Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has a lot of balls to juggle when it comes how to handle the coming impeachment trial in his chamber: from President Trump’s desire for a long, witness-filled trial that would air out his conspiracy theories about Ukraine; to wobbly moderates in his own conference who are at least somewhat uncomfortable with the President’s Ukraine behavior; to McConnell’s own preference for a swift and witness-less procedure.

David Kurtz made this point to our editorial team today and I wanted to share it with you. It’s a key reality check without which it’s impossible to make sense of the news of the moment. Much of our understanding of the current situation is framed around the idea – clearly not actually the case – that the Ukraine conspiracy happened in the past and that the nation is now seeking to litigate whether the President is guilty and how he should be punished if he is guilty. Let’s think of it as a Watergate model, offense followed by cover-up and investigation in tandem.

But clearly this gets the essence of the situation wrong. It’s not something in the past at all. It is an active and on-going series of events. It’s a crime in progress.

Here is some interesting new information. We take it as a given that supporters and opponents of impeachment are basically locked into their positions. All the available evidence supports that conclusion. But there are small exceptions or nuances to that reality when you zoom in close.

There appears to be some disagreement between Senate Republicans and the White House on the length of a trial and calling witnesses. Senators just want to end things with a vote. Perhaps you’ll get a restatement of the case from both sides and then a vote. But it’s the same difference since we know what the arguments are. Little will come of that we don’t already know. There’s very little that is unpredictable or new. We have already seen over the last couple weeks that once we’re into pure partisan haggling, as opposed to unknowns and new facts, people tend to tune out.

I confess I don’t get this either. I guess perhaps they just don’t want the hassle of his generally meritless claims of attorney-client privilege. But he is truly central to the whole conspiracy. From TPM Reader JB …

I’m wondering what the case would be for not calling Rudy Giuliani as a witness at the Senate’s forthcoming impeachment trial

Good morning and happy Tuesday, December 17. In a new interview with the New York Times, Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani drags the President, as well as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, deeper into the scheme to oust ex-Ukraine ambassador and key impeachment witness Marie Yovanovitch from the embassy in Kyiv. Here’s more on that and other stories we’re following.

Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn hasn’t won any favor from his judge with a kamikaze legal strategy that has him attacking the same prosecutors he hatched a plea deal with in 2017.

Let me point your attention to Sen. Schumer’s letter and proposal to Sen. McConnell about the upcoming Senate trial. In essence, he proposes the Senate adopt the trial rules adopted unanimously for Bill Clinton’s trial in 1999. Note that in 1999, Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. So they had a fairly free hand to run things as they chose. Not to be snarky but those rules really amount to no more than holding a trial – equal time for both sides to present a case, a reasonable time limits on prosecution and defense, ability to call witnesses, etc.

Good morning and happy Monday, December 16. The House Judiciary Committee filed its impeachment report early Monday morning, outlining its justification for the two articles of impeachment against President Trump — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Here’s more on that and other stories we’re following.