I feel the need to focus for a moment on one of the U.S. Senate’s 100 “jurors” presiding over the impeachment trial of Donald John Trump, the current president of the United States.

He is Sen. John Cornyn, a Republican, and the senior senator from Texas. He is aligned with the president. Cornyn remains one of Donald Trump’s allies in the Senate. He has resisted calls for witnesses to be heard in the Senate trial. I wonder why.

My curiosity is based on Cornyn’s professional history.

He once served as Texas attorney general, as a member of the Texas Supreme Court and, oh yes, as a trial court judge in the 37th Judicial District in Bexar County.

I know Sen. Cornyn. He and I have spoken several times over the years. I always have found him to be an engaging, occasionally affable fellow. However, I cannot grasp why a man with trial court experience would allow himself to be snookered into the goofy notion that a presidential impeachment trial need not include new witnesses.

Did he prohibit witnesses while presiding over a trial in San Antonio? I have never asked him directly, but I know the answer. It is hell no!

The impeachment trial isn’t quite the same as a judicial trial, but it ought to operate on many of the same tenets adopted for any judicial proceeding. One of them should include the calling of witnesses and additional evidentiary documents.

Why, then, is Sen. Cornyn turning his back on his own experience, knowledge and understanding of a trial?