The impeachment proceedings initiated and conducted by the House of Representatives now under review by the United States Senate are an insult to the intelligence and fair-mindedness of the American public.

Over the past week, we learned that the very same people who failed to follow established procedures for validating the impeachment investigation and vesting it with requisite judicial authority conducted secretive hearings characterized by inequitable witness selection; denied "the defendant" any cross-examination of witnesses; coached witness testimony; and, among a host of other questionable behaviors, failed to follow their own heavily skewed rules and protocols for allowing the minority party participation now demand that the Senate adopt and follow their own duplicitous methodologies and corrupt way of thinking.

It doesn't take a constitutional scholar or legal genius to comprehend the depth and breadth of the false allegations and lies underpinning the articles of impeachment themselves.

But there are serious consequences inherent in capitulating to the House managers and entertaining the idea of additional witness testimony that senators from both parties should consider with utmost sincerity and impartiality.  In particular, three key aspects of the flawed impeachment — outside the procedural atrocities cited above and so eloquently set forth by the president's defense team — demand a quick and prejudicial acquittal of President Donald Trump.

First, allowing additional witnesses is an affront to Republican members of the House of Representatives, who suffered through endless hours of one-sided proceedings while being denied the slightest attempt at fair and equitable opportunity to explore and investigate the allegations contained in the original whistleblower complaint.  This despite the president's release of the call transcript that indicates that no crime or abuse of power took place.

Allowing the Democrats, who were too lazy and beset by guile to perform the duties and tasks devolving upon them, an opportunity to further sully the impeachment process is a slap in the face to their colleagues in the House, who fought tooth and nail for a fair and proper impeachment investigation.  At the very least, senators should vote down witnesses, dismiss the articles as presently drafted, and compel House managers to go back and conduct a legitimate investigation that includes public hearing of witness testimony and cross-examination.

Second, moving forward based on existing speculative and highly subjective evidence is an affront to the leaders of Ukraine.  The president of Ukraine and other leaders have publicly expressed that there was no pressure, no coercion, no quid pro quo associated with the assistance.  Moreover, the facts demonstrate that the funds were released and relations furthered without any investigation of Burisma, the Bidens, CrowdStrike, or any of the other nefarious goings-on surrounding U.S. involvement in Ukraine corruption.

Dismissing the public statements of Ukraine leaders will do far more damage to the credibility and trustworthiness of U.S. foreign relations than anything President Trump is accused of doing.

Finally, allowing the House managers to expand on already suspect allegations is an affront to the American people.  The American people overwhelmingly elected Donald Trump as an outsider determined to root out corruption, waste, and selective enforcement of laws and regulations they must obey without exception.  The House failed completely in proving a crime beyond any reasonable doubt and certainly have put forth nothing even close to an impeachable offense.  Moreover, the public, like House Republicans, was denied a fair hearing of the evidence, especially if additional witnesses are warranted — and they are.  No one in his right mind would want to be subjected to a similar "guilty by accusation" procedure.

I for one would welcome further exploration of witness testimony — especially that of the supposed whistleblower; ICIG Michael Atkinson (whose deposition is the only transcript not publicly released); members of Adam Schiff's staff (specifically Sean Misko, a former White House NSC staffer); and Representative Adam Schiff, whose self-proclaimed love for and commitment to truth would be interesting to probe under oath.  But the Senate chamber is not the place where such testimony should originate.

If senators on both sides of the aisle allow House managers to skate on their responsibilities and do not hold them accountable for conducting a half-baked, biased, and incomplete impeachment process, there will be dire consequences.  As Jay Sekulow intoned: "Danger, danger, danger."

Image: Gage Skidmore via Flickr.