
A Trial Without Witnesses Is No Trial at All
The process requires a critical evaluation of disputed facts or legal issues. That’s the whole point.

A special project on the constitutional debates in American life, in partnership with the National Constitution Center
This work was commissioned, produced, and edited by The Atlantic's editorial staff. Support for this work was provided in part by the organizations listed here.
Support for this project was provided by the Madison Initiative of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.

The process requires a critical evaluation of disputed facts or legal issues. That’s the whole point.

And that’s probably a good thing.

Republicans aren’t fighting to keep Trump in office—they’re fighting to preserve white-minority power.

The state may have to revive a now-defunct school-scholarship program to make amends for supposed anti-Catholic sentiment at its founding.

A decision to remove the president from office should not turn on public opinion.

Depriving a president of power does not require the same protective measures as when the state deprives a private citizen of life, liberty, or property.

Like so many contentions of the president’s legal team, this is malarkey thinly draped with plausible-sounding distortions of facts, rules, court opinions, and the Constitution itself.

To condone the president’s behavior is to shift power further into the executive and break the protections the Framers created.

Equality premised on the power to end life is not true equality at all.

Republicans are surely learning a lesson: An impeachable offense is what you say it is.