[ealgeone]

In this context, the Senate would review the House’s Articles of Impeachment and vote whether they want their time spent in a trial or not. If the Articles are shabby and partisan, chances are the Senate will say no-go.

I wouldn't be too sure of that as I worry about these:

Murkowski

Collins

Romney

Isackson

Paul

[Hostage]

I understand where you are coming from but I don’t see how you include Paul on that list. He’s been supporting the President fervently since POTUS has been declining to take the war bait in North Korea and Iran.

Romney, yes I see it as his people are implicated in the Ukraine corruption.

Collins may vote for an impeachment trial or maybe not. It depends on how well she would defend the Articles of Impeachment. She is straight enough to summarize whether such merits exist or not.

Murkowski may abstain as she did on Kavanaugh. She is a weak member.

Isackson I don’t know about.

Lee in Utah might be added as he recently appears to be compromised.

We can expect the cable and legacy broadcast media to block all the President’s defenses even as they are played out on CSPAN or in parts of social media that are not suppressed. They will follow with suspicious polls saying the public wants an impeachment trial.

[palmer]

I wouldn't be too sure of that as I worry about these: Murkowski Collins Romney Isackson Paul

Nobody gives a fig what any of those idiots think. Do the trial, hold the vote. There won't be two thirds to convict.

[DoodleDawg]

Takes 67 votes to remove. Even if all those vote to impeach, and it wouldn’t surprise me if they did, the Democrats still need 15 more.

[damper99]

Drop Paul from the list, but add Burr, Sasse, and Portman.