Look...objectively, if it were any other person in any other job, if 1,000 experts in that job write an open letter telling you, a person doing the job for the first time ever, what to do to win? And you throw that letter out, do the opposite, and lose? You are bad at your job.

She not only threw out the letter from federal prosecutors explaining in detail how to make the felony case against Donald John Trump for obstruction of justice, her supporters insist that impeachments, the only trials possible for high crimes, aren't criminal proceedings at all.

And surprise, surprise, the GOP made the counterargument that of course impeachment trials for high crimes are criminal proceedings, and what statute was this based on? Sure, it was technically true (the best kind of true) that the Constitution is a law. But we ALSO HAD STATUTES.

Imagine if instead of having to say "Okay congressman let me take you back to the Founding, the Federalist Papers, how they define the Constitution as actually a law, the highest law," imagine if we just pointed to the obstruction of justice statute and said "That, ten counts."

And I'm sorry if it makes people mad but I've really thought about this and the Founders would absolutely despise someone who said the remedy for a rogue executive branch that cheats in elections is to have another election.

I feel like they would be very disappointed and just keep asking over and over "HOW DID YOU MISS THE THING ABOUT TYRANTS? AND THE CHECKS AND BALANCES? THAT WAS LIKE....THE WHOLE DEAL?!"

I mean there really is a specific Federalist Paper about this exact scenario, a cheater taking power, then using that power to cheat again, and to protect the cronies who helped the first cheating. And they read it to her at the hearings. Was she playing on her phone?