This is an interesting take?

When a supposed constitutional law experts tosses constitution aside for partisanship! 

BREAKING NEWS: Schumer’s proposal to McConnell. If he rejects these reasonable ground rules & insists on a non-trial, the House should consider treating that as a breach of the Senate’s oath & withholding the Articles until the Senate reconsiders   https://t.co/a9zbBywFBG

— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) December 16, 2019

So let's get this straight. The constitution declares that the House hold impeachment hearings and that if the House votes to impeach that the Senate hold a trial. But after the House Democrats ran their impeachment hearings in a secret basement location, selectively leaked information, and then only allowed witnesses that they wanted to hear from testify in public... we should then completely ignore the constitutional concept of a Senate trial if the GOP doesn't capitulate to the Democrats during the Senate trial as well?

Let's make this abundantly clear. Tribe was one of many who demanded that the House did not have to run the impeachment hearings like previous impeachment hearings were ran. He ran hard and fast with the liberal logic that how the impeachment hearings were run were entirely up to the majority and that was perfectly constitutionally acceptable. Perhaps it was.

But if there is nothing to determine (other than majority rule partisanship) how the House runs an impeachment, how do you make the argument that the Constitution sets some sort of standard for the Senate to hold a trial? You cannot possible argue (either constitutionally or logically) that what is good for the House is no longer good for the Senate. That unless McConnell and the GOP agree to run things the way Tribe and others would like, that somehow "this" is a violation of the constitution?

Moreover, it would appear that Tribe is of the thought pattern that the articles of impeachment should not actually be handed over to the Senate in large part because it is completely 100% assured that doing so will actually result in the acquittal of the President (likely with more Democratic defections than GOP defections). The logical problem here is that while this "is" a jury trial situation, there is nothing in the Constitution that demands an open mind in situations where the House has clearly not made a reasonable case.

More to the point: there is no more reason for the Senate "jury" to hold any more of an open mind than the House "grand jury" was holding when they prejudged the existing articles of impeachment. In fact, many had openly prejudged the idea that Trump need to be impeached for "something or anything". Remember the "impeach the motherfucker" video? Would that person ever been put on any grand jury in real life?

Lawrence Tribe has ceased being any sort of legal expert, and is now little more than a hate-filled anti-Constitution TDS inflicted old man. It's a pity.