Can a Senate "trial" be legitimate if there are no witnesses?

[kentuck]

There have been two impeachment trials in our history so there is very little precedence to go on. In both the Johnson and the Clinton trials, there were witnesses. However, with Clinton, the star witness was in a box, in the form of a blue dress.

But, it is difficult to see how anyone could have a legitimate "trial" without witnesses? The latest polls suggest that over 70% of the people believe there should be witnesses, including over 60% of Republicans. It is a very popular idea.

Donald Trump wants a "quick trial", as guaranteed by the Constitution. McConnell wants to help him get his quick trial. Because, in Kentucky, Mitch McConnell's polls are in the 30's and he is one of the least popular Senators in America. He needs Donald Trump because Trump is popular in Kentucky. He wants to hold on to Trump's coattails, believing it will drag him over the line as a victor. That is the gamble he has taken.

But, Trump does not want any witnesses. He wants a vote that vindicates him. He doesn't want a vote of 51-49 to convict. He needs a majority of Senators to say that he has been vindicated. It is not a winning message to say that you were impeached and convicted by a slim margin, but you were not removed? A lot is at stake in a Senate "trial".

[Vinca]

1. No.

Mitch wants to take Don's Diet Coke away for a day as punishment and call it a day.

[Farmer-Rick]

2. Be prepared for a Moscow Mitch Sham trial.

Then Dumpy Trumpy will get to work at getting revenge against everyone who dared impeach him.

[FBaggins]

3. The first presidential impeachment trial had 41

The next one had either three or zero depending on whether you count videotaped statements.

[CaptYossarian]

4. He won't be convicted and there won't be a 25th Amendment invoked no matter what he does.

I thought about this while speculating about who Pence's Vice President might be.

It won't be a senator because the numbers are too close for comfort and it won't be an active House member because the GOP is at a deficit. It would have to be a "retired" party member. Bob Corker and Jeb Bush wouldn't fit the current nuttiness, which would allow former Trump ally Chris Christie to step in. He seems like a moderate (in comparison with today's cast of characters) and the base trusts him in spite of that. Another option could be why Mark Meadows might not finish his term in Congress. Christie has more national name recognition for the re-election though.

As for the 25th not being invoked, the cabinet members at this point must feel that Trump's insanity has become normalized to them. And what happens to the ones voting in favor of removing Trump if they aren't successful? Trump is dangerous, has no conscience or guilt, and admires world leaders who imprison or murder their rivals. That's also the dilemma faced by the Senate Republicans.