[semimojo]

Given the specific circumstances of this circus, what you're arguing is that the Senate should be held to the very same standards that would have prevented the House from ever delivering the articles of impeachment in the first place.

No, what I'm saying is the Constitution gives the Senate the sole right to try the impeachment. Period.

Putting arbitrary restrictions on how they conduct that trial, like barring new evidence, may be fair, reasonable or defensible but it isn't Constitutional.

[Rashputin]

They are trying a case presented to them. That's correct, and like a judge in our legal system, they rule on what has been presented. This isn't the Nepolianic system where the judge asks questions, calls new witnesses, etc., it's the US legal system wherein the judge rules on the case as presented not as the judge can shape it with new witnesses or documents, further investigation, slide shows of what Mitt Romney did on his vacation when they visited a Chocolate milk production line, or anything else.

They judge the case as presented, they do not build both sides of a case. The trial consists of what was presented, not what they create.

[Uncle Sham]

"barring new evidence, may be fair, reasonable or defensible but it isn't Constitutional."

You are missing the point. The Senate can make it's own rules as to how it "judges" the content of that which the House presents in their article of impeachment. The Senate is constitutionally barred from helping the house put forth it's case or assist the House in the discovery phase. "New" evidence or testimony falls under the discovery phase of an impeachment, NOT the judging phase. The Senate judges whatever the House discovers and argues.