That was no 'Trial'; it was a 'contest' between 'Ideologies' and 'Party loyaly'.

That was no Trial; it was a contest between Ideologues and Party Loyalty. How did anyone expect 'Party Ideology' to vote against itself? The 'Representatives' have already 'separated' and each has formed their own 'Party Preferences'. It should have been a search for the 'Truth' and for 'Competence' and that doesn't have anything to do with 'Party Lines'. I don't mean 'Political Preferences', I mean 'Truth'. How could an 'Ideologue' go against His/Her own Party Ideology? Some did. The Highest Political Offices in the Land and they turned it into some 'Political Contest' about voting along 'Party Line' instead of voting for the 'Truth'. Even the 'United Nations' appears to know the Truth. 'Party Loyalty' had no part to play in this scenario. It was not supposed to be a Political Contest between the 'Parties', it dealt with Political 'Behavior', human behavior. Usually, Politics 'seeps' into 'Normal Conversations'; this was a case where 'Human Behavior seeped' into 'Politics' and that 'says more' than any 'Party Ideology'. A perfect example that 'Human Behavior'; 'Decency'; and 'competence' qualifies a 'Representative' for 'Public Office', not Party Ideology. Politicians consider 'Party Ideology' as some 'inflexible criteria' for putting 'Public labels on themselves' and then refusing to step outside the Label. Being 'locked' into 'Party Loyalty' destroys 'Human Decency' and 'Real Political Understanding'. Where are the Real Politicians?