The presiding ‘judge’ will be a member of the party that brought the impeachment charges, who voted to convict during the previous sham trial.
In a normal court, if the presiding judge was on record as being a political opponent, even an enemy, of the defendant, but said ‘Oh, no, I can be completely impartial’, would anyone believe him? And would anyone regard a conviction as valid?
But wait — what if that judge he said that he would ‘take an additional special oath to do impartial justice’? That would fix the problem, right?
Ironically, in the long run, this kind of charade is probably in the best interest of the country, because the more Congress reveals itself to be little more than a collection of clowns, the more quickly people — and more to the point, the sovereign states, especially the 19 states that were recently told by the Supreme Court to kiss its ass — will come around to understanding that the federal government needn’t be taken any more seriously than any other reality TV show.
I’m looking forward to the first time that one of those states politely declines to comply with a federal law or regulation or executive order, on the grounds that the federal government ‘lacks standing’ in the state.
(Note that just yesterday, the AG of Texas — the first of those 19 states — got a federal judge to temporarily block President* Biden’s attempt to freeze deportations at the Mexican border. The state is claiming that it will be harmed by the order, but if that argument is rejected by the appeals court, the state can always fall back on the denial of standing. Is it likely? No. But a guy can dream, can’t he?)
