“[Speaker Pelosi] could choose to tweak her announcement and send only the second article, on obstruction, for trial. ... Separating the two article ... would make perfect sense.”
“[A]ll the evidence about Trump’s obstruction is a matter of public record. There’s nothing more to add, so the second article is ripe for trial.”
“But as to the first [article, on the shakedown of Ukraine], although there is plenty of evidence demonstrating Trump’s guilt, his obstruction has prevented all of the evidence from coming forward.”
“Since the House voted to [impeach] last month, new revelations of Trump’s involvement have emerged, including emails showing that aid was ordered withheld from Ukraine 91 minutes after Trump’s supposedly ‘perfect’ phone call with President Volodymyr Zelensky.”
“Holding the first article back, and letting the second go forward, would be a powerful and precise response to McConnell’s unprecedented attempts to avoid committing to a real trial. It makes practical sense but also highlights what’s at stake here.”
“Trump would be forced to undergo two impeachment trials instead of one — but that’s a fair price for him to pay for his attempts to hide evidence from the American people.”
“[Alternatively, the Speaker] could transmit ... both [articles]— along with a House-approved provision advising the Senate that if it fails to obtain adequate witnesses and documents, the House will reopen the investigation into Article I and subpoena that material itself.”
“[T]hat would be a fair price for McConnell to pay. The speaker would ... guarantee[] that Trump would face another investigation because of McConnell’s insistence on a sham trial, one that fails to call willing witnesses or deal with relevant, if potentially damaging, evidence.”
