[TheRealThing]

With all the “due process” and “fair trial” talk and the confusion with the criminal process, I got to thinking. What if the Senate chose 12 jurors from the pool of 100 Senators using the practices of the criminal system? Witnesses could be called and questioned on both sides with the jury deciding to acquit or remove the president on secret ballot.

It could happen. Would both sides see it as a fair trial?

Let us recap.

First, but only after nearly 3 years of threats and hollow impeachment votes, the Mueller probe, and all manner of slander towards the President, House Dems armed with the whistleblower strategy met in secret in basement bunkers on the Hill, to fine tune and practice the way they might rebuff the statements and questions certain to come their way by Republicans. Of course, Republicans were barred from those proceedings and when they attempted to crash the party, Adam Schiff immediately adjourned.

Second, President Trump was denied the same rights of due process that Republicans guaranteed and oversaw in the case of the Bill Clinton impeachment. This fact is beyond question or denial. All Republicans have to go on by way of evidence is Dems claim to have a secret witness. That fact alone is total juris-rubbish.

Third, because Nancy Pelosi gambled that Mitch would be somewhat apprehensive of a Senate trial, she cooked up a scheme with Chuck Schumer to get certain guarantees under which her lieutenants could continue their sham litigations in the upper House. Blowing that plan out of the water, Mitch said "bring it" and then proceeded to laugh her to scorn.
Since she knows that she will have completely lost control of the sham process the second she transmits the articles of ridicument to the Senate, she decided to take a Harvard Law prof's advice and just sit on the articles. At least that way the Dems could continue on with their concocted narrative.

Fourth, the presumption of innocence, due process and fair treatment, constitute one of the founding pillars of this nation. But I'm not surprised to see you suggest something so absurdly contraventional as the quote above. You ought to be embarrassed for having typed something like that.