No. She had to know it was futile right from the start, particularly when Moscow Mitch didn't even PRETEND to be impartial. I do believe, however, that she was hoping to get witness evidence submitted, air some dirty laundry and show the public what a scoundrel they elected. That didn't happen either (which makes the whole impeachment process farcical - what kind of half-a$$ed trial refuses to hear witness evidence?).
This post was edited by Slartibartfast at February 2, 2020 8:05 AM MST
To answer your question: The kind of "trial" that, if conducted properly, would likely provide incontrovertible evidence mandating Trump's impeachment AND removal from office.
The definition of a trial - "a formal examination of evidence before a judge, and typically before a jury, in order to decide guilt in a case of criminal or civil proceedings."
In this case there were witnesses and no evidence produced. Therefore, there was no trial. Without a trial, Trump can't be exonerated. The impeachment will hang over his presidency until the end of time and I believe that history will not treat Trump kindly.
Slartibartfast 