Mitt Romney would like to hear from John Bolton (among other witnesses); he will vote "yes" for witnesses.  
Sixty-six percent of Americans want to hear from John Bolton.  
It's a courage call for Republican Senators to vote for a fair trial.

Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham have lotsa words to eat.

Senators take an oath to be an impartial juror in impeachment trials. 

Momentum is growing for witnesses and documents in the Senate trial.

Just for the fun of it...

Trump's Impeachment Case is now in the Senate.

Wednesday afternoon, the House Sargeant-at-Arms escorted the House Impeachment Managers who gave notice to the Senate, and today they were escorted again into the Senate Chambers and Adam Schiff introduced the Articles of Impeachment to the U.S. Senators.

The truth will be known whether Republicans like Lindsey Graham care to hear the evidence.  All the Senators will take the oath to do impartial justice.
It's possible that the Republican Senators have yet to be familiar with the evidence.
Lev Parnas implicated Trump with new revelations as the Impeachment Trial is set to begin; he said Trump knew everything, and that the Ukraine scheme was all about Biden, not about corruption.
The GAO (General Accounting Office) found that Trump broke the law by withholding aid from Ukraine.

Chief Justice John Roberts was escorted to the Senate by the Senate Sargeant-at-Arms and was then escorted into the Senate chamber by Senate Judiciary members Senators Graham, Chair; Leahy; Blunt; Feinstein, and he was sworn in by the president pro tempore of the Senate, Senator Grassley, to preside over the Senate Impeachment Trial.

Chief Justice Roberts then gave the oath of office to the Senators for the Trump Impeachment Trial and the 99 Senators present signed the oath book.

Mitch McConnell gave notice that the Senator who was absent must be sworn in and sign the oath book; announced pre-trial calendar dates; and took care of housekeeping details to be ready for the Senate trial.
The Chief Justice adjourned the Senate until Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 1 PM.

A summons was sent to the President at the White House.

The gravity is upon us to seek fairness and "do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws."

Originally posted Wednesday, December 11, 2019  12:05 AM
Alan A. Alop wrote:

Trump has named his impeachment legal defense team.

Corroborating evidence continues to emerge... revelation after revelation adds detail to the story...

Will the Senators agree on trial rules or will there be chaos in the Senate Chamber on Tuesday?

Trump's lawyers sent his first formal impeachment response to the Senate: "The articles of impeachment submitted by House Democrats are a dangerous attack on the right of the American people to freely choose their president."

Meanwhile, the Senate is preparing for a showdown over witnesses and new evidence.

The American people are the jury.

The U.S. Senate as well as the president are on trial.

What kind of government do we want?

Do we want checks and balances?
or a unitary executive?

Is abuse of presidential power an impeachable offense?

Is the Senate Impeachment Trial going to be a fair trial?

a pursuit of truth with witnesses and documents ? ? ? thus far blocked by Trump.

Are U.S. Senators sincere about their oath to "do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws"?

Do we have the rigor to protect and defend the Constitution?

The Founders did not envision an irresponsible and impotent Senate.

History has its eyes on us.

The House voted on and passed the articles of impeachment based upon the "witnesses" and "facts" they brought forth, meaning they felt the facts presented were strong enough to impeach.  They didn't want to wait for further witnesses based upon what they considered to be the need to move quickly.  (Then, of course, they sat on those articles.)  The Senate's job is to review what the House presents and vote.  Now they want to drag it out longer trying to impose upon the Senate their duties.  Just where do you get that the Senate is on trial???  I personally feel shame on anybody who thinks this whole impeachment process has been constitutional.

Just a little aside...I thought the cartoon I posted was a funny depiction of the delivering of the articles of impeachment.  How could I know that the actual event was an even funnier cartoon?

Have you studied Constitutional Law and read Raoul Berger's book on impeachment?  What is the source of the authority by which you speak?
The Trump impeachment process thus far meets every constitutional test.

It is the Senate's responsibility to act as a trial jury, to hear all the evidence, review the documents, and render a fair and impartial verdict on the articles of impeachment.  Senators have taken the oath and signed the oath book to do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws.

The Senators are on trial because they have not taken responsibilty for oversight and already have failed to honor their oath by insisting they will not consider the evidence in the impeachment trial.  Senators who allow the President to abuse the power of his office are not fulfilling their oath of office.

I think your cartoon is funny, but falls far short of the decorum and seriousness of the impeachment process.

Among other infractions (the closed door sessions and not giving the President the opportunity to defend himself) there was no treason, bribery, high crime or misdemeanor and there was not one bit of proof presented before the House.  But then, according to Nancy,  "Articles of Impeachment Not About ‘Proof’ But ‘Allegations That Have Been Made."  I would think none of us would want to be convicted by allegations.

Why didn't you concern yourself about the impartiality in the House?  Furthermore, the fact that Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders sit on the Senate jury lends itself to partiality.  I have read books on it as well, Janis, so don't challenge my knowledge from your high perch.

Did you find Nancy's passing out of commemorative pens and the papers being delivered on a silver platter to rise up to the decorum and seriousness of the impeachment process?  

"The papers" were NOT delivered to the Senate on a silver platter.

Republican and Democratic Committee members had equal access to the hearings in the SCIF.  
Trump and his counsel were invited to be present and bring witnesses forward in front of the House Judiciary Committee.  Trump and his counsel chose not to attend or to present any evidence.

The House passed articles of impeachment which is comparable to a grand jury indictment.  
It is the Senate's responsibility to try the case presented to them by the House.

The Constitution gives the sole power of impeachment to the House. House members do not take an oath to do impartial justice.  
It is in the Senate where the Senate Impeachment Trial takes place that members take an oath to do impartial justice as they consider whether or not to remove the president from office.  Obviously all politicians have political bias, that's why the Senators take an oath to do impartial justice.

"High crimes and misdemeanors" is a phrase that has been used in impeachment proceedings under British Common Law since 1369; it was understood by the framers as abuse of the power given to ministers of the king, and they were called high crimes and misdemeanors because they were powers the common man did not have.

Alan Dershowitz is a celebrity lawyer who argued that abuse of power was fundamental in the Clinton Impeachment Trial.  He's argued both sides of this issue.

I have a question for you, Janis...The House dems had free rein to call witnesses; a privilege not afforded to the Republicans (heck, they weren't even free to ask the questions they chose).  The House felt comfortable and confident enough with the case they brought to impeach the President.  Why then would they require more witnesses than those laid forth in the articles of impeachment?  Aren't those articles what the Senate is to vote on?

Carol, where are you getting your information? 
Trump and his counsel chose NOT to engage with the House Judiciary Committee, they chose NOT to present evidence to the House.

On the other hand, Ken Starr spent four years investigating Bill & Hillary Clinton with free rein... he began with an investigation into a land purchase (White Water) and then traipsed through every aspect of their lives.  By chance, Linda Tripp brought tapes of her phone conversations with Monica Lewinsky to Starr's attention, and Voila! after years of searching he had a toe hold.

Trump did not allow first hand witnesses who were called by the House to testify. He gagged former and present members of his administration.  That's why one of the articles is Obstruction of Congress.

A trial is a search for truth with witnesses and documents.  That's what we should expect of a Senate Impeachment Trial.  Trump has been indicted for a crime against the American people.  Who would expect the people who think Trump has done nothing wrong would be the people who oppose witnesses who could vindicate him?

Republicans seem not to be interested in the truth, rather to protect a man who has lied more than 16,000 times during his brief tenure. If Trump's abuse of power is not impeachable, what is?

McConnell and the Republican Senators see it as their mission to hide the evidence of Trump's abuse of power from the American people, belying their oath to do impartial justice.  
The articles of impeachment against Trump are too serious to reduce what happens in the Senate to a political contest.

You seem willing to walk through fire for Trump... what are his redeeming qualities?  
Seems everyone who supports Trump for re election would want to defend his character, his decency, to clear his name, vindicate him, so he would be embraced by the American public in 2020.

In the long run, the Republican coverup of Trump's abuse of power, orchestrated by Mitch McConnell, in spite of the oath all Senators took to do impartial justice, will not only tarnish the legacy of individual Senators, it will more than tarnish the Republican Party.

The Question is no longer Convict or Acquit ?

                  the question is fair trial or coverup ?

This is America:     

             NO ONE is Above the Law

        and that's what this trial is about!

How do we deal with a president who abuses presidential power?

We need a fair trial with witnesses and documents.

Silly for us to debate, Janis, as each of us is convinced we are right.  I will, however, reply to your comment that I'm willing to walk through fire for President Trump.  Quite honestly, I wouldn't walk through fire for anyone.  I'm fully aware of his flaws, but support him because of all he's accomplished.  You, on the other hand, seem to hate him no matter what he's done--or hasn't done.  That kind of bitterness isn't something I'd like to have to live with. 

I hate no one. I love my country.

What has Trump accomplished?