general share information with the U.S. attorney general. So no witnesses or documentary evidence is necessary. But during opening arguments, the president defense team will argue that this was not a crime and is, therefore, not constitutional grounds for impeachment.
No witnesses testimony or documentary evidence is necessary to establish that President Trump directed executive branch officials not to comply with congressional subpoenas. But this is an executive privilege issue presently being resolved by the judicial branch, which traditionally resolves dispute between the executive branch and legislative branch. Taking the issue to the federal courts is not an impeachable offense.
During the Clinton impeachment trail, the court entertained a motion to dismiss the articles of impeachment immediately after the end of closing arguments. There will be similar motions to dismiss at the end of the opening arguments in the Trump trial. On motion will contend the alleged offenses are not constitutional grounds for impeachment.
12
When the history books are written, if this is allowed to continue, trump will be called the “bringer of the great change” or something like that.
History will remember whatever the powers that be want remembered, even if it’s not true.
They are not afraid of their legacy because they will snuff out the truth.
2
For the life of me I don’t understand why Dems never issued subpoenas for critical witnesses. It made no sense expecting they would be invited for a senate trial with McConnell at the helm. They should issue them now in anticipation of the inevitable court challenges so they can have them in the future. If the Dems hopefully win the presidency this mess still requires an investigation.
7
@Mrs Ming Time. Trump would have challenged in court any subpoenas and would have likely been able to delay past the election. Since this impeachment is regarding his attempt to corrupt this election it needed to come out before the election.
4
@terri smith
Agree it is about corruption of current election BUT that still didn’t prevent issuing subpoenas for later while issuing impeachment articles now
1
@Working Stiff: Who in the republican voter clown car are going to wake up and vote Trump out of office?
One very scary but valuable lesson I have learned from Donald Trump is that American foundations and democracy is incredibly fragile, and that a major pillar holding up those foundations was the need for our political leaders to act in good faith and to honor their oaths to defend the Constitution, not any one person. With the Republican Party having completely abdicated that faith, that pillar has been cut down, by a lot, and our democracy is not longer structurally sound. I am shocked that a president can defy subpoenas freely, order others to not testify, order evidence with held; I'm shocked that a majority leader can openly admit that he will commit perjury and break his oath to remain impartial in a trial and still be allowed to be a "juror" in the trial (along with US Senators saying the same - Graham comes to mind). Everyone said of al Qaeda after 9/11 that they exploited our freedoms to commit that catastrophic attack. I don't see any difference between that and the way Trump, McConnell, et al, are exploiting similar openings for corrupt and bad faith actions to get what they want too, which could well end in catastrophe for this country. the nail in the coffin for me, though, was William Barr. Once justice is corrupted in a country which is founded on laws, that country becomes a banana republic. We are there. The question now is, once Trump/Barr/Graham/McConnell, et al, are gone, can we recover? I honestly don't know. Terrible precedents are being set.
18
Ommited from mention is Bolton's apparent knowledge of the (mis-) classified transcripts of Oval Office phone calls: the equivalent of the Watergate tapes. If there is a smoking gun still yet to be uncovered, that would be an obvious place to look.
7
The way that this trial is being manipulated brings American justice into question everywhere. The verdict here will be determined by power, influence, ultimately by money. How many innocents in lower courts have suffered as a result of lacking one or all of the above? How many guilty have prospered by engaging all?
This impeachment trial will determine whether or not the US is a failing state.
3
Funny how the Republicans continue to posture accusations against the Democrats like "they’re getting cold feet or have a lack of confidence in what they’ve done so far" and yet are relentless to not cooperate with the requests for more testimony and documents.
If the Republicans are so sure the president is innocent of both charges, then wouldn't it stand to reason that his newly acquired legal "dream team" could easily defend him by explaining away his actions?
For crying out loud, it appears as if the information being sought could either help clear or convict the president. Both parties know exactly what that information contains. If that information was so "innocent" and explainable and favorable to the president, then it would seem like a slam dunk that the Republicans would use it in his defense.
4
Since Senate Republicans will not convict Trump, Democrats should use the trial to reveal as much to voters as they can about Trump's crimes and lies, not talking to fellow senators, but to the voting public. Let THEM be the jurors.
8
Three years after the Dems began their assault on Trump, on the 63,000,000 who voted for him, and on the 370,000,000 Americans whose lives have been negatively impacted by the Dems get-nothing-else-done obsession with the President, they are still trying. It never ends. For most Americans, who are benefiting financially from this spectacular Trump economy—from low unemployment to low interest rates to low gas and energy prices to a booming stock market, this is a big, sometimes annoying, yawn. Impeachment will have its 15 minutes of fame and be forgotten by November if the economy remains good. But still, such a shame. Imagine how much better things might be if the Dems had set aside their political egos and grievances and focused on working for the American people.
4
@ehillesum: When you begin your comment with a lie there is nothing to be believe in anything you say. The truth is that Hillary Clinton received 2.87 million more votes than Trump did. But the Republican dominated Electoral College ignored the "Will of the People" and coronated Trump. BTW, Trump lost the election by the largest margin in US history.
The House did a slip shod job to rush through impeachment, relying on hearsay evidence for the most part that would never be admissible in any trial court in the United States. Now they want to bolster their case with a fishing expedition in the Senate. Too late. Asking the Senate to improve their case would be like asking a jury to request more witnesses and evidence because the prosecution did a lousy job.
4
@Anne reavis: The Republicans and the Trump Administration refused to allow any witnesses with first have knowledge testify. Your comment is just another typical Republican lie.
1
If the additional testimony and evidence the Democrats are demanding could demonstrate Trump's innocence, you can bet your bottom dollar the Republicans and Trump's legal team would be using it, not rejecting nor suppressing it.
6
GOP figure heads twisting themselves into statements that further documentary evidence and witness testimony in the senate should not be allowed is painful to watch.
GOP senators shall not make a deal with the devil but must stand for what is right.
The truth will set you free.
It is the articles of impeachment that are on trial in the Senate. The articles must stand on their own. That is part of our system of checks and balances. The Constitution gives the that power to the Senate. It is why a two thirds majority in the Senate is required. In our system of jurisdiction prudence it is the individual that is entitled to a full and fair trial, not the government or in this case the House articles of impeachment. Leading Democrats are turning all that on its head with calls for the Articles to have a full and fare trial.
51
@Mkm
So why have all previous impeachments included witnesses? Are you OK with all future Presidents blocking Congressional subpoenas? What do you suggest is the remedy for a President who is rigging an upcoming election - an unfair election can't be the answer.
37
@Mkm - "it is the individual that is entitled to a full and fair trial"
Full and Fair?
The Republican version of full and fair:
It is individual that is entitled to work in concert with those who would be trying him, plan the strategy, and have those responsible for trying him pledge their allegiance to him.
"Everything I do during this, I'm coordinating with White House counsel," McConnell to Sean Hannity
on Fox News'
"Exactly how we go forward, I'm going to coordinate with the president's lawyers," McConnell adds to make the point that is will be anything but full and fair.
"There is zero chance the president obviously will be removed from office and I'm hoping we'll have no defections at all," And you will note that a vote to confirm the impeachment isn't seen as that, but a defection from the the party in McConnell's mind.
"I'm not an impartial juror"
Full and Fair? To who?
42
@Mkm This is not a normal trial. It may look like one and sound like one, but none of the regular rules apply. This is purely a political mechanism to defend our form of government from a president abusing his powers. Senators are not jurors. They jurors and judges rolled into one. However if we were to use your example anyway, in a normal trial defendants would not be allowed to ignore subpoenas and hide evidence.
36
It's clear. First it was Russia, if you're listening. Then it was Ukraine, you better listen up. Or else.
Trump's abused his power in going after foreign help for an upcoming election. And blocked Congress as the House employed its constitutional power to fully investigate impeachable offenses.
Will Chief Justice Roberts let McConnell/Graham turn the senate trial into a sham? That will destroy his legacy.
He knows that.
Republicans kept demanding a crime for impeachment. Here it is:
The General Accounting Office said Trump's hold on Ukraine aid violated federal law.
3
I learned today that the Senate Republicans are also going to control the cameras in the room. Trump, hand in hand with Mitch and his friends, is doing everything possible to keep the public from learning the truth. Obviously there is zero exculpating evidence or it would have been presented already. I'm reminded of sham trials for white murderers of black people during Jim Crow. The evidence is clear, but an all-white jury lets the murderer off. What an insult -- not only to Americans, but also to history.
10
Just one year to go before a Democratic President is inaugurated and Donald is removed from the Oval Office after being impeached by the American people on November 3 2020.
Register, donate and vote.
10
@Socrates I am registered, I donate and I will vote for Trump on November 3, 2020 as I did on November 8, 2016.
1
@bud
If Trump is re-elected you'd better learn how to say "yes master" in Russian and Chinese. And duck when the North Koreans and Iranians fire their nukes at us.
4
@Socrates Trump will be re-elected on November 3, 2020.
1
Tomorrow, Tuesday, would be the very best day for SDNY to indict Rudy J., moving parallel to impeachment trial. Please.
5
if you take the time to dispassionately read the entirety of this issue, indulge yourselves in the logic of critical thinking …. then the 'facts' of this issue become as clear as the noses on faces. What astounds me is how many millions of fellow Americans have lost, possibly forever, their noses!
7
Trump has recently claimed that he doesn’t understand why he is being impeached which, come to think of it, is, in and of itself, reason enough to remove him from office. Such ignorance of our Constitution, checks and balances and national principles and values is breathtaking. Elsewhere, as if to punctuate that point, and add insult to injury, he has said that he can do anything he wants, shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and that abuse of power is not impeachable. What, in the name of the founding fathers’ worst nightmare, is anybody waiting for?
10
Born and raised in NYC and an avid people watcher and listener, I can tell you this: No one is talking about this farce. No one.
10
From the article:
"Mr. Trump has called Mr. Giuliani a “crime fighter” who was “seeking out corruption” because he was “very, very incensed at the horrible things that he saw.”
Well, if the above were true, Giuliani's focus should have first centered around the Oval Office, don't you think?
4
McConnell wants a sham trial. Don't give it to him.
1
The NY Times sums it up well. The Democrats' partisan impeachment is "riddled with gaps". Now they are complaining about process and demanding that Trump be convicted unless he provides suitable exculpatory evidence to overwhelm their deliberately vague and amorphous abuse of power charge. Be sure that whatever evidence Trump would provide, the nature of "abuse of power" would shift to whatever the Democrats and cable news believe it should be that day, including events and assertions that have nothing to do with Ukraine. "Real trials have witnesses", they say. The truth is that in this case it is at the discretion of the Senate. If they want to claim impeachment trials are the same as criminal trials, then they should be honest and say that it is the House Managers' duty to prove that the President committed a crime, and not the President's job to prove he didn't. A rushed, partisan political hit job is a sad waste of taxpayer money. Led by a liar and leaker in Schiff, this clown show makes a mockery of Congress. The only thing missing in that House procession to the Senate is the red noses.
12
The biggest question is whether Mueller is going to testify at the Senate trial to prove the collusion with Russia.
1
No more witnesses, no more testimony, who needs facts and truth?
5
When the accused picks the judge and jury and runs the court, with his own procedures, isn't that called a "sham trial"?
Am wondering why non-State media still talk of a "fair" trial. That's the opposite.
6
For even the 3-5 fence walking Republicans considering just having a vote on witnesses requires a 2x4 of evidence upside the head (figuratively speaking) to do what is right.
The more evidence exposed that they choose to ignore or bury, the more ethically rotten the repubilcans appear to the nation and the world.
8
How does the so-called "Law and Order" party get in bed with the idea that the accused can control both the evidence against him (in the House or the Senate) and the rules of the trial against him?
Can they point to one other case where they would allow that to happen? I guess the problem for Republicans is that when you are a crook what other crooks do doesn't look like a crime to you.
Remember this is the party (leaders, elected, appointed, and supporters alike) that literally shouted (and still do) "lock her up" and had no qualms about a trial or evidence or due process.
7
This is the biggest cover up in GOP history. It’s as simple as that. Corruption from the top, all the way down to the center of the party. The rest are too scared to stand up to what is in effect a vicious organized crime family. Our country is being run by criminals.
18
The United States is a failing state. The corruption that supports Trump is mirrored in the Boeing crash scandal. Why has no editorial linked the two? Our failing industry and corrupt politics have weakened our international standing and the justification for capitalism.
5
@landless The US will never be a Socialist or Communist country. If that is what you desire, move.
2
TRUMP! It's all about him 24/7/366 (2020's a leap year). Paul Manafort--now there's a name with some heft. He was so defiant that a judge described him as a hardened criminal. That moniker, in any other setting than Trump's presidency, is how HE would be described. A Hardened Criminal! Unsuspected by many, the greatest obstacle to getting Senators and many others to believe the evidence against Trump has to do with their news source. What the Democrats have to challenge is a war in cyberspace to defeat the parallel universe of Fox News! Our free press is being done in, brutally tested, severely damaged, and unrecognizable, since it is legal for Fox News to broadcast propaganda and label it as news. Then there's the Tweet-o-sphere, so maladroitly used by Trump, who has to dictate his gems to an assistant, since he can't write, leave alone read. That completes the perfect vacuum of vetted fact in the entire horror story of the most dangerous attack on US democracy in modern history, if not of all time. And the GOPpers believe that they ARE, indeed, dealing with the Truth. The TRUTH According to Fox News. It is my fervent hope that some GOPpers will fulfill their duty to study vetted fact, if they can possibly protect themselves from the gale force winds threatening to blow the democracy of the United States of America to pieces.
6
NYT readers don't want to hear it, but it was obvious to any litigator that the Democrats should not have concluded their inquiry in the House without first obtaining court orders to compel witnesses to testify and documents to be produced. Democrats' rush to impeach was an inept effort to short-circuit the legal process and now they are paying the price. This was entirely predictable.
19
@RunDog
And to make matters worse, the Senate republicans have procedures and precedent on their side now. All they have to do is allow the process to continue "by the book."
4
@RunDog
Nope. They did subpoena witnesses. They refused. That is not the Democrats fault.
2
@Max Deitenbeck -- Clearly you're not a lawyer. Subpoenas in litigation are often not obeyed, or at least not fully obeyed, and the party issuing the subpoena needs to ask a court to compel compliance. To a litigator, this is just another day at the office. If you really want the testimony or the documents, you do not do as the Democrats have done and just whine about obstruction.
3
My greatest fear is that McConnell will prevent the facts and the testimony from important witnesses to come forth. He is not an impartial senator, far from it. Did he listen to the oath administered by Chief Justice Roberts that he be an impartial juror? Probably not. I have to ask myself how the GOP senators can live with themselves after casting a vote for the acquittal of our president. Is it simply putting party over country? Is it a fear of not being re-elected in the Fall. History will look back at this time and many historians will wonder how this happened.
7
@Jordan Davies My greatest fear is that people who don’t love this country will destroy it.
3
The time is now for senators to ask themselves what they want to be remembered for. Is it that they honestly value party affiliation over national loyalty and Constitution, or are they afraid “to speak the truth to power,” and unhappy about the prospect of returning to a former life back home? What will they say to their grandchildren, who come with questions about honesty vs. dishonesty in the face of facts? If a particular Senator fears reprisal whichever way he or she votes, the obvious answer is: step out of the fray and vote for the truth. The trial should include witnesses and open press coverage—no censorship.
4
A massive Republican conspiracy and a massive Republican coverup. Nothing less. Our nation is in a very deep crisis.
Not only is the Attorney General, President and a Majority of the Senate corrupt, but,
Five of the Supremes, including the Chief Justice, have voted to block Congress from viewing the President’s taxes and following the money trail.
Now the Senate Unconstitutionally keeps the press from covering the impeachment.
We are a hair’s breadth from totalitarianism, if we are not already there.
20
AGBarr's view of Presidential power resembles that of the European and English kings during and prior to our countries beginnings. The president is practically untouchable. The Mueller Report found many things wrong with the Presidents's actions, but Mueller felt that his mandate lacked the authority to bring formal charges.
Our country owes a great debt to English common Law, and also to the ideas that stirred the French Revolution..the throwing off of oppressive regimes.
Our question is :How can our country ever get rid of a bad ruler?'. Impeachment has never worked because of politicians timidity to do the right thing. Fear of retribution.
AGBarr is anxious to restart Capital punishment. If the Senate finds president guilty as charged why not cut off his head? That woyld put bite in the impeachment process, free the Senators from the fear of retribution,fair warn future presidents,and probably reduce the number of people vying for the democratic nomination.
4
23 Republican senators are lawyers. It's clear to me why they don't practice law. If they did they lose their license for ethics violations. Not even a second-year law student could read the developing evidence without coming away with the strongest suspicions of wrongdoing, cover-up, and witness tampering.
13
It looks like, for some of the possible witnesses, Trump need not invoke executive privilege. Rather they will be taking the 5th.
7
One question that needs to be answered is why the GOP is pushing the Russian narrative that it was Ukraine who interfered in the last presidential elections despite 17 American Intelligence and Military Agencies saying that it indeed was Russia who helped Trump steal the presidency.
Even Senators Cruz and Kennedy have already admitted in two separate interviews live on national TV that the GOP is getting its talking points directly from the Kremlin.
14
Federalist Paper 65 argued against the Senate as an impeachment body. Dawson's fears have become a reality:
" After having combined with the Executive in betraying the interests of the Nation in a ruinous treaty, what prospect, it is asked, would there be of their being made to suffer the punishment they would deserve when they were themselves to decide upon the accusation brought against them for the treachery of which they have been guilty?"
3
To consider the occupant of the Office of the President of the United States as a hostile witness ... is to understate the obvious. "Trust but verify" has taken on new meaning, but cannot be pursued effectively because of the expanse of the activities. But as each activity is discovered, and then analyzed, the horror unfolds ... everything is "in progress" and we can only attempt stop it when it reaches our neighborhood ... except for the courage of the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, who have presented another layer of detail. Now we look to the U.S. Senate ... their efforts will define the solution, and history will judge them for their deliberations. We send our hope and best wishes, and watch for signs of good conscience, on which the future depends. This is our humble opinion.
3
Even if the senate does allow for witnesses and documentary evidence what would stop the WH from exerting "Executive Privilege" on these witnesses, effectively silencing their testimony. Couldn't they also just redact every single piece of evidence and tie it up in the courts for another 6 or 8 months? Just run out the clock like they have been doing? I fail to see how allowing for witnesses and evidence changes anything to make this a fair trial.
1
"A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt."
- Alexander Hamilton
Federalist No. 65
March 7, 1788
It is interesting that there is no mention of needing to break criminal laws. This was written before there was a criminal code.
There were also no political parties at the time.
7
Hyper-capitalism has taken the United States to new lows. Certainly our Congress is now part and parcel of this trend. Partisanship, on both sides of the aisle, must cease to preserve our democracy.
2
The more evidence the better. The fact the Republicans mock it is clear proof of that.
When Republicans vote to preserve their jobs over preserving the Constitution, the mountain of evidence will be there to show—now and for future generations—exactly what kind of person and actions they happily sold their souls for.
9
The irony, of course, is that Trump is being impeached for "obstruction of Congress" in denying access to the evidence. The questions now are: Will Chief Justice John Roberts support obtaining the documents and testimony necessary to make this a "fair" trial? And/or will at least four Republicans like Mike Lee, Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney and Pat Toomey join Democrats is supporting the motion to subpoena witnesses and documents?
7
The impeachment trial in the Senate will be a travesty, in the same way in which Trump's presidency is.
What's missing from the articles of impeachment? Acts of war without Congressional authorization; incitement to riot; illegal refusal to allow asylum of immigrants; benefiting financially from the office of president... The list does go on and on.
6
The democrats seek more testimony? They already impeached Trump. Isn’t what they have presented already enough evidence? It was enough to impeach Trump. What more can be possibly needed?
11
Conviction and removal
1
The Democrats are working diligently to gain more witness testimony in the Senate trial, despite the likelihood that not one Republican Senator will possess the patriotic spine to vote to convict TRump. They have chosen to support the criminal policies of a rogue incompetent; let them own him for the ages. The impeachment victory may be pyrrhic, since it is likely to be nullified by an acquittal. Nevertheless, the truth will be out.
10
These sycophantic Republican extremists are going to do what we most fear-deny a proper trial process in the most important event since the American Civil War. An Impeachment trial is a civil, not criminal, litigation that determines the fitness of a president to be allowed to continue in office in the face of serious accusations of malfeasance in violation of the public trust.
Despite the apparent forthcoming argument of Professor Dershowitz that he cannot be charged and convicted without the articles of impeachment including actual violations of statute law. which no self respecting constitutional scholar agrees. the legal history of England and understandings of the Framers demonstrates the very opposite of this peculiar theory.
Should the Republican majority deny witnesses and documentary evidence ordinary in any trial process, including impeachment trials of the past setting precedent, then the House must take the case to the Courts for settlement of an important constitutional question.
Alternatively, or simultaneously, the House might consider offering up further articles of impeachment bringing those to the Senate.
From any reasonable person's perspective, we face an existential threat to constitutional order and balance, one that the framer's envisioned in their break from the British Crown and monarchical rule. That is the bottom line.
11
More evidence will not penetrate the cult mentality of Senate Republicans. However, it is of vital importance to inform the public forcefully and often of the danger of allowing Trump to remain in office. A president who cannot tolerate free and fair elections and who rejects the democratic principle of separation of powers is categorically unfit to be president. The conduct established in support of the articles before the Senate proves that Trump will break the law and abuse the power of the presidency to remain in power. Voters must be constantly reminded what is at stake in November.
14
The "It's all a hoax" defense has been abandoned.
Because of the facts already collected and available in spite of Donald Trump's obstruction, the Senate impeachment trial defense of Donald J.Trump, presented by Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz, will be: "So what".
So what if he asked Russia, Ukraine, China, or any other foreign nations to interfere in American elections;
So what if he did not faithfully execute the law passed by congress to supply Ukraine with military aid and so diminished America's security;
So what if he lied and abused his power by obstructing the evidence of his plot and actions.
His defenders will claim that the nation's Founders would not have judged these acts to be impeachable. They are wrong.
The framers of our Constitution expressly prohibited receipt of aid from foreigners in our elections, and especially did so in the case of the president. They knew the danger that a president might become a dictator by corrupting elections with the support of foreign dictators and kings. They may not have foreseen the complicity of the current GOP Senate majority, nor the rise of powerful propaganda media in service to one man, but their intent was plainly that Americans elect their government without foreign meddling.
15
23 Republican senators are lawyers. It's clear to me why they don't practice law. If they did they lose their license for ethics violations. Not even a second-year law student could read the developing evidence without coming away with the strongest suspicions of wrongdoing, cover-up, and witness tampering.
6
The GOP is morally and ethically bankrupt, and seemingly exists only to protect Trump. That is a very misconceived long term strategy. People will long remember and history will excoriate the GOP for failing America and the world when they were needed most. The farcical show trial that the GOP will now conduct brings great shame to every single Republican and to the country that elected them. What has become of America?
11
Clearly democrats didn't finish the job. They are demanding a trial yet still investigating. No serious judge would allow this. He/she would tell democrats to come back when their investigation has been completed.
Additionally, they are alleging crimes that aren't included in the articles, like "attempted bribery" (Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo.) and Russian collusion (Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY), giving the appearance of a "Everything But the Kitchen Sink" strategy.
The problem, of course, is that democrats are still trying to convince the public.
6
The Senate's overall political-party affiliation does not relieve it from doing its constitutional duty. To think that our Framers would exempt impeachable presidential corruption for political reasons is to make a mockery of our Constitution and the blood that has been spilled over the centuries in defending it and our country . . .
267
@Maurice F. Baggiano
I cannot believe that the founders ever conceived of the possibility of an impeachment trial wherein all relative documents and testimony would be excluded by a majority vote of the senate, and wherein also that behavior would be supported by a significant number of American citizens. The founders, it seems, placed too much faith in the virtue of man to consider that the future would spawn those who might willingly assign their loyalty to a political party rather than to the rule of law. Such loyalty can only be explained by political cowardice in face of a fear they might forfiet their seat in congress for doing what they know for certain is honorable and true to their oath of office.
42
@Maurice F. Baggiano
Well... yeah. Just look at how the modern GOP has treated people like John McCain, Humayun Khan, La David Johnson, and their surviving family members.
Nothing is sacred.
26
@Maurice F. Baggiano For those who haven't been paying attention for the past 8 years McConnell has been making a mockery of our Constitution as leader of the Senate by the way he treated Obama's nominations for the judiciary as though the President of the United States were just another field hand on his grandfather's plantation.
19
This is being reported in the Philadelphia Inquirer:
The key debates this week — on allowing testimony from witnesses, including those whom the Trump White House unlawfully blocked from speaking to the House — are slated to take place off camera and behind closed doors,
I'd like to know why this information isn't blasted across the front page of the NYT's? What are we allowing to happen to our country?
7
It is all a matter of whether Chief Justice Roberts does his job or not. He has the power to act like a trial judge and rule on witness lists and evidence being admitted. He does not have to and should not demur to a Senate vote. Rule as the judge and make the partisan Senate take a vote to overrule him. But don't just cede his power to rule to Senate votes. That is not what the rules say even if Renquist demurred in such subservient fashion.
5
So, after impeachment fails to remove this criminal President and his entire Administration, what are the People to do? March on the White House and throw the crooks out? March on the Senate and throw out the corrupt enablers/co-conspirators?
5
More like s quick sprint, but yes.
1
@Andy Hain Coincidentally, the 50 Year Anniversary of the Kent State University student shootings is this spring. Unleashing our military on us again is not beyond this, or any, authoritarian regime.
1
it is utterly disgraceful that the Senate will not show the American people the entire and open process. Only rats scurry around in the darkness.
12
Perfect call? Call all the witnesses and prove it!
9
Get used to saying the phrase "President for LIfe Trump" and the prospect of a Soviet-style 110% plurality in the 2020 electoral vote. All delivered by Putin and his well-trained hackers. The latter-day fascists and plutocratic warmongers are going to laugh as they selectively eliminate those societal elements that are a threat to their rule. And most Ummuricans will remain dumbly transfixed by their tiny electronic screens as they continue to gurgle and drool over suitably infantile social media memes...
13
All weekend long, and on every show yesterday, we heard how rocksolid and airtight the articles of impeachment are against President Trump. The reality is that it is only an extension of the sham investigations and accusations against this president since he was elected. They have nothing, and will continue to have nothing, so get this hoax over with. Then they can go back to what they have been doing for 3 years ; make wild accusations with corrupt witnesses and hope something will stick. 
3
@HENRY
"Sham" investigations? When there's smoke there's usually fire. Impossible to see, of course, if your head is buried under the sand.
4
Apparently, even if every bit of badness is proven, Republicans will say the actions didn’t rise to impeachable offenses. Why bother looking for more proof?
4
I believe the propundance of evidence has proven the case on the guilty side of impeachment and having more evidence presented via witnesses is not necessary...empeach with the evidence you already have. a dead horse is a dead horse so stop trying to kill it. Enough! impeach!
3
@dennis ditullio The Republican Senate will not impeach and rightly so.
2
Bring it on. I want to hear from Hunter Biden.
6
@William Kiper
Why? He has nothing to do with trump’s work legal act.
6
@William Kiper
Why? We already know that was a conspiracy theory. And if it wasn't why didn't Trump have the justice Department initiate an investigation(something Trump an Barr still haven't done)
5
And that would be relevant in what way? H Biden is not on trial in the Senate. Did H Biden threaten to withhold security funding from Ukraine, intimidate the US ambassador to Ukraine, negotiate with thugs in an effort to dig up information about himself? No, that was all done by Putin’s man in the White House.
And let’s hypothetically say H Biden did do something wrong, why haven’t we seen or heard any evidence to indicate he had.
Then, the appropriate and only place for him to be tried is in a court of law.
Also, If H Biden did do anything illegal, it doesn’t change or excuse the illegal actions taken by the puppet of Putin, D Trump.
THe strategy of Putin’s puppet to deflect attention to any shining object seems to be working on you. Not the majority of thoughtful and intelligent people. People who can still be called patriotic Americans want the truth and nothing but.
9
The dispiriting thing about this process is that Trump will never be convicted because the Repugnicans have decided to jettison even a remote sense of duty to uphold the Constitution or the rule of the law. In fact, they are opting to crown a king and to eviscerate the institution of democracy so that they can retain power, no matter the consequences or the cost. They are traitors. And, unfortunately, there are enough people who support them to keep them in power. When Trump is acquitted, I believe that the American experiment in democracy will be officially dead.
America, 1776-2020, RIP.
14
WH lawyer Pat Cipollone is at the least a fact witness, if not a player, in this affair, yet he’s going to lead tRump’s defense in the Senate trial. This stinks.
Absent a huge blue wave in November, the corruption of this lawless “President” and traitorous administration will destroy democracy.
15
@Incorporeal Being
He's not a witness. The Dems could have, but never subpoenaed him. Among other acts of legal and political malpractice by the bumbling Dem leadership.
2
There is only one rouge actor.
3
Trump has been a criminal his entire life and certainly has not changed since occupying the White House.
The question is; what has happened to Republicans?
They are responsible for putting a con man in. The debates before the " election" were such a joke; not one question of substance, just trump strutting around the stage trying to intimidate Mrs. Clinton. Never did I think the US would sink this low, where ignorant rabble, yes deplorables, have taken over the democratic process. I fear for this country more every day.
31
If John Bolton had any guts he would have testified before the House. Now, he's professed a willingness to speak to the Senate, the chamber that has no interest in calling more witnesses. The end result is that the president who canned him for being an incompetent war monger gets to walk away unscathed.
Think that's going to help your book sell, chickenhawk?
17
In other words, the Democrats don't have a case.
4
This is not about Trump and his abuse of power or his obstruction of justice or his dubious personal motives and even more dubious, disturbed personality.
This is about America's democratic freedom and constitutional structure being systematically undermined by the GOP and the so-called Republican Party, whatever people like Mitch McConnell, Graham Lindsay, William Barr and Mike Pompeo understand when democratic freedom and constitutional checks and balances are cited.
These four men are the most dangerous and power-hungry individuals in the GOP at present.
All of them are eyeing higher office/s equalling more power and consequently more money in the future!
For that they need to know, how much they can push the average Republican voter and the Rule of Law to get their dubious ends.
Trump is nothing but a sad convenient puppet!
They shamelessly exploit Trump's pathological vanity and insecurity and his need to be finally recognised as someone larger than daddy's boy and money-drain, mediocre student, unsuccesful property tycoon and businessman, pathetic womanizer, fake reality-TV personality, second-rate golfer and ruthless liar and foul-mouthed bully.
It is these Senators and their devious personal political aims Americans should be much more scared of than this sad President.
18
@Karin Yes, agreed. Our governmental system really is “a candle in the wind.” But that’s also how every wildfire starts. Hang in there.
2
Here’s a fantasy: all witnesses involved in Trump’s shady deals are all called forth and they do testify for the whole world to see and hear. They are straight forward about all his corruption as president.
Here’s the clincher: Trump supporters would still vote for him.
He’s cast an insane spell.
17
Please wake me up when this is over so we can get back to the all important 2020 Presidential election.
7
@AH2 Glad to see you still think there is going to be a 2020 election.
3
My own opinion is that no amount of external evidence will turn GOP senators or bring Trump down. No one’s testimony, no documentary evidence, no transcripts, no photos, no amount of GOP shame, embarrassment or deceit. Nada. Only Trump can bring Trump down. So if and when it comes time for Trump to testify, does Chief Justice Roberts control him with a short leash, telling Trump to just answer the question, sit down, be quiet or be removed. Or does Roberts let Trump rant, channeling his inner-Roy Cohn and go full-wack Commander Queeg. I say let him rant in a silent, senate chamber. This will not be one of Trump’s rallies, so his only mode of speaking will be all the more telling. And self-destructive.
7
No joke, because the Democrats in the House did not do their job.
4
Day is night. Up is down. Lies are truth.
4
If House Democrat’s thought the evidence was insufficient to support allegations made in the articles of impeachment, they should not have voted to approve the articles. Senate Democrats who think the evidence is insufficient, should vote to dismisses the articles of impeachment or ask House Democrats to withdraw the articles of impeachment.
5
@William Case
The evidence is sufficient.
However for Republicans there no amount of evidence will ever be sufficient. Even there was a video of Donald J. Trump signing a confession or pulling the trigger on 5th Ave they would excuse it.
It seems that naive Democrats are hoping that there are still a few sane Republicans who, if they can just see a little more evidence, especially when the "innocent" went to such lengths to hide or quell it, will have to come around and see that it is there and it is sufficient.
There is nothing like the party saying: "We won't let you have the evidence you subpoena. Hey look, you have no evidence, so nothing happened!"
5
@Marie
The Democrats apparent disagree with you. They think more evidence and more witnesses are necessary.
3
@William Case
No. The Democrats say there is sufficient evidence, and it is in the articles. The GAO states the President broke the law. That's based on what's known up to now with no additional witnesses.
It is Trump and the Republicans who say that there isn't enough evidence to impeach Trump (as if they ever would, as I said above) while at the same time he hires Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz to defend him. Let that sink in.
Naturally the Democrats are saying, OK, let's bring int he witnesses. And the Democrats are saying, well you denied us the evidence, but now that it is in the Senate where you are in control you can call for the witnesses and evidence.
1
“the record of actions by Mr. Trump and his underlings is riddled with gaps”
It must be tough for Democrats, knowing they impeached with no evidence, to go into a trial with absolutely nothing.
Hoping against hope that somehow they will find something if only they can interview new witnesses.
The time for investigation was in the House where they fell on their face.
Democrats have available to them any or all of the witnesses that were their star witnesses in the House investigation. Not one of which knew anything.
Trump can call whoever he pleases to defend himself.
6
If you're always worried about being re-elected, when do you actually get to lead -- lead the opinions of others, lead on scruples, lead on the things you're convictions tell you are right? The members of Congress like Cory Gardner, Susan Collins and Mitt Romney who we think want to say that witnesses matter at an impeachment t-r-i-a-l have instead gone mealy-mouthed.
Lisa Murkowski, caught by a TV camera, said basically that "if" she thinks she needs more witnesses to inform her, then she'll vote for more. Huh?!? Collins likewise uttered weasel words. Cory Gardner outright ducks the cameras, the recorders, the questions. "We have a trial," he said, when caught up with by local reporter at the Denver airport. "That's where we're at right now." (See Times neighboring story.)
The rest of the Republicans haven't felt the stirrings of much of anything these days -- not of truth-telling, not of ethics, especially not of shame. So forget them. They're zombies. But what about the few who seemed to know there's more out there than Donald Trump, who's so big and bad he blocks nearly all views of Republicans?
For how long can you be labeled moderate or independent-minded or outspoken, when you have not moderated the party, not spoken out? This is the time, people. If not now, than never.
13
It's amazing that the person who has been charged and investigated can control the further investigation and keep witnesses from testifying. How can anyone who is not a Trump toady justify that?
661
@David
Question: when has any high-profile person ever been investigated and cooperated with the investigation without being legally forced to do so?
It's not Trump who is keeping people from testifying. It's the Dem's refusal to enforce their subpoenas in court.
And their refusal to accept that WH executive privilege exists, just as much as it existed during Obama's tenure.
2
@David
They can't. That is why we've been seeing, and will continue to see, endless obfuscation, misdirection, misinformation and false equivalency from the GOP. Shame on every single one of them.
64
@David
Sadly, the GOP is doing exactly that.
16
Do you really think that if the Republicans had even one piece of exculpatory evidence that it would not have been already released??? This is a cover-up by an entire political party in service of an ill-informed, corrupt, demagogue.
43
If only the American people, their Congress, the Democrats and the Republicans knew as much about what happened in this Ukrainian affair as our Siberian President Donald John Trump,Sr. and his and our Russian Czar Father Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.
China? Israel? Cuba? North Korea? France? Germany? United Kingdom? Iran?
4
If the Constitution doesn't fit, you must acquit.
1
@Chris Rucker wrong. We fit the Constitution, not the other way around.
1
Wow, how compelling .
If the Constitution doesn't fit, you must acquit.
@Chris Rucker
The Republican's view on it is:
If the Constitution is a bore, you must ignore.
1
The outcome of this trial is "in the bag". Those senators who publicly stated they agree with Trump but took the oath & swore to act impartially, have flagrantly broken the law.
But the law doesn't matter, neither does public service or democracy. Note that media coverage on the trial, including CSPAN, will be restricted so here comes censorship.
One by one, our rights as free men and women are disappearing. Trump has proven how fragile our system of government is. And if you think the Nov election is going to save us, it's being actively gerrymandered so the results are a foregone conclusion.
The con lives on.
14
Most of those Republican senators detest Trump. They might as well cooperate with the process then leave themselves no choice but to vote fairly on the evidence. They can then retake the Republican party from the Trump party that it has become.
2
I saw a clip of McConnell accusing Democrats of partisanship. I almost choked at the naked hypocrisy and the blatant irony. I saw ninety-nine senators signing an oath book swearing to administer “impartial justice.” Again, I almost choked. I was witnessing many of the highest elected officials in the land perjure themselves as the Chief Justice sat silently by and witnessed this travesty. It was nothing less than disgusting. While most Democrats as well as most Republicans are anything but impartial, the difference is that Democrats see a president who has brazenly committed high crimes and misdemeanors while the Republicans see their tenuous hold on powers circling the drain. Anyone who is innocent wants all exculpatory evidence presented. Anyone who is guilty wants evidence of that guilt excluded. In the end the a Republican Senate will vote to acquit. It will be up to the American people to convict in November in spite of the efforts that Republicans will make to nullify the Democratic vote. We, the voters, must convict the most criminal president in history and turn his sycophantic toadies out of office.
24
"Whether the president decided to withhold nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine for his own political gain, at the expense of the nation’s strategic foreign policy interests, is at the crux of the case against him. His decision thwarted the will of Congress, undercut an American ally enmeshed in a war with Russia and, according to a report last week by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, violated American law."
___________
Those are indisputable facts. The Republican Senate does not care. That is also an indisputable fact. Sad.
18
There is some entertainment value in the Republican strategy to wreck the trial. Ken Starr has risen from the trash heap of sex scandal to claim his rightful place as a champion of the man who morally, he most resembles. Dershowitz, always eager for a camera and microphone, is able to employ skills he developed as an OJ Dream Team member, and chastise the Senate Democrats for doing their constitutional duty. "If the glove doesn't fit," redux.
12
It’s stunning that the Republicans are willing to ignore this compelling evidence. Despite the gaps, which exist only because of Trump’s stonewalling, what we know paints a consistent and damning picture. If President Obama, or President Hillary Clinton had done this, the Republicans would have ousted them in a heartbeat. If witnesses are called, there will be even more credible back-up, and if the Republicans prevent witnesses, they will look even more hypocritical and cowardly. Given the almost certain result of Trump staying in office, our only hope is that the Dems can paint a convincing picture of how corrupt he is and how complicit Republicans are that we can vote them all out in November.
6
It's looking like the trial will be a sham; if that turns out to be the case, let Trump be the first President to be impeached a second time - there are certainly too many other reasons for impeaching him.
10
Democrats have to be careful here.
While imo Trump is a serial criminal, getting rid of him legally is paramount among all things. He is the greatest threat imo since the Civil War albeit not as dire.
Impeachment barely gets 50% of the support of people especially in swing states which the democrats need to get rid of Trump next year in the elections.
Democrat should never have given the impeachment ball over to the Senate without iron clad guarantees of having Trump lackies testify under oath. 70% of Americans are for that.
Now if they don't the democrats should boycott the proceeding as a sham show trial.
PS: Ok let's hear it from the we must do the right thing gang, ie the Constitution demands that we do it. If Lincoln followed that logic and severed ties with the border slave states because they had slavery we would have not won the Civil War and we would be more like four or five split countries ranging from progressive to outright criminal like North Korea etc.
4
@Paul
Democrats' job in the House was to make an ironclad case -- ironclad because impeachment is serious and shouldn't be perceived as based on partisan politics. The fact that democrats still feel the need to produce more evidence demonstrates they failed to do so.
5
@AACNY
You are conveniently omitting the fact that Trump stonewalled the investigation. However, the evidence is clear to an unclouded mind.
3
@AACNY thank you for you reply. It's the job of the democrats to send the best case to the Senate but they can't do that if the alleged serial criminal Trump and thru his lackies in Gov't and the Senate don't allow it by suppressing evidence.
I agree. It should not be based on partisan politics especially if the alleged criminal is the ego. maniac, bigot, rabble rousing, pathological liar, admitted sexual predator, philanderer, wanna be traitor, alleged money launder, alleged serial obstructor of justice demagogue Trump.
He is the greatest threat to America imo since the Civil War albeit not as dire.
2
I watched Senator Coryn tie himself in knots defending the indefensible yesterday on TV. Saying that Rudy Giuliani and Lev Parnas are irrelevant to the impeachment. Stunning.
It doesn't matter how many mountains of damning evidence the Democrats bring to a trial, the fix is already in. I say continue to investigate in the house, impeach Trump 2 or 3 more times for all of his crimes, and hope that it is enough to sway the Independents in this country that Trump has got to go. Because the GOP and the Trump base are a lost cause.
56
So true
2
@Raydeohed
The GOP is a lost cause because the base views Trumpism as a religion. Trump is akin to Jesus Christ. He is their God. You can't fight these kinds of people.
6
Over 16,000* lies and purposeful distortions. And yet 39% of the voting public does not care?
Imposed tariffs that hurt working Americans, then made a trade deal with China that helps Wall Street**...And yet Faux news did not report that inconvenient truth.
He obstructs Congress in their duty before and during Impeachment and yet people still plan on voting for him?
Democrats are not perfect and there use to be good Republicans that had my respect and even my vote. But Government should be helping you and the country, not just the people who can buy access at the Trump International Hotel.
I don't care what the trolbots post here. They are not representative of the other side, and I don't hate the other side. It is trump that is driving us apart.
I just ask you to watch the Impeachment hearing and judge for yourself. Watch and think if it was President Obama being tried and how would you feel.
Happy MLK day. He had hope for all people to work together, it is a good lesson.
*https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/20/president-trump-made-16241-false-or-misleading-claims-his-first-three-years/
**https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/16/trump-new-china-trade-pact-takeaways/
9
There are arguably gaps in the facts of the first article of the impeachment. There are none in the second. Trump took an oath to uphold the constitution. By explicitly refusing all cooperation with any impeachment process, he has violated that. If he wanted to invoke Executive Privilege, he could have allowed people to testify, and then cite Executive Privilege on a question by question basis. All evidence shows the second article is accurate
He should thus be voted out by the Senate.
17
@PKF
I respectfully disagree and so do a lot of scholars. President Trump elected not to cooperate. The House Democrats had the option of taking him to court over his refusal, but did not choose to do so because of their concern to move the impeachment ahead quickly. There was no obstruction of Congress, only the failure of House Democrats to pursue the process in an appropriate legal manner.
5
The House's hands were tied by Trump's unConstitutional claim of "absolute immunity". The White House turned over no subpoenaed documents and blocked most witness testimony. If the House had taken them to court, they wouldn't have had a ruling until after the election, when it would have been too late. If Trump can successful stonewall Congress, it will be the end of Congressional oversight.
A great deal of evidence has become available since the Articles of Impeachment were passed by the House. Examples include John Bolton agreeing to testify, but only in the Senate, E mail exchanges between OMB and the Defense Department and the Department of Justice finally releasing the Lev Parnes documents to the House.
The Senate swore to do impartial justice. If they don't continue the investigation, the Republicans will be participating in a coverup (Impeachment Article 2) and they should all be voted out of office.
13
This case goes to the American public, starting tomorrow. Yes, it’s being held in the Senate, with the House prosecuting and the Executive Branch defending, but the real jurors are not those 100 senators.
Forty-two percent of those polled, approve of Trump’s job performance, according to FiveThirtyEight’s most recent statistics. As long as the majority of Republican constituents think Trump is doing a good job, those senators representing them will not vote against Trump.
That’s why the real jurors are us. That’s also why the House impeachment managers continue to solicit new potential testimony and evidence.
Even though there may be enough evidence to convict if this were a strictly legal proceeding, more proof and more testimony is needed to convince a majority of “We, the people” in the red states.
And I think the House knows this isn’t really about winning in the Senate. It’s about proving Trump’s culpability to enough of those who continue to support him so that November’s election has this Republic escorting Trump out the door of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
11
All the evidence in the world won’t change the outcome. That said, the obstruction charge is air tight, or we wouldn't be talking about witnesses and documents. This is sufficient to remove Trump. The focus on witnesses now simply highlights the obstruction and also makes the Senate Republicans party to it.
7
Let's face it, the Democrats making noise are completely inconsequential to this process. The only thing that will make a difference is if a handful of Republican senators risk their Senate seats to stand up for the rule of law by insisting on bringing witnesses to the process. Republicans are going to fight that tooth & nail, because they are all fully aware that more witnesses will mean more evidence in favor of conviction & removal from office. Senator Cornyn & the others who talk about a "weak" case are parading their duplicity for all to see: they attack Democrats for bringing a weak case while simultaneously opposing any and all efforts to strengthen the case.
Trump & McConnell & the vast majority of these Republicans in D.C. (and across the country) have proven themselves to be absolutely ruthless in their quest for power, while accusing Democrats of being that way. And the real tragedy is the millions of Americans who are willing to go along with this chicanery - to the risk of our republic.
10
Democrats are seeking evidence to reinforce the existing charges, however, this makes these charges appear hollow. As new evidence appears at the eleventh hour, they should be considering new charges to compound the original, essentially burying Trump in an avalanche of provable malfeasance.
4
Will Chief Justice Roberts again find his judicial voice as he did with Skilling in the Enron appeal case & in his published comment chastising Trump for asserting that SCOTUS justice should be bias?
Will he buck McConnell’s & Senate rules in favor of The USC provision stating unequivocally that he alone is granted the lawful & legal right to ‘preside’ over a President’s Trial? That is noteworthy, in that although impeachment’s & or removals can be brought against any Congress member and Federal Judge for misconduct in Office. The Chief Justice presides only over Presidential removals. Does that make such more a judicial rather than a political proceeding?
I assert the former is closer to a substantive fact of law and the latter is a Hoax!
If is quite surprising that the C.I.A. and the NSA, whom President Trump has been trashing at every turn, are afraid of angering him. The president will continue to trash them unless they act as his handmaidens.
There is already a mountain of evidence that establishes the president's culpability vis-à-vis the "favor" he sought from Ukraine. Nonetheless, the testimony from those who have first-hand knowledge of his culpability would make it very hard for his Republican minions in the Senate to continue to defend him. One of them, former national security adviser John Bolton, has been reported at this writing to be eager to testify about the “drug deal” that Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and a few White House officials had been engaged in cooking up.
Until now, the president’s chief minion in the Senate, majority leader Mitch McConnell, has adamantly rejected the Democrats' demand that Bolton and three other top Trump aides be called to testify at the Senate trial. He would be forced to yield if four Republican senators join their 47 Democratic colleagues who have ben demanding that the four be subpoenaed. Their testimony, under oath, will surely provide the full details of Trump's order to freeze military aid to Ukraine, which is at the heart of the crime for which he is already impeached. The country has a right to know those details, even if he is not removed from office.
Do we have four Republican senators who have the guts to stand up to this rogue president?
4
Yeah, the American people haven't had enough investigations, witnesses, manpower, propaganda, campaigns, marches and violence to try to hunt this president to extinction.
We need MORE witnesses, more innuendo.
This hounding of the president is being stretched, like strudel to the breaking point.
Indeed, Trump must constitute an existential threat to the survival of his Democrat enemies, who are single-minded about his destruction at an absolute primitive level.
A most worrying phenomenon.
10
Mr Trump’s lies, cheating, and behavior is what is bringing America to it’s breaking point.
Cause and effect
Somehow, no mention of the cause...
What’s up with that?
5
If Republicans don't react the Republican president will not want to leave office even if he loses the election. We are heading for a dictatorship and it will be on their, the Republicans heads.
14
@William You mean the way Michael Bloomberg got himself elected for a THIRD term as mayor of NYC. He’s the one you should worry about not leaving, especially since he’s now running for President.
7
Umm, let's see, where have I seen 'new evidence surfacing at the eleventh hour' before? I seem to remember something, yes, Kavanaugh hearing? Anyone remember anything like that? Guess its too bad the House rushed their investigation huh? That master legislator maybe made the wrong decision voting to Impeach in a rush? No, master strokes all the way but no one could predict this eleventh hour surge of evidence? You really think you are going to sell that?
13
@GregP I may be wrong but I seem to remember the Kavanaugh fiasco was a rush by the R's to get him on the SC. Nothing to do with impeachment and the R's were the ones who rushed it thru.
11
@GregP you really need to quit watching fox. Did you watch the hearings in the house, read any of the transcripts, or even read the Mueller report? If you had you would see just how corrupt this President is and he is a person that lies every hour of the day. Sorry after reading some of your comments tells me you really are not well read.
8
@GregP
In your blind partisanship, you seem to have forgotten that the RepugniCants were rushing through Kavanaugh's confirmation, and didn't even want to hold the hearings.
And in your blind partisanship, you seem to have forgotten that the RepugniCants have been complaining out of both sides of their mouth, contradicting themselves that the impeachment hearings were being extended for political theater, but also complaining that Pelosi was stalling on sending over the aticles of impeachment.
And in your blind partisanship, you seem to have forgotten that the Trump has instructed his entire admin to refuse to testify and refuse to turn over evidence; so of course it's going to take time for info to dribble out.
And in your blind prtisanship, you seem to have forgotten that even in regular trial, prosecutors can uncover new evidence/testimony after the indictment, and introduce it in the midst of the trial.
We don't need to "sell" anything; let the evidence speak for itself.
6
A lot of fair-minded, intelligent people in this comments thread are letting Political Forces agitate them and confuse them.
#1.....the Senate Deliberation is NOT another Trial. In fact, none of the Impeachment Process is any a so-called Criminal Trial. The House went through a lengthy three year process to compile facts and use them to create an Article of Impeachment.....which the Senate will now use to deliberate and make a final vote as to Remove the President from Office or to NOT remove the President from office.
If an analogy can be drawn....the House has acted in both roles of Prosecutor and Defender.
The Senate is now analogous to the Jury.
It is important to recall that in the US System of Justice.....we dont allow the Prosecutor to sit in the JuryRoom while the Jury deliberates the fate of the President.
Farce Exposed.
9
@Wherever Hugo
Yes, and in a real trial, the defendant and witness can't withhold evidence and ignore subpoenas like Trump and his entire admin has done.
Let go of you close-minded partisanship.
4
@Wherever Hugo
No federal judge would ever allow an investigation to continue while the defendant's case is on trial.
Democrats have messed this up royally.
2
@AACNY
And no federal judge in any other trial would allow the defendant to block witness testimony, so what is your point?
Trump's treason is a moot point. The Republicans have blocked the vote for millions of Americans - minorities, poor, and "Blue leaning" areas. Electronic voting machines are designed to give fake results. Only a tidal wave of Democratic votes will overcome the swamp... electoral college, super delegates, massive inequality in available polling places, and voting rights stripped from millions more. If the Reds pull this farce off, America will officially be a dictatorship of a handful of billionaires.
31
A truly innocent person would submit documents and witnesses to support his claims of having done nothing wrong.
An innocent man would submit the documents and witnesses demanded by Congress.
But only the most deluded and brainwashed among us believe that Trump is not guilty of these impeachable acts of wrong doing — not to mention the litany of other crimes and unethical behavior to which he has been a party over the years.
The man was a criminal before he got to the White House. He remains a criminal, sullying the office of the president every day he’s allowed to remain, and using that office as a shield against his own reckoning with justice.
His GOP lackeys and minions have sworn allegiance to this disgraceful, immoral man and are nothing less than traitors to our nation.
94
@EWood
Wow, you really do not get it. In America, the Accused does not have to prove their Innocence, in any Arena. The burden falls to the Accuser to Prove Guilt, Period.
3
@GregP Nope. This is not a criminal trial. It is an impeachment trial, and the rules are different.
If the Senate votes to acquit without a fair and impartial consideration if the facts and without testimony, the House should continue to investigate and should sue the administration to compel the testimony of witnesses and the production of documents. The administration is trying to hide behind Executive Privilege. Let the Supreme Court decide. If Trump loses in court, as did Nixon, the House will have all the evidence it needs to charge Trump again. If the court sides with Trump, we know that our Republic has slid quickly and quietly into Tyranny.
22
@themodprofessor
To summarize. Once the Senate acquits the House should Impeach again, but this time do a proper investigation. Only problem with that strategy is you have to hold the House. So run on it. Promise to Impeach all over again if the Voters will return you to a majorityu in the House. Make it your platform. See how it goes. Please do that.
1
A prolonged trial would cripple key Democratic candidates for President at a critical time in the primary season.
It would also silence the campaign against Trump, except for impeachment itself. All the many other issues would get not attention. That is ideal for Trump, and a worst case for Democrats.
This should have been done by the House, in the House, before they sent impeachment to the Senate.
7
Pay attention, theHouse was denied the evidence you speak of by the President. That’s why obstruction of Congress is one of the two counts for impeachment
4
@Mark Thomason
Look how many people, including most NYT readers, now believe the Senate must continue the investigation started in the House. Democrats know their audience.
4
If this was a trial in any court in this country the DA prosecuting the case wouldn't be satisfied until all the evidence was presented.
The same rule of law should apply here.
Trump's legal team is trying to build their case on the fact that a president can do no wrong, so they shouldn't fear more evidence or testimony if they are right.
327
@BTO
Prosecutors are not supposed to indite until the evidence supports charges. They are not suppose to being charges and then look for evidence to support the charges.
10
@William Case , so the question here is does quid pro quo amount to extortion which then would say that there is enough evidence to support charges, wouldn't you agree Bill?
11
@BTO
Wrong.
The trial begins in the Senate. The investigation should have been concluded by now. No trial judge would ever allow the DA to bring a case before him/her if the DA hadn't completed his investigation.
4
There are several interesting points with this whole Ukraine mess.
First, we have to wonder how many other stunts Trump has already pulled and gotten away with, and with who?
Second, what if the whistle blower in this incident had never come forth?
Democrats can gather all the information in the world, but we are dealing with a group who support Donald Trump that is more wicked, powerful, and abusive than we can imagine, I fear. Will the evidence matter if/when McConnell and pals continue to wear their Trump protective suit of armor?
Who ever would have guessed they would be able to cast such a sick spell over the country and all of us? And will they just get away with it?
921
@MIMA
"we have to wonder how many other stunts Trump has already pulled and gotten away with, and with who?"
There are self imposed lines that the fact based news media refuses to cross. It's obvious that, for years now, he-who-must-not-be-called-names-on-NYT has been subverting government agencies by appointing sycophants and driving principled people out of government. Yet trusted news media refuse to speculate on how much our government has been secretly corrupted for fear of being called extreme. We can all see the tools of fascism being used, but one dare not use the f word to describe our administration.
Rick Steves the PBS travel guide recently stepped out of habit and made a documentary on the rise of fascism in the early 20th century. He clearly thought it to be important that we remember, but never once explicitly made the connection to our president. Hilarious.
128
@MIMA
The most corrupt and destructive criminal organization in the world with tentacles meddling in other's affairs far and wide.
64
@MIMA
Who do you think are the '.. we who have to wonder how many other stunts Trump has already pulled and gotten away with, and with who' are ?
Smugly smiling and smirking Benjamin Netanyahu, Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un, Mohammed bin Salman and Xi Jinping?
If only we lived in a divided limited different power constitutional republic of united states where the people wielded the ultimate sovereign power over their elected and selected hired help.
Trump didn't run a covert stealthy subtle campaign. Every American knew who Donald Trump was and was not and voted accordingly.
Who is ' we' and ' all of us' and ' our country ' and ' they'?
Among the 63 million Americans who voted for Trump was 58% of the white European American Judeo-Christian majority including 62% of white men and 54% of white women.
Among the 66 million Americans who voted for Hillary Clinton was 92% of black African American voting minority including 88% of black men and 95% of black women.
18
Democrats realize the impeachment didn't provide enough evidence to convict. Time to dismiss the "trial."
8
@2observe2b if you watched the hearings in the house I think you would reach a different conclusion.
4
Reading these questions makes clear how weak the Democrat's case is. Trump clearly should not and will not be removed from office.
8
@Robert The case is not weak by any means. But I agree republicans will not remove him because they just love those tax cuts for the wealthy and large corporations and those right wing nuts they are putting on the federal bench.
6
The 'govenmental presence' of the media has historically been bound by an amorphous, shifting, nearly organic boundary. Since the vast consolidation of the media in the last decades the 'separation' between governmental and media institutions has dissolved into a dangerous unaccountable kluge.
3
So let me get this. Trump blocks and has been blocking more specific detailed information that would lead to the bribe (or "shakedown") coming directly from him while the GOP backs this blatant coverup. They try to deflect this impeachment trial to be about the Bidens and Trump's interest in combatting corruption in Ukraine while Trump's people work with known corrupt Ukrainians. And when efforts are made to get Trump's involvement and direction in this scheme in order to somehow satisfy GOP Senators sitting supposedly in impartial judgement, they complain that the Democrats are showing they have a weak case.
14
The Republicans have made one too many deals with the devil. This impeachment trial can go one of two ways; it can either be the precipitating event that ends the Republican Party or these fellas can grow a spine, shrug off their corporate overlords, impeach Trump and ensure that the party has relevance in 10, 20 years. The Republicans are in big trouble with anyone under age 45. It’s going to take a miraculous turn-around in messaging and a total re-do of their platform if they wish to stay relevant. Active-shooter drills, lack of solid jobs, endless wars...the youth know who to blame for these things and it ain’t Hillary Clinton.
184
Yes...it aint Hillary they can blame.
It's themselves.
3
@Dudesworth That is so funny. The democrats start yelling impeach before he takes office and you actually think he did anything impeachable? Look at the leaders of your party. Crooked as the day is long and if you don't see it there is no hope for you,
3
@Dudesworth President Obama was right on this one: that a certain large segment of our country is backwards, uneducated, afraid of the future and “clinging to their religion and their guns.” And to top it off, this is the life that they’re desperate to preserve so they vote republican, which is wholly against self-interest.
11
Why did the House fail to throughly investigate Trump ? I’m appalled by Speaker Pelosi’s incompetence. If she lacks the courage to confront Trump and McConnell, she should resign and allow AOC to lead House Democrats.
11
@Common Ground
Opinions are easy. Dealing with Republican intransigence and refusal to allow witnesses to appear are reality. Even the public is aware of how Trump has trashed the respect for law. Speaker Pelosi has all the competence and courage needed for the job.
20
@Common Ground
Because this is a sham impeachment process but a very well orchestrated PR process. Big difference.
4
Trump obstructed justice by stonewalling the governing body who is constitutionally bound to investigate his wrongdoing, which is what they did. Innocent people are not afraid of the truth. The President's actions tell the story and many are complicit in his activities.
We all know that would never have happened if the House had a GOP majority. Why we are shocked by the Senate's expected behavior is baffling to me.
The only way to turn this country around is by 1) getting rid of Trump and 2) implementing term limits. The fact that some of the same Senators are here now and were also there for Clinton's trial is ridiculous.
The Senate's actions will speak volumes about their character (absent) and ability to do the right thing given the gravity of the situation.
54
No, the House would not wait for the courts to rule - unlike the impeachments of Nixon and Clinton.
5
@TG 'The fact that some of the same Senators are here now and were also there for Clinton's trial is ridiculous. ' - yes I agree Schumer should not be in the Senate
@Tom Johnson
per the Hill-
"all relevant witnesses had already testified under oath during the Starr investigation of the scandal, including Clinton and Lewinsky. Secret Service agents testified along with many current and former White House officials, including three chiefs of staff, deputy counsel, chief personnel officer, director of Oval Office operations, the United Nations ambassador, senior aide to the president, and his personal secretary. The independent counsel also interviewed a top donor Walter Kaye and confidant Vernon Jordan. Lewinsky, Jordan, and Sidney Blumenthal testified at the trial, but provided no significant information beyond what Starr already reported."
Clinton didn't obstruct first hand witnesses from coming forward and he and Lewinsky both testified.
trump has obstructed every first hand witness from coming forward. The lower courts decide these witnesses can not ignore a subpoena, can not refuse to testify, so they appeal to a higher court, then another court, then another court running down the clock. If trump has nothing to hide why is he obstructing witnesses from coming forward to prove his innocence? Oh, wait...
1
It is truly remarkable how many high-level men Trump surrounded himself with as potential "fall guys", and remarkable that so many were willing to be in that position.
It seems Trump's method of ordering somebody to do something is by ranting furiously and repeatedly about something he wishes to see happen. Invariably, one of his minions has stepped forward to do the deed.
Their sole motivations seem to be certain public humiliation and probable firing if they don't, and/or a truly criminal attachment to power and control over the U.S. versus upholding their oaths of office.
There is no Executive written directive, no texts or e-mails from Trump, making it easy for him to say that "these other guys" acted on their own volition without his knowledge.
Giuliani is the most obvious fall guy. Just because he said his pressure campaign for Ukrainian investigations was done under Trump's authority, without evidence, doesn't make it true.
Likewise Mulvaney's and Duffey's illegal blockage of Congressionally authorized military aid funds to Ukraine. There is no paper trail.
It is certain Trump choreographed this entire affair, while keeping his own hands clean, as certain as he is a record-breaking liar and crook who has done nothing good for the U.S.
The House witnesses were very credible, but with a Senate determined to defy their oaths of impartiality, he will surely walk.
17
The republican Senate majority leader will continue to act as judge, jury or king regardless if there is a ''mountain'' of evidence or not - it is that simple.
He has, (and the republican party as a whole) have been acting as such until they are held responsible. (losing their majority grip in the Senate with the mid terms election results non withstanding)
It is a forgone conclusion that republicans in the Senate are going to vote in lock step to acquit the President. This will happen regardless of how many times the press deem the usual four of five republicans as ''moderates''. They have never truly earned that moniker as they always mumble words of distress, but then turn around and always vote as radical partisans.
The only recourse is in November > YOU are the jury.
42
@FunkyIrishman Yes, we are the jury and we will re-elect our President.
3
@FunkyIrishman correct !!!
1
@FunkyIrishman And when, in November, this administration chain-locks the doors of the polling places and posts armed guards, then what? We haven’t seen real-ugly yet, not by any stretch.
We are waiting to see if tomorrow's Republican Senate Trial, under the leadership of Sen. Mitch McConnell (R, KY), will acquit Donald John Trump after his House Impeachment last month. Will Leader McConnell and his G.O.P. Managers and Mr. Trump's Legal Dream Team allow witnesses or testimony and documentary evidence re our unfit president's frightening 3 years mismanagement of our Executive, its foreign and domestic policies? Alas, chances slim to none. Though we're praying and hoping for the removal of our 2016 elected-president, we Americans know that "sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof".
7
It’s as if a house is painted red. Everyone was involved in painting it. There are pictures of the house before it was red, while it was being painted red, and the people who painted it are in the pictures. They still have some red paint under their finger nails and we have the clothing they painted in, which just so happens to have some red paint on it. We have neighbors and colleagues that are eyewitness to the house being painted red. Even the people that painted it red admit they did so. But somehow we’re still debating if the house is actually red and trying to further ‘prove’ it so. It’s all so ridiculous now.
793
@Dan
Errr, no.
A lot of conservatives and their media claim that the house is not red, it is blue (and was painted by Bidens or Hillary).
This is the problem, a large rift between two groups of people (one educated and the second, lets say less educated).
The real problem is (foreign) billionaire backed lying media claiminng that they own the truth.
44
@Dan
Beautiful.
And the MAGA hats are RED, coincidentally.
43
Says the guy with red tented lenses
3
The republican Senate majority leader will continue to act as judge, jury or king regardless if there is a ''mountain'' of evidence or not - it is that simple.
He has, (and the republican party as a whole) have been acting as such until they are held responsible. (losing their majority grip in the Senate with the mid terms election results non withstanding)
It is a forgone conclusion that republicans in the Senate are going to vote in lock step to acquit the President. This will happen regardless of how many times the press deem the usual four of five republicans as ''moderates''. They have never truly earned that moniker as they always mumble words of distress, but then turn around and always vote as radical partisans.
The only recourse is in November. YOU are the jury.
4
@FunkyIrishman I see you added Member of the Resistance to your name. Did you resist the Brits in Northern Ireland? Or was that before you were born? I’m Irish too but I was born here so I identify as American - always.
1
@Olivia
He's used that moniker for quite a while.
Nice personal attack though that has NOTHING to do with the article!
1
Why is this even an issue? There is obviously a ton more evidence, and we the people should see it put forth in the forum of the Senate trial. The nonsensical objection that the "House should've gotten all the evidence before voting to impeach" is made all the more preposterous by the stonewalling and outright blockage of testimony and documents by the DEFENDANT. Which is what he actually should be, in a criminal court. We aren't hearing about the abuse of power TO COMMIT ELECTION LAW VIOLATIONS (receiving a thing of value-dirt on his principal opponent-from a foreign government). That's not only impeachable, it's criminal, as is the prohibition on indictments of sitting Presidents.
29
@Mike7 -- The place in which to beat down that stone wall was the House, which Democrats control.
That could be done without disrupting the 2020 campaign against Trump.
The House couldn't? Well then it is absurd to imagine the Republican-controlled Senate will do what the House could not do.
The Senate can? Well then the House could have. It still could. Amend the indictment.
4
It was striking Sunday morning how the round table discussions from CNN to Fox News all referred to the July 25th phone call as the one and only focus of the corruption investigation. Of course, it isn't. You could forget the phone call and there would still be many instances from which evidence flows. Misrepresenting the phone call as the only point of evidence is, of course, a Trump world propaganda point seeking to convince the faithful that this is what it's all about. So it would seem that the news media is once again allowing far right propaganda to frame the discussion, just like in the 2016 election.
17
All I can think of when I read this article is thank goodness this farce all be over in 2.5 weeks. This is a giant temper-tantrum by the left-wing democrats and their most committed followers. Most of America, no matter their political stripe, could care less - we have an election in 10 months and most of us are satisfied to settle things then.
12
@Chris -- according to polling your assessment that most of Americans don't care appears to be incorrect. Characterizing as a temper tantrum attempts to check a president's abuses of power is a cute attempt to deflect attention from the evidence, and to denigrate those who want to investigate and prosecute obvious wrongdoing is a weak mode of arguing relied upon by those who do not have facts on their side.
8
@Chris -- I think it is more the project of the right wing Democrats. They want this election to be about Trump, not all those nasty reform issues for reforms they don't ever want to let happen. Their donors insist.
4
@Chris so you could care less about the POTUS trampling our Constitution, breaking federal laws and being actively engaged to rig an election ?? wake up and stay on point please !!!
6
The Democrats have voluminous amount of second and third hand testimony of what frustrated State Department bureaucrats think happened, but no direct evidence of what actually happened. Now more unsubstantiated evidence is piling up, some of which has already been discredited, which Democrats hope will shore up their very weak case for impeachment. It’s not that Democrats expected the President to be removed from office; what they did intend was for Trump to be humiliated by the impeachment process and bear the shame of being one of the few impeached presidents. Unfortunately for them, the public quickly lost interest and the whole impeachment strategy threaten to backfire on them. Nancy Pelosi stalled for time by withholding the articles of impeachment while Democrats regrouped and attempted to bolster their efforts. Now a very unified Republican Senate has its turn to show the American public how truly flimsy the case against the President truly is and reveal how willing Democrats were to abuse their constitutional power for political gain.
9
@Raul Campos -- the best way to prove the case is flimsy is to allow all the pertinent actors, who have been blocked so far from testifying, to speak. Allow Mulvaney, Bolton, et al. to testify under oath. Then, if the case truly is flimsy, it will be obvious to the American people. I expect this testimony is not what you are calling for, because I suspect you truly don't believe the case is flimsy, as obviously the Republican Senators don't. If they did truly believe the case was flimsy, they would be urging Bolton, et al. to testify and bring the case tumbling down -- but they don't. They want to hide the testimony Bolton would give. Interesting, huh. And you have bought this ridiculous stance hook, line, and sinker.
13
@Raul Campos Thank you for taking the time and effort to say what I wanted to but couldn’t be bothered to because this is all a sham. My response will be on Election Day 2020.
5
How can a few words of the founders be so rigidly interpreted so as to eliminate from the category of impeachable offenses what are so obviously impeachable by a demagogue who is so deserving on so many offenses?
And then for these to suggest that the voters must be the jurors of his trial in the next election he is accused of rigging via foreign interference? That demagoguery must beat common sense into submission too?
8
The Republicans say that using military aid in a war against Russia as a cudgel to force bad press on a political opponent is acceptable behavior for a sitting President.
The Republicans say Congressional investigators must litigate all the way to the Supreme Court to obtain White House witnesses and documents as part of Congress' oversight of the Executive Branch.
The Republicans say that Trump won the election in 2016 and any effort to impeach him is an attack on our democracy.
And 50% of the country believes them.
As per Walt Kelly in his Pogo comic strip: We have met the enemy and he is us.
27
@Scott B more like 33% of GOP voters ....40% at the very highest
2
@Scott B -- "military aid in a war against Russia" is a bad idea. Obama declined to do it despite Hillary frothing for war, and he was right. Trump for the wrong reasons did the right thing.
3
It's quite staggering that years into this administration, Trump and the Republicans continue to deny,obfuscate and deflect when confronted with evidence of corruption and clear abuse of power...and in the case when there is simply no earthly excuse,no reason and being cornered by their own web of lies,simply blurt out...so what?
Now, I may not be the sharpest tool in the box,but America continually refers to the founding fathers and the checks and balances they created for a true working democracy but to this reader, it doesn't appear to be working when an administration either denies everything,lies or simply claims,...what's the big deal?
Equally worrying,the Democrats appear to be completely powerless to arrest this new style of government and it would appear that short of the ballot box, there is little they can do to hold the President accountable ( despite the symbolic victory of impeachment )...let alone remove him.
Further, even should a Democrat win the next election, I fear that the President and his cronies have created the template in these troubled times of light speed 24/7/365 social media to sow future discord and division.
It's hard to believe the genie can ever be put back into the bottle.
13
Sure, Trump probably did a quid pro quo negotiation, as he does with everything in his life as a businessman, but likely crossed the line. However, Congress should’ve handled it with a censure rather than wasting everyone’s time with impeachment, which is going nowhere.
Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one, and the executive branch has every right to defend itself and is under no obligation to cooperate in helping to convict itself. That’s why we have the Judicial Branch. If these witnesses are so important, then Congress must appeal to the Courts to compel them to appear. Crying foul to the press is not the way to accomplish this.
6
@Pragmatist in CT
In my opinion, democrats' biggest miss, which created the weakest link in their impeachment process, was to seek impeachment instead of using the judicial branch to resolve its issues.
"Trump wouldn't let them" is not a serious defense and no serious American should accept this excuse. Democrats made a political choice to pursue impeachment instead, and now they must live with the consequences.
2
It is amusing that Sen Cornyn talks about Dems trying to bolster their case when he and other corrupt republicans have pre-determined the trial outcome. There is no real case to bolster here folks.
6
I realize this is simplistic, but if we have nothing to fear but fear itself... If just a handful of Republican senators would examine their own fears, and be honest with themselves, and not be afraid to stand up for what is really right, the Big Fear would be gone. What is he going to do to you then? He will be in over his head with his other dishonesty, you'll probably feel better about yourselves, and millions of American citizens will appreciate that you stood up for the good of the country. Thank you, Democrats.
407
@Susan
There are a handful of Republicans who conceivably could be reached... it's a matter of Democrats personally reaching out across the aisle and conveying what you've expressed so clearly. This is about patriotism. And a vote to impeach is not necessarily a barrier to re-election, especially with Trump being removed from office.
13
@Tom
Republican Senator, Cory Gardner, is actually hiding from his constituents in Colorado.
He hasn't had a town hall in ages.
And the good people of Colorado are very displeased.
Where art thou, Cory Gardner?
Please come out of hiding and let Colorado know where you stand.
20
@Susan republicans are not afraid. The dems are afraid for being exposed for the corruption they have committed. The dems are great at accusing the president of the crimes and sins they have already committed. Just look at The Joe Biden Hunter Biden case and I need to speak no further. The truth hurts but someone has got to say it and thank God Trump will be re-elected in 2020 and can't wait to see all of the out of control dems lose their minds!
1
Isn’t it a little odd Democrats want new witness’s & more information AFTER the House passed the articles of impeachment to the Senate? If this was SO important why weren’t they organized and bring this to light when they had control? The cold hard truth is the House’s job is done, it’s up to the Senate now. The Supreme Court actually has the power to dismiss articles of impeachment if the evidence is lacking. I would also say the supposed evidence is very weak, otherwise Democrats wouldn’t try to find new talking points & evidence every week. We all know how this will end, so don’t let yourself get all worked up. We knew the end of the story before we read the book.
11
@JOSEPH -- I am amazed that you don't seem to really read about what has happened. How can you be unaware that Trump blocked every first-hand witness from testifying during the House procedure? How can you think that presenting to the public and the Senate new evidence that has since been revealed is "finding new talking points?" When a close associate of Giuliani comes forward with a letter from Giuliani saying that he speaks for the President, that is new evidence, not "finding a new talking point." You'd be an awful prosecuting attorney -- "You have a letter corroborating previous evidence? I don't want to see it! That's just finding a new talking point! Irrelevant!" Sheesh -- what blindness you demonstrate. What abject loyalty in the face of damning facts.
5
@JOSEPH -- Moderate Democrats want to use the Senate proceedings to campaign against Trump rather than on the issues.
The issues are all about reform, and tend to defeat the moderates. The moderates want to avoid the issues and just argue ad hominem, "Trump bad" and "Trump is all that matters."
They just want power, to sell to their own donors, and then to continue doing much of what Trump has done in wars, economics, and climate change.
Yeah, they might toss a bone on abortion or jigger slightly with Obamacare, but that isn't why they want to get elected, and it certainly isn't why their donors are paying to get them elected.
No, there is a lot that matters, issues that matter. Climate change, wars, economic equity, monopoly power in tech, privacy, and of course medical care for all by whatever system that gets there.
2
Maybe there is a simple solution for how to proceed further with evidence, there is a second problem too with Republicans who will not want TV during the Senate trial.
The solution: start again hearings in Congress, with all new witnesses, eventually aiming for the second impeachment. Or whatever reason. With heavy TV presence of course. Start with Mr Parnas. Subpoena additional witnesses.
9
@Ron
It’s generally not a good idea to do something that didn’t work the first time over again.
2
@Raul Campos -- It is also not a good idea to think you can do under less favorable circumstances what you already failed to do under far better circumstances.
If these witnesses are so important, call them in the House and amend the Articles of Impeachment.
5
@Ron
We've heard it all before. There is nothing new. Every new revelation turns out to be the same claims from another disgruntled bureaucrat.
Consider, for one moment, the problem with calling more disgruntled bureaucrats to convince a nation that elected someone to "drain the swamp".
4
The shadow looming over the Senate impeachment trial is Trump's order to assassinate Iran's general Soleimani who was in Iraq at the invitation of the its Prime Minister. The U.S. is not at war with Iran. Trump made his extraordinary decision without consulting Congress or U.S. allies whose vital interests are affected by the killing. The decision is counter to multiple U.S. laws and a fundamental violation of the UN Charter. The chaotic manner in which the decision was made and the absence of justification for the killing despite its significant impact to U.S. interests and the threat to the security of the American people raises the question - is the U.S. safe with Trump as president?
Trump set in motion a chain of events that raise serious dangers to the U.S.:
- Iran no longer recognizes any limits to developing nuclear weapons (although it would reverse this if the U.S. rejoined JCPOA);
- Iraq has formally requested that the U.S. and other foreign forces leave Iran raising the danger of ISIS reemerging in a potentially more virulent form;
- U.S. Maximum Pressure against Iran including sanctions as well as support for groups seeking to overthrow the government of Iran is a form of warfare of which Congress has not been informed (VP Pence claims the reasons for killing Soleimani are too secret to reveal to Congress);
- The goal of Maximum Pressure is regime change in Iran -is Trump's plan a coup, a civil war, or an invasion and installation of a friendly government?
5
It seems that the Dems now feel that their case is incomplete and that they need further proceedings.
They should have thought of that before referring the matter to the Senate and done a more thorough job.
I'm not even seeing what Trump, whom I don't love, did which was so outrageous as to call for impeachment. He held up but didn't deny aid to Ukraine? Big deal. That shouldn't cost anyone a presidency. Not to mention that the aid, which was passed by Congress, was to have been paid out, not by the President, but by the OMB, the Office of Management and Budget. So if OMB was supposed to pay it out then OMB should have paid it out timely.
Regardless of when Ukraine got our taxpayers' money for free I am certain that they are grateful.
As far as the Ukraine investigation of the Biden affair goes, why not? If I know that you know that someone committed a crime how am I wrong in encouraging you to report it to law enforcement. Not to mention that when Ukraine first endeavored to investigate the $83,000 per month Hunter Biden job while Obama was still president, they were somehow persuaded to shut down that investigation.
You want to call more witnesses? Call the Bidens and Obama. They have some 'splainin' to do.
14
@MIKEinNYC -- "He held up, but didn't deny aid? Big deal." He held up the aid for his own personal gain, in defiance of Congress. The aid was taxpayer funded. The holding up of aid endangered American lives in the region and was detrimental to American interests overall. The aid was released only AFTER the whistleblower came forward and the scheme was revealed. Your stance is appalling and contrary to a whole lot of the Constitution. You seem to think a President defying Congress and endangering America for his own personal gain is no big deal. That's pathetic and shameful.
4
@MIKEinNYC
The money was received by Ukraine in a timely matter. Trump didn't benefit personally. The democrats have stupendous allegations but no evidence of a crime haven't been actually committed.
4
"On Sunday, Representative Adam B. Schiff..... said he was concerned that the C.I.A. and the National Security Agency were withholding information ..."out of fear of angering the president."
This battle between impeachment managers and officials who "fear angering the president" shows voters how broken our democracy is.
It appears "angering the president" is so strong that administration officials will go to any lengths to cover up evidence about how Donald Trump is running this country like a mob boss where "loyalty" is more important than law.
Whenever Republicans accuse Democrats of seeking to "bolster a weak case" my blood boils. The president created this Catch-22 with his blanket refusal to produce documents and witnesses; his agencies, runnng scared, are collaborating to keep them blocked at trial.
If angering the president is more important than protecting the rule of law and democracy itself, we have already lost them.
79
One side is pursuing the truth. The other is closing it’s eyes. Which one is partisan?
50
@T
The Democrats! The other guys fell asleep listening to the Democrats complain about the President’s alleged crimes for the last three years!
3
Anything that looks like a gap is a result of Trumps blocking the investigation by Congress that goes directly to the charges for impeachment.
20
Power vs. Credibility.
Trump has to convince his supporters in the Senate that suppressing evidence can heal the nation's divide. Schumer has to show the same, plus that the POTUS cannot be vindicated if evidence suppressed. Rationally, a suppression of evidence demonstrates that conspiracy theorists are correct, that politics is rigged to deny reasonable people the tools they need to make rational decisions. This is a major turning point for us as a culture and a country. Factionalism will destroy democracy, as Dante argues, and Shakespeare in Timon of Athens- a show worth catching at BAM.
4
"new evidence has been surfacing at the 11th hour"
This is what happens when justice takes a back seat to politics. Sure, plenty of President Trump's actions are questionable. Some even warrant investigating. But the overarching concern here as far as the Democrats are concerned is the upcoming election cycle, not the future of civilization. As in anybody who's a Democrat.
The Democrat's are desperate to do anything they can to insure that Mr Trump can't run. Literally.
If they were truly concerned about the country they'd have continued to pursue evidence gathering. As has been pointed out very clearly the House act's as a Grand Jury so to speak. When a Grand Jury sends a prosecution recommendation upstairs they can't suddenly come back and say "oops, we've just got something hot off the press and need to add it".
There are very few secrets in Washington. Given all that has happened over so much time I really doubt that they'll find a smoking gun with finger prints and DNA on it next to a body or two.
7
Impeachment was/is intended to check abuses of power; to remove Officials who notably abuse the Constitution and/or the rules of order of a liberal democracy regardless of actions' statutory criminality.
The Founders clearly in their discussions indicate that the "high crimes and misdemeanors" they had in mind may not be criminal by statute but nevertheless still be crimes against the People/Office.
And if one looks at the precedents in English law for impeachment that guided us one clearly sees criminally is not a necessity, indeed not essential at all.
Impeachment is clearly a political process.
But "political" does NOT mean it is to be partisan partial. No, it means extra and apart from the Criminal Process.
The House is supposed to impartially investigate acts that indicate malfeasance, abuse, etc. to render positions on their level of seriousness and call for prosecution in Senate.
The Senate is suppose to impartially (like a jury) decide if the House was right in their judgements.
Senate decides if the alleged "high crime and/or misdemeanor" against the duties and responsibilities of the Office, Institutions, People is true and should result in removal from office.
Clearly civilian criminality is not pivotal in Impeachment but level of abuse of power is. Plain and simple.
Presidents don't have "opinions" they way the rest of us do. When they express an opinion, it's an executive policy decision. If Trump tells McConnell not to include evidence that could infuriate his supporters, he's doing so with the full power of the presidency, not simply as an individual accused and charged before a jury in a court of law. The president is doing his job, as president, when he turns what we think of as opinion into an executive order. That's what America signed up for when it gave the president such powers and that's what America signed up for when it gave Trump the presidency. It doesn't matter if we like it. It's democracy.
1
It appalls me – no one from the United States – it has taken so long for the US to decapitate the rotten, swampy administration known by the name Trump.
In future do us a favor and constrain candidates for president to those who have previously fulfilled the duties of a senator.
That someone with no experience in being on the other side of the democratic processes can be voted to perform the duties of the highest elected official with great power is abhorrent and representative of a childlike state.
209
This comment is so accurate as to solve pretty much everything we are seeing today; have a minimum bar to achieve in order to be able to run for the most powerful office in the world; a minimum level of competence in other words. No other serious job, anywhere, lacks these safeguards.
38
@M C Major
We're brain washed by our media and entertainment. A large fraction of us have been raised on "news" that is slanted and fabricated to support a far right ideology. It's audience has been conditioned from birth to believe anything they're told by the propaganda. Another large fraction enjoys "reality TV" that conditions it's audience to believe that celebrities hold special power that must be admired. Mix that with general ignorance, naivete, and voter suppression and you have the US Republican voter base.
32
@M C Major I see Chinese meritocracy – with harsh conditions to qualify for an advanced post – and American democracy – with its relaxed constraints on running for high office. I think a state should take a middle way: past successes in government administration and appropriate image coupled with wide voter enfranchisement
2
The Democats have sent the impeachment article files to the Senate for a trial.
It will be a substantial trial for the president, which will be a template of case study on the history of the American politics.
To some extent, it also will be a president putting the GOP pundits on trial, in which they will be in a match deciding who will more brazen and shameless to defend this command-in-chief
39
The GOP reminds me of a cartoon I saw in Playboy over 50 years ago ... two middle aged women sitting at a table in a restaurant. One says to the other: “For 30 years he drove me crazy, then he divorced me because he said I was nuts!”
The very backup material that is missing in the House presentation is what Trump and his buddies refused to release. By blocking witnesses and not releasing evidentiary documents, Trump is like any other criminal not giving DNA or getting fingerprinted. The GOP should be demanding McConnell force subpoenas ( which would have taken too long thru the courts) and call witnesses with first hand knowledge. As to the silly notion of calling the Bidens (they have no pertinent info and not on trial), Adam Schiff (why? Prosecutors aren’t witnesses), and the whistleblower (sorry ... anonymity protected under the law) — it is ridiculous to even entertain using them as a bargaining tool.
Already this impeachment is off to a farcical beginning with the spotlight-seeking defense counsels and their outlandish claims.
All that said, I live every day in fear for the strength of our democracy. I didn’t think Donald Trump could get elected in the first place, yet he has succeeded in a bloodless coup that has molded our government into his nightmare kingdom in just three years. I am not sure we can survive.
445
@Mountain Dragonfly: you have perfectly captured my angst. For months now I've been warning about the danger posed by this president, who, once acquitted and unrestraind, will really get to work to exercise his vindictiveness. My friends think I'm hysterical. I believe I'm merely historical, because the parallels between this man's behavior are too reminiscent of a not too distant path. It's not a sin to call him fascist, because he is. His means and methods, operating through fear, are authoritarian to the max. He controls the major pillars of government and is being protected by same.
It's a bloodless coup, for now. But it's a coup nonetheless. Nobody knows the depths of this man's relationship with Vladimir Putin, because this administration never releases phone read-outs. But given where this man's sympathies lie, you can be pretty sure our republic is in grave danger.
193
@ChristineMcM & @Mountain Dragonfly:
You both perfectly summarize my "hysterical/historical" dread of the current administration. Thank you for mentioning Trump's relationship with Vladimir Putin, his authoritarianism/fascism, the silliness of calling the Bidens, Adam Schiff, and the whistle blower as witnesses in the impeachment, the sudden wacky idea that subpoenas aren't meant to be obeyed--and so much more insanity that did not exist a mere three years ago.
Maybe we are all guilty of Trump Derangement Syndrome as the R's say, or just maybe our entire reality has slipped into the Upside Down.
29
@TinyBlueDot
“What matters now is not furrowed brows or expressions of deep concern, but action “
Please figure out how to win in 2020. Donate, canvas, coordinate with groups who are doing this. ACT!
7
No stone can be left unturned. We still can’t give up hope that republicans will at some point not be able to deny the evidence against this crook and he’ll be convicted in the senate. A more likely, tho still distant, possible advantage is that people who have voted for Republicans in Congress will be seen by their constituents as the shills for trump family that they are. Most likely is that this information is being collected for the historical record. When the history books are written the Republicans are really going to look like a bunch of crazies that failed their constitution, failed democracy.
98
I live in a very red district of NJ. Before the current occupant in the WH was elected I heard endless complaints regarding the Obamas, Clintons and democrats in general. I could count on one hand (excluding me and my husband) fellow Dems. On Saturday we attended the first meeting in 2020 of our local democratic club where a large energetic group has one common goal - removing DJT and restoring democratic control of all three branches this November.
I am hopeful that as in southern NJ there are more of us in red districts than is reflected by some news organizations and polls. 11/3/2020 ... VOTE BLUE NO MATTER WHO!!!
13
It may happen that the lawyers in the Senate will face pier review and lose their license to do injustice. That and losing your seat should for some be a major consideration. Or just go over the cliff with the other rats and hope some Republican will give you a job. If they win they lose. If they lose they win.
6
@Less You Know The Better
What makes you think the history books will be allowed to tell the truth?
7
The record is not really "riddled by gaps." A fairly detailed understanding of the Ukraine pressure campaign is already known and virtually no exculpatory evidence has been found or produced.
264
@fbraconi . Except the Ukrainian President says there was no such pressure. But, hey, keep watching MSNBC and CNN.
1
@fbraconi exactly correct, the evidence produced so far proves abuse of power, and the “gaps “, which are not exculpatory (for if they were, they would have long ago been produced,) are those manufactured by Trump, and prove obstruction.
14
@Cjmesq0 What else would you expect him to say? Newly elected, he doesn’t want to appear weak to his countrymen because he is being bullied by a stronger foe (which he is). Second, his country is at war with Russia. He desperately needs US aid to defend Ukraine and he knows if he tells the truth the aid won’t come. I’d rather just rely on the mountain of evidence that proves Trump’s mendacity. Now, get back to Hannity where it’s safe!
28
If the criminal justice system allowed defendants to prevent prosecutors from having witnesses testify, it would save a trillion dollars because nobody would be convicted.
166
@Peter Silverman But what about justice? It is not about saving money is it?
2
@Gianni you’re right, I was just trying to point out that if defendants can block witnesses, acquittal would be a foregone conclusion. We could turn prisons into bed and breakfasts for the homeless.
72
@Peter Silverman
Update.
This isnt a Criminal Trial.
Its an attempt to remove a President from office.
1
The argument that the Democrats' case for impeachment is so weak that they are scrambling for more evidence is totally preposterous. Try telling that to district attorneys anywhere in the country that collecting and having more evidence to prove your case is better than not having it. On the other hand, it is completely true that Trump's blocking testimony and refusal to provide documents is proof that he's afraid of what will come out, yet he forgets that doing so proves the case for his impeachment. Doing that is obstruction pure and simple. If Republicans care about optics, they'll remember that as they acquit him, and fully embrace their role in covering up the American transition to a monarchy (at best) and eventual dictatorship (at worst).
449
So true. Name one piece of evidence team trump has submitted that contradicts the charges. No, saying it was a perfect call does not contradict the evidence amassed. Don’t try to shift attention to others, respond to the charges.
135
@Lldemats The short answer to “If Republicans care...” is “No.”
21
@Lldemats Weak? Are you in denial? Collaboration with a
foreign government to defraud the American people of just elections is treason, a president of the USA
engaging in treason and you think there is no evidence?
And in your view Black mailing a foreign leader is not a high a crime in your view? What about obvious obstruction of justice? The refusal to provide documents and witnesses ?
I strongly direct you to educate yourself in both legal matters and critical thinking something you seem to
be missing.
6
Yesterday, on CBS's Face The Nation program, Congressman Nadler said the House had an extremely strong case and that any jury would convict in "three minutes." If that is so, why don't we just get on with it.
33
@jpduffy3 Looking for more evidence for an air tight case. Trump is not king although he wants to be. Everything will have to be taken into account. They will only get one shot at this. It has to be perfect.
31
Because this isn’t the usual jury. It is a rigged Senate that is trying to find any solution to vote against impeachment.
183
Nadler knows that Republicans will ignore whatever evidence (no matter how strong or not) and acquit anyway, betraying their oaths of office and their duty of impartial justice to the American people.
The solid process and detailed evidence are needed for the historical record so that future Americans can study how the once great GOP drove itself into extinction by absolutely failing it's duty to the Constitution and to the American people.
161