I believe the word “impeachment” may be the least understood word in the lexicon of the average American.  Except in extraordinary times, such as these, the word gets little usage.  This is probably in large part due to its being a word primarily used in legal circles and not in ordinary language.  I therefore offer the definition of “impeachment” as stated by the Merriam Webster Dictionary, on-line version.

1. “to charge with a crime or misdemeanor specifically : to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office”
2.  “to cast doubt on, especially, to challenge the credibility or validity of . . . a witness”

At the time of the writing of our Constitution, Americans had been forced to live under the “tyranny” of a monach who set rules for his subjects without having any fear of recourse from his subjects.  Our Constitution quite pointedly changed that making an otherwise properly elected or appointed official, the rule below does not strictly apply to the Presidency, to be removed from office.

Article 2, Section 4, reads, simply: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

That’s all it says, nothing more.  In the on-going hearings involving President Trump, the U.S. House of Representatives acts in the same manner as a grand jury in state government.  It is charged with recommending, or not, that charges be brought forth against a particular person.  In the case now before the Congress, the Judicial Committee acts as the prosecutor.  In the case of the impeachment hearings, the Intelligence Committee first and then the Judiciary Committee, brought forth witness who testified under oath what they knew first hand.  Such first hand information is described as, but not limited to, “I heard,” “I saw,” “I was told (by the accused or his agent)”, etc.

The Republicans, relying on the general ignorance of the general public, decried the use of secret hearings.  But in common law, such things are quite regular, and in some cases, secret grand juries, are convened and consider what is being offered.  In the end, if a grand jury finds that there is more evidence to support charges being brought than not, their job is simply to advise the prosecutor to bring forth such charges.  In this case the prosecutor, the House Judiciary Committee, has seen fit to recommend bringing forth such charges.  This is a recommendation to the full House of Representatives who vote on having the charges sent to the senate for prosecution.  In this case a simple majority is all that is required.

Those charges are given to the U.S. Senate where a trial is held.  This is the first point where the defendant and his attorney have the opportunity to present their case.  The defense also has a statutory right to all documents collected and considered by the grand jury, in this case the House Committees.

The Senate President receives the charges and decides if the case should be heard.  In this case Sen. McConnell has already stated that he will hear the case.  At that point the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court becomes the legal advisor of the proceedings.  He otherwise has no standing.  But the rules for conducting such proceeding in the Senate are largely non-existent.  Senate President, Mitch McConnell, upon receiving the charges, has the power to simply dismiss the charges and there would be no senate trial.  He has said, however, that he will convene a trial.  But then he can expedite the trial.

One possible scenario is that Sen. McConnell has the charges read to the Senate at which point he calls for a vote on each of the charges.  A two thirds majority is required to convict and where Democrats are in the minority to begin with, there is little chance of a conviction.

The problem facing Republican Senators, many of them lawyers and former prosecutors, is they know, despite the railings of their House counterparts, that their is in fact sufficient evident for each of the charges to be brought, particularly the contempt of Congress charge.  Their remedy, and their out, is they want this article of impeachment’s legality to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.  Their logic is that since the court is now decidedly conservative, such a charge would be tossed out as having no merit.  But this is not a sure thing.  The U.S. saw this when during the 1930s, President Franklin Roosevelt loaded the court with what he believed to be liberal judges who would rubber stamp his decisions.  He found out otherwise when that court ruled the Civilian Conservation Corps (C.C.C.) to be unconstitutional.

This happened again when Justice David Souter, who was put on the court by Pres. George H. W. Bush, turned out to be a moderate who was as likely to vote with the more liberal part of the court as with the conservative.  Do we have such a justice today?  I don’t know.

The biggest problem facing all but the most conservative Republicans, is they know their is truth to both charges.  If the Intelligence Committee and Judiciary Committee showed nothing else, each showed that Republicans consistently chose to attack the charges rather than defend the President’s actions.  Is that not in and of itself an indictment of the President?

The question at hand is:  If the Democrats knew upon convening the impeachment query that the end result would be the President is not removed, then why proceed?  The answer is simple.  Time and again, the Democrats in this process have used their oath of office, the same oath their Republican colleagues took, which is to uphold the Constitution.  Republics of the 1990s used this very same tact towards Pres. Clinton but find it objectionable when used towards Pres. Trump?  You simply cannot have it both ways.

It is my belief that Republicans do not want a proper trial in the Senate, particularly on the Obstruction of Congress charge, because they know the President’s guilt is clear to anyone who cares to observe.