Wondering on Wednesday (v194)

Ready... Set... Wonder

The impeachment trial continues in earnest today, likely ending before 11PM if all goes well, compared to yesterday's day-into-night-into-morning marathon. Part of me wonders what more the House Managers and the Trump team could possibly say for up to 24 hours that they haven't already said - although, for the president's team, maybe they learned something yesterday and will be better prepared to actually offer a defense? I wonder...

I also wonder who was the rocket scientist who came up with the now-and-hopefully-forever rejected idea of doing any 'horsetrading' on witnesses for the trial. From this Bloomberg article, 

Some Republicans have suggested the could be open to calling witnesses such as acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and former National Security Advisor John Bolton if Republicans are allowed to call Joe and Hunter Biden as well as the unidentified intelligence community whistleblower.

While Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has said "that trade is not on the table," I honestly wonder why any Democrat would even consider going along with any request to allow people who are completely outside the actions taken by president Trump to testify, no matter what 'trade' they might get in return. 

First-term Indiana Republican Senator Mike Braun said that "the idea of witnesses will not get anywhere if it's not reciprocal" but there is no reciprocity when you're comparing Mulvaney and Bolton - people with direct knowledge of what was going on, according to all of the witnesses who testified in the House - to the Bidens, neither of whom 

• had any direct or indirect dealings with president Trump;
• had any direct or indirect dealings with President Zelensky;
• had any direct or indirect dealings with anyone in the current administration;
• had any direct or indirect involvement with the Ukrainian aid; or
• had any direct or indirect involvement with whatever drug deal Giuliani and Mulvaney were cooking up. 

As Joe Biden pointed out, the impeachment is a "constitutional issue. We're not going to turn it into a farce or political theater." Why is that so hard to understand, I wonder?

Moving on to something more entertaining, there's Kentucky's junior Senator Rand Paul, who said earlier today that there are 45 senators who are willing to dismiss the impeachment charges; the remaining senators are "wanting to hear a little more." this totally contradicts fellow Kentuckian Mitch McConnell, who said last week that there's "little or no sentiment" to dismiss without first hearing the presentations from the House managers. 

But it was his comments on the potential of John Bolton testifying.  Echoing comments from #IMPOTUS himself, Paul pointed to Bolton's tenure and tried to figure out what the right answer would be.

It's unknown. Some people who have talked to him think that he has an axe to grind, that he's angry he was publicly fired by the president. But he also has a history of believing in unlimited powers for the president. 

Which one is the guiding light for John Bolton at this point? Axe to grind and books to sell? Or, be a player and say, 'even if I'm gone, he's doing what I want on Iran and other things?'

Hey, Rand Paul, here's an idea: maybe Bolton is going to be a patriot,  and say, 'even if I'm gone, and even if Trump's doing what I want on Iran and other things, I don't care - and I'm going to do the right thing and tell the truth?'  

Wouldn't that be fun, I wonder?