Alexander has a truly novel reason why no witnesses are necessary – we already know Trump is guilty AF! (But that is not grounds for removal.)

The logic goes like this:

* There’s no doubt that Trump did what he is accused of
* Therefore, we need no more witnesses or evidence. It’s proven.
* But what he did does not merit removal.

Honest to God, I’m not kidding. That really is his argument. See the Tweet below. Overwhelmed by a mountain of uncontradicted facts, and still intending to vote against removal, some GOP senators have obviously decided to salve their consciences with the “Yeah, he did it, but it’s not impeachable!” argument.

That’s actually a pretty clever position. Weaselly, but brilliant, because it allows them to vote “nay” on removal and “nay” on witnesses while avoiding the accusation of a cover-up. In essence: “When we voted to exclude witnesses, that was no cover-up. We already knew what he did, so what did we need additional proof for? But even given our knowledge that he did everything he is accused of, we can’t agree that it reaches the bar for removal from office.”

The reason that position is so brilliant is that it is defensible. What Trump actually did is not a matter of opinion. It’s a fact. He did it. There’s overwhelming proof. But whether that is sufficient grounds for removal IS a matter of opinion because the Constitution leaves plenty of wiggle room. People can argue that Trump has committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” or they can argue that he has not, and scholars could debate this ad infinitum with erudite references to the Federalist Papers and citations from precedents, but no matter how long they argue, neither side can say “The definition of a removable offense is completely clear.”