Thread by @timkaine

As a lawyer, I had cases in every court from the Richmond traffic court to the U.S. Supreme Court. I know courtrooms front, back, and center. And now I'm a juror for the first time in my life. I want to share some thoughts after the first few days of this impeachment trial:

As jurors we're grappling with 3 questions:

1. What are the facts?
2. Do the facts establish either or both of the articles of impeachment?
3. If they do, did they establish them at such a level—a high crime or misdemeanor—to warrant removal of the President from office?

I’ve taken an oath to do impartial justice and I’m going to keep an open mind until the proceedings are done. But I'm disappointed that my colleagues have yet to embrace what anyone who’s been in any courtroom understands: you can’t have a trial without witnesses and documents.

We’re either interested in finding the facts or we’re not; we’re either interested in the truth or we’re not. I do not believe that an impeachment trial should operate at a lesser standard than a trial in a traffic court in the city of Richmond—but that's where we are right now.

The fact that the White House was so adamant against producing any documents and that the Republican majority has so far stood against the presentation of the full evidentiary record suggests that it’s not really a fair trial.

But more importantly, it suggests to me that they are afraid of what is in those documents. And they are afraid of what the witnesses will say in testimony. And that should tell the American public something.