Now that the House has sent the articles of impeachment to the Senate, some thoughts

The most glaring question is about the merits, and/or appropriateness, of calling more witnesses.

There's a diversity of perspectives about that:

“Evidence is coming in every day that supports our case,” said Rep. Val Demings (D-Fla.), one of seven impeachment managers who will be prosecuting the case against Trump in the Senate trial.

“All of this continues to underscore the need for witnesses and documents,” added Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.), another impeachment manager. 

Democrats remain hopeful that the revelations will dial up pressure on Senate Republicans weighing whether to seek witnesses and documents in the trial. It has already provided the House’s impeachment managers new angles to lay out their case against Trump, as they race to prepare for opening arguments expected to begin Tuesday.

So far, Senate Republicans appear unmoved.

“They were in such a hurry that they didn’t get all this information? What the heck, OK?” said Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), blaming House Democrats for impeaching Trump before waiting to develop additional strains of evidence. “So let’s focus on the record. They obviously felt they had enough information to impeach the president with what they had. Let’s take a look at what they had.”

Another big question has to do with Lev Parnas's credibility. He was lobbing bombshells all over the place on Rachel Maddow's show the other night, but the guy's track record needs to be considered:

You would like to think that even if the president of the United States decided to go through with a back-channel inquiry to the Ukrainian government to see if he could get them to investigate the Bidens, he would take one look at Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman and say, “Whoa, whoa, whoa. These guys look like the most oafish henchmen since Jeff Gillooly and Shawn Eckardt went after Nancy Kerrigan. You wouldn’t trust these guys to pick up a take-out lunch order, much less use them to execute a secret and politically sensitive request of a foreign government.”

Just a minimum of due diligence would have alerted the president that Giuliani had not recruited the A-Team:

Reports by McClatchy and the Miami Herald showed that Fruman is an exporter of luxury goods and Parnas is a former stockbroker who has left a long trail of debts in Florida and beyond.

Parnas has been sued repeatedly over unpaid debts and has faced eviction from several properties, federal and state court records show. During his career as a securities broker, he worked for three brokerages expelled from the industry by regulators.

Before that, Parnas “worked in an unspecified capacity” for Ukrainian oligarch Dmytro Firtash. Who’s Firtash?

Firtash, one of Ukraine’s wealthiest businessmen, is battling extradition by U.S. authorities on bribery charges from Vienna, where he has lived for five years.

Federal prosecutors in Illinois said in court papers in 2017 that Firtash was an “upper-echelon” associate of Russian organized crime. He was indicted in 2013 and charged with bribing Indian officials for access to titanium mines. Firtash has denied any wrongdoing.

Firtash was “financing” the activities of Parnas and Fruman, the source familiar with their business dealings said. The source did not detail their specific work for the oligarch or how much money he had paid them and over what period.

An honest question: How did these guys get cleared by the U.S. Secret Service to meet with the president and vice president inside the White House?

Parnas and Fruman posed like well-connected Ukrainian movers and shakers, and Giuliani and Trump appeared to have bought into the image. Once again, they didn’t do their homework:

Fruman and Parnas don’t appear to be big names in Ukraine, despite the spate of reports in the U.S. about their efforts there.

John Herbst, who served as U.S. ambassador to Ukraine from 2003 to 2006 — and since 2014 has headed a program on Ukraine and the broader Eurasia region for the think tank Atlantic Council — said he doesn’t recall anything about the pair.

“I have never heard their name in Ukraine until this issue arose. They are not well-connected Ukrainians,” Herbst said in an interview.

There’s some evidence that these guys managed to ingratiate themselves with Giuliani and Trump by telling them what they wanted to hear, that there was some sort of secret evidence about Biden corruption in Ukraine, and that only they knew how to get it revealed:

Parnas told the Miami Herald last month that Ukraine’s government has access to information on alleged wrongdoing by Biden and his son and other U.S. officials overseas — but that the U.S. government had shown little interest in receiving it through official channels. Parnas said his and Fruman’s friendship with Giuliani was their avenue to get the information into the Trump administration’s hands.

“I got certain information and I thought it was my duty to hand it over,” he told the Miami Herald on Sept. 26.

Last night, Parnas appeared on Rachel Maddow’s program and more or less admitted that he and his partner were just a pair of schmoes from South Florida. They had no special connections or avenues of influence in Ukraine. The only reason any government officials in Ukraine were willing to meet with them and listen to them was because they said they were acting on behalf of the American president.

But then the judgement of the US president has to be considered. Why did he trust Giuliani, let alone Parnas and Fruman? If a president were to use back channels in a foreign-policy situation, wouldn't he want really sharp, credentialed people of character?

I would dearly love to hear John Bolton testify at the Senate trial, but the context might sully what would surely be some bracing straight shooting.

There's no doubt that the whole proceeding is tainted with the partisan aim of inflicting maximum damage on Trump. How come no impeachment managers coming over from the House are Republicans?

Bottom line: it's unlikely that any of this changes the endgame. The choice in November is still going to be the Very Stable Genius or some radical leftist.

Do I have a horse in this race? No. A three-pillar conservative will not be among the choices.