Constitutional argument gone-Republican escape route cut-off

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

They're caught in between the preverbial rock and a hard place. The "constitutional" argument was a parachute to escape the spiraling plane. Unfortunately (for them), it turned out to be a knapsack full of dirty socks and empty trail mix packages. So much for getting out of the decision on a technicality. Now they have two choices-neither of them good. Vote to convict Trump in the face of the overwhelming case against him (which I believe would actually enure to their good over the long run) or vote to acquit Trump in the face of the overwhelming case against him. Which will it be knuckleheads? The wrath of the Trumpsters or the wrath of the majority of Americans and the enduring shame of history. Tough choice, insn't it? You might believe either way you lose. However, doing the right always has a way of working out in the long run. Convicting Trump would be the best outcome for everyone (except Trump). Unfortunately (or fortunately) the Republicans are incapable of doing the right thing-or of even knowing what the right thing is. They may vote to let Trump off but it will haunt them for a long time to come.

[Goodheart]

1. I don't really agree with your summary.

They can and will cite "unconstitutionality" as their basis to not convict. Many of them, in fact, will confess to not even paying attention to whatever evidence is presented. Some will even openly disrespect the proceedings by reading, snoozing, etc. It's called "jury nullification".

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

2. That's not quite what jury nullification is-but that's neither here nor there

They can cite whatever they want-but at this juncture the technical argument is no longer on the verdict sheet. Either you look at this overwhelming pile of evidence and convict or you look at the overwhelming pile of evidence and acquit. I argue that voting to convict will be in their (and the country's) best interests over the long haul. I also argue they (or at least enough of them) aren't capable of that. That's jury nullification. Refusing to convict in the face of overwhelming evidence because...fill in the reason. You don't believe in the law, you like the defendant, you don't like the prosecutor-whatever. In the long run, it's not going to be to their benefit and in fact will be to their lasting detriment.