USSC to hear Trump cases on Tax Returns and Financial Records - Part II - Intended consequences?

Did the USSC  just damage the second article of impeachment on purpose?

The USSC just agreed to arbitrate the ongoing subpoena powers dispute between the White House and Congress. This has not been lost on impeachment skeptical legal analysts who will tell you that this is solid irrefutable evidence that not only is the President and executive branch allowed to dispute congressional subpoenas, but that the court is signaling that they may even rule in the President's favor on this one.

Let that sink in for a second.

The entire argument for the second article of impeachment is that the President and those who work for the executive branch are somehow breaking the law (or otherwise committing acts that could lead to forceful removal) if they do not bend to the will of Congressional subpoenas. You cannot make the second article of impeachment argument if you are willing to (or forced to) admit that the Administrative branch is allowed to challenge such subpoenas and have the Judicial branch arbitrate the dispute. Punishing someone for using their constitutional rights to make an argument in court is not what Americans stand for. Jonathan Turley is right. It's actually an abuse of power and an attempt to intimidate future executives from constitutionally seeking judicial relief.

The more realistic description of the second article of impeachment is Obstruction of Politics (not justice). There is nothing regarding justice that requires a political vote to be held before Christmas so your impeachment doesn't bleed any more support. There is literally nothing judicially or legally that prevents Democrats from addressing the dispute through the courts.  The fact that they chose not to arbitrate the dispute in court (because  they feel it would take too long) doesn't provide them with justification for obstruction, any more than a wide receiver who refused make an attempt to catch a pass can claim his own lack of effort is pass interference on the opposing team.

Now, if on the flip side the USSC had decided "not" to take up the issue and provided some sort of statement about how the courts are not where disputes between the executive and legislative branches can be arbitrated, it would have provided at least some fodder to the pro obstruction impeachment argument. But even Richard Nixon was allowed to fight congressional subpoenas in court. It was only after the courts ruled that he was required to turn information over that he chose to resign.

Democrats could have (and should have) taken the time to let this play out, just as our legislators did when they started impeachment hearings on Richard Nixon. The problem, of course, is that there is a significant issue of diminishing return on the entire impeachment process. Public sentiment was moving against impeachment the longer the hearings went on. Waiting for courts to rule on subpoenas, realizing that even if they won that it wouldn't likely help their case much (if any), was a political decision. But it was a decision that they should have taken responsibility for, rather than simply blame the political circumstances on Trump not wanting to play along.