FFS! What is it that people DO NOT UNDERSTAND about 67 Senate votes to Impeach!

[Martin Eden]

97. In that analogy

More than half the jury is affiliated with the accused.

So it's not the same as a prosecuter who realizes his case is insufficient to convict. Instead, it's due to a corrupted jury, which would not be known beforehand because the jury would not have been selected yet in an actual criminal trial.

Impeachment by the House and the Senate trial may be based on actual crimes but both are political acts, which is an important distinction.

Politically, the Democrats can win even if the Senate doesn't convict. The key is having a case against this POtuS so compelling that voters will punish those Republican senators and their party in future elections.

Furthermore, aside from partisan politics, our Constitution has provisions for impeachment because the Founders saw the need for holding officials accountable for high crimes and misdemeanors. Failure to pursue that when a compelling case exists can be considered a dereliction of duty, and it sends the message that high crimes can be committed with impunity.

With or without anticipated conviction in the Senate, the House should impeach if it is clearly warranted by high crimes and misdemeanors. I think it's more than just a political act; it's a matter of duty.