Much of the commentary about the witnesses question has assumed that there are a half dozen or so so-called Republican moderates up for reelection in November and that the outcome of the trial will be determined by whether members of that group break ranks and call for witnesses. But new reporting suggests that just the opposite is closer to the case.

Read More

The first votes of 2020 will be cast Monday in Iowa. Meanwhile, voting rights advocates are warning that this could be a banner year for voter suppression, and after 2016, concerns abound that we could see new efforts by foreign powers to interfere in the election.

One of the top election experts in the country, Rick Hasen, will join us Friday to discuss threats to elections — the real ones and the imagined ones — that we’re likely to see in 2020. Hasen is the Chancellor’s Professor of Law and Political Science at the University of California, Irvine and a frequent source for TPM reporters. We’ll also discuss attempts by the Trump administration and its allies to perpetuate the “voter fraud” myth.

Sign up to watch here.

That is, if they want to continue with their acquittal cause.

President Trump’s legal team made it through the first day of questioning with several bruises, mainly from its attempts to answer questions about the underlying facts of the case against the President.

One day later Alan Dershowitz is having to walk back his novel theory that a U.S. President can solicit foreign interference in a U.S. election in his favor if he believes his reelection is in the national interest.

I’ve said many times that it’s the Republican Senate rather than Donald Trump who is on trial in this exercise. That seems confirmed by everything we’ve seen so far. Nothing we’ve learned from Lev Parnas or John Bolton in recent days adds anything material to what we know about President Trump’s actions. Yes, we have an even higher level of proof or confirmation. But when a fact is already obvious and indisputable it’s pretty hard to prove it more.

What we have seen is more and more evidence or at least a clearer and clearer illustration of what Senate Republicans will accept from President Trump. No real trial. No witnesses. Open arguments that using state power to coerce foreign leaders to sabotage U.S. elections is fine and indeed proper.

To my mind, Democrats have done a good job on this.

Read More

Rick Hasen is one of the nation’s top experts on voter suppression and voter fraud propaganda of the sort often pushed by the Trump administration. He’s been a go-to source for our reporters and editors on these issues for years.

Tomorrow, we’re holding an Inside briefing with Hasen. If you care about these issues, you won’t want to miss it.

Sign up to join us here.

Another 3 hours or so of senator questions this evening, then we are expecting to hear from Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) on whether he will vote to hear witnesses. All the latest from the TPM team here.

New statement just out.

What is most significant, telling in Sen. Alexander’s statement rejecting witnesses and evidence is really not the part on witnesses. I’m shocked that so many people were thinking there was actually a chance he was going to support holding a real trial. In his tweet storm he writes, straightforwardly enough, that “there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the U.S. Constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense.” He’s willing to stipulate to all the claims. So really, what is the point of witnesses?

It’s as though he’s entering a pleas of nolo contendere on behalf of the President and stating that the offense simply doesn’t matter. He is willing to stipulate to all the House Manager’s factual claims. They just don’t matter. He later says that Trump’s action were “inappropriate” and no more. It is really as simple as this: he did it but it doesn’t matter.

We wrapped up the impeachment trial’s Q&A portion last night and two key senators immediately announced where they stood on witnesses: Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) was for them, but Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) was against.

Now we’re waiting for Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) to make a statement (Romney is a yes). But, as Tierney Sneed wrote last night, the best Democrats can hope for now is a 50-50 tie. Chief Justice John Roberts could break it, but he’s not expected to do so.

Is it game over for Democrats? Not quite.