It is logical there can be no executive privilege in an impeachment trial, so long as communications alleged to be privileged can be shown to be relevant and necessary to Congress's carrying out its Constitutional role.
It wasn't during the trial and so the gravity is much stronger now. I have outlined the reasons that litigation would take a long long time. The executive privilege portion would take 9 to 12 months as each contested witness would be litigated separately and numerous motions would ensue. It's better just to not have any witnesses, especially new ones, as impeachment was intended to be or to have the parties agree on witnesses. Otherwise, you have an extremely long drawn out case--------which is what the Idiot Dems would like so they can say that you can't elect an impeached president. It's all very transparent what the Idiot Dems are trying to do, starting with Pelosi holding up The Articles from Senate delivery. ----We have tried to educate you, but so far to no avail.
How is it then that The Constitution calls for the standard to be High Crimes and Misdemeanors for removal. ---We run rings 'round you logically.
Again, the constitution is not statutory law. A senate conviction is removal and possible permanent bar from public office. The senate cannot convict anyone of a crime. In Federalist 65 Hamilton explained impeachment. He defined impeachable offenses as “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.” You’re not running rings around anyone. You’re running in circles back to the wrong basis of argument. Further, Associate Justice Joseph Story wrote: “In the few cases of impeachment, which have hitherto been tried, no one of the charges has rested upon any statutable misdemeanors. It seems, then, to be the settled doctrine of the high court of impeachment, that though the common law cannot be a foundation of a jurisdiction not given by the Constitution, or laws, that jurisdiction, when given, attaches, and is to be exercised, according to the rules of the common law; and that, what are, and what are not, high crimes and misdemeanors, is to be ascertained by a recurrence to that great basis of American jurisprudence. The reasoning, by which the power of the House of Representatives to punish for contempts (which are breaches of privileges, and offences not defined by any positive laws) has been upheld by the Supreme Court, stands upon similar grounds; for if the House had no jurisdiction to punish for contempts, until the acts had been previously defined, and ascertained by positive law, it is clear, that the process of arrest would be illegal.
Further: “In the few cases of impeachment, which have hitherto been tried, no one of the charges has rested upon any statutable misdemeanors. It seems, then, to be the settled doctrine of the high court of impeachment, that though the common law cannot be a foundation of a jurisdiction not given by the Constitution, or laws, that jurisdiction, when given, attaches, and is to be exercised, according to the rules of the common law; and that, what are, and what are not, high crimes and misdemeanors, is to be ascertained by a recurrence to that great basis of American jurisprudence. The reasoning, by which the power of the House of Representatives to punish for contempts (which are breaches of privileges, and offences not defined by any positive laws) has been upheld by the Supreme Court, stands upon similar grounds; for if the House had no jurisdiction to punish for contempts, until the acts had been previously defined, and ascertained by positive law, it is clear, that the process of arrest would be illegal.
Yet, when The Constitution was ratified, impeachment was defined by High Crimes and Misdemeanors. ---You guys will go to any lengths to cherry pick snippets that feed your current narrative. You have no clue with regard to this subject.