interestingly you say in your article, i'd like you to explain this, the senate it's not clear would have to conduct a trial? >> well, clearly the writers of the constitution envisioned that the next step would be the senate would conduct a trial, but there's no enforcement mechanism. there's no court that can order them to do it if they refuse to. and it raises the question of what happens if mitch mcconnell garlands this. remember in 2016 he refused to even hold a hearing ire vote on president trump's judicial supreme court nominee, merrick garland. what if he does that here? or what if they simply gavel the thing closed without hearing any evidence right away? it could be done. it's not clear what would stop it if they have the will, the power to do that without holding a real trial. as a matter of real politic it's very unlikely the result would be trum is removed from office. there's no sign republicans are breaking ranks. anywhere near at all, really. anywhere near the numbers that would be necessary to get to that 2/3 majority. and so that raises the question democrats have been having, which is is it worth doing this,