"Republicans are arguing that the latest reports -- that former national security adviser John Bolton's book manuscript says that Trump told him in August that he was withholding $391 million in aid until Ukraine announced a probe into the Bidens -- are likely true but simply confirm what is already known.
And they are saying that new allegation, first revealed by The New York Times, is consistent with the details laid out by House Democratic managers in their case that Trump used official acts to urge a foreign power to undercut a leading political rival in the 2020 presidential campaign.
But they say that nothing in there is impeachable -- nor does it warrant the hearing from new witnesses since it confirms what is already known, they say.
"I don't think anything he says changes the facts," South Dakota Sen. John Thune, the majority whip, told CNN. "I think people kind of know what the fact pattern is. ... There's already that evidence on the record."
Sen. Kevin Cramer, a North Dakota Republican, added: "I think he sounds like a lot of the other witnesses, frankly. I don't know that he's got a lot new to add to it."
SO... no one could have predicted... well, no one other than about half the people who post here. The rest of the article is full of prevarications by GOP Sens about what is impeachable.
Let's talk about that with Constitutional expert Charles Black, Jr who wrote the book on impeachment:
"Suppose a president were to move to Saudi Arabia, so he could have four wives, and were to propose to conduct the office of the presidency by mail and wireless from there. This would not be a crime, provided his passport were in order. Is it possible that such gross and wanton neglect of duty could not be grounds for impeachment and removal?"
Or suppose the President did what most people now seem to agree Trump did in order to win an election?