Maybe I Shouldn't Bother

Ainsley Earhardt on impeachment: "When a prosecutor brings a case against someone and then refuses to try it, can't that person constitutionally dismiss the charges?"

Andrew Napolitano: "There's no prosecutor and no case being brought."

Ainsley: "But isn't it the same thing?" pic.twitter.com/g9sK6RGM4D

— Bobby Lewis (@revrrlewis) January 7, 2020

But Napolitano goes on to justify his argument by saying impeachment is a "political process," so there is no prosecution involved.  That's way too close to Marco Rubio's argument that the Senate can only consider what the House considered for impeachment, and McConnell's argument that the Senate can run the trial the way the White House wants it run (which the White House can't decide on, based on Trump's tweets which run the gamut from "dismissal NOW!" to a trial with testimony from Joe and Hunter Biden and the whistleblower.).

Impeachment is inherently political, but that doesn't make it extra-legal.  It is wholly legal, since it is a wholly Constitutional process and the Constitution is the law of the land.  What impeachment is not, is a judicial process.  It is not conducted by, nor subject to oversight from, Art. III courts; this includes the Supreme Court.  The Chief Justice sits as the Presiding Officer, but that's to be sure the entire government is involved in the process and everyone's check is balanced.  It does not mean the rulings of the Presiding Officer are subject to review by the other Justices; and there is no appeal from an impeachment decision, nor does the 5th Amendment double-jeopardy clause apply to impeachment.

So it's legal; but it's not judicial.