Thread by @awprokop

One possible outcome:
-Collins and swing Rs back proposal to let each side pick one witness
-Conservative Republicans oppose because they want no witnesses
-Democrats oppose because they don't want Hunter Biden called
-So it goes to a vote and fails

This would get McConnell what he wants (no witnesses) and give Collins and company want they want (the ability to say both sides were unreasonable).

And yet, it would be risky for McConnell to let this go for a vote... because what if Democrats back it rather than kill it?

This is what McConnell has meant with "mutually assured destruction." The assumption on the R side has been that Democrats would never agree to any proposal that could result in Hunter as a witness because that could be such a disaster for Joe's campaign.

And would a Bolton-for-Hunter trade really be good for Democrats? Bolton's story is coming out in his book anyway. We already know the outlines of it and it likely won't change any GOP votes. In contrast, who knows what would happen if Hunter is deposed by Trump's team

Indeed, Schumer has adamantly opposed the idea so far. And the messaging going out from Democrats today is, "Republicans have the votes to call who they want, it's up to them, they don't need our votes."

But behind the reasonable-sounding “both sides should get to call witnesses” that Collins and others are pushing is an ugly partisan threat - if Ds want witnesses testifying about Trump’s conduct, Trump will get the chance to dirty them up

“Both sides should get the chance to call witnesses *relevant to Trump’s conduct*” would be the non-sham proposal.

But Manchin gave Rs a gift today by saying Hunter would indeed be relevant in his view.

msnbc.com/morning-joe/wa…