That is a nice appeal to authority you have there. It would be a shame if some one were to point out it was a
logical fallacy.
Just following in your footsteps, when you asked me if I knew more than a Harvard law professor. Then unironically, you went and argued with a Harvard law professor of a more senior ranking.
My quoted section infers just as much of my personal conclusion as your quoted section does to yours, but of course you REALLY want to be right so, reality bends to your will.
How can The Senate try an impeachment that didn't happen? Exactly my point. You want to have your cake and eat it too. Either it did happen and The Senate must be allowed to move it to trial, or it didn't happen and the articles haven't yet been transmitted to The Senate. Good job proving yourself wrong there Nutilduuuhhhh.
None of this has anything to do with anything. It's not a logical argument, just more barking worm tactics.
Just for fun, have some precedent:
"(b) The language and structure of Art. I, 3, cl. 6, demonstrate a textual commitment of impeachment to the Senate. Nixon's argument that the use of the word "try" in the Clause's first sentence impliedly requires a judicial-style trial by the full Senate that is subject to judicial review is rejected. The conclusion that "try" lacks sufficient precision to afford any judicially manageable standard of review is compelled by older and modern dictionary definitions, and is fortified by the existence of the three very specific requirements that the Clause's second and third sentences do impose - that the Senate's Members must be under oath or affirmation, that a two-thirds vote is required to convict, and [506 U.S. 224, 225] that the Chief Justice presides when the President is tried - the precise nature of which suggests that the Framers did not intend to impose additional limitations on the form of the Senate proceedings. The Clause's first sentence must instead be read as a grant of authority to the Senate to determine whether an individual should be acquitted or convicted, and the commonsense and dictionary meanings of the word "sole" indicate that this authority is reposed in the Senate alone."
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/506/224.htmlNot a precedent. As the house never voted on Nixon's articles of impeachment, no precedent could have possibly been set.
From
House Resolution 755:
Resolved, That Donald John Trump, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/us/trump-feldman-impeach.htmlJonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University and the sole scholar invited by Republicans to testify against impeachment at that hearing, also disagreed with Professor Feldman.
Mr. Trump was impeached on Wednesday, Professor Turley said. Article I, Section 2 says that the House shall have the sole power of impeachment. It says nothing about a requirement of referral to complete that act.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/04/us/politics/jonathan-turley.htmlWho Is Jonathan Turley? Republicans Lone Expert on Impeachment
The thought of resting your argument on an academic exercise will be finally laid to rest early next year. You're wrong now, and you'll be wrong then, too.