Impeachment Aftermath: Anti-Impeachment Points

[To make this more crisp, I separated an extended additional argument as to witnesses and timing into another entry. I also slightly edited the existing content.]

With the trial set to begin on Monday, I thought I'd would offer some opinions on the proceedings.

Let's see how this worked out. Then, maybe I too will move on.

1. I do not think that this trial is unconstitutional. I am instead against the trial on prudential grounds.

I supported it and think it worked out fairly well.

2. My chief prudential reason is that the trial will end in an acquittal. Thus, all we are doing is creating a precedent that what President Trump was not a high crime and misdemeanor. This will not serve us well in the future.

The NYT did have a big TRUMP ACQUITTED headline on its website. But, if he wasn't brought to trial, he would have been deemed to get away with it too. Plus, if people look past two word headlines, this "acquittal" makes OJ Simpson's look good. There, you had concerns the cops were racist liars.

Here? You not only had a 57-43 vote, but a strong statement [however phony it is on some level] from the Senate Minority Leader that Trump was damn guilty, still is open to punishment but the Senate doesn't have a role any more. The "future" to me also would be more likely to see the value of impeachment in this end of term situation, especially after yet another precedent of a trial taking place. I too think that useful.

3. A full-blown trial will take a long time and be a circus. The Senate has other important priorities during the pandemic. Moreover, the country does not at this time need another extended discussion about the former President dominating the news.

The trial to me probably provided the FIRST full fledged comprehensive discussion of the story here to the degree it was addressed to the nation as a whole. This was a useful enterprise. It did not crowd out other action, especially since national legislation has to be crafted over time, including  by the House. And, a respectful effort -- and I think this was that -- would be evidence that the matter was addressed. That would help moving on to other things without it being an open wound.

The trial was not a "circus" though the Trump side was somewhat clownish. Yes, they threatened a circus if they had witnesses, necessary to me for a "full-blown trial," but I don't even think that was necessarily required. Anyway, the trial was pretty full.

4. A short trial with no witnesses is equally pointless. At least with a proper trial you could argue that we might learn new facts. A short trial doesn't even do that.

We learned new facts. This includes a wider audience who unlike some "we" may not pay as much attention. This includes media reports about Kevin McCarthy etc. of the sort that come out when things like this are put out there and people dig deeper and have stories to fill. Not on back pages either as might be if it was some congressional hearing. It was not "pointless."

5. Having Patrick Leahy as the presiding officer will create a number of problems.

It was a non-story. The expected subjects made an issue about it but it did not actually affect to trial much at all and the textual parsing was silly. Leahy stumbled a bit a few times, but it didn't really change anything. So, you had the Sen. Mike Lee business, which was asinine on his part, and it led to a bit of confusion. Roberts being there would have changed little.

6. Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment offers a better path forward, as I've explained before and will do again next week.

It wouldn't be better but we should still use it, especially since the 14A is not just about Trump, but a range of people not even covered by impeachment itself such as state officers.