Point being, a reasonable person might regard it as unfair, in that witnesses were not called, so on and so forth. A bug-eyed batshit Trumpivik might regard is as unfair because. So, both opinions fall under that response, for very different reasons. Like, reasons.
The way I see it, Mr. Hamilton was explaining why we can’t have the Supreme Court decide whether the President should be convicted and removed. In the course of doing so, he writes that it would be pointless to have two trials in the same court because “the objects of prosecution would, in a great measure, be deprived of the double security intended them by a double trial.”
The implication is that having two trials is intended to provide double the security, to the President. Having both trials before the same court removes that security, thus defeating the purpose of having two trials. This is a direct answer to your question, “[t]hen why two trials? And particularly, why two trials even when run by a genuine court of law?”
Whether or not the Senate or the Supreme Court is better suited for criminal trials is besides the point.
No, I don’t see that. Where did Mr. Hamilton give a reason to not hold a criminal trial in Congress? Are you and I using different definitions of “criminal trial”?
In my view, the Senate gets to try the President for high crimes and misdemeanors. By definition, a trial of crimes and misdemeanors is a criminal trial. True, the President doesn’t have a right to be tried by jury after being impeached. But this exception is literally written into the Constitution, “The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury[…]”
So, going by my own thoughts, you would have to show me where Mr. Hamilton argues that the Senate should not hold trials for high crimes and misdemeanors. Then I would agree that he gave a reason to not hold a criminal trial in Congress.
Obviously, Federalist No. 65 contains no passage that can satisfy your claim under my definitions. So, could you elaborate exactly what you mean when you write “criminal trial”? As it stands, your argument makes no sense to me.
You asked why we have two trials, and now you are saying you won’t accept an answer unless it admits that one trial would be sufficient. You are begging the question.
The accused wouldn’t have the double security of two trials if there was only one trial, therefore we have two. The double security is the value added.
I don’t know how much clearer I can make this. There are two trials to provide the accused with double protection. It says so, right there in Federalist 65,
“Those who know anything of human nature, will not hesitate to answer these questions in the affirmative; and will be at no loss to perceive, that by making the same persons judges in both cases, those who might happen to be the objects of prosecution would, in a great measure, be deprived of the double security intended them by a double trial.”
I do not mean to imply that you know nothing of human nature, given my age there is a good chance that you know much more about human nature than I do. Rather I think you are asking the wrong question.
Look, I have a pretty good guess on what you’re really after. Why do we need the double security of two criminal trials? The answer is that even the Senate “will, at certain seasons,” be subject to the “demon of faction”. Why not just have one criminal trial before the Supreme Court? Because 1) the Supreme Court can’t be trusted with such a power, and 2) the Supreme Court doesn’t have the necessary credibility. It’s all right there in Federalist 65.
~Max
Get on board the Trump train or continue to be a loser.
Gettin’ crazy with the cheez whiz!
I just read nearly all your 59 posts over the last few years. That’s four minutes of my life I’ll never get back. 
Can we put a stake through this thread, if only so I don’t have to watch Max S spam the hell out of it? Trial’s over.
PM sent to mods for possible closure of the thread.
Yeah. Concur.
Move on, people. There are votes happening.