I’ve been following the proceedings so far, watching the hearings and reading the press reports and occasionally the comments.

And I’ve got a few thoughts.

I feel safe referring to “Republicans” and “Democrats” as the two sides, since it really is split along party lines. No Republicans have even hinted that they would consider the possibility of voting to impeach, and no Democrats have suggested with any seriousness that El Presidente just might be innocent.

The only coherent defense from the Republicans so far has been that we shouldn’t rush this. Fair enough. But it’s sad that it’s the best they can do. Everything else has been ranting about debunked conspiracy theories, griping about the process, or complaining that the Democrats haven’t gotten any real eyewitness testimony, so it’s all hearsay. Well, perhaps they would have better testimony if El Presidente hadn’t blocked the key parties from testifying.

All this nonsense about trying to find out the identity of The Whistleblower is like trying to find out who called the police when you got caught trying to rob a bank. And saying that it doesn’t matter because Ukraine eventually got the aid is the same as saying that because you didn’t get any money from the bank, you didn’t do anything wrong.

One way to look at impeachment is that The People hire someone to do the job of president on a four year contract. If the president violates the terms of that contract, shouldn’t they have the right to fire him before that contract is up?

All this stuff about Hunter Biden and Burisma came up when he was first named to their board back in 2014. Were any of the current crop of Congressional Republicans complaining about it back then? If not, why not? Why the sudden change?

Do any of the Republicans in the Senate realize that if they condone such behavior from a president now, they are giving permission for a future president – even a Democrat – to do the same?

“Only two Articles?”, you say “Why not more?”

These are the the two that we’ve got him dead to rights on. A charge of bribery, for example, will get bogged down in the minutiae of the legal definition of the term. His interference with the Mueller Report is a dead issue by now. Anything else you might want to pile on would be seen as just that – piling on.

The cultists in the GOP will rant and rave about the specifics of the Abuse of Power charge; those of us who are sane know he’s guilty. And it will be interesting to see them try and answer the second charge on Obstruction.

Here’s the important part of the draft Articles:

Article 1, Section 3:

…but has persisted in openly and corruptly urging and soliciting Ukraine to undertake investigations for his personal political benefit.

He’s still doing it!

House Intel Chairman Adam Schiff gets it: “Despite everything we have uncovered the president’s misconduct continues to this day, unapologetically and right now,” he said. “The argument ‘why don’t you just wait’ amounts to this: Why don’t you just let him cheat in one more election? Why not let him cheat just one more time? Why not let him have foreign help just one more time?”

I’m wondering how the press will cover the Senate trial. And will the defense consist of the same sort of ranting and deflecting that we saw in the House hearings?