NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF THERE HAD BEEN A TRULY IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

Andrew McCarthy suggests that had evidence of state treason ever come to light, there would have been no protracted Mueller report.

If collusion with Russia had been fact rather than farce, Trump would never have made it to an impeachment trial. He’d have had to resign, Prior to November 8, 2016, Republicans were not the ones in need of convincing that Russia was a dangerous geopolitical threat. If it had been real collusion that brought Democrats around to that conclusion, the votes to impeach and remove would have been overwhelming.

And the timing would have been irrelevant. If Americans had been seized by a truly impeachable offense, it would not matter whether Election Day was two years, two months, or two weeks away. The public and the political class would not tolerate an agent of the Kremlin in the Oval Office.

If there were such egregious misconduct that the public was convinced of the need to remove Trump, such that two-thirds of the Senate would ignore partisan ties and do just that, there would be no partisan stunts. Democratic leaders would have worked cooperatively with their GOP counterparts, as was done in prior impeachments. They would have told the president: “Sure, you can have your lawyers here, and call whatever witnesses you want.” There would be a bipartisan sense that the president had done profound wrong. There would be a sense of history, not contest. Congressional leaders would want to be remembered as statesmen, not apparatchiks.

If there were a real impeachable offense, there would be no fretting about witnesses at the trial. Senate leaders would be contemplating that, after hearing the case extensively presented by both sides, there might well be enough votes to convict without witnesses. But if there were an appetite for witnesses, witnesses would be called . . . as they were in Watergate. And just as in Watergate, if the president withheld vital evidence of appalling lawlessness, the public would not be broadly indifferent to administration stonewalling.

Note though, that in the Watergate scandal, two years elapsed from "third rate burglary" to resignation, with each invocation of executive privilege being litigated in the courts.  What's going on now is more like that corrupt Washington establishment hanging on to as much of its authority as it can.

Why was the Democrats’ impeachment gambit driven by the election calendar rather than the nature of the president’s offense? Why were the timing of hearings and the unreasonable limits imposed on Republicans’ ability to call witnesses dictated by the frantic rush to get done before Christmas recess — to the point that Democrats cynically vacated a subpoena they’d served on a relevant administration witness, fearing a few weeks of court battles that they might lose?

Why did Democrats grope from week to week in a struggle over what to call the misconduct they accused the president of committing – campaign finance, extortion, quid pro quo, bribery? How did they end up with an amorphous “abuse of power” case? How did they conclude that an administration that goes to court rather than instantly surrendering potentially privileged information commits obstruction?

Why such tedious recriminations over adoption of Senate procedures that were approved by a 100–0 vote the last time there was an impeachment trial? Why all the kvetching over whether witnesses will be called when those procedures provide for the calling of witnesses in the likely event that 51 senators — after hearing nearly two weeks of presentation and argument from both sides — want to hear from one or two of them?

There are days when I suspect the worst fears of some populist pundits are correct: the Permanent Bipartisan Establishment still abhors Donald Trump's hostile takeover of the Republican Party, and the continued wrangling over process and ongoing introduction of new evidence protects business as usual, as well as putting that blemish on his Permanent Record.

Does the Permanent Political Class turning dubious conduct with respect to foreign aid for Ukraine into a Constitutional crisis say something about the vapidity of the appeal that sclerotic establishment otherwise has?

On Ukraine, nothing of consequence came of President Trump’s bull-in-a-china-shop excesses. Sure, they ought to be a 2020 campaign issue. Democrats, instead, would have us exaggerate them into historically extraordinary wrongs. For that, you need gamesmanship. If there were real impeachable misconduct, there would be no time or place for games.

There's no consensus, yet, among Democrats on who their side of the binary choice is going to be. Unfortunately, the nominating convention in Milwaukee does not coincide with German Fest. I can think of no better occasion to tap a few kegs.  Muttering a few choice German expressions at Democrats optional.  Just don't make a drinking game out of each time Elizabeth "Fauxahontas" Warren says "plan" or Bernie "Statler" Sanders gives the "cut" signal to the band.