The inanity of much of what Prof. Dershowitz has espoused was recently rebutted quite effectively in a response
OpEd in Bloomberg which was penned by Ramesh Ponnuru who is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist and a senior editor at National Review, I repeat AT NATIONAL REVIEW.
As to the so called tactics - if you were to put the process in the lens of the criminal process (which it doesn't rise to) it is akin to the Grand Jury charging process. They are closed hearings,
sworn to secrecy, no right by defendant to attend, no right for attorneys of defendant to attend, no right for outsiders to question witnesses, no right to prior notice to defendant of potential witnesses or testimony or evidence or even the convening of the investigation, no right of confrontation, no proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard, hearsay admissibility - all clearly acceptable and Constitutional where not only a job is at risk but where incarceration for life and even a death penalty can be imposed.
Arguing the process almost inevitably means that arguing the facts has already proven to been unsuccessful.
Ultimately, I expect that the President is impeached, that the facts become clear through formalized hearings and a Senate trial for removal (but are never admitted by Trump supporters despite their obviousness), that sufficient Republican Senators hold their nose and vote their party loyalty in the political venue that impeachment is and acquit.
I at least would have respect for the nose holders who simply say that while they may disagree with things that were done they simply don't believe that the acts rise to the level of removal. Ok, that's certainly a position that I can see as being honest and not unconscionable as opposed to those who refuse to look at what occurred through a lens of fairness and accuracy.
