Short-circuiting the Senate trial

We learned recently that the Republican-controlled Senate is thinking about not allowing any witnesses at all at the impeachment trial. Maybe this helps explain that: Republicans themselves can't agree.

[I]t’s clear where the consensus is heading in the Republican Party: Acquit Trump and then move on.

[...]

The party is uniting around a strategy that could quickly acquit President Donald Trump of articles of impeachment while giving them the opportunity to call witnesses later in the trial if Republicans and the president are not satisfied with how things are going, according to interviews with nearly a dozen Republican senators on Thursday.

Heading into the trial, Republicans’ plan would be to call no witnesses and simply allow House Democrats and then the president’s attorneys to make their case before the public. After that, the Senate would consider calling people either for live testimony or closed-door depositions.

It’s a plan they believe will insulate the Senate GOP from pressure to call a host of controversial witnesses — which the caucus would struggle to do for political and procedural reasons alike — while putting Trump on track to be cleared before the end of January.

“The direction we appear to be headed is to let the House managers present their prima facie case which would mean no witnesses, to let the president’s counsel do the same thing,” said Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), a member of leadership. “And then to decide if there’s a reason to go forward from there.”

[...]

Already Senate Republicans have received a taste of what could come if they preemptively dismiss the idea of calling witnesses: Conservative Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) complained to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Wednesday to “fight fire with fire” and “rethink” his strategy. GOP senators also are loath to risk the president and his allies’ ire over the holiday break as both sides prepare for the trial.

[...]

“At the end, they can ask for witnesses to be called. You need 51 votes to get a witness called. I’m definitely not [backing any request for witnesses]. Not with my vote. But I’m just one, there are 99 more out there,” Graham said in an interview.

“I’d vote to call Hunter Biden,” countered Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.). “He’s relevant, material.”

The White House has sounded closer to Hawley. And some Republicans are eager to show deference to Trump and White House counsel Pat Cipollone, who met privately with McConnell on Thursday afternoon to continue to discuss strategy.

  Politico

But the White House's stance could change on a dime at any moment.

And their strategy is gaining currency with the president’s most vocal defenders.

And if they get Sean Hannity's backing, they'll get Trump's.

Then there’s the 47 Senate Democrats, who could counter with demands to call people like acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney or former national security adviser John Bolton.

Which is no doubt the stronger reason they're considering not calling witnesses. Unfortunately for them, that stratgey could be very bad in the long run, as it would appear to the public that they've got something to hide, which is the brush they've tried to tarnish the House with because it wouldn't let them call the Bidens or Alexandra Chalupa to testify in those hearings. They've been crying loud and long about how unfair it is that Trump hasn't been able to "defend himself" at the hearings. 

If they don't call witnesses in the Senate trial, it will be in perfect keeping with all their other objections that turned to dust when the Democrats gave them what they wanted.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.