The Impeachment of Donald Trump.

[Broomstick]

How many Republican senators are up for reelection this time ?

As always: one third.

[Broomstick]

There are no words for this.

Yes, there are. Here they are:

This is the way Trump has always done business.

That is how he was as a private CEO - you either give him loyalty and obedience or you're fired. Why the hell anyone ever thought he'd be different after being elected president I haven't a clue.

The difference is that you can leave a private employer and get a job elsewhere. When the leader of a nation decides you're his personal chew-toy and can bring all the power of a government against you, though, you're fucked.

[The Romulan Republic]

There are no words for this.

Yes, there are. Here they are:

This is the way Trump has always done business.

That is how he was as a private CEO - you either give him loyalty and obedience or you're fired. Why the hell anyone ever thought he'd be different after being elected president I haven't a clue.

The difference is that you can leave a private employer and get a job elsewhere. When the leader of a nation decides you're his personal chew-toy and can bring all the power of a government against you, though, you're fucked.

Its not just "be loyal to Trump or be fired", though- its the President making threats against officials not loyal to him over the law.

We have a mafia boss, in a very literal sense, as our President.

[bilateralrope]

How many Republican senators are up for reelection this time ?

As always: one third.

One third of the total senate. How many of those are Republicans ?

[houser2112]

How many Republican senators are up for reelection this time ?

As always: one third.

One third of the total senate. How many of those are Republicans ?

This is a good article on the subject.

[Mange]

Trump threatened the former Ambassador to the Ukraine:

A minor quibble: It's not "the Ukraine", it's "Ukraine". "The Ukraine" was how Ukraine was referred to by the Russians when it was a Soviet republic.

[The Romulan Republic]

Noted.

Funny thing: there is no law requiring all Senators to be present for a vote (IIRC the quorum is 51). So, theoretically, a few dozen Republicans who don't like Trump but don't have the guts to go against him could find reasons to be out of the capitol on the day of the vote, giving Democrats a two-thirds majority of those present, and there would be fuck-all that Moscow Mitch could do about it.

Likely? No. But its an amusing thought. I do expect there will be at least a few who find excuses to dodge that vote, if probably not enough to change the outcome.

[The Romulan Republic]

So, they're rushing to an impeachment vote before the House adjourns for Christmas. No testimony from Bolton, Pompeo, or Giuliani, although to be fair, the evidence laid out already is quite damning to anyone who isn't a servitor of the Cult of Trump.

I'm skeptical this is wise, and its pretty obviously down to wanting to get their Senators back on the campaign trail as fast as possible, but at least its happening. This likely means a trial in January in the Senate.

The immediate question now is whether the articles will be limited to narrowly focussing on the Ukraine phone call and coverup, or will include things like obstruction from the Mueller Report, other instances of abuse of power/contempt of Congress, the emoluments clause violations, etc.

[houser2112]

They're not going to get those guys to testify without a lengthy court battle that they might not win. It would be nice if it would happen, but as you say, there's already enough damning evidence. I don't think there are many, if any, Seantors that would be moved by testimony by Bolton/Pompeo/Giuliani that haven't been moved already. The Republicans have made their bed, now they must lie in it. As far as the timing, I don't think it's as much because of the primaries as it is the general election. You don't want to risk the trial going past the general.

[Alferd Packer]

I thought that Pelosi's just following the Newt Gingrich playbook. They formally adopted the articles of impeachment for Clinton on December 19th, meaning the entire Christmas/New Year's break was spent dwelling on the his malfeasance. The trial didn't start until January 7th.

[Knife]

They're not going to get those guys to testify without a lengthy court battle that they might not win. It would be nice if it would happen, but as you say, there's already enough damning evidence. I don't think there are many, if any, Seantors that would be moved by testimony by Bolton/Pompeo/Giuliani that haven't been moved already. The Republicans have made their bed, now they must lie in it. As far as the timing, I don't think it's as much because of the primaries as it is the general election. You don't want to risk the trial going past the general.

You still might get them if Trump is dumb enough to call witness for him in the Senate.

[houser2112]

They're not going to get those guys to testify without a lengthy court battle that they might not win. It would be nice if it would happen, but as you say, there's already enough damning evidence. I don't think there are many, if any, Seantors that would be moved by testimony by Bolton/Pompeo/Giuliani that haven't been moved already. The Republicans have made their bed, now they must lie in it. As far as the timing, I don't think it's as much because of the primaries as it is the general election. You don't want to risk the trial going past the general.

You still might get them if Trump is dumb enough to call witness for him in the Senate.

Perhaps, but TRR was talking specifically about them testifying to the House committees before the floor vote on articles of impeachment.

[Broomstick]

There's a part of me that thinks the most likely strategy for getting the "three amigos" to testify is to make noises that the Democrats fear their testimony. Nothing is more likely to get Trump to either allow or outright order those guys to speak up.

[bilateralrope]

There is also the matter of Trump's financial records. The court cases to get hold of them could be completed by next week if the Supreme Court refuses to hear them.

[The Romulan Republic]

There is also the matter of Trump's financial records. The court cases to get hold of them could be completed by next week if the Supreme Court refuses to hear them.

Oh I do hope we finally get to see that orange fuck's tax returns. Even if there's nothing in them more damning than what we already know, at this point I want to see them just on principle, and just to spite the shitbag after how hard he's tried to keep them quiet.

[Knife]

There is also the matter of Trump's financial records. The court cases to get hold of them could be completed by next week if the Supreme Court refuses to hear them.

Oh I do hope we finally get to see that orange fuck's tax returns. Even if there's nothing in them more damning than what we already know, at this point I want to see them just on principle, and just to spite the shitbag after how hard he's tried to keep them quiet.

To boot, there is a whistle blower out there from IRS currently working it's way through the court/congress too.

[bilateralrope]

There is also the matter of Trump's financial records. The court cases to get hold of them could be completed by next week if the Supreme Court refuses to hear them.

Oh I do hope we finally get to see that orange fuck's tax returns. Even if there's nothing in them more damning than what we already know, at this point I want to see them just on principle, and just to spite the shitbag after how hard he's tried to keep them quiet.

To boot, there is a whistle blower out there from IRS currently working it's way through the court/congress too.

That and one podcast I listen to keeps reminding listeners that Trump was more concerned with putting his person into the Treasury than he was with the DOJ.

There is something there that he is scared about being revealed.

[The_Saint]

..snip..
There is something there that he is scared about being revealed.

You know, I wouldn't be surprised if it was simply "his wealth". To a regular person it's personal but it's not debilitating if people find out how much you're worth ... to a businessman that's everything.

[The Romulan Republic]

Interesting thought: while I very much doubt it'll be enough to get a conviction, the Senate vote might be closer than we tend to think- I wouldn't be surprised if a number of Republicans simply find excuses to be absent for the vote (ie the coward's way out of a no-win situation).

On the flip-side, I wouldn't be surprised if Manchin and Doug Jones do too, but more Republicans have a motive to avoid this vote at all costs.

It would have to be a lot to change the outcome, but IIRC conviction requires only 2/3rds of those present, and only half the Senate need be present to conduct business. In which case the theoretical minimum needed to convict is, in fact, 34 (if 50 Senators were absent).

Another possibility I've seen bandied about is that they won't convict and remove, but go for the wishy-washy "compromise" option of formally censuring Trump but leaving him in office. This is apparently something the Senate can do, albeit not something they have done to a PotUS in about two centuries.

[bilateralrope]

..snip..
There is something there that he is scared about being revealed.

You know, I wouldn't be surprised if it was simply "his wealth". To a regular person it's personal but it's not debilitating if people find out how much you're worth ... to a businessman that's everything.

I've been hearing about Trump giving different numbers for valuations, occupancy rates to IRS and investors. Blatant tax fraud that becomes undeniable with his financials revealed.

[The Romulan Republic]

Word is the House will reveal its articles of impeachment tomorrow.

We're finally here.

[The Romulan Republic]

https://cnn.com/2019/12/09/politics/jud ... index.html

(CNN)House Democrats plan to move forward with at least two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Tuesday, one on abuse of power and the other obstruction of Congress, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter.

Democrats plan to unveil the articles of impeachment Tuesday morning and will begin debate on them in the Judiciary Committee on Thursday, the sources said. Late Monday night, House Democrats announced a news conference for 9 a.m. ET Tuesday on Capitol Hill to share the next steps in the impeachment inquiry.
At a private meeting Monday night with Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her leadership team, Democrats debated whether to also include another article of obstruction of justice that details the allegations in the Mueller report. While there are advocates for this approach, one source familiar with the discussions said it appeared that getting the necessary votes to pass the article of obstruction of justice out of the House could be difficult, as moderate Democrats have resisted moving beyond the narrow scope of Ukraine.
But even if Democrats don't include a separate article on obstruction of justice, they are expected to include references to the Mueller allegations in the other articles to show that Trump's misconduct was part of a larger pattern, according to the sources.
The articles have not been finalized, the sources said, and discussions continued late Monday evening ahead of Tuesday's announcement.
Leaving Pelosi's office Monday evening, House Foreign Affairs Chairman Eliot Engel of New York told reporters there would be an announcement Tuesday morning to lay out articles of impeachment. The announcement will be made by the key Democratic chairs -- Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler of New York, Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff of California, Financial Services Chairwoman Maxine Waters of California and Oversight Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney of New York.
"This is not a happy day," Engel said, "but I think we are doing what we have to do."
The Washington Post was first to report on the two impending articles of impeachment.
The announcement Tuesday will come one day after Nadler accused Trump of putting "himself before country" at a chaotic hearing kicking off a two-week sprint for Democrats likely to end in the third impeachment of a president in US history.
The hearing was a chance for Democrats to state their case against the President a final time before moving forward with articles of impeachment. Democrats charge that Trump abused his office by pressuring Ukraine to investigate his political rival while withholding $400 million in US security aide and a one-on-one White House meeting. And they say he obstructed Congress by refusing to provide documents to the committee and instructing officials not to testify in the impeachment inquiry.
What's still up for debate are the obstruction of justice allegations detailed in the Mueller report, which Democrats said Monday pointed to a larger pattern of Trump's misconduct.
The hearing for Democratic and Republican staff attorneys to present cases for and against Trump's impeachment saw the bitter partisan divide over the impeachment proceedings spilled into the open, with Republican lawmakers vocally protesting Nadler's handling of the hearing and committee staffers even clashing during questioning.
LIVE UPDATES: Next phase in Trump impeachment inquiry begins
Republicans erupted while Democratic Judiciary Committee staff counsel Barry Berke pressed GOP counsel Steve Castor on the Republican report and accused Republicans of inaccurately quoting a witness.
"He's badgering the witness," said GOP Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, trying to raise an objection to Berke's questioning. When Nadler ruled he wasn't raising a valid objection, Sensenbrenner said: "The chairman is not in order."
The exchange was one of the many Republican objections that occurred Monday during a lengthy hearing where even the decision to recess prompted multiple party-line roll-call votes. As questioning of the staff attorneys began — which created an odd dynamic where one committee staffer was grilling another — the GOP protests intensified along with the volume of Nadler's gavel banging down to stop the interruptions.
"Bang it harder — still doesn't make it right," said Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, in a shot at Nadler.
Democrats used Monday's hearing opportunity to weave the hours of witness testimony to illustrate their narrative that the President abused his office.
"If he puts himself before the country in a manner that threatens our democracy, then our oath — our promise to the American people — requires us to come to the defense of the nation," said Nadler, a Democrat.
Nadler declined to discuss the articles on Monday evening leaving the Judiciary Committee's offices, but he said Republicans only tried to attack the process, not the facts against the President.
"The Republicans hardly attempted to defend the President's conduct," Nadler said. "All they talked about from their point of view was the improper process, about (former Vice President Joe) Biden and Burisma and Ukraine. But nothing about defending the President's conduct, and that's probably because the evidence is overwhelming and the conduct indefensible."
Republicans also pointed to witness testimony to argue that Democrats didn't have a case, charging they rushing to impeach Trump in order to beat him in the 2020 election.
"This may though become known as the focus-group impeachment," Collins said. "Because we don't have a crime, we don't have anything we can actually pin and nobody understands really what the majority is trying to do except interfere and basically make sure they believe the President can't win next year if he's impeached."
The objections to the hearing began as soon as Nadler started his opening statement, as a protester in the audience shouted down the Judiciary Committee chairman before being removed by US Capitol Police. Republicans on the committee then took up their own objections, demanding a hearing for the witnesses they want to hear from and accusing Nadler of "a steamroll" when he ignored their protests.
Nadler: Jury would convict Trump in impeachment in 'three minutes flat'
Nadler: Jury would convict Trump in impeachment in 'three minutes flat'
Republicans knocked Schiff, who led the Intel panel's impeachment inquiry, for not testifying before the Judiciary panel, with staff counsel Daniel Goldman appearing instead to discuss the committee's report.
"We want Schiff in that chair, not you," shouted Rep. Matt Gaetz, a Florida Republican.
Collins went after Goldman during his questioning over the committee's subpoenas that revealed phone calls of Rep. Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the Intelligence Committee, and journalist John Solomon, whose opinion columns in The Hill attacked former US Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch. Goldman said that the committee didn't subpoena either Nunes or Solomon, but that didn't slow the Republican lawmakers' criticisms.
"Somebody along the way just didn't all of a sudden have an epiphany ... that these numbers might match," Collins said. "Who ordered it, was it you, or was it Chairman Schiff, and then why was it decided, except for nothing but smear purposes, to be included in the Schiff report?"
Monday's hearing is likely to be just the opening act of a week's worth of major Judiciary Committee activity on impeachment, as Democrats are expected to bring forward articles of impeachment that will be debated and voted on in the committee later this week.
Nadler declined to say what the committee's next steps would be, saying he was "not prepared to say anything further about the schedule of the committee beyond today's hearing." But he concluded the hearing by declaring that Trump's conduct was "clearly impeachable."
"This committee will proceed accordingly," he said.
Staff present case for and against Trump
The diametrically opposing views between Democrats and Republicans on impeachment — where they have failed to agree on basic facts and what they mean — underscores the intense partisan fight that's continued to escalate as an impeachment vote has drawn closer.
Both sides found plenty of testimony to back up their case throughout the dozens of hours of witness testimony that occurred in the House Intelligence Committee.
Presenting the Democrats' case before he asked questions, Berke described a pattern of Trump's behavior dating back to his call for Russia to find Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's emails during the 2016 election.
"Given what happened with the Department of Justice investigation, given what's happening here, if in fact President Trump can get away with what he did again, our imagination is the only limit to what President Trump may do next or what a future president may do next to try to abuse his or her power to serve his own personal interest over the nation's interest," Berke said.
Goldman walked through the committee's investigation during his presentation, pointing to testimony Democrats say shows that Trump directed the effort for Ukraine to investigate his political rival while withholding US security aid and a White House meeting. Goldman said that senior officials were all "in the loop" about the effort, as US Ambassador Gordon Sondland testified, and he argued Trump's "determination to solicit of foreign interference in our election continues today."
"It did not end with Russia's support for Trump in 2016, which President Trump invited by asking for his opponent to be hacked by Russia," he said. "And it did not end when his Ukrainian scheme was exposed in September of this year."
Castor laid out his own pattern — one that he says shows the Democrats were working to impeach the President since the day he took office. Castor pointed out all of the Democratic investigations into the President across the House committees, from the testimony of Michael Cohen to the lawsuit to obtain the President's tax returns, to argue the impeachment inquiry has been long in the making.
"The record in the Democrats' impeachment inquiry does not show that President Trump abused the power of his office or obstructed Congress," Castor said. "To impeach a president who 63 million people voted for over eight lines in a call transcript is baloney."
Castor argued that Democrats provided "no direct evidence that President Trump withheld a meeting or security assistance in order to pressure President Zelensky to investigate former VP (Joe) Biden," pointing to testimony from special envoy Kurt Volker to argue witnesses did not testify to a quid pro quo.
"Witnesses who testified in the inquiry have denied having awareness of criminal activity or even an impeachable offense," he said. "On the key question of the president's state of mind, there is no clear evidence that President Trump acted with malicious intent."
Debating what to do about Mueller
While House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and senior Democrats have made clear they are proceeding with impeachment, House Democrats are still debating whether the articles should narrowly focus on Ukraine or to expand the scope of the articles to include the allegations detailed by Mueller.
While Judiciary Committee Democrats say Trump's conduct documented by Mueller should not be excused, Schiff on Sunday seemed to indicate he did not support including the Mueller allegations in the impeachment articles.
"In a charging decision -- and an impeachment in the House is essentially a charging decision -- to charge those that there's the strongest and most overwhelming evidence, and not try to charge everything even though you could charge other things," Schiff said Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation."
House Judiciary Committee releases report outlining historical arguments for impeachment
House Judiciary Committee releases report outlining historical arguments for impeachment
"There is overwhelming evidence the President sought to coerce Ukraine into interfering in our election, essentially sought to cheat in our next election by getting a foreign government to weigh in," Schiff added. "That is a very serious business and it imperils our national security, it's a gross abuse of his office and the President also deeply sought to obstruct the investigation into that wrongdoing, and I think that is the gravamen of this offense here."
The White House on Friday said it would not participate in the Judiciary Committee proceedings, telling the committee in a letter the impeachment inquiry was "completely baseless" and a "reckless abuse of power."
Rep. Pramila Jayapal, a Washington Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, told reporters Sunday that the committee was prepared to hold another hearing this week if the White House planned to present its own case, but because Trump isn't participating the committee does not expect another hearing.
"We need to listen, we need to go through the hearing (Monday) and see what is said there," Jayapal said. "We do want to listen to the minority case, the minority's counsel, we want to make sure we have all that information in front of us, and then once that's done, we'll have a good sense of what's next."
This story has been updated with additional developments Monday.
CNN's Aishvarya Kavi contributed to this report.

Bah, looks like a narrow impeachment focussing just on the Ukraine case.

Not including an article of obstruction from the Mueller Report is both an insult to Mueller's excellent work, and a tacit concession to the Republican lie that the Mueller Report found nothing impeachable or criminal against Trump. However, some Democrats did want such an article, and it will be referenced in the articles.

Blame this one on the deeply-ingrained cowardice of Centrist Dems, and on the unfortunately highly-effective spin job carried out by William Barr in the service of his Master, which made the Mueller Report political poison despite its damning conclusions and overwhelming evidence.

Still, this is a triumph, if a partial one. Presuming these articles pass, Trump will be the third President in history to be impeached, and come what may, he will care that black mark into eternity. This sends a message that impeachment is not a dead letter, that the House is not entirely recreant in its duty, and that the President is not above the law.

[The Romulan Republic]

Romney has indicated that he is open to voting to convict.

Insiders also think there's a chance Collins and Murkowski could. Probably no one else.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/473 ... vict-trump

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) caused a stir Friday when he said a “handful” of Senate Republican colleagues have privately told him they would consider voting to remove President Trump from office.

Murphy conceded “it’s a small list, on one hand,” but Democrats would consider it a major victory if they could tout a bipartisan vote in the Senate to remove Trump from office in an election year.

His remarks created buzz since no congressional Republicans have publicly said they would even consider taking such a step, and not one House GOP lawmaker voted for the resolution establishing the rules for the impeachment inquiry. But Rep. Justin Amash (Mich.), an independent who left the Republican Party in July, said Friday he would vote for articles of impeachment.

Senate insiders and outside political observers say there are only three GOP senators who might vote to convict Trump on any articles of impeachment.

Here they are, along with a handful of others who could entertain the idea but are almost certain to vote to acquit.

Sen. Susan Collins (Maine)

Collins has carefully avoided commenting on evidence that has emerged from the House impeachment inquiry even though she has been one of the president’s most vocal Republican critics in the Senate, breaking with Trump on several high-profile votes.

While Collins has declined to say how she might vote on articles of impeachment, citing her likely role as a juror who will need to weigh the evidence impartially, she has followed the House proceedings more closely than many of her Senate GOP colleagues.

“I’m definitely reading materials. I’ve started reviewing the transcripts. My staff is doing summaries of some of the witnesses. I’ve asked them to compile each day the major moments in the hearings in the House,” she told reporters last month.

Collins has the toughest decision of any of the Senate Republicans seen as potentially voting for articles of impeachment — she is up for reelection in a state won by Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton in 2016.

She will also have to consider her long-established brand as an independent-minded moderate, which surely will come under attack from Democrats if she votes to acquit.

But if Collins votes to convict, she could face a primary challenge next year from former Maine Gov. Paul LePage or one of his GOP allies.

“The one worry that she has would be the primary. Paul LePage has returned to Maine to make it known that even he would run against her if she didn’t toe the line, which would mean support for Donald Trump,” said Janet Martin, a government professor at Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Maine.

Adding to the pressure is one of Collins’s mentors, former Maine Sen. William Cohen (R), who helped seal President Nixon’s fate in 1974 when he voted for two articles of impeachment as a House Judiciary Committee member.

Cohen told The Associated Press last month that Trump committed something “tantamount to a criminal act” by threatening to withhold money for Ukraine unless it pledged to investigate Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.

“To me it’s an impeachable act,” he said.

Sen. Mitt Romney (Utah)

Romney has emerged as one of Trump’s toughest Republican critics in Congress since taking office in January.

He has called Trump’s prodding of Ukrainian officials to investigate Biden “troubling in the extreme.” When the president also called on China to investigate Biden, Romney blasted the move as “wrong and appalling.”

Romney, 72, is seen as having the most freedom to vote to convict, as he made his concerns about the president’s character known during the 2016 primary, when he excoriated Trump as “a phony” and “a fraud” in a last ditch effort to deprive him of the nomination.

Romney’s career as a former governor and GOP presidential nominee, in addition to his fortune amassed in the private sector, affords him greater independence than most lawmakers.

ADVERTISEMENT
A Republican source familiar with Romney’s thinking told The Hill in October that the Utah senator is “more concerned about his legacy in terms of his family, his faith, his country and his party” than about whether he is popular with fellow Senate Republicans.

Vin Weber, who served as an adviser to Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign, says Romney will follow his conscience and vote how he thinks is best for the country.

“I’m sure he’s deeply troubled by Trump’s actions because he’s a person of pristine integrity and high intellect,” Weber said.

He added that Romney will also carefully weigh the national implications of voting to remove a president from office for the first time in American history.

“My guess is that Sen. Romney, although he’s going to be really troubled by this, is going to come to the conclusion the country’s interests are not served by removing Donald Trump from office,” he said.

But if Romney decides that’s what’s best for the country, he will vote without fear of political backlash, Weber said. “He’s a strong man and he’ll do what he thinks is the right thing.”

Tim Chambless, an associate professor of political science at the University of Utah, said Romney’s clashes with Trump have cost him some support, noting that an October poll showed Romney with a 46 percent approval rating and 51 percent disapproval rating in the state.

But Romney, who isn’t up for reelection until 2024, has free rein to vote how he wants, Chambless said.

Relations between Trump and Romney have remained strained. In October, the president slammed Romney as a “pompous ass.” Just last week, Romney shot down Trump’s suggestion that Ukraine, not Russia, meddled in the 2016 election.

Romney has declined to comment on the evidence against Trump produced by the House inquiry, saying says he will weigh all the facts once they are presented to the Senate before expressing his judgment.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)

Murkowski has cast some of the biggest votes against Trump of any Senate Republican since the start of his presidency.

She voted against Trump’s effort to repeal ObamaCare and opposed the president’s embattled Supreme Court pick, Brett Kavanaugh.

Murkowski isn’t up for reelection until 2022, and her base of political support in Alaska includes independents and Democrats who helped her win a write-in campaign in 2010 when she lost the GOP primary to a conservative challenger.

As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Murkowski criticized Trump for holding up U.S. aid to Ukraine, telling a reporter in October: “You don’t hold up foreign aid that we previously appropriated for a political initiative.”

Like Collins and Romney, Murkowski has declined to comment on the developments of the House impeachment inquiry and says she will weigh the evidence when articles of impeachment are submitted to the Senate.

“Alaskans are not paying much attention to the House impeachment drama,” she told The Hill last month.

“They’re seeing the headlines in their paper and know that it’s underway, but I’ve been checking in with my staff that are working the phone lines, not just here in D.C. but around the state. I check the mail traffic coming in and it is not something that is occupying the waking hours of Alaskans right now,” she added.

Other Senate Republicans

After Collins, Romney and Murkowski, there is a larger group of GOP senators who have publicly or privately expressed concern over Trump’s withholding of military aid to Ukraine and his attempt to persuade Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to conduct a corruption investigation.

The group includes GOP lawmakers such as Sens. Rob Portman (Ohio), Ron Johnson (Wis.), Tim Scott (S.C.), Marco Rubio (Fla.), and Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), who is not seeking reelection.

But none of them are seen as being close to voting for any articles of impeachment, barring a major revelation of new information, say Senate GOP aides.

A senior Senate GOP aide said Collins, Romney and Murkowski are the only possible defectors “and the list ends there” unless dramatically new information emerges before a vote.

“There is not a next tier, absent some new evidence,” said the aide.

Other potential defectors on an impeachment vote are Republicans facing tough reelections such as Sens. Cory Gardner (Colo.), who is seeking another term in a state that voted for Clinton in 2016, and Martha McSally (Ariz.), a top Democratic target.

Republican strategists argue that voting for articles of impeachment would hurt Gardner and McSally more than it would help them in 2020.

“Politically, it doesn’t benefit anybody because if you vote to impeach, the base abandons you and Democrats are never going to say, ‘Thank God you voted to impeach, you have my vote,’ and the moderates and independents don’t care about this,” said the Senate GOP aide.

“For Gardner and McSally and [Sen. Thom] Tillis [N.C.] and [Sen. David] Perdue [Ga.] there is no net benefit to voting to convict on any of the charges because you will lose the loyalty of your base,” the aide said, referring to other Senate Republicans up for reelection.

Of course, I remember when Jeff Flake hadn't made up his mind on whether a raping perjurer should be the deciding vote on the Supreme Court, and we all know how that turned out. So we'll see.

Best realistic case, then (and even this is unlikely, and assumes Manchin doesn't turn his coat again), we get a tie vote of fifty-fifty, far short of the 67 needed to convict. Though any bipartisan support for impeachment could be counted a big PR win, from a certain perspective.

[The Romulan Republic]

McConnell appears willing to conduct a trial and try to acquit, rather than trying to just dismiss:

https://cnn.com/2019/12/11/politics/mcc ... index.html

(CNN)Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is expected to hold a final vote to acquit President Donald Trump should he be impeached, when a majority of senators believe his trial has run its course instead of holding a vote on dismissing the articles of impeachment, two Republican senators told CNN on Wednesday.

That's significant, because Republicans want to have a vote on acquittal -- to clear the President of the charges against him -- not simply rely on a 51-vote threshold procedural motion to dismiss the hotly disputed case.
The Constitution mandates 67 votes are required to convict the President and remove him from office, a barrier widely considered too high to be reached in this case.
One vote McConnell can't rely on is that of Vice President Mike Pence, who has "no role in impeachment," according to a GOP leadership aide, despite being president of the Senate with the mandate to break ties.
Pence's power, which applies to legislation and nominations, isn't in effect when the Senate is weighing removing his boss, an obvious conflict of interest since he would replace Trump if he were removed. Instead, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts would preside at the trial and any tie motions would fail.
One of the senators, speaking anonymously, said McConnell would not call a vote on a motion to proceed to the impeachment articles unless he knew he had the 51 votes needed to end the trial, which would then set up a final vote on the articles themselves. On that final vote, 67 votes would be needed to convict Trump remove him from office.
The other senator, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, said it "would make more sense" to move to vote on the articles of impeachment -- with their 67-vote requirement -- than on a motion to dismiss and "decide this on a 51-vote threshold, with the potential tie and all the recriminations that would flow from that."
McConnell hinted at this strategy when he spoke to reporters on Tuesday and said the Senate would have two choices after hearing opening arguments from the House impeachment managers and the President's defense counsel.
"It could go down the path of calling witnesses and basically having another trial or it could decide -- and again, 51 members could make that decision -- that they've heard enough and believe they know what would happen and could move to vote on the two articles of impeachment," he said. "Those are the options. No decisions have been made yet."

It looks like at least part of this is uncertainty that they could get the 51 votes to dismiss- note the specific fear of a tie, which is very telling. My guess is that they're worried specifically that Romney (who has indicated he's keeping an open mind on convicting), Collins, and Murkowski would vote to allow a trial, resulting in a tie (and Pence cannot be tie-breaker on an impeachment case, thank God for small blessings).

[Mr Bean]

It looks like at least part of this is uncertainty that they could get the 51 votes to dismiss- note the specific fear of a tie, which is very telling. My guess is that they're worried specifically that Romney (who has indicated he's keeping an open mind on convicting), Collins, and Murkowski would vote to allow a trial, resulting in a tie (and Pence cannot be tie-breaker on an impeachment case, thank God for small blessings).

There's also the matter of the trial Judge, Supreme Court Judge John Roberts has shown several times to buck his republican beliefs for the sake of the Court's historical legacy. Meaning there's an excellent chance if called on to preside over the case he won't permit a speedy vote and away case meaning called witnesses are possible as well as public hearings. Doubly so since with 5% chance of impeachment (at best) he gets to appear as the statesman and historical figure he yearns to be by allowing the Democrats their say and their trial in full faith and confidence.

Since it won't affect the outcome why not give them their show? At this point I'm very inclined to believe that SC Judge John Roberts is firmly committed to his conservative ideals... but not the Republican party.