Impeachment is more important than jury nullification because it involves the President of the United States. Not that your analogy is bad, but there is a distinction to be drawn. BOTH trial by jury and the mechanism for impeachment (as well as making the latter so difficult) were intended by the Founders to be checks against the powers of government.

In the matter of presidential power, a better route would be to curb the very excessive power of the presidency which resulted in an insurrection at the Capitol and may have fell one step short of martial law. If you don’t believe how close we came to this, read The War After the Election https://medium.com/illumination-curated/the-war-after-the-election-545de96aa4ca?sk=627c55d616d9296af3e398f1686493a4[] which lays it out, and which also suggests an alternative to the impeachment which is still a viable option to achieve the same results; as well as presents legislation that could get to the root of the problem by curbing presidential power.

Your article brings up and puts into context some very good points that I had not been aware of in quite the same way before. If you want to get what jury nullification (and Trump’s acquittal) FEELS like from the perspective of some of the historically aggrieved groups you mention, let me suggest H. Michael Harvey’s excellent recent Medium article There is No Justification for Ratifying Injustice [https://hmichaelharvey.medium.com/there-is-no-justification-for-ratifying-injustice-acd68bd26cf0].