1/ The cases the SCOTUS has agreed to hear--esp. Trump v. Mazars--are v. important: they *ought* to come out the same way the Nixon tapes and Paula Jones cases did (indeed, the questions here are easier), and therefore ...
@just_security
nytimes.com/2019/12/13/us/…
@just_security
nytimes.com/2019/12/13/us/…
2/ ... we *ought* to finally be able to learn whether Trump is influenced/compromised by foreign entanglements. But obviously it won't happen before the impeachment trial. Equally obviously, even if the records emerged next week & revealed Trump indebtedness to Russia, ...
3/ ... that wouldn't affect a single GOP Senator's vote. And it probably won't affect many decisive votes in WI/AZ/FL/Omaha/ME-2, either. It's now fairly apparent that facts, and abuses of constitutional authority, won't make a dent in the base, or w/any GOP members of Congress.
4/ Indeed, for many/most of that large segment, being in thrall or in cahoots with (or perhaps even in debt to) Putin is now seen as a virtue, or at best NBD (or, in any event, not as troubling as the prospect of a Democratic president (see Rich Lowry)).
5/ To be clear: I think the Mazars case, in particular, is a very big deal for the future of congressional oversight. See my post below. I'm only suggesting we shouldn't kid ourselves that it'd be likely to much affect the current political calculus.
balkin.blogspot.com/2019/07/can-co…
balkin.blogspot.com/2019/07/can-co…
