Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota made an important point early in the Democratic presidential debate when she acknowledged that one could believe certain conduct is “impeachable,” but still at least try to maintain formal objectivity until all the evidence and arguments have been presented.

Klobuchar gave everyone a bit of a civics lesson by saying there are good, formal reasons for senators to withhold final judgment on whether President Trump should be removed from office until the Senate actually holds a trial. She spoke, not quite literally but by very close analogy, about senators’ “job as jurors” that involves actually listening to the evidence. Even if senators are largely convinced that Trump’s conduct merits removal, they should strive to keep an open mind — and, at least as importantly, they should maintain a public show of at least attempting impartiality.

Yes, for partisan politicians, the show of impartiality might be largely a facade. In this case, though, even if it is a facade, it is one worth maintaining for the sake of the solemnity of the process. A public nod toward propriety maintains an important ideal. This is one of the rare examples when it is both true and appropriate to uphold the old saying that, at least to a small extent, “hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue.”

In these circumstances, the tribute itself also helps inculcate a mindset that promotes fairness and thoughtfulness.

Meanwhile, it’s not even really hypocrisy if the politician is transparent about what she is doing and thinking. In this case, Klobuchar was entirely transparent. She noted that she has been very clear in saying, and still believes, that Trump’s conduct has been impeachable. She thus set out a marker that says what her standards are, and that she believes Trump has failed to meet them.

On the other hand, for the House to impeach someone is different from the Senate’s job of deciding whether the president should be removed. The first question is really more one of whether the facts suggest that the president did certain improper acts. The Senate, though, must decide the larger question not just of the facts, but of whether the impropriety, if proved, actually merits the punishment of eviction from office.