The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump

I see, so you can't list one. Noted.

He has been impeached but not convicted. The impeachment will forever be a stain on the Democrats who did this in a wholly partisan manner.

First, what makes you think I watch Fox News? I don't actually. In fact, I don't watch televised news unless you count CSPAN. That being said, he has been impeached but NOT convicted. Do you believe impeachment was a stain on Clinton?

Well, there should be a trial of Biden and the respective members of the Obama regime involved in the Ukraine affair ... Why should a later US president not support an investigation in Ukraine involving possible corruption of a former US vice-president?

Indeed ... seems like many in the USA have been detracted from the original issue and matter ...

We should hope and want your description of the trial's purpose to be correct, but in these politically polarized days, I think it's more precise to say that impeachment means the House has determined that the president committed impeachable offenses, and the the trial will determine whether the Senate agrees. I've heard too much politically charged and motivated interpretation of the trial's purpose from several senators to believe "truth" is in their view its objective (e.g. Sen Joni Ernst's barely veiled enthusiasm about the effect of the President's team's Biden presentation yesterday on Joe Biden's Iowa poll results)

1. Because in this country "trials" have witnesses.
2. Because there has never been a U.S. Senate impeachment trial without witnesses.
3. Because there are first-hand witnesses to the president's conduct whom the president refused to allow to testify during the House's proceedings, and as this week's reports of what John Bolton will claim in his upcoming book demonstrated, when under oath, first-hand witnesses can add significantly to our understanding of what happened.
4. Because if the Senate is to fulfill what you believe is its mission as the trier of impeachments - to determine whether it is "true" that the president of the United States "has committed high crimes and misdemeanors" - fact witnesses with information relevant to that question should be heard from, even if the president about whose conduct in office those witnesses would testify blocks their appearance. (How crazy is the world of this impeachment trial! The defendant can bar witnesses from testifying against him!)

That's just insightful.

It is false to say the Mueller report "showed no collusion." In the opening pages of Part I the report VERY specifically declared that "collusion" is not a legal term of art, and so it would not consider the issue.

As to the issue of "conspiracy," which IS a legal term of art and which the report DID engage, the report found "insufficient evidence" to "establish" the crime of conspiracy. But as the report ALSO very specifically stated, "[a] statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.”

Whether anything Russia did "altered the election" (and how can we know what effect its social media campaign had, for example?) is not the point here and was not the point of the Mueller report. If I attempt to rob a bank, but get scared and run away from the teller window empty-handed after brandishing a gun and asking for money, can I be charged with a crime? After all, I didn't actually rob the bank. My actions had no effect on the bank's assets. Of course that's nonsense. As the Mueller report made clear: 1) That the Russians tried in a systematic way to interfere in the 2016 election for the purpose of aiding Donald Trump's candidacy matters; 2) That representatives of the Trump campaign on many occasions met with Russians and were open to the fruits of Russian efforts matters; 3) That Russia will very likely seek to interfere in the 2020 election also matters.

Donald Trump IS the duly-elected president of the United States. Russia DID interfere in the 2016 general election. The Trump campaign DID meet with Russians and welcome the fruits of the Russian efforts. Further, the Trump campaign took no steps to discourage, let alone report, the Russian outreach. ALL of those things are true.

Just as it has never been some American people who interfere in foreign ocuntries' affairs ... of course (!) it is governments or representatives.

Now, as for Russian interference in the US presidential election, I have never read what exactly supposedly constituted this interference. There were accusations that Russia meddled with the votes and/or ocunting procedures ,.. which later was said, did not happen. So then, what did Russia do to supposedly "win" the election for Trump against Clinton????????????

The whole matter of both "Russiagate" and "Ukraingate" have been so meddled with and have been twisted to actually be 180° the opposite of what they most likely should be. The media under the control of the USA enemies are doing their utmost to dismantle the duly elected president and have been busy for 3 years in a coup against the USA president.

Looking on from the outside with no personal interest to support either "elephants" or "donkeys", I am wondering greatly what has become of "the land of the free and the home of the brave" and the country of "liberty and justice for all". There seems to have been a takeover over in progress during several decades ... and people all over the world are suffering from the hegemon's cruel "holding on to the empire" while the empire morally, culturally and economically is falling apart and the American people at large in the USA are suffering most having lost much of their liberty and justice to the "frogs in the swamp"

oh dear oh dear ...."improperly interfered" ???? I guess there is also "properly interfer" which may be what US regimes are doing? Like there aree "good bombings" and "bad bombings" ... with hundreds of thousands of "colleteral damage" or "victims to make citizens rise up against their country's regime" ???

Mr. Obama went to UK and spoke at EU vote election campaign meetings to the point of threatening that leaving the EU would cost the UK certain advantages in their international dealings ... time to grow up and wake up

I take your point about the redundancy of the term "improperly interfered;" I should not have added the adjective "improperly." I think I remember sensing the core needlessness of that word as I wrote the post, but obviously that didn't stop me from using it.

In my view, Mr Obama should not have advocated for particular outcomes to elections other than those held in the U.S. But there is a significant difference in detail and magnitude between what he did and what the Russians did in our 2016 election. Mr Obama spoke on camera or in print. His name, face, and voice were directly, openly, and obviously tied to his advocacy. In 2016, none of the fake social accounts Russians created had Russian flags or account holder names attached to them. None of the Russian advocacy on behalf of Mr Trump was identified directly, openly, and obviously as was Mr Obama's. Mr Obama was wrong to do what he did, but at least he did it where everyone could see, hear, and read what he was doing. The Russians cloaked their efforts in secrecy and gave the intentionally and blatantly false impression that the creators and agents of their electoral advocacy were members of the American electorate.

In addition, we can count on one, perhaps two hands the number of occasions Mr Obama offered input to foreign electoral campaigns. We need computer databases to catalog all of the Russian efforts.

I accept your point that Mr Obama should not have injected himself into a foreign election. Do you accept my point that there was a significant difference in detail and magnitude between what he did and what the Russians did in the U.S. 2016 general election?

You make a bold claim. The current issue with and request for documents and witnesses are specific to the Senate trial; they do NOT refer to the House impeachment process. So, which witnesses have testified before the Senate hearing to-date? Which documents have been introduced into the Senate trial's record? I'm not aware of ANY witnesses or documents that have been introduced (other than the House managers, the President's legal team, and their respective presentations, of course).

Exactly, House managers, White House Team, Reports, etc. Those are documents and witnesses which is why I can say 100% that it is a bold lie to say there are no witnesses or documents in this trial.

Not to mention the replaying of witness testimony from the House inquiry.