Los Angeles Times: Editorial: No, you can’t have a serious Trump impeachment trial without witnesses
In a rebuke of historic proportions, the House of Representatives on Wednesday transmitted to the Senate two articles of impeachment, both arising from President Trump’s outrageous attempt to strong-arm Ukraine into investigating former Vice President Joe Biden. Trump is only the third president to be impeached.
Now it falls to the Senate to fulfill its constitutional obligations and ensure that the president receives a full and fair trial. That means putting partisanship aside, taking the allegations against the president seriously and following the facts where they lead.
But for that to occur, some Republican senators will have to strike profiles in courage and demand that witnesses be called as part of the trial. Only four Republican senators need to join the Senate’s Democrats to make that happen without a tie-breaking vote by the chief justice. Four GOP votes would provide a majority sufficient to ensure that subpoenas go out to former national security advisor John Bolton, acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and others with first-hand knowledge of the events in question.
So far, though, only three Republicans have indicated an openness to hearing witness testimony, and even they will be under enormous pressure to fall into line with the White House’s desire for a quick trial ending in acquittal. ...
New York Times: Take Impeachment Seriously, Senators
… Confronted with a mountain of evidence that an American president abused his power by shaking down a vulnerable country for his own personal gain — and then stonewalled a congressional investigation into his behavior — senators should spare no effort in conducting a fair and thorough trial, complete with witnesses and documentary evidence.
Alas, in 2020, the Senate is led by Mitch McConnell, who has demonstrated time and again that he is more concerned with covering for Mr. Trump than protecting the integrity of the office Mr. Trump holds, the security of the nation he leads or the Constitution he swore to defend.
With few exceptions, Mr. McConnell has enjoyed the lock-step support of his caucus. ...
Washington Post: Impeachment is back. Now comes a test of the Senate’s integrity.
… The seven impeachment managers named by the House will have a solid case to lay out next week concerning Mr. Trump’s use of his official powers to induce Ukraine’s president to announce an investigation of Joe Biden and of conspiracy theories about Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election. The second article, on Mr. Trump’s obstruction of Congress, is self-evident: The president has improperly blocked aides from responding to congressional subpoenas seeking further testimony and documents.
The test of the Senate’s integrity will come with a promised vote on whether to call for the witnesses and documents impeded by Mr. Trump’s stonewalling. Doing so is essential for two reasons. First, the testimony of top aides such as former national security adviser John Bolton could confirm — or perhaps undercut — the case that Mr. Trump withheld military aid and a White House meeting from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to force him to help Mr. Trump’s reelection effort. White House documents on the aid suspension could be even more telling.
In addition, Congress must demonstrate that a president cannot simply reject its oversight, especially on a matter as grave as impeachment. Mr. Bolton has said he would testify if the Senate calls him, and he has a book forthcoming. Could it be that the Senate will refuse to hear a firsthand account that could soon be in the public domain? …
… Mr. McConnell, who has already promised to violate his oath by not remaining impartial, will do his best to cut the trial short. ...
USA Today: Americans want a fair impeachment trial. Senators can make that happen.
When Chief Justice John Roberts swears in all 100 senators as jurors for the impeachment trial of Donald John Trump, each will promise to "do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws."
But the Founders were clear eyed and prescient about the political realities of judging a president. "The greatest danger (is) that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt," Alexander Hamilton wrote of the impeachment process in Federalist No. 65.
That certainly appears to be the case as the Trump impeachment, just the third such trial in U.S. history, shifts from the Democratic-controlled House to the Senate, where Republicans hold a 53-47 majority. With 67 votes needed to remove Trump from office, his acquittal seems assured. …
… With a simple majority of 51 votes, senators can summon witnesses like Bolton or Parnas, or demand previously denied government communications bearing on impeachment. Just four of the 53 Republicans would have to agree to join the Democrats to make that happen.
It would go a long way toward reassuring the American people that the process isn't rigged, even if the outcome appears preordained.
UK Globe and Mail: With Trump’s impeachment, the truth is on trial. And it’s going to lose
… What this means is that the trial is likely to produce a compelling, even incontrovertible, case that Mr. Trump tried to squeeze a foreign leader into messing with a U.S. election, yet finish with the Republican-dominated Senate nevertheless summarily acquitting the President. The GOP senators’ decision will be no more sophisticated than a seal clapping its flippers in exchange for a herring.
The final act will involve an all-caps barrage from Mr. Trump, revelling in the acquittal as proof that his impeachment was nothing more than a Democratic hoax.
That will be a disaster – a exclamation point on the Trump era of disinformation, in which fact and evidence are being swamped by lies and mindless partisanry. ...
The Brownsville (TX) Herald: EDITORIAL: Legitimacy: Trump and nation need fair Senate impeachment trial
The impeachment of an American president is a tragedy, one that should not be made worse by a sham trial in the Senate.
Americans of all parties need a complete and fair vetting of whether President Donald Trump abused his power, by pressuring Ukraine to produce political dirt on a rival, and obstructed Congress from investigating.
This is needed not to score political points but to ascertain whether there is rot in the White House that must be removed. A legitimate trial is also needed to affirm that presidents — current and future — remain accountable to Congress. …
UK Guardian: The Guardian view on the Trump trial: a defining moment for the rule of law
… This will be a pivotal moment for America. If the Senate does not call the witnesses, it is in effect saying that Mr Trump is above the law. That would be an extraordinary abdication of constitutional responsibility. The US upper house was originally created as a restraint on both the elected house and the president. It was there, the historian Robert Caro writes, as a check on “the possibilities for tyranny inherent in executive authority”. That is why the Senate has so many powers, including that of trying an impeachment. Yet the current Senate is a place of ruthless partisanship and irreconcilability, acting invariably on behalf of Mr Trump.
This trial is therefore not just a defining moment for Mr Trump and for the presidency. It is also a defining moment for the Senate itself. If the Senate votes on purely party lines to acquit and Mr Trump is then re-elected, this would be an infamous outcome. The idea that a president can abuse his office for personal gain would be accepted. A new and lawless presidential legitimacy would be sanctioned. And the checks and balances of the US constitution would no longer exist and would need to be built afresh.
Houston Chronicle: As impeachment trial nears, Cruz, Cornyn could play heroes’ roles by insisting Bolton, Perry and others be heard [Editorial]
… But McConnell and company would be in grave error were they to allow their anticipation of an acquittal to justify, even if only to themselves, holding a trial in which members refuse to hear from witnesses with relevant information about the president’s conduct. That fuller context is not only needed for the senators to make sound judgments, it also is necessary for the public to believe those judgments are fair and reasonable - and not just cynical votes to limit damage to Trump or to the Republican brand. …
Beaumont [TX] Enterprise: Cornyn, Cruz should treat impeachment trial with serious focus
For only the third time in our history, the U.S. Senate is going to consider removing the president in an impeachment trial. Even though the outcome of these proceedings is not really in doubt, Texas senators and their colleagues should treat this matter with the utmost seriousness. This is not a time for political posturing or making sure you have good video footage for the next campaign ad. This is a time to soberly and thoroughly discuss the facts of this case and then cast a vote that all senators can explain to their constituents — and their grandchildren. ...
The Republican [Massachusetts]: Impeachment’s new phase needs witnesses, papers (Editorial)
Been wondering why President Donald Trump has worked so hard to keep additional documents related to his pressure campaign on Ukraine’s president under wraps? Wonder no more.
On Tuesday, the day before House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was set to name the impeachment managers for Trump’s upcoming trial in the Senate, a new trove of documents was released that directly linked the president with efforts by Rudy Giuliani, his personal lawyer, to get Ukraine’s president to announce an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter. The new documents will almost certainly increase pressure on Senate Republicans to see not only that more are released, but also that witnesses are called during Trump’s trial. …
The Seattle Times: Trump and nation need fair Senate trial
The impeachment of an American president is a tragedy, one that should not be made worse by a sham trial in the Senate.
Americans of all parties need a complete and fair vetting of whether President Donald Trump abused his power, by pressuring Ukraine to produce political dirt on a rival, and obstructed Congress from investigating. …
… If there’s a truncated trial with no witnesses, “in effect what the Senate will have said to the presidency is, ‘as long as your party controls the Senate, we’re not going to hold you accountable,’ ” said Cornell Clayton, director of the Thomas S. Foley Institute for Public Policy and Public Service at Washington State University. ...
The Kansas City Star: Sen. Roy Blunt blasted Democrats for impeachment secrecy. But now limiting access is OK?
… On Oct. 22, Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt issued a statement headlined, “Blunt Slams Lack of Fairness, Transparency in Democrats’ Impeachment Efforts.”
“We have a process that’s going on in secret,” he said, when the framers had intended just the opposite. “In the early Federalist Papers, looking at impeachment, they understood that impeachment was a very vaguely defined thing in the Constitution, and because of that they said that impeachment has to be public ... You can’t have people in this setting, behind closed doors, pursuing what is clearly an unfair way to pursue something as a constitutional privilege.”
That was then, of course. What was shady three months ago is perfect today. October’s “Star Chamber” is January’s North Star.
That’s the only explanation for Blunt’s Tuesday remarks about restricting public and press access during President Donald Trump’s upcoming impeachment trial. There will be periods, Blunt said, when the Senate chamber will be cleared of reporters. ...
Kennebec [ME] Journal and Morning Sentinel: Our View: Sen. Susan Collins should demand impeachment witnesses
What kind of trial gives you a verdict without witnesses or evidence? It’s called a cover-up.
If Senate Republicans stick together, that’s what will happen with the impeachment trial of Donald Trump.
On which side will Sen. Susan Collins land — cover-up or trial? …
Bozeman [MT] Daily Chronicle: Daines needs open mind to weigh impeachment
Montana Republican Sen. Steve Daines has been about as vocal as any senator in his disdain for Democrats’ efforts to impeach President Trump. He has posted a video calling the effort an “obsession” and an “unprecedented impeachment sham.” He has spoken openly on cable television in defense of the president.
And that’s his prerogative. No matter how vehemently you may disagree with a U.S. senator, good luck trying to silence him or her.
But things changed for Daines on Thursday, when and other senators took an oath swearing that in the upcoming impeachment trial: “I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help me God.”
That’s a pretty weighty oath that carries some serious obligations. And Daines owes it to the people of Montana to do just that, render “impartial justice” as he sits as a juror in the trial that begins Tuesday. …
St. Augustine [FL] Record: EDITORIAL | Hear evidence, then decide
… The impeachment of a president is a grave and serious business, and the American people deserve the opportunity to hear the evidence against President Donald Trump, including information that has only recently emerged. Equally important is the need to hear Trump’s defense.
If a majority of senators quash that opportunity, choosing politics over their oath to “do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws,” they will be doing Americans a significant disservice. We call on Sen. Marco Rubio and Sen. Rick Scott to acknowledge as much. They should vote in favor of a full trial with witnesses and documentary evidence that explores the depth of the president’s knowledge of (or responsibility for) a series of arm-twisting gestures aimed at forcing Ukrainian authorities to produce information implicating former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, and threatening to withhold critical aid ordered by Congress. ...
Columbus [OH] Dispatch: Editorial: Citizens deserve a full, fair impeachment hearing by US Senate
… As the nation looks on in coming weeks, The Dispatch urges all 100 U.S. Senators and especially Ohio’s senators, Democrat Sherrod Brown and Republican Rob Portman, to live up to the faith placed in them and their institution long ago to deliver fair and impartial justice as Trump becomes the third president to face an impeachment trial. …
… Senators should uphold their oath of office and put country before the party by calling witnesses and seriously reviewing the evidence.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would be derelict in his duty if he continues to try to dismiss the charges as partisan and not look at all the evidence. ...
[Glens Falls, NY] Post-Star: EDITORIAL: As impeachment moves forward, we all need to be impartial
… As the editorial board of the local newspaper, we try to religiously steer clear of presidential politics. We see our duty to our community as weighing in on local and state issues. But it is clear we all have a stake in this.
It is also clear that many of us – like many of those in the U.S. Senate – seem to have already made up their minds. …
… So we start this historic week by challenging each of you readers to also take the oath of impartiality. We ask that, as the Senate trial unfolds, you will vow to put aside your preconceived notions, evaluate the facts and testimony you will hear and decide whether the actions of the president should lead to his removal from office.
This is our country and the court of public opinion can be powerful. …
The Day [New London, CT]: Senate must uphold its constitutional duty
… Trump has said he would invoke executive privilege to prevent anyone in his administration from testifying. He can invoke executive privilege all he wants, but the power to subpoena witnesses and compel them to testify in an impeachment of the president rests exclusively with the Senate.
Trump’s position poses a constitutional threat, however. If the Senate caves to Trump’s claim of absolute executive privilege, Congress will be surrendering its constitutional authority, as an equal branch of government, to hold the executive branch accountable. ...
… In the end, whether Bolton testifies or not, the outcome of the Senate trial appears to be a foregone conclusion. Removing Trump from office requires 67 Senate votes; an unlikely outcome given the Republican majority.
That may be so. But the country needs – and deserves – a trial in the Senate that is perceived as thorough and credible.
Duluth News Tribune: Our View: Corralling reporters at impeachment trial 'unacceptable'
… The Capitol press corps, the fully credentialed reporters and photographers interacting every day already with senators and others, have been declared a “threat” for these proceedings, according to Roll Call and others’ coverage. Rather than allowing the journalists to work as they normally do, they will be confined to a “press pen.”
“No movement will be allowed outside the corrals, and reporters and photographers will need to be escorted to and from the pen,” Roll Call reported. “Journalists’ time-honored practice of ‘strolling’ with lawmakers — the walking, talking, and relationship-building considered necessary by many resident reporters in the Capitol — is one that the new security apparatus will squelch during the trial.” …
… The Senate Committee on Rules and Administration can do the reasonable and right thing here and rescind any plans for a “press pen.” Let the press corps do its job on behalf of the American people.
Baton Rouge Times-Picayune and New Orleans Advocate: Our Views: John Kennedy right to stand up for press access during impeachment trial
U.S. Sen. John Kennedy is many things, but he’s certainly not press-shy.
This is to his credit. While he clearly relishes the attention that his folksy interviews draw, Kennedy’s willingness to engage with reporters, take questions and explain his thinking on matters of public interest also reflects a healthy respect for the press’s role in keeping voters informed. ...