Well, There's A Waste Of Time.

It's my understanding that under the US Constitution. Congressional Impeachment covers two scenarios.

The first is when a Federal employee's employment requires Congressional approval. Such as a cabinet secretary, head of Federal agency. Or Federal Judge etc.

Impeachment allows Congress to revoke that approval. Essentially firing the bugger.

The second scenario relates to a concept Congressional Democrats, along with Democrats more widely, really seem to be struggling with.

They do not get to elect the President. Nor not they get to formally approve or disapprove of the election of the President.

That remains the sole responsibility of the US electorate. Through an election conducted in accordance with the law.

In this scenario; "Presidential Impeachment."  The procedure serves to guard against insurrection. By way of judicial coup d'etat (push of state). 

Essentially a Judge or Prosecutor attempting to oust a lawfully elected President. Simply because they do not agree with his or her policies.

In short. What was very nearly achieved through the Mueller campaign. Or through Eric Ciaramella's agonised squealings.

Having been raised under the British Crown. US law is generally very big on protecting the individual, any individual. From Judges and Prosecutors with an axe to grind.

So except for instances of in flagrante delicto. Where an individual has been "caught in the act." The police, Prosecutors and Judges aren't actually allowed to file a criminal indictment.

Instead they must empanel a Grand Jury. 

If they are convinced there is an allegation to answer then it is the Grand Jury which files the criminal indictment. Which the Prosector then takes trial.

Presidential Impeachment is a wholly unique procedure.

However it is based upon the principal of Judicial Branch of government advising the Legislative branch (Congress). That the Executive branch (The President) may have committed a high crime or misdemeanour.

If the lower house (House of Representatives) is convinced there is an allegation to answer. They then take on the role of Prosecutor. Empanelling the upper house (Senate) to act as a Grand Jury.

If the Senate is also convinced there is a case to answer. They do the equivalent of issuing an indictment. Revoking the President's immunity from prosecution.

As with a Grand Jury this is most certainly not a conviction. It is merely granting the Judicial branch permission to file charges in an attempt to secure a conviction.

It has certainly been robustly alleged. By both the Judicial branch and the Legislative branch. That Donald j. Trump is no longer President. So is, therefore, no longer protected by Presidential immunity from prosecution.

Meaning that there is no need for impeachment.

If the Judicial branch believes there is a criminal case to answer. Then they should be pursuing that through the normal channels of Grand Jury, Indictment and Trial.

Or.

To put it another way;

The Liberals have clearly wasted a fortune shaving monkeys.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristen_Clarke

By now they should have one who at least knows how to lay a charge.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=j0ZYXryL37Q (Nelsons Farewell, The Dubliners, Single, Audio, paddy brennan).

I, for one, would like to see old Bonespurs actually work a day in his life.

On a related note;

Unlike your man Carrie Symonds.

If someone's trained an army of monkeys to pick coconuts.

https://www.peta.org/living/food/coconut-brands-no-forced-monkey-labor/

Then I bloody well want to see monkeys picking coconuts.