I think the House's case was awful, perhaps on purpose, but that's a longer story.

Having said that, as an independent observer, the Senate should have called witnesses, not because the case was good but because it's the Senate and it should make a good faith and thorough response to the House's actions.

It's also worth remembering that the Senate's entire job is to be representative without swaying in the wind. Any senator who said they were constrained by the opinions of the folks in their state are categorically not doing their job.

Far too many of my beloved Dem friends ask, "Why didn't the House (team X) manage to make a case against T that got rid of him? What could be easier?"

If there was such a goal, it wasn't and should not be part of the impeachment process. The cognitive trap I see so many friends falling into is "Since everybody only acts in pursuit of a immediately self-serving gain, we should evaluate the entire situation based on this premise"

The House has a job to determine if they think there's enough evidence to warrant further action on the Senate's part, not do some Machievallian plotting to kick the guy out of office. I don't know a lot, but I know that future historians will easily say that the House had grounds to be concerned. End of sentence.

Both parties, and the media, are their own worst enemies here. As an independent observer, we have to do the best we can to remove the immediate inside-baseball drama and try to figure out where the long game is. Otherwise this gets nihilistic fast.