This is newsy, I guess, but it shouldn’t be. It’s kabuki.

I am open to witnesses. I think it’s premature to decide who should be called until we see the evidence that is presented and get the answers to the questions that we senators can submit through the Chief Justice to both sides. What I don’t understand is why the House, having issued subpoenas, to Secretary Pompeo for example, did not seek to enforce those subpoenas in court, and instead rush to get the articles of impeachment passed before Christmas, and yet have not transmitted them to us in the Senate. So that seems an odd way to operate…

It is inappropriate, in my judgment, for senators on either side of the aisle to prejudge the evidence before they have heard what is presented to us, because the each of us will take an oath, an oath that I take very seriously to render impartial justice. That’s what it says, impartial justice. And I have heard Democrats like Elizabeth Warren, saying that the President should be impeached, found guilty, and removed from office. I’ve heard the Senate Majority leaders saying that he’s taking his cues from the White House. There are senators on both sides of the aisle, who, to me, are not giving the appearance of and the reality of judging that’s in an impartial way.

She’s a mortal lock to vote for acquittal at the trial. If she were in Murkowski’s or Romney’s position, not having to face voters for another two or four or six years, that wouldn’t be the case. But she’s up next fall and the left in Maine is out for blood after she voted to confirm Brett Kavanaugh. Collins voting futilely to remove Trump would do nothing to assuage that anger; all it would do is enrage the right, leaving her despised by both sides and doomed in November. Scolding McConnell here for taking his cues from the White House is a fine bit of empty posturing by a politician who’s doing what she can to appeal to swing voters back home but the cold fact is that she’s every bit as likely to vote for acquittal as Cocaine Mitch is.

By the same logic, she’s not as open to witnesses as she claims to be. What would Collins gain by greenlighting a bunch of testimony, particularly unpredictable, potentially game-changing testimony from inner-circlers like John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney? She wants her painful vote for acquittal to be as painless as it can be. Putting Mulvaney or Bolton under oath risks awkward admissions about what Trump knew about the pressure campaign against Ukraine and when, and every admission makes her acquittal vote that much harder to defend. So the smart play for her is to seem open-minded and reasonable (“I am open to witnesses”) while offering reasons for why those witnesses ultimately shouldn’t be called. She’s already hit upon a good one in the excerpt: If hearing from Mulvaney and Bolton was so important, House Democrats should have spent a few months trying to twist their arms in court. She has an opportunity based on the current available evidence, which is thin on firsthand observations about Trump’s behavior during the Ukraine saga, to cast a comparatively easy vote for acquittal. Why the hell would she complicate it?

Democrats are pushing hard this week for calling more witnesses after the Times’s scoop on Sunday hinting at how many top officials might potentially have material information about the pressure campaign. (“In late August, Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper joined Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and John R. Bolton, the national security adviser at the time, for a previously undisclosed Oval Office meeting with the president where they tried but failed to convince him that releasing the aid was in interests of the United States.”) Doug Jones, one of the three undecided Democrats on impeachment, published an op-ed last night calling for testimony from Mulvaney and Bolton, among others — a hint that he might vote no if they’re not called, further dooming his all-but-doomed reelection bid in Alabama. The most interesting potential witness complication has nothing to do with White House officials, though:

Lev Parnas, a former Rudy Giuliani associate charged with financial crimes, is looking to share more material with congressional investigators, according to a letter his lawyer has sent to a federal judge. The letter, filed in court on Monday evening, indicates that the committee first tasked with helming the impeachment inquiry is gathering additional evidence about Trump World.

In the letter, Parnas’ lawyer Joseph Bondy said the Justice Department will share materials with his client on Tuesday that it seized from his home and at his arrest. The materials include documents and the contents of an iPhone. Bondy then asked Judge Paul Oetken of the Southern District of New York to allow him to share those materials with the House Intelligence Committee; a court order currently bars him from sharing them with anyone. The Justice Department has said it does not object to him giving the material to Congress.

Is that why Pelosi held the articles of impeachment instead of delivering them to McConnell immediately? There was chatter last week that the House might call more witnesses before sending what they have to the Senate. Maybe Pelosi and Schiff got a heads up from Parnas’s team that there’s evidence in his possession that they’ll want to see, if only they can be patient for just a bit longer.

Imagine Susan Collins being asked to call to the stand one of Giuliani’s top Ukraine cronies, a guy who’s already under federal indictment, having no idea what he’ll say that might incriminate the president’s lawyer or even the president himself. She definitely isn’t open to witnesses, whatever she might be telling the media.

There’s an alternate theory for why Pelosi held the articles of impeachment:

I think I may have figured out why @SpeakerPelosi is holding the articles of impeachment (or at least part of the reason): She wants to make sure that when POTUS gives the SOTU on Feb 4, he is still under impeachment. /1

— Paul Rosenzweig (@RosenzweigP) December 30, 2019

Just think of how painful it would be for 53 Republican Senators to sit in the halls of Congress, watching a live meltdown on national TV. That, alone, would be worth the price of admission. Maybe I'm wrong and this hasn't crossed her mind — but I love the idea. /fin

— Paul Rosenzweig (@RosenzweigP) December 30, 2019

That’s clever, but if that was the game then why didn’t Pelosi just delay the impeachment vote until after the State of the Union (or just before it, I guess)? That would have spared her red-district freshmen from having to show their cards sooner than was absolutely necessary. And it would have given Schiff more time to wait out Parnas and maybe Bolton to try to get them to testify before the big vote.

Here’s Tulsi Gabbard, the lone member of the House to vote “present” on impeachment, lamenting that impeaching Trump has “greatly” improved his chances at reelection. Not so — opinion about Trump is so hyperpolarized that it’s basically immune from events, never budging much either way. (Although a recession would test that.) But the backlash might improve his chances a little. And given how tight the race was in swing states last time, a little might be all he needs.

In 2020, we will have a new president in the White House. How many of you do NOT want that to be Donald Trump? I certainly don't. Unfortunately, the House impeachment of the president has greatly increased the likelihood Trump will remain the president for the next 5 years … pic.twitter.com/FRRlbWHyo7

— Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 (@TulsiGabbard) December 31, 2019