= new reply since forum marked as read
put themselves in front of the media so you have to know something about congress. I've looked up bios that are little but lists of previous positions, impressive perhaps but give little indication of stature within their fields. But government draws a lot of very impressive people who believe in it and want to be at the center of power making things happen. "No one" heard of Lawrence O'Donnell over his 25-years as a top-level senate staffer, only after he left for a media career.
People need to realize that the typical senator has both personal and legislative staffs of several dozen professionals, who include many high-level aides and top experts who specialize in various parts of the legislative process, from research to negotiations with business and the other party, including constitutional issues, healthcare policy, etc. Legislation happens at this level. Congressmen typically have fewer but still in the dozens.
In addition, the house and senate committees have committee staffs similarly filled with many career professionals.
Then you have your caucus and important committee leaders, who of course are able to draw the most and the best available experts to help them do their jobs. When Elijah Cummings, who chaired the powerful house oversight committee, died, O'Donnell said he left a fantastic staff, the staff those of other legislators went to for answers.
And they, of course, also work with top outside experts who prefer the work and kind of money they make outside government but are happy to advise and/or consult.
Which brings us back to these people on TV who keep making pronouncements, always with at least a secondary motive of burnishing their public images of being the best of the best, that they never have to make good on.
Almost by definition the very few experts who've become talking heads for a living, or who otherwise seek attention to keep their brand fresh, are not being consulted and not in the know. Knowledge is power, after all, and insiders have to be very careful about what information they let out to people for whom public attention equals success. Some of the more honest members of the chattering class, like O'Donnell and Chuck Rosenberg, admit that those on the inside don't talk to them and they're no longer in the loop.
Especially in this situation. Notice that no one's reported even a single leak from Pelosi's office.
There were 63 million people who didn't seem to mind that McTurtle denied PRESIDENT OBAMA the right to select a Supreme Court nominee. I'm suspecting that many, if not all, of those same people really have no idea of what justice really is...........
Each of the Articles of Impeachment approved by the Judiciary Committee calls for the "removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States." That can only happen by conviction in the Senate, therefore, if these Articles are approved in the House, they must be submitted to the Senate.
https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20191216/CRPT-116hrpt346.pdf
These discussions are interesting, at least, because they keep a nice chunk of the population engaged in thinking about this impeachment. There is also the possibility that such public brainstorming may come up with something that overworked staffers overlooked. A sort of open source impeachment. 
