Here is the link to the above graphic. To set the stage for a historic day:
Greg Sargent/WaPo:
An overwhelming 71 percent of Americans believe President Trump should allow his top aides to testify at his impeachment trial, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds. That includes a whopping 72 percent of independents.
Meanwhile, two vulnerable GOP senators just road-tested arguments about Trump’s trial that are so spectacularly disingenuous that you can almost picture them snickering at their own bad faith as they rehearsed them in the mirror.
That part of the messaging, at least, is getting through.
Medium:
HISTORIANS’ STATEMENT ON THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP
We are American historians devoted to studying our nation’s past who have concluded that Donald J. Trump has violated his oath to “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States” and to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” His “attempts to subvert the Constitution,” as George Mason described impeachable offenses at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, urgently and justly require his impeachment.
President Trump’s numerous and flagrant abuses of power are precisely what the Framers had in mind as grounds for impeaching and removing a president. Among those most hurtful to the Constitution have been his attempts to coerce the country of Ukraine, under attack from Russia, an adversary power to the United States, by withholding essential military assistance in exchange for the fabrication and legitimization of false information in order to advance his own re-election.
President Trump’s lawless obstruction of the House of Representatives, which is rightly seeking documents and witness testimony in pursuit of its constitutionally-mandated oversight role, has demonstrated brazen contempt for representative government. So have his attempts to justify that obstruction on the grounds that the executive enjoys absolute immunity, a fictitious doctrine that, if tolerated, would turn the president into an elected monarch above the law…
President Trump’s lawless obstruction of the House of Representatives, which is rightly seeking documents and witness testimony in pursuit of its constitutionally-mandated oversight role, has demonstrated brazen contempt for representative government. So have his attempts to justify that obstruction on the grounds that the executive enjoys absolute immunity, a fictitious doctrine that, if tolerated, would turn the president into an elected monarch above the law.
Dave A Hopkins/Honest Graft blog:
Liberals Got an Impeachment, Moderates Got It Their Way
The key players on impeachment have always been a group of moderate Democrats who represent the pivotal voting bloc in the House, many of them newly elected in 2018 from districts carried or narrowly lost by Trump two years before. When these members opposed impeaching Trump, House speaker Nancy Pelosi gave them public cover, repeatedly arguing that an impeachment that lacked bipartisan support would be a mistake and even quipping that Trump was "just not worth" impeaching. But when a band of leading moderate freshmen responded to Trump's September admission that he discussed Joe Biden with the president of Ukraine by endorsing an impeachment inquiry, Pelosi reversed her position within a matter of hours, immediately setting a process in motion that led to the upcoming vote.
The anti-Trump left would get its impeachment after all, as it turned out, but the specific arrangements would continue to reflect moderate preferences and demands. The House Intelligence Committee would take the lead in fact-finding, rather than the more colorfully combative Judiciary Committee. The articles of impeachment would focus on Ukraine, not other arguably impeachable offenses committed in other subject areas. And the House's business would be wrapped up by the holiday recess, avoiding the risk of popular fatigue that might arise from a lengthier process.
And what does that get you? Votes when it counts. Most of the moderate Ds will come along and vote for the Constitution, their country, and their party.
Cas Mudde/Guardian:
On impeachment, Democrats are damned if they do, damned if they don't
Even if Republicans put party over country, Democrats should not, which is why the impeachment process is the right decision.
This is not to say that it will necessarily benefit the Democratic party. Sure, it will free up some space to push core Democratic issues and policies to the top of the political agenda, but it is doubtful they will get the space and time to really make a difference. Trump and the media have developed a mutually beneficial relationship that prioritizes scandals over substance and there is little reason to assume this will change substantially in the run-up to the 2020 elections.
Moreover, I doubt it will hurt Trump’s campaign or chances at re-election. The idea that impeachment will hurt Trump in the 2020 elections is based on the powerful myth of the “moderate Republican”, who dislikes Trump’s radicalism but is afraid of “socialist” Democrats. Condemned on a daily basis on the opinion pages of the major liberal newspapers by anti-Trump conservative columnists, who have no electoral base and a mainly (coastal) liberal readership, this myth was at the heart of Hillary Clinton’s disastrous 2016 campaign and still informs the electoral strategy of Democratic “centrists” today.
It is based on a 20th-century understanding of norms (and shame) that has been proven completely irrelevant to Trump, and the broader Republican party, in the past four years
Politico:
Why Trump’s path to reelection is totally plausible
As impulsive and erratic as the president may be, his campaign is relying on the same advantages that helped reelect George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
In sum, the Trump team can give cogent answers to the question — How will Trump win? — and they are faking it well (as skilled operatives usually do) if they don’t actually believe what they are saying. But there are too many imponderable assumptions embedded in those answers for anyone but Trump partisans to embrace them as fully credible.
Plausible ≠ likely.
WaPo:
Russian disinformation network is said to have helped spread smear of U.S. ambassador to Ukraine
The web analysis firm Graphika has linked posts to a known Russian operation.
The apparent aims of the digital deception underscore the parallels between Russia’s campaign of disinformation and the GOP’s embrace of debunked theories that paint Trump as the victim of British spooks and deep-state saboteurs.
HuffPost:
Here’s A Roundup Of All The Latest Polling On Impeachment
Most Americans say they’ve made up their minds on whether to impeach President Trump, a new HuffPost/YouGov survey finds.
WaPo:
Spanberger, Luria — vulnerable Va. Democrats — will vote to impeach Trump
The two most vulnerable Democrats representing Virginia in Congress say they will vote to impeach President Trump, complicating their quest for reelection in districts that voted for the president in 2016.
Rep. Abigail Spanberger, of the Richmond suburbs, cited the oath she took to protect and defend the Constitution when she confirmed on Monday that she will vote for articles of impeachment on Wednesday. Rep. Elaine Luria, of Virginia Beach, made a similar reference to her oath of office when she made her decision public late last week.
Spanberger’s announcement came as fellow Democrats released solemn statements in support of impeaching a president for only the third time in the nation’s history — and Republican lawmakers continued to rally around Trump.
Todd Gitlin/USA Today:
Denying, ignoring and making up facts are the real Trump-era obstacles to common ground
Democrats are playing baseball and Republicans are playing fantasy football. From climate to Christmas to Ukraine, you can't compromise with a fantasy
There is no common ground between those who believe that 2+2=4 and those who believe that 2+2=5. Nor need it be sought. No common ground is needed between those who know that convulsive climate change produces extreme weather, and those who think that a cold day proves the planet cannot be warming. The only question worth debating is: How do we decarbonize an economy that hastens us pell-mell toward disaster?