Hmm, i always said they have an obligation to weigh the evidence as jurors. Where did i situational ethics that away. I pointed out the political, because many Senators *are* figuring out the political upsides and downs, not the merits of the evidence, even though they've seen quite a lot of evidence already, just not courtroom stamped (and it seems most of the Republicans have said they won't convict - does that role you? those who've felt threatened by the onslaught are under no obligation to recuse not ignore what they saw, again unlike a normal trial). As for the presiding judge, that position is quite a bit weakened over a normal judge - this presider is mainly keeping the proceedings going properly - the prosecution presents the case to the full Senate, not the judge, so you can sleep easy tonight - the world is still in balance, order has been preserved. If witnesses are allowed. (and no, witnesses are not required for a grand jury/impeachment indictment, but usually are for a trial).

Good point on the hopscotch back and forth from impeachment being a ‘political’ process to impeachment being a ‘legal’ proceeding.  One argumentative stand is made when a politician or pundit is talking out of the ‘legal’ side of his mouth and the other when reverting to the political side of his mouth as his case requires. And as usual, both sides do whichever is politically expedient because it supports their decided position at that moment. But the fact is, impeachment is not a trial.

 I think it is obvious that Impeachment and Conviction are in fact both totally political actions carried out with a gloss of legal procedure and is a performance rather than a trial. Some might call it a trial but others might call it Kabuki, others might call it kayfab, some might call it careerists in action. Whatever, it is a performance carried out on public stages every waking hour all over the country. 

 A President can be impeached and convicted for “High Crimes and Misdemeanors''. The same thing would have been better stated and much more clear if the Constitution had said that the Pres could be tried and could be convicted for big shit or for little shit under the procedure it sets forth. If the Pres did nothing technically illegal and nothing in violation of the Constitution he could still be Constitutionally convicted and removed from office just for stinking up the place so bad that nobody could stand working there.  It just takes enough votes. Trump has obviously passed too much gas to be tolerated among people serious about competent government to tolerate, whether they wear a mask or not, but as a group willing to vote in accordance  they are probably in the minority in the Senate, almost certainly not a supermajority. Partisan politics has become, probably always was,  so cynical that the politician’s “ethics” are almost always situational. Of course that is also true in the partisan electorate when making political choices. 

 The de facto trial is in fact in the court of public opinion but the Senate jurors vote, to a large enough extent, based on personal political calculation that the idea of judgment based on pertinent facts/law/values etc is a joke. [Who gets the last laugh is yet to be determined] The Democrats do have the facts/law/values etc on their side though in this case even if for political reasons they get hyperbolic and pompous in their virtue signaling when documenting them.  Trump is guilty of some big shit and an ongoing relentless stream of little shit, but even if the absolute truth of that fact is legally proven it is not Constitutionally required that he be convicted. I decree all this to be, in my learned legal opinion, the last word on the subject.

The witnesses that would be most immediately "relevant" would be those that could confirm the statement by the Defense that Trump was "horrified" by the violence as it broke out. That sort of screws Graham's attempt to dispense with witnesses who would say anything else as political frontage. The Defense has made the issue a matter of discovery. Maybe not a genius move.

It is too soon to tell what motivates Lindsey. But he is scared shit-less of something.

Uh-huh, Jeff'll be mad