Democrat impeachment show fails to impress, Trump's defenders make impressive arguments

Monica Showalter:

Like week-old meat left in a hot car, the stench of defeat is starting to overpower the swag pens and stifled giggles in the Democrats' impeachment project.

Axios has fresh news about how bad it is:

Officials in both parties tell me that — barring surprise new information — President Trump is on a glide path to swift acquittal at his Senate impeachment trial, despite a blizzard of evidence bolstering Democrats' accusations.

• Why it matters: Trump has a decent chance of avoiding witnesses and of losing zero Republican votes on conviction.
• Think about that: When the news broke, did anyone think every single Republican in the House and Senate would have his back? Bill Clinton pined for such unity. 

A source close to House Democrats sounded morose after Trump's defense team made its opening arguments yesterday: "I think our team feels like we did everything possible and are going to lose anyway."

• "It feels like maybe we’ll still get a witness, but more likely not, and even if we do it won’t matter," the source added.
• "The GOP gamble is always that most voters don’t care about process ... Up to us to make them pay for this."

The whole thing, from Axios big Mike Allen, king of the swamp, in a column that almost always can find a silver lining for the Democrats otherwise, (and didn't this time), can be read here.

The news comes as we were watching closely for signs of peel-off from either Republicans or Democrats on the Senate floor. Signs of something happening began a couple of days ago when #NeverTrump Republican and jealous former contender Mitt Romney expressed his displeasure with the Democrats' Schiff show, and made a de facto statement of support for Trump, which we know had to be distasteful to him but not as distasteful as hearing from his voters.

Second, there was the insane "insult the jurors" strategy employed by the likes of impeachment manager Rep. Jerry Nadler who managed to insult at least two of the four potential swing Republican senators who might have voted with the Democrats who sought to call witnesses to the Senate trial, a job they failed to do themselves when they had control in the House. Instead of flatter and appeal to them, hoping to get them to go along for the ride as might have been expected, Nadler chose instead to insult Senators Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins, pretty much calling them first traitors and then cowed pawns of Trump, which somehow didn't win their hearts.

...

There is more.

AS a former General Counsel, one of my duties was finding good lawyers to represent the company in litigation.  It appears to me that Trump's lawyers did a masterful job of refuting the arguments of the Democrat impeachment managers and did it in short order.

For example, the Democrats complaint about the lack of production of documents failed because they ignored basic Constitutional law.  The Constitution requires the House to approve of the impeachment proceedings BEFORE it can subpoena documents.  A committee has to be authorized to do so by the House as a whole before it can issue valid subpoenas.  Pelosi and the Democrats never did it.  That is why the President did not even have to claim executive privilege on any of the documents.

Another fundamental problem with the Democrats' case is their double standard on withholding aid to get a result.  They are saying that it was OK when Biden did it to get a prosecutor fired investigating the company that was giving his son millions, but not OK to request help with an investigation of that kind of corruption.  That is just nuts, as is their specious "corrupt intent" argument.  If corrupt intent was a standard in that regard, doesn't Biden's actions come closer to that than asking for an investigation?