Richard Nixon's role in the Watergate break-in has been the standard for impeachable conduct. Dershowitz's arguments imply Nixon got a raw deal.
Democrats appeared to have fallen short on Thursday in their bid to garner the votes needed to call witnesses in President Donald Trump's impeachment trial, clearing the way for his likely acquittal as early as this weekend. Democrats have worked to get at least four Republicans to support the effort, but their hopes appeared dashed when Republican Senator Lamar Alexander, who had been undecided, declared further evidence in the case was unnecessary. Barring an unforeseen change of heart by another Republican senator, it appeared Alexander's decision would bring a swifter conclusion to Trump's two-week trial.
(Bloomberg) -- Senators questioned lawyers for both sides in President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial for a second day Thursday, a day before a pivotal vote is planned on whether to call witnesses.Here are the latest developments:Bolton Praises Officials Who Testified (11:40 p.m.)Former National Security Advisor John Bolton expressed support for various U.S. government officials who testified in the House impeachment investigation, a Texas television station reported on Thursday night.Bolton, in remarks at a private function in Austin, Texas, defended former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, former National Security Council aide Fiona Hill and others who testified in House hearings, according to KXAN, which cited unnamed sources.Bolton said all of them had acted in the best interests of the U.S., the report added. He spoke on the eve of a U.S. Senate vote on whether to call witnesses, including Bolton, at Trump’s impeachment trial. Republican Alexander to Oppose Witnesses (11:02 p.m.)Republican Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee said he will vote against calling new witnesses, all but assuring that Democrats won’t have enough votes to seek additional evidence, and making it increasingly likely the trial will wrap up on Friday.Alexander said in a statement that there is no need for more evidence and that impeachment with the election approaching.Republican Susan Collins of Maine said she will vote for witnesses, and Mitt Romney of Utah has said he will likely vote for witnesses. Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski hasn’t said how she plans to vote. Because at least four Republicans would be needed to join Democrats in allowing more evidence in the trial, Alexander’s announcement makes it very unlikely that 51 senators would support the motion.GOP’s Collins to Vote for Calling Witnesses (10:55 p.m.)Republican Senator Susan Collins said she’ll vote in support of calling for witnesses and documents.In a statement, she said, “If this motion passes, I believe that the most sensible way to proceed would be for the House managers and the president’s attorneys to attempt to agree on a limited and equal number of witnesses for each side. If they can’t agree, then the Senate could choose the number of witnesses.”Four Republican senators would need to vote with Democrats to force consideration of witnesses.Senators Finish Questioning Lawyers in Trial (10:40 p.m.)Senators completed questioning of lawyers in Trump’s impeachment trial, after 16 hours of queries over two days.Later Thursday, key GOP Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee plans to announce whether he’ll join Democrats in supporting a move to subpoena witnesses to testify. The next step on Friday will be four hours of lawyers’ arguments and then a vote on whether the Senate should consider calling witnesses.Murkowski Sends Mixed Signals on Witnesses (10:14 p.m.)Senator Lisa Murkowski, a critical GOP vote on whether to call witnesses, is sending conflicting signals on which side she’s likely to take.Not long after asking why the Senate shouldn’t call John Bolton to testify, Murkowski joined other Republicans in asking whether testimony from Bolton would make any difference. Also joining that question was Tennessee’s Lamar Alexander, another potential vote to join Democrats in backing witnesses.They joined Republican Lindsey Graham and others in asking a question based on the idea that Bolton would confirm the allegation that Trump linked Ukraine aid to investigations. “Isn’t it true,” the GOP senators asked, that the allegations don’t rise to the level of an impeachable offense, and therefore Bolton’s testimony would add nothing to the case.Trump lawyer Patrick Philbin agreed, saying, “Even if he gave that testimony, the articles of impeachment would still not rise to an impeachable offense.”Earlier in the evening, Murkowski asked why the Senate doesn’t call Bolton to testify, because reports on his upcoming book conflict with other testimony that Trump denied linking aid with investigations.Trump Says Senate to Treat Him ‘Very Fairly’ (8:56 p.m.)Trump predicted he’ll fare well in the GOP-controlled Senate.“They’re going to treat us very fairly,” Trump told a rally Thursday night in Des Moines, Iowa, ahead of the state’s caucuses next week.The president also said his poll numbers are the highest he’s seen since he was elected. “It’s a happy period,” he said. “It’s a happy period because we call this impeachment light.”Murkowski Asks Why Not Call John Bolton (8:52 p.m.)Senator Lisa Murkowski, a crucial Republican who could vote with Democrats to seek new evidence, asked why the Senate shouldn’t call former National Security Advisor John Bolton to testify at Trump’s impeachment trial.Murkowski, in a question to the president’s legal team, noted that Trump administration witnesses said Trump denied linking aid for Ukraine to investigations, while reports say Bolton wrote in his upcoming book that the president made a direct link.“This dispute about material facts weighs in favor of calling additional witnesses with direct knowledge,” said Murkowski’s question, read aloud by Chief Justice John Roberts. “Why should this body not call Ambassador Bolton?”Trump lawyer Patrick Philbin said the House could have pursued testimony from Bolton but chose not to subpoena him.In fact, House committees asked Bolton to testify during the impeachment investigation. Bolton declined to participate unless a court ruled on whether he must comply with a House subpoena or White House instructions that he not testify. This month, Bolton said he would testify if subpoenaed by the Senate.Philbin also said Thursday that subpoenaing Bolton would set a bad precedent for future presidential impeachments by allowing the House to submit an incomplete case to the Senate.“It will do grave damage to this body as an institution to say that the process in the House doesn’t really have to be complete,” Philbin said. “That’s not the way this chamber should allow impeachments to be presented to it.” -- Laura Curtis, Steven T. DennisSchiff Offers One-Week Break for Depositions (7:32 p.m.)Lead House manager Adam Schiff suggested a plan for calling witnesses that would allow House managers one week to take depositions while the Senate takes a break from the trial to do its regular work.“If we agree to a one-week period to do depositions while you conduct the business of the Senate,” Schiff said, “neither side would have a limitless ability to call witnesses.”Chief Justice John Roberts could rule on any disputes over witnesses and whether documents can be introduced, Schiff said. “This could be done very quickly; this could be done very effectively,” he said.Trump’s defense lawyers rejected the idea.“Constitutionally, that would not be the appropriate way to go,” said Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow. Any issues should be resolved according to Senate rules and through litigation if needed, he said, adding that he wasn’t willing to “short circuit the system.”Several Republicans asked Trump’s team if the House managers would view the proceedings as fair if they were allowed to call witnesses and the trial ended in an acquittal of the president.“No,” Sekulow said. “it would only be enough if they got a conviction.”Warren Hints Trial Reflects Badly on Roberts (6:23 p.m.)Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren drew gasps and scoffs from some of her fellow senators with a question suggesting the trial may reflect poorly on its presiding officer, Chief Justice John Roberts.In a written question submitted to Roberts and read aloud by him to the chamber, the Massachusetts senator asked whether the fact that Roberts is presiding over a trial many view as unfair will contribute “to the loss of the legitimacy of the chief justice, the Supreme Court and the Constitution?”Lead House manager Adam Schiff said, “I would not say it contributes to a loss of confidence in the chief justice,” adding that he has presided admirably.“I don’t think a trial without witnesses reflects adversely on the chief justice, I think it reflects adversely on us,“ Schiff said. He said it would feed “cynicism about this institution.”Roberts has played a largely ministerial role, although earlier Thursday he declined to read a question submitted by GOP Senator Rand Paul, who was making a second attempt to get into the record the alleged name of the intelligence community whistle-blower at the center of the impeachment case.Top Republican Sees ‘Momentum’ for Acquittal (4:02 p.m.)Senator John Barrasso, a member of GOP leadership, said he sees the Senate heading toward a vote to acquit Trump on Friday.“That’s where all the momentum is right now,” said Barrasso of Wyoming.Friday’s schedule will start with two hours of arguments from each side, which Barrasso said he thinks could serve as a closing argument. Then the Senate would vote on the question of calling witnesses.If the move to call witnesses fails, the chamber would move toward a vote on final judgment on the two impeachment articles against Trump.“We’d move in that direction and stay here until that work is decided Friday evening,” he said, adding that he doesn’t want the trial to extend into Saturday.Democrats may disagree, and it’s unclear how the final process will play out.If Minority Leader Chuck Schumer offers a number of proposals that require votes, “We will be prepared to stay here through the completion,” Barrasso said. -- Daniel Flatley, Laura DavisonTrump Has Contradictory Answers on Subpoenas (3:25 p.m.)The question of how to challenge a president for defying subpoenas is being debated simultaneously in the Senate and in a federal court -- and lawyers for Trump and his Justice Department are giving contrasting answers.House Democrats should ask a federal court to enforce their subpoenas before considering impeachment, Trump’s team is telling the Senate in his impeachment trial.Just down the street in a federal court, Trump’s Justice Department argued Thursday that rather than going to court, the House’s remedy is to impeach the president, CNN reported.The Justice Department has previously argued in another case that courts are incapable of ruling on subpoena disputes between the president and Congress.“You can’t make this up,” said lead House manager Adam Schiff during senators’ questioning of lawyers in the impeachment trial.“What more evidence do we need of the bad faith of this effort to cover up?” Schiff said. “I didn’t think they’d make it on the same day.” Laura Litvan, Steven T. DennisRoberts Declines to Read Paul’s Question (1:18 p.m.)Chief Justice John Roberts declined to read a question submitted by GOP Senator Rand Paul, who had planned to make his second attempt Thursday to name the whistle-blower at the center of the impeachment case.When Paul’s written question was handed to Roberts, the chief justice read it silently and then said, “The presiding officer declines to read the question as submitted.”Roberts then moved on to a question by another senator. Nobody raised any audible objection.According to a GOP aide, Roberts also had declined to read the name of the whistle-blower in a question Paul sent to the desk to be asked yesterday, though there was no public indication in that instance.Minutes earlier, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said during the opening of the day’s proceedings, “We’ve been respectful of the chief justice’s unique position in reading our questions and I want to be able to continue to assure him that that level of consideration for him will continue.”Senator Lindsey Graham, one of the president’s staunchest defenders, who has advocated for Hunter Biden to be called as a witness, said the Senate impeachment trial would not be the right “environment” for Paul to ask his question naming the whistle-blower. -- Daniel Flatley, Laura DavisonSenate Opens Second Day of Questioning (1:08 p.m.)The Senate began a second day of questioning Trump’s defense team and the House prosecutors Thursday.As they did on Wednesday, Senators will submit their questions in writing to U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts, who will read them out loud, alternating between Republican and Democratic questions. Roberts asked the defense and prosecution to limit their answers to five minutes each. -- Laura Davison, Daniel FlatleySchumer Pressing GOP Moderates on Witnesses (12:25 p.m.)Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said he’s still lobbying moderate Republicans to vote for admitting witnesses and evidence into the Senate impeachment trial, even as senior Republicans express confidence they can shut that effort down.“The fate of much of the future of how this republic conducts itself is on the shoulder of four Republicans,” the New York Democrat told reporters Thursday.Senators Mitt Romney and Susan Collins have indicated they will vote with Democrats for witnesses. Schumer would need at least two other Republicans to break ranks in order to have 51 votes.Senators are expected to vote Friday on whether to allow witnesses. If a witness vote fails, lawmakers will likely proceed to vote on a verdict, and Trump is all but certain to be acquitted in the Republican-controlled Senate.GOP Senator Lindsey Graham said Thursday that he’s “getting more optimistic” that Republicans will have the votes to block calling witnesses.Schumer said his last-ditch appeal to Republicans is to convince them that in order for the trial to be fair, it needs to include testimony from outside witnesses. “I think some of them are weighing it,” he said. -- Laura Davison, Daniel FlatleyMore Questioning as Witness Decision Nears (6 a.m.)Senators will have eight more hours Thursday to question Trump’s lawyers and the House managers.The first day’s questioning covered a variety of issues including whether abuse of power is an impeachable offense, when Trump began seeking an investigation of former Vice President Joe Biden, what witnesses could be called in addition to John Bolton, and Chief Justice John Roberts’ role in handling witnesses’ testimony.Outside the Senate chamber, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer acknowledged that Democrats’ effort to call Bolton to testify is an “uphill fight” because of intense pressure on Republican senators not to agree.The Senate plans on Friday to debate and vote on whether to call witnesses. If witnesses are rejected, the Senate could move quickly to final votes on whether to convict or acquit Trump. Trump wants the trial to be completed before he delivers his State of the Union address to Congress on Tuesday. -- Steven T. Dennis and Laura LitvanCatch Up on Impeachment CoverageBombshell Bolton Report Pressures GOP on Impeachment WitnessesKey DocumentsHere is the House Democrats’ web page containing documents related to the impeachment trial. House Democrats’ impeachment brief is here. Trump’s initial reply is here, and his lawyers’ trial brief is here.The House impeachment resolution is H.Res. 755. The Intelligence Committee Democrats’ impeachment report is here.Gordon Sondland’s transcript is here and here; Kurt Volker’s transcript is here and here. Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch’s transcript is here and here; the transcript of Michael McKinley, former senior adviser to the secretary of State, is here. The transcript of David Holmes, a Foreign Service officer at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, is here.The transcript of William Taylor, the top U.S. envoy to Ukraine, is here and here. State Department official George Kent’s testimony is here and here. Testimony by Alexander Vindman can be found here, and the Fiona Hill transcript is here. Laura Cooper’s transcript is here; Christopher Anderson’s is here and Catherine Croft’s is here. Jennifer Williams’ transcript is here and Timothy Morrison’s is here. The Philip Reeker transcript is here. Mark Sandy’s is here.\--With assistance from Laura Davison, Daniel Flatley, Justin Sink, Laura Curtis, Steven T. Dennis and John Harney.To contact the reporters on this story: Laura Litvan in Washington at llitvan@bloomberg.net;Billy House in Washington at bhouse5@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Joe Sobczyk at jsobczyk@bloomberg.net, Laurie Asséo, Anna EdgertonFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
President Trump's hyperinflated ego has become an essential part of his impeachment defense.Trump's ego is never far from the scene, of course. But in this case it was his attorney, Alan Dershowitz — who undoubtedly is headed for a very lonely summer in Martha's Vineyard this year — who made the case that Trump's self-regard is a key reason he should be acquitted of impeachment charges in the Ukraine scandal.Dershowitz's case: If Trump did abuse his power by establishing a quid pro quo — military aid to Ukraine in exchange for an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden, in order to undermine Biden's presidential campaign — well, it's OK because Trump believes it is best for the United States if he, and not Biden, wins the 2020 election."Every public official that I know believes his election is in the public interest," Dershowitz told the Senate. "And mostly you're right — your election is in the public interest. And if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."> Trump attorney Alan Dershowitz: "If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment." https://t.co/jKErQcS1Iy pic.twitter.com/zo4rL6Zbla> > — ABC News (@ABC) January 29, 2020It was, as several commentators noted, an impeachment defense fit for a king — King George, perhaps, or King Louis XIV maybe.But the notion of royalty is often mixed up with notions of noblesse oblige, which is far too flattering to Trump to fit reality. So let's call Dershowitz's assertion what it really is: an argument for authoritarianism, a get-out-of-jail-free card for a wannabe dictator who has spent years cultivating a cult of personality and who believes his own "I alone can fix it" rhetoric and hype.This is something different, and slightly more pernicious, than Richard Nixon's oft-quoted maxim that "when the president does it, that means it is not illegal." That, at least, was a straightforward argument about the nature of power. Dershowitz's reasoning on behalf of Trump takes that argument and adds a layer of paternalism and narcissism — telling Americans that his client can try to cheat the 2020 election because he honestly believes he is the indispensable man, that he knows what is best for us, that it's not illegal if the president does it because he is possessed of endless reserves of irrational self-confidence.Nixon's belief, at least, was shattered by his forced resignation from the White House. Unless something startling happens, though, the United States Senate will vote to acquit Trump — and thus validate the Dershowitz argument. The results will not be good for American democracy.Dershowitz's argument is troubling enough on its own; it becomes alarming in light of the Republican establishment's other moves toward authoritarianism — highlighted this week by the revelation that John Bolton, Trump's former national security adviser, could emerge as a witness for the impeachment prosecution.Bolton has served Republican presidents for decades, making himself a lightning rod for controversy. He even ran for the GOP presidential nomination once. That isn't good enough to establish his conservative bona fides anymore, though. Lou Dobbs, the commentator on Fox Business, has now dubbed Bolton a "tool of the left." That is relatively kind compared to the treatment Sean Hannity served up for Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) — another former GOP presidential aspirant — who has suggested the Senate should hear Bolton's testimony. "All I see, with all due respect Mitt Romney, is your personal hatred for Donald Trump," Hannity seethed Tuesday night.Taken together, Dobbs and Hannity's anger — carried out on Fox's airwaves — should be seen as an attempt by the GOP establishment to purge itself of any last bits of disloyalty to Trump. This kind of thing happens in authoritarian regimes all the time; former apparatchiks in good standing suddenly find themselves expelled from the ruling party unless they show complete fealty to the leader. It is never the kind of event that augurs a new era of democratic good feeling.It is tough not to give in to despair.The argument for Trump's acquittal is an argument for authoritarianism. The effort to intimidate a witness — and a senator who wants to hear that witness testify — resembles some of authoritarianism's greatest hits. We're deep into "looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck" territory now. Impeachment is intended to preserve our democracy from those who would abuse it for their own purposes. Right now, though, democracy is losing.Want more essential commentary and analysis like this delivered straight to your inbox? Sign up for The Week's "Today's best articles" newsletter here.More stories from theweek.com Mitch McConnell's rare blunder John Bolton just vindicated Nancy Pelosi 7 witheringly funny cartoons about the GOP's John Bolton problem
(Bloomberg) -- Want to receive this post in your inbox every day? Sign up for the Balance of Power newsletter, and follow Bloomberg Politics on Twitter and Facebook for more.Benjamin Netanyahu is a man in a hurry. The Israeli prime minister faces a corruption trial and a third parliamentary election in less than a year that he hopes will put off his legal Judgment Day.Securing extra support after two tight and inconclusive polls is of the essence. The U.S. and Russia looked to be obliging this week.A beaming Netanyahu stood next to Donald Trump in Washington as the U.S. president laid out a Middle East peace plan that heavily favors Israel. He then traveled to Moscow where President Vladimir Putin gifted him the release from prison of Israeli-American backpacker Naama Issachar, having previously snubbed multiple pleas to pardon her on drug-smuggling charges.So far, though, polls aren’t showing the back-to-back diplomatic coups helping Netanyahu all that much.He had barely left the stage with Trump when he announced his cabinet would vote on Sunday to annex West Bank land on which Jewish settlements stand. But then an aide said technical issues would delay that vote, and senior White House official Jared Kushner urged Israel not to act until after its March 2 election.While Netanyahu’s Likud party got a boost in opinion polls, so did its main rival, former military chief Benny Gantz’s Blue and White. Both gained by cannibalizing votes from potential allies and neither has an easy path to forming a government.If an Israel-tilted U.S. peace plan and the freeing of Issachar, whose fate became a cause celebre at home, can’t get Netanyahu over the line, then what would?Global HeadlinesVirus spreads | China said more than 7,700 people have been infected by the deadly novel coronavirus, as the World Health Organization’s Emergency Committee meets today to consider issuing a global alarm. Airlines are suspending more flights to China while the U.S., U.K., and other countries moved to evacuate their citizens from the outbreak’s epicenter in Wuhan.Fears the virus is spreading quickly present a conundrum for other nations: How to protect public safety without stigmatizing China’s entire population?Impeachment sparring | Former National Security Advisor John Bolton wants the White House to expedite the classification review of the Ukraine portion of his book in case he’s called to testify in Trump’s Senate impeachment trial. The president and his defense team are trying to discredit Bolton after reports said his draft alleges Trump told him he wanted military aid to Ukraine withheld unless Kyiv probed his political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden.Democrats’ chances of getting Bolton and others to testify are dwindling as the pool of Republicans willing to potentially defy Trump shrinks.Conservative curse | Ever since Edward Heath and Margaret Thatcher made the case for the U.K. joining the European Union’s forerunner, the Conservative Party has been bedeviled by internal rifts over its relations with the continent. Boris Johnson will hope his delivery of Brexit puts an end to that. But as Robert Hutton reports, history suggests the Conservatives have a seemingly limitless appetite to argue about Europe.Shattered dreams | Wish Town was once a sought-after destination for India’s aspiring middle classes seeking a slice of the “good days” promised by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Now its unfinished apartments are a symbol of an economy in distress, with consumers too worried about job cuts and rising costs to spend. India’s slumping consumption is so severe it’s denting global growth. It’s unclear whether Saturday’s budget can turn the country’s fortunes around.A lone shooter opened fired at a prominent site of protests against the contentious religion-based citizenship law in New Delhi, wounding one person today.Health horror | A fire during an operation on a woman who later died in one of Romania’s top hospitals is fueling anger in a nation that spends less on health care than any other EU state. Compounded by widespread graft, the situation resonates beyond the country’s borders: As many as 5 million Romanians now live elsewhere, stoking populism — as in the case of Brexit — and leaving uncertain economic prospects back home.What to WatchTrump ally Senator Lindsey Graham is targeting giant internet platforms with a proposed child protection measure that could threaten encrypted services such as Apple’s iCloud and Facebook’s WhatsApp chat. A group of citizens in the Democratic Republic of Congo are asking the U.K.’s Serious Fraud Office to recognize them as victims in its investigation of alleged corruption by Kazakh mining company Eurasian Natural Resources. Chile’s congress approved a tax bill presented by President Sebastian Pinera’s government to raise as much as $2.2 billion to fund its social agenda and ease months of unrest. It now goes to the Constitutional Court.Tell us how we’re doing or what we’re missing at balancepower@bloomberg.net.And finally...Corrupt officials, soaring temperatures and prowling lions are among challenges facing truck drivers like Nyoni Nsukuzimbi that stymie attempts to boost intra-African trade. The continent’s leaders say they’re acting to change all that by signing up to an agreement that would establish the world’s biggest free-trade zone by area. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa called it a “game-changer.” It will have to be if Africa’s economies are ever going to achieve their potential. \--With assistance from Alan Crawford, Michael Winfrey, Ruth Pollard, Rosalind Mathieson and Karen Leigh.To contact the author of this story: Amy Teibel in Jerusalem at ateibel@bloomberg.netTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Anthony Halpin at thalpin5@bloomberg.net, Karl MaierFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
Mitch McConnell is reportedly furiously trying to whip the votes necessary to avoid calling witnesses in the Senate's impeachment trial of President Trump.This seems like a rare case where McConnell is making a politically substantive error.Calling witnesses, after all, could be used to legitimize the GOP's acquittal vote, in the same way the cursory "investigation" of Brett Kavanaugh was used as a shield to justify his confirmation. Plowing through this farcical trial, on the other hand, gives Democrats a permanent argument against the trial's legitimacy and, more importantly, leaves the president and all elected Republicans vulnerable to damaging, election-eve revelations.None of this has any bearing on how Republicans will vote. Like the film version of Titanic, everyone knows how the impeachment saga will conclude. The ship sinks. The president is acquitted. And as with the film, the real question is how the audience will react. So far, impeachment has had the curious dual effect of inflating the president's approval ratings to the highest of his presidency while also convincing, in many polls, a slim but real majority of the country that he should be removed from office immediately. More significant majorities believe the president abused his power and witnesses should be called and heard from in the Senate. But that sentiment hasn't budged elected Republicans, because they believe, with ample precedent in recent history, that voters will forgive their trespasses by November.Remember that polling showed, in the spring of 2016, two-to-one majorities in favor of giving Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, a hearing in the Senate. Fifty-two percent wanted him confirmed. McConnell, staring down the maw of a massively unpopular position, gambled that voters ultimately wouldn't care enough to cast ballots against Republicans. He held the seat open and was proven right. Emboldened, Republicans abandoned the very idea of taking broader public opinion into consideration when plotting their next act of procedural destruction.Republicans simply have a much better sense of what they can get away with than Democrats, who remain terrified of engaging even momentarily in escalatory or norm-breaking behavior. Knowing this, Republicans in the House and Senate have refused to take the process seriously. House Republicans conducted a made-for-Fox trial-within-a-trial of Joe and Hunter Biden and used their allotted time to browbeat viewers with ludicrous conspiracy theories about Ukrainian interference in the 2016 presidential election. The House strategy was to completely deny that any wrongdoing had taken place, not by seriously disputing the fact accounts of the witnesses, but by shameless misdirection.Many Senate Republicans announced in advance that they would acquit the president no matter what they heard or saw in the House or in the Senate trial. Despite House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's apparent effort to hold onto the impeachment articles until McConnell cracked and agreed to witnesses, McConnell successfully called the bluff. The trial was always going to be whatever he wanted it to be: brief, with a conclusion so inevitable that the audience tunes out.Until Sunday, it was all going according to plan. The president's other lawyers responded to the House managers' meticulous presentation with an impressive-in-its-scope hodgepodge of preposterous constitutional arguments, Federalist Papers mad libbing, and, remarkably, the same nonsense about the "perfect call" and Biden and Burisma that the House stuck with until the bitter end.It's remarkable because, while there genuinely seem to be dozens of House Republicans who are credulous enough to actually believe the president's absurd spin, there aren't more than a handful of true Trump believers in the Senate, where the off-the-record frustration with the president's non-stop, presidency-warping antics are a badly kept secret. They are voting to acquit not because, in their hearts, they think the president did nothing wrong, but because they share the widespread belief that convicting him would cripple the party heading into the 2020 elections and they don't want to cross a man who has no compunction about knifing wavering Republicans.Party over country, every single time.That, you see, is a difficult logic to convey to the public, and to reporters. And it's awkward, because the president's attorneys are laying down the last layer of icing on a B.S. cake that most Senate Republicans will not be able to bring themselves to eat in public. The president's infamous refusal to ever admit that he has done or said anything wrong or improper is now a burden that every elected member of the party must carry. And some of them, including Susan Collins (Maine), Martha McSally (Ariz.), and Cory Gardner (Colo.) are fighting uphill battles for their political lives in November. They long ago gambled that they'd rather fight the general election than the primary, which explains why they will vote to acquit. But they would almost certainly prefer to be saying something along the lines of "While the president committed an abuse of power, it doesn't rise to the level of removal."Sunday's news about former National Security Advisor John Bolton's forthcoming memoir was therefore disruptive not because the GOP is all that terrified of calling witnesses in this trial, but because it makes it that much harder to square the needs of vulnerable Republican senators with the absurd narrative the rest of the party is rolling with. The president's lawyers are up there saying, in essence, that this whole thing is a hoax, and here comes his most senior foreign policy advisor saying not only that Trump did it, but that Trump explained it to him personally.What's done is done though. That's why McConnell's effort to evade witnesses is not only morally wrong, but also especially politically puzzling in the wake of the Bolton manuscript leak. It's not even clear that Republicans should have any genuine substantive fears about what will happen if witnesses are called. Mick Mulvaney and Rudy Giuliani and Rick Perry would just lie. Bolton would describe his incriminating conversations with President Trump. The right-wing media machine, which has already begun the task of delegitimizing Bolton, would package up a neat little narrative so that Republican voters can sleep well after voting to re-elect the president.Much has been made of the need to acquit the president before the State of the Union on Feb. 4, but has anyone thought through that logic? What will happen if the trial isn't wrapped up by then? Will the president spontaneously vaporize? Will his millions of minions suddenly abandon him? Surely not.Why not just rip the band-aid off today and get all of the damaging information that exists out into the open, rather than closer to the election? Now that Bolton's story is out there, rushing a witness-free trial benefits no one in the Republican Party. It doesn't help the purple state senators who have to explain both Bolton's charges and the decision not to call him as a witness. It certainly doesn't help the president. It gives Democrats a cudgel with which to assail their adversaries from now until November. And it will give the spotlight right back to Democratic primary contenders currently starved of media oxygen.McConnell though, presented with the extremely rare opportunity to do the right thing and also to benefit from it politically, looks dug in. We'll find out on Friday whether he has his votes.Want more essential commentary and analysis like this delivered straight to your inbox? Sign up for The Week's "Today's best articles" newsletter here.More stories from theweek.com John Bolton just vindicated Nancy Pelosi 7 witheringly funny cartoons about the GOP's John Bolton problem