NY Times:
To Senate Republicans, a Vote for Witnesses Is a Vote for Trouble
Lawmakers fear allowing new testimony would tie up the Senate indefinitely and open the door to a cascade of new accusations.
“We don’t need Mr. Bolton to come in and to extend this show longer, along with any other witnesses people might want, and occupy all of our time here in the Senate for the next few weeks, maybe even months,” Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas and a close ally of Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, said Tuesday evening on Fox.
Josh Holmes, a former chief of staff and a top outside adviser to Mr. McConnell, made it clear that Republicans viewed the idea of calling witnesses as a disaster in the making.
“More witnesses = Hindenburg,” Mr. Holmes wrote Wednesday on Twitter, showing a picture of the flaming airship. “None of it changes ultimate acquittal.”
They are afraid of the facts. Now, Republicans will be patting themselves on the back today about how clever they are but meanwhile …
Yoni Appelbaum/Atlantic:
Trump has led his party to this dead end, and it may well cost him his chance for reelection, presuming he is not removed through impeachment. But the president’s defeat would likely only deepen the despair that fueled his rise, confirming his supporters’ fear that the demographic tide has turned against them. That fear is the single greatest threat facing American democracy, the force that is already battering down precedents, leveling norms, and demolishing guardrails. When a group that has traditionally exercised power comes to believe that its eclipse is inevitable, and that the destruction of all it holds dear will follow, it will fight to preserve what it has—whatever the cost.
Tim Alberta had a very pointed thread on Lamar Alexander (who said the House managers proved their case, so he’s a ‘no’ on witnesses for that reason, and a ‘no’ on impeachment because what Trump did is bad but not impeachable bad):
I’ve spent a LOT of time with retired (and retiring) congressional Rs since 2016. Most feel zero sense of liberation to bash Trump on the way out. If anything, they’re even more cowed & cautious, fearing that being out of favor w: POTUS (and his party) limits their earning power.
And it’s not just about money. I’ve had numerous retiring Rs talk warily — sometimes fearfully — about the “cult” of Trump supporters back home. They worry about harassment of their families, loss of standing in local communities, estranged relationships, etc.
If you think this is a bunch of weak-ass excuse making from people who ought to rise above it and do what they think is right..... well, no argument here.
I’m just explaining the reality for these Rs. They feel trapped, most of them—and retirement isn’t the escape we might think.
But Lamar was right about one thing. The House managers proved their case:
Lamar’s epitaph:
That message was aimed at ex-Republicans.
That’s our message: make them pay in November and yes, we are pissed.
Tom Nichols/USA today:
Trump is being impeached over an extortion scheme, not a 'policy dispute'
Trump was shaking down Zelensky while trying to keep the rest of the government in the dark. That’s not a 'policy,' that’s a conspiracy.
This scheme (it is too misleading even to call it a “policy”) was a rogue operation against Ukraine’s new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, conducted by Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and a squad of shady characters, none of whom were answerable to anyone but Trump himself. (One wonders how Sen. Lee’s constitutionalism squares with foreign operations being conducted by the likes of Giuliani and Lev Parnas, out of sight of pesky members of Congress and their annoying questions.)
Quin Hillyer/Washington Examiner:
The longer GOP blocks Bolton, the more he will hurt them
Senate Republicans covering for Trump are letting all their chips ride on the intensity of the voters from Trump's base to carry them through to reelection, but that’s a risky bet. Especially with highly controversial candidates, those supporters can suddenly reach a breaking point where enough is enough. I’ve seen numerous elections where support for high-risk candidates suddenly evaporated, resulting in massive, sudden swings in the polls — one from a dead heat to a 25-point loss in just three weeks.
Republicans who don’t hedge their bets by at least allowing witnesses will have no chance to survive if Trump takes a dive. The remaining Republicans would face increasing odds of finding themselves a powerless minority against an enraged and emboldened Democratic majority absolutely out for blood.
G Elliott Morris on what the data for electability (fwiw) says, from the Economist ($$):
Who will be Donald Trump’s most forceful foe?
Data suggest that one Democratic candidate would do better than others against the president in November
Here, Mr Biden looks strong. YouGov’s polling reveals that Americans view him as the most moderate Democrat, on average. They perceive all the other major Democratic contenders as more extreme than Mr Trump (see chart).
A majority, but a shaky one. Then again, everything about America is shaky these days.
Dennis Aftergut/USA Today:
Dear Mr. Dershowitz, 'mixed motives' is no impeachment defense when there's corrupt intent
Taken together, Donald Trump's actions — at least seven of them — contradict the defense claim that he had any legitimate national interest in mind.
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, opened the question-and-answer portion of the Senate impeachment trial by asking whether President Donald Trump was guilty if he had "mixed motives." In other words, what if he was protecting both American interests by seeking an investigation of alleged foreign corruption and protecting his own interests because the investigation — and its announcement — would smear rival Joe Biden?
The president's lawyers responded that the Senate cannot properly convict a president for a "mixed motive" quid pro quo. After all, professor Alan Dershowitz argued, all elected officials take action to help their electoral prospects, and all believe that the nation is best served by their reelection. Presidents may not be removed from office for self-serving actions that also advance the public interest.
This absurdist argument is raised as a smokescreen to avoid what makes a trial a trial: hearing testimony from firsthand witnesses such as former national security adviser John Bolton, who says the president told him he would only allow military aid if Ukraine investigated former Vice President Biden and his son Hunter.
WaPo:
World Health Organization declares coronavirus outbreak a ‘public health emergency’
The World Health Organization announced Thursday that it was declaring the coronavirus outbreak a “public health emergency,” setting in motion a plan for global coordination to stem the spread of the virus, which originated last month in Wuhan, China.
Chinese officials announced more than 1,900 new cases of the coronavirus on the same day, as the total number of people infected in mainland China reached over 8,000 and surpassed those infected with SARS during the 2002-2003 epidemic.
The United States confirmed a sixth U.S. case of the Wuhan coronavirus on Thursday, marking the first time the virus has spread from person to person in the United States.
With experts saying a vaccine is still a long way off, more international cases of the illness have appeared. Australia, Vietnam and South Korea all announced new coronavirus infections, while India and the Philippines had their first ones. Here’s what we know so far:
One thing we know is it’s an evolving situation so what I write today might not be true in a month, but at the moment, flu seems worse, at least in the US. In China, well, that is another story.
One thing of concern is that personal protective supplies are running short there, and eventually here (that’s where some of it is made).
With airline cancellations and border closures, look for economic effects soon. And don’t assume it’s over.
In the meantime, follow CDC, trusted medical sources, and be wary of internet memes and self-styled ‘experts’. And get your flu shot and wash your hands.
NEJM is making all coronavirus articles free, no paywall. Not a new policy, they do that with big public health issues.The Lancet has, as well.
Back to politics: