State Caucus or Primary Election?

I came into voting age in the state of Florida, which had always had a state primary election since we moved there in 1961.  I moved back and forth between Florida and Virginia between 1982 and 2004, and I always voted in local, state, and Presidential elections by filling out a ballot.  I moved to Colorado in late 2004, and for the first time in my life had to participate in a Caucus.  I did not like it in any way, shape, or form.  I was yelled at and derided for my opinions. (I admit I was one of 8 people over the age of 25, out of a group of 62 people.  And the younger people were extremely rude. That made me dislike even the idea of attending the next Caucus, but I did.)  The city of Boulder - and Colorado in general - has had a huge influx of population in the past 8 to 10 years.  When I went to Caucus for the 2016 election, even though I arrived 45 minutes before it was scheduled to begin, the venue was already packed to capacity, and there were several hundred people who arrived at their designated caucus place, who could not participate, because we could not get inside the door.  This happened all over the state of Colorado - and a majority of voters complained that their voices were not heard in the caucus.  This year, 2020, we are having the first Primary election in 20 years.  (The caucus system was adopted by the Colorado legislature in a special session called by Governor Shafroth in August 1910, as a part of a package of progressive reforms. It was seen as a way to  limit the power of political party bosses, and to attract more grassroots involvement.  The caucus system was abolished in favor of the Presidential primary in 1992, but was restored in 2002.)  I have been notified by the Boulder County Clerk's Office that my ballot will be mailed to me on 10 February 2020.  I will vote for the candidate of my choice, sign and date the ballot, seal it, and return it to the County Clerk's Office.  Easy-peasy.

   By definition, a caucus is any political group or meeting organized to further a special interest or cause.
   The word caucus originated in Boston, Massachusetts in the early part of the 18th century, when it was used as the name of a political club, the Caucus, or Caucus Club.  The club hosted public discussions and the election of candidates for public office.  In its subsequent and current usage (in the US), the term came to denote a meeting of either party managers, or duty voters, as in "nominating caucus," which nominates candidates for office or selects delegates for a nominating convention. The caucus of a party's members in Congress nominated its candidates for the office of President and Vice President from 1796 until 1824. At the same time, the candidates for Governor and Lieutenant Governor were nominated by the party members of the State Legislatures in what was known as the legislative nominating caucus. Occasionally, districts unrepresented in the legislature sent in delegates to sit in with the members of the legislature when these nominations were made, and this was termed the mixed legislative nominating caucus.
   Here in America, the use  of the term "caucus" denotes a faction within a legislative body that attempts to further its interests by influencing either party policy on proposed legislation or legislative offices; hence such bodies as the Black Caucus (representing African Americans), the Women's Caucus, the Hispanic Caucus, the Freedom Caucus, and the Progressive Caucus, to name a few.
   North Dakota and Wyoming will hold political conventions to decide their Republican candidate; North Dakota will also hold a primary for Democrats, while Wyoming will hold a caucus for the Democrats.
   Those places holding a caucus are: Nevada, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Marianas, the American Virgin Islands, and Iowa.
   All other states will hold Primary voting for both parties, except the following states who have already decided, without any competition, that Donald Trump will be their Republican nominee: Alaska, Arizona, Hawai'i, Kansas, Nevada, South Carolina, and Virginia.

   Iowa held its caucus Monday night, 3 February, 2020.  Instead of using their old tried and true method, the Democratic party there decided to use a new hand-held application to tabulate the results. The country is still waiting for the final results of the caucus, which is usually announced in the early hours of Tuesday.  Nevada is going to caucus on Saturday, 22 February, and was supposed to use the same app to tally their results.  They announced that they will be using the old method, now.
   The Iowa caucus was never heralded until the 1976 caucus, when Jimmy Carter, to everyone's surprise, was declared the winner.  He went on to win the Democratic nomination that year, and to win the Presidency, as well. Since that time, the media has zeroed in on the Iowa caucus as a true indicator of the country's feelings.  But it has been very wrong in the past, as well....

   My personal feeling is that each state, the District of Columbia, and each territory should have a Primary for the Presidency.  Over-crowding, bad weather, and illness epidemics can, and will, always affect the people who can, and will, show up.  I believe that a Primary system with ballots that arrive by mail, and are returned by mail, or in person, are the best way to vote in this day and age.  Why?  Because caucuses really don't work for any of the above stated reasons, and people who have an illness or handicap or an aversion to crowds might not be able to attend, even though they want to. Therefore, some people will always be disenfranchised from a caucus.
   Voting by computer from home or work is out of the question.  There is too much hacking and stealing of passwords and personal identities.
   Going to a voting center to cast your vote in person can also be problematic.  You're ill; your car breaks down; there's a traffic accident; you don't have transportation to your designated voting place; you're in the hospital; your place of work will not allow you to come in late or leave early to vote (even though it's a federal law that they must); there's a long line ahead of you and the polling place doors are shut before you get inside.  - The list goes on and on.
   That's one  of the reasons I love the current voting system for (now) all elections.  You go into the County Clerk's Office and register once.  You show them your identification with your current address, if your mailing address is different you provide that, you mark which party you wish to be affiliated with (Democrat, Republican, or Other), you sign the form, and you are a registered voter. (If you move, you send your new mailing address to the County Clerk's Office by e-mail.) For each election, you receive your ballot in the mail, you mark it, date it and sign it. Then you can either mail it back, or drop it off at one of many designated locations throughout the city (or county). You receive an e-mail stating they have received your ballot.  Then you receive an e-mail stating that your ballot and vote has been approved and counted.  If there are any problems with your ballot, you receive notification of what the problem is, and how to remedy it.
   I am all for Primary Elections and against a caucus.....

The Electoral College - Can We & How Do We Remove It?

So... if the Electoral College seems outdated to you (which it does to me), given the reasons the Founding Fathers chose to set it up, and you think it should no longer be used, there is one way to go.  A new Constitutional Amendment.
   We could take a "baby step" and demand that our states use the "proportional division" of Maine and Nebraska, and have the elector from each Congressional district cast their vote for the winner of the popular vote in that specific district. However, that won't work in the long run.  There will still be sections of people, especially if gerrymandering continues to exist throughout the United States, who do not receive the representation in government that they wish. This will change a few votes, but it won't really represent the will of the people.
   A new Constitutional Amendment might take some time to pass into law - unless there is a huge groundswell of voters demanding change. For a new Constitutional Amendment to become law, there must a  two-thirds vote of approval in both sections of Congress - the House of Representatives, and the Senate, or a vote of support by 38 State Legislatures.  This poses special challenges in the case of the Electoral College that affects some states more than others.  Perhaps not as much from smaller states, where the historical record shows are not necessarily against a popular vote. More than likely, the resistance would be from political elites who find it easier to manage a national election in a few states; or from the so-called swing states themselves. - Why would they want to forego the extra monetary and publicity revenue from being targeted, or the extra support from federal programs by the parties, who usually woo the highly valued elected leaders and voters for the next spending spree in another four (or three) years?
   But Article Two of the US Constitution (you know the one, the one that the current President says gives him the right "to do anything I want") provides another route. It is based on the power vested in states to instruct how their Electoral College electors are appointed. Article Two says that each state shall appoint, "in such a manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" the Presidential electors allotted to them.  Therefore, State Legislators are free to select electors to be based upon the outcome of the national popular vote. If enough states whose combined electoral votes add up to 270 or more do so, then the President will effectively be chosen by the popular vote.
    The National Popular Vote organization and its civic allies are pursing this route. It has gained bi-partisan support of constitutional scholars, elected officials and nonpartisan civic organizations. It has passed in Republican- and Democratic-led legislative bodies in 33 legislative chambers in 22 states. To date the legislatures of 11 states representing 165 electoral votes have voted to join what is called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, an agreement to award all their respective electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote. Inter-state compacts can require Congressional approval. Views differ on whether it applies here. Either way, the leading supporters of the National Popular Vote have made it clear they will seek Congressional approval to forge a national consensus.

It won’t be easy. With two hundred years of inertia and time to build up myths of why the Electoral College even exists, it’s a challenge.

*****

   Looking back to 1787, an indirect election may have made some sense as a bridge between colony and free nation. But the standard and expectations of democracy in the U.S. have changed. For decades a majority of Americans across state and partisan lines have opposed the Electoral College. The time for change is long overdue. It was flawed then, it is flawed now. Divisive then and divisive now.

   If our founders were with us on election night in 2016 watching CNN’s iconic red and blue map to see 38 of 50 states and two-thirds of the U.S. population left on the sidelines, they might well agree it’s time as well.

   James Madison surely would. The Electoral College was always a compromise for him. John Hamilton possibly would, too.  He mainly wanted to leave the selection of the President to a small august group of appointed “electors” rather than to either Congress, as some then suggested, or to the public. Hamilton’s elite model never happened. Who the electors were, and their qualifications, quickly became irrelevant.

But Thomas Jefferson perhaps said it best.
“…(N)o society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct [time of use]. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years [each generation]. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.”
From a letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 6 Sept. 1789, Papers 15:392—97

*****

   What can you do to facilitate change?  What can you do to help do away with the Electoral College itself?

     Talk; communicate your feelings regarding a popular vote for the President of the United States.  Speak to friends, family, neighbors, co-workers, members of clubs and associations and the religious group you belong to.  Telephone, write and e-mail your local representatives in government - in your city, county, and state.  Contact your representatives in your State Legislature, and the Governor of your state.  Contact your state Representatives and Senators serving in the United States Congress.

   If enough people rise up (as in the Revolutionary War) against the Electoral College, and make statements that they prefer a popular vote to select the President of the United States, and make this choice plainly known to their duly elected representatives in government, then this choice will be able to succeed.  

   If you do nothing, sit on your hands, and verbally complain about the Electoral College - but do nothing to rectify the situation by contacting your elected officials - then you are a part of America's problem today.  You have become apathetic and are saying, in essence, "I don't like it, but someone else has to stop it."

   

Please contact ALL of your governmental representatives regarding

abolishing

the Electoral College.

It was, and is, flawed and divisive to our country in this day and age.

The Electoral College in the 2016 Election and Now

 In our last Presidential election in 2016, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote with more than 3,000,000 more votes than Donald Trump.  And for the fifth time in history, the Electoral College gave the victory to the person with the lesser number of votes.  The person whom the majority of voters voted for, did not win the election. The other four Presidents chosen by the Electoral College, but not by the people were: in 1824 John Quincy Adams; 1876 saw Rutherford B. Hayes elected; Benjamin Harrison was sworn after the 1888 election; and George W. Bush in 2000.
   I'll look back again, before looking forward...  In the 1800 US Census, the state of Pennsylvania had 10% more free people than the largest of the slave states, Virginia; but Pennsylvania ended up with 20% fewer electoral votes.  With both the Electoral College and the "Three-fifths Rule" Virginia came up as the big winner. - And, not surprisingly, a slave-owning Virginian won the office of President in the first 8 of 9 elections.
   On paper, small states appear to get a boost from the use of the Electoral College. In reality, they are side-lined like any other non-battleground state.  Consider the small states with only one Congressional district today - Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming. None were swing states in 2016, nor were they on the radar of campaigns or candidates. In any case, why should some states and some voters get a special advantage in the election for the President, who is meant to represent everyone? The Senate was created to address the needs of smaller states, as were a host of rights and protections that all states share.
   Having a national election decided by a small number of swing states rather than the general population was problematic from the beginning.  Over time it has divided states and voters into two tiers. The much contested swing states - and the rest of the country that is taken for granted.  The irrelevance of most states - red and blue alike - has helped to drive bi-partisan support for reform before the last election.  Votes and voters are devalued by where they live - in contradiction to democracy's most fundamental principle of one person, one vote - which was affirmed again in 2016 by a unanimous Supreme Court decision.
   In the 2016 Presidential election, 36 states and 2/3 of all US voters essentially stood on the sidelines.  Instead of a national election we have a presidential contest focused on the outcomes and voter preferences of a subset of swing states. In the last election, it left close to two-thirds of the nation's 231 million eligible voters residing in non-battleground states as spectators and rank outsiders. Most Americans watched television ads aimed at swing states only. Campaign volunteers skipped working in their own states on weekends to go to states that were decided upon as the bigger prize. As a nation, we ended it all watching results of a handful of swing states, and wondering whether votes in Florida's panhandle, Virginia's suburbs, Wisconsin's rural vote, or Michigan's Upper Peninsula would tip the balance of those states' votes.
   Campaigns target all their money and attention to just a few states. Consider the 2016 election: Presidential campaigns and allied groups spent 99% of advertising dollars in just 14 states.  Of 216 campaign stops by Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates, only 12 took place outside of swing states. Four super states alone - Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania - had 57% of  all visits and 71% of the advertisements!
   The Presidential election turns out to be a party that most of us, 147 million eligible voters (in 2016), were not invited to -  except to ratify our state's likely results and watch the real contest unfold on TV on on-line.
   As the above process is laid out, it becomes visible that we have lost the essence of democracy - peer to peer, neighbor to neighbor politics. We miss the chance to fully engage in elections as a voter or campaigner in our own backyard, and to have local media focus on our local races or ballot measures, as well as national trends. We miss the incentive to start a conversation with a neighbor or friend regardless of where they live.
  And our nation's newest voters lose the most.  The new wave of youngsters coming of voting age is usually ignored in most Presidential campaigns. Campaigns focus their resources and voter contacts on likely voters and swing states. This concentration of competition within a few states is one reason more than half of Americans report never being personally contacted by a major campaign about voting. For the age group of 18 to 35 year-olds, it jumps to 75% never being contacted about voting.
   The Electoral College drives another source of civic polarization in an election decided by states rather than the nation as a whole - the division of red and blue states.  This is something the Founding Fathers could not have predicted, nor did they have time to concern themselves with this possibility under the weight of war debt and a Constitution to write and ratify.  Yet these divisions persist between election years. The designation as a red or blue state causes us to form opinions about various states and their inhabitants, without considering the diversity of views that exist in every state. The colors of red and blue have become "a proxy for all the differences in values and lifestyle that seemed to be cleaving the country into warring tribes."  A focus on state voter turnout, rather than state partisanship, might make for a healthier civic exercise, harnessing the citizenship benefits from active, engaged, and informed participation in all spheres.

   Finally, people living in non-battleground states have come to learn, during the past elections, that their vote really does not matter, and that has a very unfortunate impact on voter turnout across the country. Voter turnout in non-battleground states is, on average, 5 to 8 percentage points lower than in battleground states.  If we want to foster a more engaged electorate - in every state, in every county, in every city or village, in every precinct - then we need to send a clear message that the vote of every citizen matters, regardless of where they live.

*****

    In the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Pennsylvania's James Wilson - a major force behind the Constitution and one of the six judges chosen by George Washington for the country's first Supreme Court - proposed the Presidency be decided by popular vote. It became clear, almost immediately, that would not work for slaveholder states or those favoring, at the time, a more elite model of choosing the President.

   Lately some people have suggested alternatives that work within the framework of the states. Most commonly, what Nebraska and Maine already do - allocate the electors of the Electoral College by district and have them allot their votes for President to the winner of each district. This can have the small effect of putting a few sections of a state into play. The two Congressional districts around Omaha, Nebraska and northern Maine made the list in 2016 as battleground votes. Given deeply gerrymandered districts drawn to create safe seats for two major parties, it's a non-starter for a national solution - unless gerrymandering is removed from all Congressional districts in each and every state. Only 37 of 435 Congressional seats were considered to be 'competitive' in 2016.  You could color in the winner of 90% of the districts well in advance of the Presidential election, making the problem worse, not better.

   The popular vote is the standard used by all 50 states for the Governor and every other election, the same way it is for every democracy that directly elects its leaders.  It is used in high schools, clubs, companies, associations, village, towns, cities, counties, and states.  Why not for the Presidency of the United States of America in this day and age, with television, radio, the internet - and don't forget newspapers! - available almost everywhere.

   What do people and politicians say are the drawbacks to using the popular vote?

   The main comment is the contention, by some, that less populated areas will be passed over and/or that big cities will dominate.

   The reality is that the large majority of Americans live in the suburbs or in rural areas. All voters of every kind of political leaning who must be appealed to. Compared to what happens now, with 99% of advertising being done in 14 states only, campaigns would have to compete in far more media markets, both large and small, in all parts of the country. The 50 largest American cities only represent 15% of the population of the United States.

   In the larger scheme, things have changed since 1787. Information disseminates everywhere and through multiple channels.  But more to the point of democracy, beyond the media, in a national popular vote there is a greater incentive for people, campaigns, and civic organizations to engage with neighbors, friends, and voters locally and across states where engagement, education, and democracy really happens.

   Of course, a national popular election brings the challenge and potential cost of a national recount. - Don't forget the hanging chad fiasco. - The popular vote margin was less than 1% in only 6 of our 58 elections so far, which could have triggered a recount. Our large states already manage this, currently. In addition, the changes made by the Help Americans Vote Act in 2002 have improved balloting, audits, and recount procedures, and the progress is ongoing. The infrequency of recounts gives us time to spread out the cost. It would be something to plan for, if the popular vote for President is legalized.  Democracy and full participation of all citizens is worth it.

Map of the 2016 Presidential Voting

The Electoral College - History

The Electoral College was set in the United States Constitution when it was written.  The Founding Fathers set up the Electoral College, in part, as a compromise between the election of the President by a vote in Congress and the election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. 
   Currently, the Electoral College consists of 538 electors (I would consider them delegates, myself). A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President. Each state has the same number of electors as it does members in its Congressional delegation: one for each member in the House of Representatives plus two Senators. *The District of Columbia is allocated 3 electors, and is treated like a state for purposes of the Electoral College under the 23rd Amendment of the Constitution. (In the following writing the word "state" will also refer to the District, and "Governor" to the Mayor of the District of Columbia.)
   During a Presidential election, each candidate running for President in your state has his (or her) own group of electors, known as a slate. The slates are generally chosen by the candidate's political party in your state; but state laws vary on how the electors are selected and what their responsibilities are.
   The general Presidential election is held every four years on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November.  When you vote for a Presidential candidate, you are actually voting for your candidate's preferred electors, as they will be casting their votes in the Electoral College.
   Most states have a "winner-take-all" system that awards all electors to the Presidential candidate who wins the state's popular vote.  However, Maine and Nebraska each have a variation of "proportional representation."
   After the Presidential election, each Governor prepares a Certificate of Ascertainment listing the names of all individuals on the slates for each candidate. The Certificate of Ascertainment also lists the number of votes each individual received and shows which individuals were appointed as each state's electors.  Each state's Certificate of Ascertainment is sent to the National Archives and Research Administration (NARA) as part of the official records of the Presidential election.
   The meeting of the electors takes place on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December after the Presidential election. The electors meet in their respective states, where they cast their votes for President and Vice President on separate ballots. Each state's electors' votes are recorded on a Certificate of Vote, which is prepared at the meeting of the electors.Each state's Certificate of Vote is the sent to Congress, where the votes are counted, and NARA, as part of the official records of the Presidential election.
   Each state's electoral votes are counted in a joint session of Congress on the 6th of January in the year following the meeting of the electors. Members of the House and Senate meet in the House Chamber to conduct the official count of the electoral votes. The Vice President, as President of the Senate, presides over the count and announces the results of the Electoral College vote. The President of the Senate then declares which persons have been elected President and Vice President of the United States of America.
   The designated President-elect takes the oath of office and is sworn in as President of the United States on January 20th of the year following the Presidential general election.

*****

   In 1787, at the time of the Philadelphia convention, when  the US Constitution was written, no other country in the world directly elected its chief executive, so all the delegates were wading into uncharted territory. Complicating the task was a deep-rooted distrust of executive power. After all, we had just fought our way clear from a tyrannical King and over-reaching colonial Governors. The delegates did not want another despot on their hands. 

   One group of the delegates felt strongly that Congress shouldn't have anything to do with picking the President. That way led to too much opportunity for chummy corruption between the executive and legislative branches. 

   Another group was dead set against allowing the people to elect the President by a straight popular vote. First, they thought that their 18th-century voters lacked the resources to be fully informed about the candidates, especially in rural and far-flung areas of the far western outposts. Second, they feared a headstrong "democratic mob" steering the country astray. And, third, they feared that a populist President appealing directly to the people could command dangerous amounts of power.

   Out of those long debates came a compromise based on the idea of electoral intermediaries.  These intermediaries wouldn't be picked by Congress or any other elected people. Instead, the states would each appoint independent "electors" who would cast the actual ballots for the Presidency.

   But determining how many electors to assign to each state was another sticking point. Here, there was a huge divide between states that had slave-owners and those that did not. It was the same issue that plagued the distribution of the number of seats in the House of Representatives: should, or shouldn't, the Founding Fathers include slaves in counting a state's population?

   In 1787, about 40% of people living in Southern states were slaves, and could not vote. James Madison, from Virginia - where slaves made up 60% of the population - knew that either a direct vote Presidential election, or one where electors were assigned according to the number of free white males only, would not be acceptable in the South.

   "The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [extensive, would be the current word used] in the Northern than in the Southern states," said Madison, "and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes."

   The result was the controversial "three-fifths compromise," in which slaves would be counted as 3/5 of a person for the purpose of allocating representatives - and electors - and calculating federal taxes. The compromise ensured that Southern states would ratify the Constitution and gave Virginia - home to more than 200,000 slaves - a quarter (12) of the total electoral votes needed to win the Presidency (46) at that time. 

Below, the 1800 Presidential Election Map

   

Time Line of the Fourth Presidential Impeachment in the United States of America

"Donald John Trump has been impeached by the House of Representatives of

the United States Congress.

He will be, forever, an impeached President."

  I will begin the history of this sadly historic impeachment of a President almost 6 years ago, but will not stay in the far past for long.

March 2014

   After the Russia-backed government falls in Kiev, the capitol of Ukraine, Russia invades and annexes Crimea, which had been a part of the country of Ukraine.  The world cries "Foul!"  The United States and others ultimately sanction Russia for the unprecedented invasion.

April 2014

   As turmoil takes over Ukraine, and Russian forces move into more of that country, Hunter Biden (son of Vice-President Joe Biden) takes a paid position on the Board of Directors of Burisma, a

Ukrainian natural gas company.

   The owner of Burisma, Mykola Zlochevsky - who had served in the previous Russia-backed 

government of Ukraine - was under investigation by British authorities over corruption claims and was criticized by the then-US ambassador, Geoffrey Pyatt.  No specific wrong-doing was ever proved.

21 August 2018

   Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign chairman, is found guilty of bank and tax fraud and

hiding foreign bank accounts.  Prosecutors said Manafort collected $65 million in foreign bank 

accounts from 2010 to 2014 and then lied to banks in order to take out more than $20 million in

loans after his political work in Ukraine died up in 2015.

1 April 2019

   In an interview with The Hill cited in the whistleblower complaint, Ukraine Prosecutor General

Yuriy Lutsenko alleges, without evidence, that Joe Biden, in 2016, pressured former Ukrainian

President Petro Poroshenko to fire his Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin to stop a criminal probe

that involved Hunter Biden and Burisma. 

   The facts are that the European Union, a bipartisan group of US lawmakers, and Ukrainian activists all favored pressuring the government to oust Shokin for prosecuting corruption. Lutsenko later tells The Washington Post that Hunter Biden, "From the perspective of  Ukrainian legislation, he did not violate anything."

May 2019

   US National Security Director John Bolton states in his book (to be published March 2020) that in a meeting including Trump, himself, Mick Mulvaney, and White House lawyer Pat Cipollone, Trump indicated he was going to withhold Congressional funding for Ukrainian defense until new President Zelensky announced publicly that the country would be opening investigations into Vice President Joe Biden and Burisma.

12 June 2019

   Trump tells ABC's George Stephanopoulos that he would want to hear it if foreign governments

offered him damaging information about his opponents in the 2020 presidential election.

18 July 2019

   During a meeting between Pentagon, State, OMB and other officials, Laura Cooper, the top  Pentagon official for Russia and Eurasia, learns that military aid for Ukraine has been put on hold. Diplomat Bill Taylor and David Holmes, from the US Embassy in Ukraine, also hear this.

25 July 2019

   Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky talk by telephone.  This call was set up by Mick Mulvaney, after Ambassador Sondland verified that Zelensky would follow his instructions and publicly announce an investigation into Joe Biden and Burisma.

   A readout of the call between Trump and Zelensky is posted on the official website of the President

of Ukraine and it includes that "Donald Trump is convinced that the new Ukrainian government will be able to quickly improve image of Ukraine, complete investigation of corruption cases, which inhibited the interaction between Ukraine and the USA."

   In September, the White House will release a rough transcript revealing that Trump pressed Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

   After the call, Laura Cooper's staff at the Pentagon is contacted by the State Department and also by a person at the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington, both asking about the status of the missing Congress-approved military aid money.

26 July 2019

   US Special Envoy for Ukraine Kurt Volker, accompanied by US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland (a US hotelier, who contributed $1 million to Trump's Inauguration fund), meets with President Zelensky in Kiev.  According to Zelensky's website, they discuss military topics, but corruption investigations are not mentioned.

   Volker and Sondland reportedly advised the Ukrainian leadership on how to "navigate" Trump's

demands of Zelensky, according to the whistleblower complaint.

   After the meeting, Sondland takes David Holmes and other Embassy officials out to lunch and calls Trump on his cell phone while at the restaurant. Holmes hears Trump specifically ask about whether Ukraine will conduct investigations, and later testifies that Sondland replies to Trump that Zelensky "loves your ass" and will do the investigations.

12 August 2019

   A whistleblower files a complaint with the Intelligence community Inspector General, Michael Atkinson.

August 2019

   Trump is criticized on Capitol Hill for blocking military aid to Ukraine, effectively pausing

disbursement of the funds after it was approved by Congress. CNN later reports Trump first put a hold on the funds in July, roughly a week before his phone call with Zelensky.

9 September 2019

   Inspector General for the Intelligence Community Michael Atkinson informs the House and Senate Intelligence Committees that the whistleblower complaint exists and that it has been blocked from being forwarded to Congress as required by law.

   Three House committees launch an investigation of efforts by Trump, lawyer Rudy Giuliani, and others to pressure the Ukrainian government to assist the President's reelection efforts. The committees request information about Trump's July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky.

   Bill Taylor, a top official in the US Embassy in Ukraine, again expresses concern in messages with US Special Envoy for Ukraine Kurt Volker and with US Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland that the administration is withholding financial support to Ukraine "for help with a  political campaign."

   "Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intentions," Sondland writes back after talking to Trump on the phone. "The President has been clear no quid pro quo's of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign I suggest we stop the back and forth by text..."

   In Washington, Nation Security Director John Bolton offers his resignation to Trump during a  heated disagreement over Taliban negotiations.

*****  The House Intelligence Committee consists of 21 members:  13 Democrats, 8 Republicans

Members are listed below, with their title (if any) and their state:

   Democrats                                                                    Republicans

Adam Schiff, Chairman -  CA                                       Devin Nunez, Ranking Member -  CA

Hine -  CT                                                                      Conaway -  TX

Sewell -  AL                                                                   Turner -  OH

Carson -  IN                                                                    Wenstrup -  OH

Speier -  CA                                                                    Jordan -  OH

Quigley -  IL                                                                   Stewart - UT

Swallwell -  CA                                                              Stefanik -  NY

Castro -  TX                                                                    Hurd -  TX

Heck -  WA

Mahoney -  NY

Demings -  FL

Welch -  VT

Krishnamoorthi -  IL                             *****

11 September 2019

   With multiple federal agencies expressing concern, Trump releases the hold on the $391 million appropriation for military aid to Ukraine.

18 September 2019

   It is reported by The Washington Post that the whistleblower complaint involves a Trump communication with a foreign leader and a "promise" made.

19 September 2019

   Both The Washington Post and The New York Times report that the whistleblower's concern was partly in regard to Ukraine.

22 September 2019

   Trump acknowledges that he discussed Joe Biden in a July call with Ukrainian President Zelensky.

24 September 2019

   House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announces a formal impeachment inquiry into Trump.

25 September 2019

   The White House releases its account of Trump's July 25 call with President Zelensky.  During the call, Trump repeatedly tells Zelensky to call Rudy Giuliani and to speak with Bill Barr, also.

   Trump meets with President of the Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky at the United Nations General

Assembly. Zelensky says he wasn't pressured during the July 25 call. The issue of military aid that Ukraine relies on comes up. Zelensky also states that he has yet to be asked to visit the White House, as promised. Trump encourages Zelensky to negotiate with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who invaded Ukrraine in 2014 and is still at war there.

   The whistleblower's complaint is finally delivered to Congress.

26 September 2019

   The whistleblower's complaint is declassified and released to the public.

27 September 2019

   Kurt Volker, the US Special Envoy to Ukraine, resigns. A key player in Trump's interactions with President Zelensky leaves the Trump administration.

1 October 2019

   Trump says the impeachment is part of a "COUP" effort and directly targets the whistle-blower, saying he wants to "interview" him or her.

2 October 2019

   After denying any knowledge of the July 25 call in multiple live interviews, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo acknowledges during a news conference in Italy that he was on the 25 July call between Trump and Zelensky, and defends it as representative of US policy to Ukraine.

  3 October 2019

   Trump openly asks China and Ukraine to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden while talking to reporters in a live interview at the White House.

6 October 2019

   Attorneys for the whistleblower say they are representing "multiple officials" relating to the original complaint. It's not clear if this means one additional person offering corroborating evidence or something else.

8 October 2019

   The White House informs House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the House committees running the

impeachment inquiry that it will not cooperate in what it sees as an illegal effort, setting up a likely court showdown over what the White House will be forced to provide and who can be compelled to testify.

   The State Depart blocks US Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland, who is mentioned in the

whistleblower complaint, from testifying before the House committees.

10 October 2019

   Two of Rudy Guiliani's Ukraine contacts were arrested on charges of violating campaign finance laws as they were in a Washington, DC airport with one-way tickets to Europe. Federal investigations are also looking at Guiliani's financial dealings with the men, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman. The two men introduced Trump's personal lawyer to Ukrainian officials who pushed unfounded theories about corruption involving former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter, tying both to Burisma.

22 October 2019

   Bill Taylor, the top US diplomat in Ukraine, tells impeachment investigators during closed-door

testimony that US Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland told him that US military aid for Ukraine was specifically contingent on a public promise by Ukraine to conduct investigations into the 2016 US election and into Burisma.

   Taylor had documented his concerns about that contingency in text messages that were released early in the investigation. His testimony and detailed opening statement undercut the argument by the Trump administration that there was no quid pro quo holding the funding in exchange for the investigations.

31 October 2019

   The US House of Representatives conducts its first vote on the impeachment inquiry, formalizing the process for upcoming public hearings. With a vote of 232 to 196, it's a mostly partisan affair. Two Democrats oppose the measure, and one former Republican supports it. Otherwise, Democrats voted yes, while Republicans voted no.

4 November 2019

   US Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland revises his testimony to say he now does recall telling an aide of President Zelensky that US military aid was contingent on committing to the political investigations pushed by Trump. Sondland says he does not recall other key details from that time period, including how many times he talked to Trump on the phone.

12 November 2019

   Democrats take their case for impeachment to the public and conduct the first televised public hearings of the inquiry, featuring Bill Taylor, the top US official in Ukraine, and George Kent, the top State Department official overseeing policy on Ukraine.

14 November 2019

   Marie Yovanovitch, the former US Ambassador to Ukraine, testifies in public about the smear campaign Rudy Giuliani launched against her and how it led to her being dismissed from her post. Trump tweets an attack on her during her testimony.

19 November 2019

   Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, and Jennifer

Williams, an adviser to Vice President Mike Pence, testify about listening in on the call between Trump and Zelensky on 25 July. Vindman says it was inappropriate and that he raised concerns at the time. Williams says it was an unusual call.

   Later, Kurt Volker testifies that he did not know before the release of the call "transcript" that Trump equated an investigation of Burisma with investigating the Bidens. If he had, he would have raised his own objections, he says.

20 November 2019

   US Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland testifies that yes, there was a quid pro quo and

conditions placed on the Ukrainians. He knew about the conditions for a White House meeting between Trump and Zelensky, and he understood that there were conditions for military aid. This is the third time Sondland's story has evolved/changed, however. He also says he did not understand that an investigation of Burisma equaled an investigation of the Bidens, or he would have raised concerns at the time. *Note that Sondland had turned his notes and records over to the State Department and was denied using them during his testimony. *

   Later, Pentagon official Laura Cooper testifies that her staff received inquiries suggesting the

Ukrainians knew that military aid had already been held back on July 25, after Trump's call with Zelensky.

21 November 2019

   The House wraps up the public impeachment testimony with open testimony from Fiona Hill, the former top Russian analyst at the White House, and David Holmes, the State Department employee who heard EU Ambassador Sondland's phone call with Trump regarding the investigations.

   Hill calls the policy pursued by Sondland and others on Trump's behalf a "domestic political errand" as opposed to national security foreign policy. She also deconstructs the idea that Ukraine was trying to interfere with the US election in 2016, as Trump has alleged. She said, "Some of you on this committee appear to believe that Russia and its security services did not conduct a campaign against our country - and that perhaps, somehow, for some reason, Ukraine did. This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetuated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves."

3 December 2019

   Following the testimony of Yovanovitch, Sondland, Hill and Holmes, the House Intelligence Committee publishes a report stating, in part: "The impeachment inquiry has found that President Trump, personally and acting through agents within and outside of the United States government, solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, to benefit his reelection."

5 December 2019

   House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announces that the committee will begin drafting articles of impeachment, telling the media that Trump's "wrongdoing strikes at the very heart of our Constitution."

10 December 2019

   The House Judiciary Committee unveils its articles of impeachment: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Trump is the first president to be charged with these specific articles.

*****  The House Judiciary Committee consists of 41 members:  24 Democrats, 17 Republicans

Members are listed below, with their title (if any) and their state:

   Democrats                                                                    Republicans

Jerrold Nadler, Chairman -  NY                                   Douglas Collins, Ranking Member -  GA

Mary Gay Scanlon, Vice Chair -  PA                            Sensenbrenner -  WI

Lofgren -  CA                                                                Chabot -  OH

Lee -  TX                                                                       Gohmert -  TX

Cohen -  TN                                                                   Jordan -  OH

Johnson -  GA                                                                Buck -  CO

Deutch -  FL                                                                   Ratcliffe -  TX

Bass -  CA                                                                      Roby -  AL

Richmond - LA                                                               Gaetz -  FL

Jeffries -  NY                                                                  Johnson -  LA

Cicilline -  RI                                                                  Biggs -  AZ

Swallwell -  CA                                                              McClintock -  CA

Lieu -  CA                                                                       Lesko -  AZ

Raskin -  MD                                                                  Reschenthaler -  PA                                            Jayapal -  WA                                                                  Cline -  VA

Demings -  FL                                                                 Armstrong -  ND

Correa -  CA                                                                   Steube -  FL

Garcia -  TX

Neguse -  CO

McBath -  GA

Stanton -  AZ

Dean -  PA

Mucarsel-Powell -  FL

Escobar -  TX                                               ******

12 December 2019

  The House Judiciary Committee deliberates over two articles of impeachment, accusing Trump of abusing the power of his office and with obstructing Congress, during a highly charges debate that lasts for more than 14 hours.

13 December 2019

   The Committee approves the two articles of impeachment on a party-line 23 - 17 vote. The result makes Donald John Trump the fourth United States President - after Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton -  to face impeachment by the House of Representatives.

18 December 2019

   Following a two-month inquiry, the House votes in favor of the two articles of impeachment. After the votes pass, Speaker Pelosi quells applause from some of the Democrats in the chamber, saying it is "tragic" that the President's reckless actions have made this impeachment necessary.

22 December 2019

   A new trove of documents is released following a Freedom Of Information Act lawsuit, including the 25 July e-mail in which Michael Duffey, the OMB's Associate Director of  National Security Programs, tells Department of Defense officials to withhold aid to Ukraine.

   The content of the e-mail suggests that Duffey "knew the hold could raise concerns," according to CNN.  "I appreciate your keeping that information closely held to those who need to know to execute direction," Duffey wrote.

2 January 2020

   Un-redacted e-mails seen by the Just Security on-line forum reveal discussions within the Trump administration in which the Pentagon repeatedly sounded the alarm that the freeze on the funding was in violation of the law.

   In the e-mails, Office of Management and Budget Assistant Director Duffey writes that he has "clear direction from Potus to continue to hold" military aid meant for Ukraine, despite repeated warnings about the legality of such a decision.

7 January 2020

   Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell accuses House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of delaying the referral of the Articles of Impeachment against Trump to the upper chamber.  In a floor speech, McConnell said: "Every day that House Democrats refuse to stand behind their historically partisan impeachment deepens the embarrassment for the leaders who chose to take our nation down this road."

15 January 2020

   House Speaker Pelosi refers the Articles of Impeachment to the United States Senate, triggering only the third Impeachment trial of a US President in history.  The New York Times reports that it marks "the beginning of a trial that has the potential to shape President Trump's legacy and affect the 2020 [Presidential] election."

  This night, on The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC, Lev Parnas and his attorney answered questions regarding his part in Trump-Ukraine meddling with Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and his business partner Igor Fruman.  Parnas is a Soviet-born American citizen and businessman, who has worked with Guiliani and many others in Ukraine and Europe.  He was arrested on charges of violating campaign finance laws and is currently out on bail while under investigation by the Southern District of New York. He has, through his lawyer, provided documents, e-mails, text messages, photos and recordings of President Trump, Rudy Guiliani and others discussing and planning the smear campaign against Ambassador Marie Yovanavitch, as well as the quid pro quo negotiations between Trump and Zelensky regarding the "paused" military aid and the required announcements of investigations into Joe and Hunter Biden and Burisma.

*****  Seven House of Representative Trial Managers were named to represent the prosecution in the Impeachment trial of President Trump.  They were: Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, Zoe Lofgren, Val Demings, Hakeem Jeffries, Silvia Garcia, and Jason Crow.

  The White House sent forth a team of nine lawyers for his defense.  They are: Jay Sekulow, Ken Starr, Robert Ray, Jane Raskin, Eric Hershman, Alan Dershowitz, Pat Cipollone, Pam Bondi, and Pat Philbin.  *****

16 January 2020

  Within the Senate chamber of the United States Congress, United States Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is sworn into his role as presiding judge of this Impeachment.  Afterwards, Roberts swears in the US Senate's 100 elected members who will act as judge and jury in the trial of President Donald J Trump. The Senate has no specifically worded oath for Impeachment, other than to require that each Senator swear, or affirm, that he or she will "do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws." Then each of them signs a log book stating that they swore this, and will uphold their duty.

   Lev Parnas's interview on The Rachel Maddow Show continues for a second night (or second hour), during which, he is shown a second time stating, that "Like the man said, they were all in the loop." This refers to a statement Ambassador Sondland made during his third, and televised, hearing before the House Intelligence Committee, that they - President Trump, Vice President Pence, Mick Mulvaney, Rudy Guiliani, Mike Pompeo, and many others - were all in the loop regarding the announcement of investigations into the Bidens and Burisma being a condition for having Ukraine's military aid released and for a much-coveted trip to the White House for President Zelensky.

21 January 2020

   On 6 January, in preparation for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to present the Articles of Impeachment to the United States Senate for trial, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, stated that the Senate should follow the "precedent" of then-President Clinton's 1999 impeachment trial as the lawmakers were debating the rules for President Trump's proceeding.

   When the seven House of Representatives Trial Managers arrived today, and prepared to get down to business, Senate Leader McConnell produced an entirely new set of rules to follow - nothing at all akin to the rules used in the Clinton trial.  House Managers were allowed to request 14 amendments to McConnell's rules.  Both the House Managers, and President Trump's defense team of lawyers were allowed a designated time period to argue their side of the proposed amendment.  This lasted until the wee hours of the following morning.  Each House trial amendment was voted down on party lines - 47 for and 53 against.  Each side is to be allowed 24 hours for presentation of their arguments, for and against, impeachment.  The Senators were warned that they must stay in their seats during the proceedings, that no talking was allowed, that they must pay attention, and that no outside reading materials were allowed into the Senate chamber.

22 - 24 January 2020

   Wednesday through Friday, each of the House Managers presented different parts of presentation to prove that President Trump had abused the power of his office by withholding needed, and already Congressionally approved, military funding from the country of Ukraine, as well as a White House visit by the newly-elected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, unless Zelensky publicly announces that his country is opening investigations into Joe Biden, his son Hunter Biden, and the Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma. And that by declaring he would take no part in "this impeachment nonsense," by blocking all subpoenas and documents requested by the House of Representatives in their research into the murky waters surrounding the Ukraine  embargo of military funding, he was obstructing Congress in their pursuit of truth.  The House Managers used about 21 hours of their allotted time, presenting slides and videos to support their findings.

   During this time, several Senators were seen napping in their seats; a Senator was reading a book; a Senator was making paper airplanes; a Senator was making architectural drawings of the Senate chamber interior - and several Senators were taking copious notes.  Nothing was said to the Senators who were not taking notes, but were engaged otherwise.

25 January 2020

   The White House defense team presented a short two hour argument, re-stating all of the arguments they had used during the Managers' arguments on Tuesday, 21 January.  As they had on Tuesday, several of the lawyers made statements that were provably false. Easily available documents, videos, and facts were distorted.  And none of the lawyers claimed that President Donald John Trump did not do what he was charged with.  They nit-picked at individual claims by various people, bu they never declared the President was not guilty of what he was charged with.

27 and 28 January 2020

   The defense team from the White House continued their presentation regarding the man in the Oval Office. They continued stating that the subpoenas issued by the committees in the House of Representatives were not valid, and that they could, therefore, ignore them.  They said the same of any and all documents requested.  Ken Starr said that a President could not be impeached for abuse of power, even though he was the Special Prosecutor against President Clinton, under a charge of abuse of power.  Then Professor Alan Dershowitz  blew almost every person's mind who was listening by stating that if a sitting President believes he is doing something for his own country's good - even if he's cheating in an election - he cannot be held as acting against the law, because he believes he is breaking the law for the good of the country. (In other words, if I were elected to the Presidency and I decided that everyone's income tax should be paid to me because I felt it would be good for the country to enrich me, it would be fine and lawful to do so - because I was the President and I believed it was for the good of the country.  ---  Please, someone, explain how that makes sense.)

29 and 30 January 2020

   These two days were spent allowing 16 hours of questions from the Senators to the House Managers and the defense lawyers.  Some questions were directed to one set of people, the prosecutors or the defenders, while some were directed to both.  If directed to both sides, they each had  2 1/2 minutes to respond; if directed to one side, they had a 5 minute time limit.  Both sides used their time, occasionally, to respond to a previous answer that the opposing side had given.  Several times, White House defense lawyers were seen writing questions on the query cards that were given out to the Senators.  It is supposed that specific Senators, presumably GOP members, were being questions that the defense wanted to expound upon.

   Lev Parnas, through his attorney, offered to testify before the Senate, and produce all relevant documents, text messages, e-mails, photos, videos and voice-recordings that he has access to, regarding the charges of abuse of power by President Trump in this impeachment trial.

31 January 2020

   Arguments were heard from both sides regarding whether witnesses already deposed in the House of Representatives, or new ones (such as Mick Mulvaney, John Bolton, Michael Duffey, etc), should be called in before the Senate and/or whether any more documents would be called for in the Impeachment trial.  In an unprecedented move, the US Senate voted, again on Party lines 53 to 47, not to have any witnesses nor documents, in this trial.  After a break, during which Senate Leader Mitch McConnell spoke with the White House several times, the House Managers were allowed to advance four amendments to the proceedings.  Each was voted down, even though Republican Senators Collins and Romney voted in favor of two of the amendments.

   Ambassador Marie Yovanavitch announced her retirement from the US State Department late this afternoon.

  After the votes, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi released a statement:  "The Senate Republicans' vote against calling witnesses and compelling documents in the impeachment proceedings makes them accomplices to the President's cover-up.

   "The President was impeached for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He is impeached forever. There can be no acquittal without a trial. And there is no trial without witnesses, documents, and evidence.

   "It is a sad day for America to see Senator McConnell require the Chief Justice of the United States to preside over a vote which rejected our nation's judicial norms, precedents, and institutions to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law."

3 February 2020

   The closing arguments by the House of Representatives Managers and the White House defense team began at 11:10 a.m. EST.  The House Managers made their presentation and saved their remaining time for their rebuttal, then a break was taken for lunch.  The White House defense team had four presentations, including Ken Starr, who amazingly quoted Dr. Martin Luther King Junior in his speech.  Then each House Manager presented a final, personal argument for the prosecution.

   For the White House:  Pat Cipollone told the Senators to "leave it to the voters" in the up-coming elections. He framed this Impeachment as "an effort to  overturn the results of one election and to try to interfere in the coming election that begins today in Iowa." 

   Patrick Philbin, a deputy counsel, accused Democrats of "jumping straight to the ultimate nuclear weapon of the Constitution" in response to Trump's blocking all requests for documents and  subpoenas in the inquiry. Philbin is the lawyer who stated ad nauseum that all of the subpoenas were illegal.  He also stated that if the charge of obstruction of justice was supported, it would "fundamentally alter the balance between the different branches of government."

   Michael Purpura, a deputy counsel, denied a quid pro quo.  "The President did not condition security assistance or a meeting on anything in the 25 July call," he said, ignoring testimony and other evidence describing a much longer pressure campaign.

   From the House of Representatives Managers:  Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, said that Trump staying in office could potentially undermine our elections. He asked, "Absent conviction and removal, how can we be assured that this President will not do it again? ...  If we are to rely on the next election to judge the President's efforts to cheat in that election, how can we know that the election will be free and fair?"

   Rep. Val Demings, stated that Trump committed "a grave abuse of power unparalled in American history."  When the President asked President Zelensky to investigate the Bidens and Burisma, "the President was not focused on corruption," but was seeking political gain. Blocking aides and government employees from testifying and refusing to turn over subpoenaed documents are not the actions of someone who wants to prove their innocence, the former Chief of Police of Orlando, Florida stated. "That's what guilty people do," she said.

   The final wrap-up of closing arguments came from Rep. Adam Schiff, the lead House Manager.  He framed his closing remarks with a question: Can you trust this President?  "The short, plain, sad, incontestable answer is - no, you can't," he said. "You can't trust this President to do the right thing, not for one minute, not for one election, not for the sake of our country. You just can't. He will not change, and you know it." Schiff went on to say, "a man without character or ethical compass will never find his way."  And then he asked the Senate, "Is there one among you who will say, 'Enough?' - Truth matters to you, and right matters to you. You are decent. He is not who you are."

3 and 4 February 2020

   All Senators are given the opportunity to either speak before the cameras of the Senate for 10 minutes to explain their decisions regarding their voting during this Impeachment trial.  They may speak on any aspect of the trial.  If a Senator does not wish to go before the cameras (viewable on C-SPAN 2) a written statement may be submitted to to the Senate secretary to go into the official record.  During the time available for comment, up until 2 pm EST on Wednesday, 5 February, which was two hours before the vote regarding impeachment is to take place, several Republican Senators stated in their remarks (both on and off the Senate record) that it had been proved that the President had pressured the new President of Ukraine for illegal assistance in the 2020 election campaign, and that he had unlawfully withheld needed military aid to Ukraine - but they were going to vote him "Not Guilty" when the time came.

5 February 2020

   This morning, the Pentagon released multiple e-mails from June through September showing their astonishment over the fact that President Trump had withheld the apportioned and Congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine.  Their e-mails kept asking why the aid was being withheld.

   Two hours before the impeachment vote is to be held, Republican Senator Mitt Romney of Utah stated publicly, and on video, that he believes the President was guilty of the first charge in the impeachment - abuse of the power of the Presidency, and that he would so vote.

   At 4:05 pm EST, Chief Justice John Roberts reconvened the Impeachment Trial of President Donald John Trump within the chambers of the United States Senate.  It was explained that a 2/3 majority of the Senate votes (67) would be needed to convict the President on any charges. The first charge was read - essentially the abuse of power of the Presidency by trying to coerce the President of another country for help in the 2020 Presidential campaign - and the full role call of the Senate began.  Each Senator had to stand and pronounce "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" as their name was called.  It was presumed that the vote would split along partisan lines, with the two Independent Senators voting with the Democrats, and so it did.  With the one Republican vote from Mitt Romney as guilty, the first Article of Impeachment was voted down with a 52 Not Guilty, and a 48 Guilty vote.

   The second Article of Impeachment - the obstruction of Congress charge, denying any documents or witnesses even though subpoenaed - was also voted down (with Romney re-joining the Republican votes) with a 47 Guilty and 53 Not Guilty vote.  The votes were declared valid by Judge Roberts, and various forms and set formulas were declared verbally to be followed (i.e a copy of the vote was to be sent to the State Department). Then both Majority Leader McConnell and Minority Leader Chuck Shumer thanked all the un-seen people who helped the trial run smoothly.  Judge Roberts thanked the Senate Parliamentarian for helping make his job easier by producing documents and explaining procedures.

    The third impeachment trial of a President to ever take place is over.  The Senate acquitted the President on both charges.  But, with 17 witnesses and over 28,000 pages of documents, the House of Representatives proved its' case against the President - with Republican members of the Senate declaring so.  But those members who stated the case was proven were too frightened by the power of their political party to vote their consciences.