Bill Cosby, years ago, used to do a bit called the coin toss;
“Okay, the Americans can wear whatever they want, shoot from behind the rocks and trees and everywhere, and the British have to wear red and march in a straight line…”
If what we saw during this impeachment fiasco …(..where, in spite of the claim that no one is above the law, we saw that the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, violated…) …is of any indication …this is what Nancy Pelosi calls “fairness”. This was my first thought when I read Tyler O’Neill over at PJM : 
On Thursday, the House of Representatives adjourned before voting to send the articles of impeachment to the U.S. Senate for a trial. This made House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s stall-tactic official — Democrats are refusing to forward the impeachment to the Senate until they receive assurances the trial will be fair in their eyes.
First of all, this is by definition an abuse of power, to say nothing of being unconstitutional. Forgive me, but I don’t recall ever having been told that in an impeachment process there was supposed to be a negotiation between the houses of Congress. The Constitution clearly lays out that the Senate has the sole impeachment power. Which means of course that Nancy Pelosi and her wandering band of Stalinist hacks have nothing to say about it.
That’s because the Constitution is absolutely clear about the Senate’s authority. Article I, Section 3 says: “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.”
If Pelosi refuses to submit the articles of impeachment to the Senate, McConnell can convene the Senate anyway, summon the Chief Justice, and swear in the Senators as jurors. Democrats can boycott, but they can’t stop the trial.
Of course the only problem with that is that our supposedly unbiased news media will never cover such a trial, or if they do it certainly won’t be with the same vigor as when they operated as an extension of the Democrat party during the House hearings. ( There’s that fairness thing again.)
Remember …in the eyes of the Democrats and it’s only “fair” if it promotes the Democrat position.
Let’s call this what it is. The reason the Democrats are playing this game is, they know that in an actual fair trial they’d be laughed out of the building. There is no advantage to their position and ultimately to their politics without being able to make the rules.
So why pursue this at all? They must have seen this end game coming months ago. I have to admit I’m slowly coming around to Mark Levin’s idea  on this one.
The reasoning, as raised by one of Levin’s neighbors in a conversation, is that should an opening on the high court occur in the near future, the Democrats can refuse to vote for any justice selected by an “impeached president.”
There is no depth to which Democrats won’t go to promote their murderous politics.