“The affair thus far is markedly different from the Clinton trial two decades ago, when procedural rules were passed unanimously after Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott of Louisiana and his Democratic counterpart, Tom Daschle of South Dakota, had resolved to work together despite the rancorous partisanship…

“Under the Senate’s usual rules, the minority party—and even a single senator—has significant power to delay or alter the proceedings. But under [these] impeachment-trial rules, McConnell can resolve any dispute by simple majority vote—and, for the moment anyway, he has the votes to do so. That’s why Schumer and the Democrats were so determined to force votes on each amendment, in an attempt to hammer home their contention that the trial, in its present incarnation, is inherently unfair. It’s the only leverage they have, and the only real remaining suspense is whether at least four GOP senators might join Democrats next week in agreeing to seek witness testimony or subpoena more documents.”
Todd S. Purdum, The Atlantic

“Republicans have successfully maneuvered around the evidence that already exists for removing Donald Trump from office. Their ability to do so probably wouldn’t change even if damning new information came out, but it’s nevertheless in their interest to keep anything new from coming out. That’s why 13 hours were spent on Tuesday rejecting Democratic amendments to subpoena new witnesses and documents at the outset of the trial… The strategy was to block Democrats from obtaining new material, and then to mock their presentation for failing to present any new material. In judging it that way, they elide the crucial question: Whether Donald Trump had admirably discharged his duties as president in the Ukraine affair.”
Jim Newell, Slate

“Every impeachment trial in American history has heard from fact witnesses. And at least every impeachment trial in the last hundred years has heard fact testimony from new witnesses — those who have not previously provided evidence to the House of Representatives… The president’s allies in the Senate must ask themselves whether they would brush aside such serious allegations if someone else was occupying the White House. One suspects that they would react very differently if, for instance, President Barack Obama had been accused of asking a foreign government to investigate Mitt Romney.”
Noah Bookbinder, New York Times

“Yes, the Constitution states that public officials may only be impeached for ‘high crimes and misdemeanors,’ but that phrase had an expansive meaning when it was written into the Constitution… The impeachment power, Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers, extends to ‘those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.’... As a member of Congress, James Madison argued that a president could be impeached for ‘wanton removal of meritorious officers.’… Trump’s claim that he was improperly impeached is simply wrong.”
Ian Millhiser, Vox

“What happens in the trial will also affect the course of the presidency. Will future presidents take the threat of impeachment seriously? Or will they think of it as a small annoyance that isn’t worth avoiding? Will they feel secure in resisting what has been up to now routine congressional oversight, or will they accept that bargaining with Congress is part of the rules of the game? Will they feel emboldened to ignore the law when it comes to appropriations, or will they accept that spending law is binding? All presidents take domestic politics into account in foreign affairs, and rightly so, but will future presidents remember this episode and feel licensed to conduct foreign affairs for their own narrow personal interest — or will they remember this episode and exercise caution?”
Jonathan Bernstein, Bloomberg