Teresa Hanafin summarizes the impeachment proceedings, which should be called a “trial,” but since the Republicans voted in lockstep to allow no evidence and no witnesses, it would be better not to use the word “trial.” Hanafin writes the Fast Forward daily commentary for the Boston Globe.

Trump’s impeachment trial on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress continues at 1 p.m., with House Democrats starting their three days of arguments as to why Trump should be convicted and removed from office.

After some Republicans prevailed upon Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to loosen up the impossibly strict schedule he had proposed, which would have required 12-hour days. The new schedule will have 8-hour days and look like this:

Today through Friday: House Democrats’ arguments
Saturday, Monday, and Tuesday: Trump’s lawyers’ arguments
Wednesday and Thursday, Jan. 29-30: Questions from senators
Friday, Jan. 31: Debate on whether to debate on whether to vote to call witnesses. (No, that’s not a typo.) Given that the GOP isn’t interested in hearing any new evidence or from any witnesses who Trump blocked from testifying in the House, it’s likely the GOP will simply vote to acquit.

Honestly, I don’t know why they just don’t vote right now, except for the fact that Democrats have another chance to make their case to the American people that Trump is hopelessly corrupt.

Remember, McConnell is under strict orders from Dear Leader to get this over quickly, especially before Trump’s State of the Union address on Tuesday, Feb. 4, or else he’ll make McConnell cry by calling him a mean name on Twitter.

Yesterday’s session was a study in contrasts: The House managers came equipped with facts, documents, charts, video, just a ton of evidence to support their impeachment charges. The president’s lawyers didn’t mount a defense — perhaps they believe Trump’s actions are indefensible. Instead, they just attacked the House managers and the impeachment process.

And every Republican senator voted against every House amendment seeking to call witnesses or collect new documents blocked by Trump before arguments begin. Maine’s Susan Collins broke ranks to vote to give both sides more than two hours to respond to a motion. But even that failed.

At least Trump’s lawyers helped us all realize just how different this impeachment trial is from a real trial. For example, unlike in a traditional courtroom, Trump’s attorneys will suffer no sanctions for lying on the floor of the Senate.

White House counsel Pat Cipollone claimed that no Republicans were allowed into the closed-door hearings in the House when depositions were being taken from witnesses. Not sure where he dreamed up that whopper, but every Republican member of the three committees holding those hearings was there. (If they chose to attend, that is. Many didn’t.)

And Trump’s personal attorney, Jay Sekulow, lied when he told the senators that House Democrats refused to let Trump cross-examine witnesses. In truth, Trump’s lawyers could have cross-examined to their heart’s content, but Trump rejected the offer.

Meanwhile, “pettifogging” is my new favorite word. After Trump’s lawyers attacked House managers by name, and House manager Jerry Nadler called Trump a liar and accused GOP senators of being part of a coverup, Chief Justice John Roberts admonished both sides to act more civilly. And to emphasize his point, he referred to the impeachment trial of Charles Swayne, a judge who was impeached in 1904 and acquitted by the Senate in 1905.

“In the 1905 Swayne trial, a senator objected when one of the managers used the word ‘pettifogging’ and the presiding officer said the word ought not to have been used,” Roberts said. “I don’t think we need to aspire to that high of a standard, but I do think those addressing the Senate should remember where they are.”

Merriam-Webster defines a “pettifogger” as a lawyer whose methods are petty, underhanded, or disreputable. Sounds like a word we should resurrect.