While watching the impeachment

While watching the impeachment trial eight years ago, I wondered why the respondent's lawyers did not fight for legal principles but said wrong things and only argued as if they were appealing to emotions. Even from the standpoint of understanding the Constitution at a common sense level without deep study, it was more surprising that there was little difference from my opinion even if I listened to the explanations of those who majored in law and knew it well. I remember seeing an expert's analysis that if the respondent's lawyers had made logical defense on various issues during the impeachment trial at that time, the possibility that the result would have been different could not have been ruled out.

In the case of the impeachment trial, the contents are different and it does not seem easy for the respondent's lawyers to fight for legal principles, but there was still anxiety that there might be a hole somewhere if they spread their logic, and such anxiety was based on the premise that Democratic political groups, who had already learned eight years ago that even the right-wing constitutional judges might not make such a mistake this time.

However, when the impeachment trial began, the mystery I felt eight years ago came to mind like deja vu, and rather, I feel a new wonder, "Is there a hidden logic that I don't know?" and I feel rather embarrassed.

They're said to be excellent in that field, so they'll be sitting there, and they're even a former constitutional judge, but isn't there something I don't know about saying something that misses the point? I can't help but wonder if it was something wrong that I thought impeachment would be cited without difficulty in this impeachment trial.

There are even testy remarks in the impeachment trial that hurt the judges' feelings as if they were intentionally on purpose, which makes me feel humiliated. I can't believe that those kinds of people were the ones who were running the country...