Senate rules allow the senators to vote without any regard to facts. Now, one could argue the overarching notion that the oath of office, in requiring senators to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic and to bear true faith and allegiance to the the Constitution, and that they will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office, would bind them to voting along lines of fact, rather than along lines of whatever political machinations they choose when casting their vote.

But that question, too, is moot, since there is no way to put a senator on trial for a vote one might find faithless and failing to uphold the Constitution, unless that vote can be tied to a violation of a particular statute, but the bar to show a vote violating a law, when a vote is the act of creating law, is extraordinarily high.Since senators cannot be impeached – they can be expelled, but not impeached and tried in the same way – the only remedy for a faithless senator is at the ballot box. Unless and until they are booted by the voters, congresscritters sit pretty much alone in a rarified catbird seat.

I, too, agree that the evidence presented by the House managers is damning. Many today are complaining, saying it meets the threshold required in criminal court – but I’m not sure. For the guy who lost the presidency: on what charge would that evidence produce a conviction? On which charge -and be specific – would the House managers’ evidence prove beyond reasonable doubt that the former president was guilty? I’m not defending the man – hell no! But I can’t think of a federal statute, or even D.C. ordinance, that you can charge him with. Yes, the words and videos are damning, but are they the literal smoking gun to prove beyond a doubt that he was guilty of violating [insert US code citation here…]?

The evidence does prove to me and to most rational folks that he shirked his duty, but shirking is not a crime in the criminal code. They do prove beyond a doubt that he violated his oath by acting faithlessly – but his oath is not a federal statute. Violating his oath is a high crime and misdemeanor, for which the remedy is clearly spelled out: impeachment.

The guy who could not get elected with 74 million votes famously said he could go out on 5th Ave., shoot someone, and get away with it. We may not spend our time marveling at his intellect, but the truth is, he was smart enough to *not* do that. Because then he would be breaking a law – not an oath. And laws when broken are addressed by the judicial system and courts. His oath? That’s a high Constitutional crime, for which the redress is impeachment.

Are the 43 cowards who voted to acquit accomplices?

Absolutely.

Did they break a law?

No.

They broke faith, just as he did, with the people of the United States. They broke faith with the notion of our nation, a nation that exists only because of words on a parchment that bind us, We the people, together. Breaking the faith: that’s their crime, and you can’t find “breaking the faith” in any federal or D.C. statute.It the Minority Leader hiding behind a loophole? You betcher ass he is, along with 42 others in the minority.

But, look at his title in the Senate – it’s proof they are the *minority.* If the impeachment vote today was an election, it would be worth noting that “our side” *won* by 14% – we just didn’t win the jackpot prize. And those 43 cowards are now trying to figure their end game. Some, like the Minority Leader, were just re-elected, and their long game is that six years from now this will all be water under the bridge…or they plan to ride off into the sunset.

The Senator from Maine who sits in Margaret Chase Smith’s seat used her re-election and six-year security pass as an opportunity to find a conscience. Maybe she’s going to be a different Senator before she retires – or maybe she read the tea leaves and will be a Senator for the people. The cynic in me thinks her guilty vote was a one-time one-off, only safe to do because she was just re-elected.

All of this, as rambling as I tend to be, leads back to this as the bottom line: the impeachment process is a political process, and was intended to be from the very beginning. No amount of hand wringing about right and wrong, facts and lies, or what would be allowed in a criminal trial or a real jury room really matters. What mattered, when the time came to vote, was each senator’s self-interest, and deciding what devil they want to dance with.

And now we know.

It’s on the record.

And in that record, the House managers have done an excellent job of providing a fact-based context against which those 43 choices can and MUST be weighed in public until those 43 cowards get the justice they deserve, which is the justice we were denied.

That we were denied justice in this case was no surprise – the impeachment process is, again, what? That’s right, Johnny and Janey, a political process.

Show me a political process that puts justice first.