Still trying to wrap my brain around this logic?

So over the past weekend, we heard more Democrats make the argument that the Senate Impeachment Trial was not on the up and up, and therefore the President was never really acquitted. According to many Democrats, the Republicans in the Senate went into the trial with the mindset that the President was not guilty, and that short of some shocking smoking gun irrefutable evidence proving both quid pro quo and corrupt intent... that they were going to vote to acquit him.

Imagine the audacity! Since when is an accused person on trial considered innocent until actually proven guilty? Who are Senate Republicans to put such a high standard of burden for the Democrats in the House! Obviously the constitution provides that all the prosecution must bring is some hear say witnesses to speculate or presume guilt. In fact, according to Democrats, hearsay evidence can be better than direct evidence. After all, this is the bad orange man. We all know deep in our hearts that he is guilty. If not of this, then of something equally horrifying.

The truth is that once again Democrats are playing with American principles and Constitutional safeguards, and once again their willing media and lock step faithful are simply buying it up. They've convinced themselves that it's up to trial judges and juries to "investigate" on behalf of the prosecution. They've convinced themselves that anyone accused who puts up a defense should be considered guilty. Now, they have convinced themselves that the idea that members of a jury would assume someone as innocent and demand tangible evidence to convict someone is akin to a rigged trial.

You can't make this shit up!

If we want to get technical here the reality is quite different. If this had been a real trial, not a single Democrat would have been allowed on the jury for the simple reason that most of them had already predetermined guilt. Even those who claimed to be "open minded" were not providing for the constitutionally mandated assumption of innocence. Literally only those who were willing to go into the trial assuming that the President was not guilty and would require tangible smoking gun evidence of both a quid pro quo agreement and corrupt intent would have been allowed by a Judge to serve.

Legally, it was the Democrats (not Republicans) who went into the trial under false pretenses. They were the ones attempting to change the norms of our justice and trial system. While the idea of a jury coming in with an "open mind" sounds reasonable, at the end of the day it is at odds with our bill of rights and specifically the rights of the accused to be provided with an assumption of innocence. More to the point, they only really expected Republicans to keep an open mind, while they pretty much conceded that they has already convinced themselves of the predetermined guilt.

It's one thing to argue that you believe something happened. It's another to vote to convict someone of a criminal action based on anything other than tangible first hand evidence. Neither your belief or your opinion or your feelings about a defendant matter in a trial setting. Only the first hand tangible smoking gun evidence presented to you during the trial matters. If you believe that there is more evidence that was not presented, it doesn't matter. You cannot consider evidence that hasn't been vetted or a witness that neither provided testimony or was cross examined. Yet that is basically what Democrats did, and what they expected their Republican counterpoints to do as well.

Many want to know how "history" will judge this whole thing? I don't believe that it's the end result that will ultimately be judged, but rather it will be the manner in which the process was brought. No previous independent investigation made by any government or legal entity. Only a few weeks of Congressional investigating, which by their own accounts did not include any of the people who could have provided first hand accounts. A case built entirely on hearsay, speculation, presumption, and opinion. A process that allowed for almost no due process, limited cross examination, limited disclosure of witness testimony, and no allowance for the President to call any witnesses. All followed by a trial where most every Democrat went in with an assumption of guilt, and got upset that Republicans provided the constitutionally mandated assumption of innocence?

I don't see how history could possibly twist that into anything closely resembling a valid and fair impeachment process. Anyone who is fooled into thinking otherwise needs to take a good hard look in the mirror and ask yourself when you turned your back on the American principles asserted in the bill of rights. Do you "really" hate the bad orange man that much?