If McConnell did hold a trial immediately, I doubt it would result in Trump being removed much sooner. Trials take time. Clinton's lasted a month, and Trump's term ends on Wednesday at noon (Seems like years away, right?)
The underlying crime in this case is complicated and will take time to present. (Of course, Clinton's trial was filled with annoying Republican grandstanding about how shocked they were--shocked, I tell you--at Clinton's immoral behavior.
2/
These are different kinds of proceedings.
Even if you could conclude the trial in a week, you wouldn't actually be removing Trump any earlier than the end of his term.
Moreover, rushing a trial seems silly. We need all the evidence presented.
It's important to (1) secure a conviction and (2) make sure the public understands exactly what happened.
You need opening statements, witnesses, exhibits, etc. Trump is allowed to present a defense.
4/
Rushing the trial only makes sense if you know you have the votes to convict. If Senators need to be persuaded, rushing is risky.
The gain (if you COULD rush it and not risk an acquittal) obviously getting Trump out sooner is better.
5/
Who the heck knows what he's going to do, right? He could decide to lay low. Or he could try to steer the conversation to something else by issuing pardons. Or something else.
An advantage to starting next week is that the Republicans won't be running the show.
6/
My feeling too ⤵️
It's important that the trial is done right. It will be a good chance to educate the public.
All indications are that the story is much worse than we know (and what we know is horrific.)
The conservative dilemma, in a nutshell is this: Conservatives tend to represent the wealth and powerful corporations, therefore the policies they advocate are not appealing to the majority of people.
In other words, they will have trouble winning elections.
2/
In the years since 1954, the Republican Party, while calling itself conservative, solved the conservative dilemma by bringing white nationalists and KKK types into the party, coddling them for their votes while trying to keep them on the sidelines.
3/
The problem facing the House Managers (prosecutors):
How to win a conviction when some of the jurors (and judges) are at least partly responsible for the crime?
The answer: they must win first in the Court of Public Opinion, which is where Senate Trials are mostly conducted.
Senate trials are a political-legal hybrid.
They're partly a legal proceeding. It's called a trial, and the authority comes from the Constitution.
But the judges and jurors are elected officials and therefore answer to their constituents.
The framers did this on purpose. . .
. . . they considered giving the trial to the Supreme Court, but instead gave it to Congress. Because the president was elected, they wanted to make sure any conviction had popular support.
. . . after the 20th, there are "constitutional issues."
One possible punishment allowed by the Constitution after a finding of guilt in the impeachment trial is that the president can never again hold office.
By Jim Jordan's reasoning, Congress cannot take steps to prevent a president from running again for office if he leads an armed rebellion against the government during his final days in office (before a trial can take place).