A “sham trial” would only follow a sham impeachment, one in which House Democrats prioritized the electoral calendar over their investigative responsibilities. All this does is signal just how weak the case is for impeachment in the first place, but Schumer seems convinced that this weakness is a great way to peel Republicans away from Mitch McConnell. The Hill reports this as Schumer’s wedge strategy:

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), backed by members of his caucus, is working to put Republicans in a bind and drive a wedge between GOP leaders, who say they don’t want witnesses, and a handful of moderate and retiring senators viewed by Democrats as persuadable on procedure.

Schumer — who has been hitting the interview circuit to try to gain traction — lashed out at McConnell on Wednesday for saying he won’t be an “impartial juror” and stressed that decisions in the trial rest with individual senators, not the GOP leader.

“Each individual senator will have the power, will have the responsibility to help shape what an impeachment trial will look like. Do my Republican colleagues want a fair, honest trial that examines all the facts, or do they want to participate in the cover-up?” Schumer asked.

It might be working as a wedge strategy, but against Senate Democrats rather than Republicans. As Allahpundit wrote last night, West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin has asked the obvious question in response to Schumer. If it was this important to impeachment to hear from these witnesses, why didn’t Adam Schiff go to court to enforce his subpoenas?

“How do you have trial without witnesses? Tell me. How do you have a trial if you can’t get the facts out?” Manchin said. “So, some how, way, shape or form, even if it’s in a deposition, they should be sworn in under oath and make sure they tell the truth.”

“I don’t know why the House … didn’t go to court. You know, why they didn’t go after these witnesses that are so pertinent to the whole accusation. That makes it very difficult,” Manchin told CQ Roll Call. Manchin specifically referenced acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and former national security adviser John Bolton as witnesses who should’ve been pursued.

Manchin’s actually being a little cagier here than one might think. On one hand, he’s agreeing with Schumer that a trial should have the witnesses Schumer wants, but he’s also suggesting that the House dropped the ball for political purposes. Manchin might not be as apt to vote for a quick dismissal as Republicans might think. However, Schumer’s problem is that it’s Manchin swaying in the wind and not Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, and/or Lisa Murkowski. That’s because moderate Senate Democrats in red states are not going to be eager to align themselves with a weak, cooked-up case just to benefit the rabid anti-Trumpers in their caucus.

That cuts both ways, too; the more Schumer publicly talks down the extant case for impeachment, the less likely any Senate Republicans are to sway. Schumer’s only hope for a wedge was a bulletproof case from the House on removal, not for a half-baked case that requires CPR from McConnell.  That’s why McConnell is smart to wrap himself in the 1999 trial rules that won unanimous approval for handling Bill Clinton’s impeachment. Schumer still isn’t providing an answer for why those rules worked for Clinton’s trial but won’t work for Trump’s. The inconvenient answer is that the Clinton impeachment was far more legitimate and based in fact and testimony than Trump’s, the defect that Schumer wants McConnell to fix.

Finally, on Schumer’s point about “impartial jurors,” keep an eye on tonight’s Democratic presidential debate. How many of the sitting Senate Democrats will endorse Trump’s impeachment? I’ll have more on this later today, but four Senate Democrats outright endorsed impeachment in last month’s debate, on stage and on national television, which renders the impartiality demand moot.