Re: To be honest ...
Please understand the impeachment process:
The house hearings are akin to a grand jury, where they decide if there is a case to answer and are held in closed sessions with the bi-partisan members of those comittees
they call witnesses and subpoena evidence to weigh guilt or innocence
the relevant house comites then vote to propose charges or not to the house floor
The house then votes to impeach or not, a simple simple majority leads to impeachment
this leads to a trial by the senate:
the House appoints managers to act as the prosecution
the defendant appoints their own leagal team as the defence
The chief Justice of the Supreme court presides as Judge
The Senate sit as the jury
the first act is the trial rules are agreed upon by the senate
previous impeachments have proceded similar to a trial, where both sides have opening arguments, present evidence, may call witnesses and these may be cross examined, followed by closing arguments.
The senators then have a chance to speak as to their reasons
there is then a vote to convict or not
a simple majority convicts, a two thirds majority convicts and removes the defendant from office.
if full co-operation is given at each stage and the entire process is carried out in a fair and balanced manner, there is no doubt as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant.
the problem is in this case subpoenas were ignored and witnesses prevented from testifying at all stages, so the full facts were not available to the country and the senators at large, so the guilt or innocence can not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt