Point/Counter-Point

At the New York Times Bret Stephens and Gail Collins discuss the impeachment drama such as it is. After some meandering, Bret Stephens gets around to what I think are the crucial points:

Bret: Pelosi is very sharp, but she has a quandary. If she tries to bottle up impeachment in the House on grounds that the Senate won’t call witnesses like John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney, she’ll look hypocritical, for two reasons: First, the House went ahead with impeachment without waiting to hear from Bolton and Mulvaney. And second, she’ll be obstructing the very Constitutional principles that Trump’s impeachment are supposed to vindicate. One Harvard Law professor, Noah Feldman, claims impeachment doesn’t actually happen until the House forwards the articles to the Senate. Whether that’s true or not, most Americans expect that impeachment in the House, if it is to mean anything, must mean some kind of trial in the Senate.

Gail: Only about six people in the country understand this issue. As far as public opinion goes, Trump’s wishes have come true: it’s all about whether you love him or hate him. But go on …

Bret: On the other hand, if Pelosi lets the Senate take over from here, Mitch McConnell will arrange an expedited trial leading to guaranteed acquittal, leading much of the public to conclude that the entire process was a waste of time.

Honestly, I’m not sure how she finesses it. What am I missing?

Ms. Collins never actually answers his question, merely responding with the equivalent of “Go Cubs!”:

So in 2020 maybe the Democrats will win the presidency and control of both houses of Congress.

or, maybe Speaker Pelosi has just engineered Trump’s re-election. I think there’s a reason Ms. Collins doesn’t respond. There is no particularly good response unless you take the view that I have articulated here. Maybe the entire impeachment inquiry wasn’t about defeating Trump so much as intra-party politics. Then it all makes sense.