Last week, the Senate ended the second phony impeachment “trial” of Donald Trump, once again failing to convict.  In large part, this is because, in order to gain a conviction for an impeachable offense, the House must first present actual evidence that an offense has been committed.  Ordinarily, the House would actually investigate the case,  gather evidence, and hear from witnesses who might have evidence proving the charge.  The House didn’t do any of those things.  Then, once properly charged, the case would go to the Senate, to be tried.  We’ve been bombarded with stories about the impeachment “trial” and the prospect of “conviction” in the Senate.  You’ll note that I put those words in quotations.  We refer to the concepts of “trial” and “conviction” in impeachment cases only because the Constitution provides in Article I that the Senate has the sole power to “try” all impeachments, and includes the word “conviction” in Article II.  The problem is that media reports either ignorantly or intentionally give the impression that an impeachment trial is just like any other trial for a criminal offense.  It isn’t.  The Constitution says the Senate shall “try” all impeachments, but  that doesn’t mean that what the Senate does will be a “trial.”  In a real trial, even on TV, the accused is provided with a number of fundamental guarantees, chief among them the right to due process.  Due process guarantees an accused a right to present exculpatory evidence before a charge is made, and further guarantees that a charge may be brought only after proper procedural steps have been satisfied.  If charged, an accused would be provided with the evidence against him so he could confront his accusers, and would be afforded ample time to prepare a defense.  And if the case went to trial, the trial process would be conducted in such a way as to ensure that the accused got a fair hearing.  It’s the responsibility of the judge to exclude from the trial evidence that is unreliable, and to keep off the jury anyone who displays bias, interest or prejudice to the accused or to the issues to be tried.  When all those things happen, the resulting proceeding is a “trial.”  Since Donald Trump got none of those safeguards, what the Senate did was not a “trial.”  What it was is bad political theater.  The House decided to impeach, and voted an Article of Impeachment the next day.  It conducted no hearings, heard from no witnesses and relied for “evidence” on television and newspaper reports, and social media posts.  Putting aside the material fact that Trump had already left office, the charge went to the Senate for immediate an “trial,” which isn’t really a “trial.”  An impeachment trial is a political exercise intended to prevent a miscreant from serving in office.  When the alleged miscreant is no longer in office, then there’s no jurisdiction for impeachment.  Democrats didn’t care.  The point was that, Joe Biden is boring, he does nothing that the media wants to tell the public about, and they need Donald Trump as their boogeyman and punching bag because they have no real ideas.  This was a television event, so much so, that it could have fit into the format of any cop show on TV.  Ever watch Blue Bloods?  Danny Reagan arrests the perp for murder, they go to commercial, the day after the arrest, Erin Reagan starts the trial.  And now a few scenes from next week’s show.  That was Impeachment, Part II.  No investigation.  No disclosure of evidence.  No preparation of a  defense.  No confrontation of accusers.  Just a “trial.” And what a “trial.”  The Constitution requires the Chief Justice to preside when a president is tried.  Chief Justice Roberts refused because the accused was no longer president.  No problem.  The Senate, now in the hands of the detestable Chuck Schumer, provided a substitute, Senator Patrick Leahy.  Don’t you just love a fair “trial?”  This went beyond anything even Franz Kafka could have imagined.  The charge against Trump was inciting an insurrection at the Capitol on January 6th.  So, 99 of the Senators were witnesses, victims, and jurors, and Senator Leahy was a witness, victim, juror, and the judge.  That streamlines the process.  All of them, from both Parties, were biased, had an interest in the outcome, and had exhibited prejudice.  Unindicted felon Hillary Clinton kind of admitted as much.  “If Senate Republicans fail to convict Donald Trump, it won’t be because the facts were with him or his lawyers mounted a competent defense.  It will be because the jury includes his co-conspirators.” Judge/Witness/Victim/Juror Leahy had said Trump “will be remembered in history as a disaster to our Constitution, one who has tried to subvert our laws and government, a person who has lied constantly.”  That’s not the detached magistrate envisioned by the Founders.  Elizabeth Warren went into the “trial” believing Trump guilty, and vowed that any Republican who supported him “must be stopped.”  Juror Schumer strangely observed, “There will be a trial and when the trial ends, Senators will have to decide if they believe Donald John Trump incited the erection.”  Apparently he was channeling Anthony Wiener.  Alleged moderate Joe Manchin said he’d permit Trump to defend himself, but declared, “There’s no doubt I think the evidence is overwhelming.”  And what evidence?  News reports and Tweets, some of which the Democrats had to admit they altered and falsified.  Although the defense played clips of Democrats, including Warren, Waters, Sanders and Kamala Harris telling supporters to “fight,” the main claim was that by using the word “fight,” Trump incited insurrection.  What next?  Will they impeach the Beastie Boys for singing, “You gotta fight, for your right, to party?”  It got so bad that Democrats tried to cure their lack of evidence by suggesting that Trump’s refusal to testify proved him guilty.  Fifth Amendment?  What Fifth Amendment?  The “trial” was a sick joke, reminiscent of Benet’s The Devil and Daniel Webster, where the Devil presides over a trial in which the jury is “a jury of the damned,” thieves and cut-throats all.  The “trial” ended not with a bang, but a whimper.  Democrats voted to hear witnesses, and then called none, because they were told the President’s first two witnesses would be Nancy Pelosi and D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, who would be questioned about their failures to heed warnings about the January 6th protest, and their refusals to accept Trump’s offer of 10,000 National Guardsmen to protect the Capitol.  That’s how stupid it was.  What insurrectionist sends his minions into battle after first arranging to have 10,000 armed troops on hand to stop them?  In the end, the truth prevailed, but as James Garfield once observed, “The truth will set you free, but first it will make you miserable.”