The vote on the second article hasn't happened yet as of this writing, but it'll go the same. I think one doofus said he was voting for 1 and against 2, but I don't expect any other split votes.
ETA And the second article passes as expected. Donald J Trump is the third American president to be impeached.
Minutes after the House voted to impeach President Trump, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) dropped a bombshell: She won’t send the articles of impeachment to the Senate until she feels they’ll get a fair hearing on the other side of Capitol Hill.
Really curious about Brent's "The Dems are playing 5-D Chess" claim now...
OTOH, spending more time calling attention to Mitch trying to rig the trial in Trump's favor, and giving Trump more time to freak out and act rashly against his own interest, could be a good move. And it's consistent with my earlier thoughts about waiting for the courts to compel more witnesses.
Calling witnesses doesn't mean that the Republicans won't ultimately acquit. But it probably means the public learns more details that look bad for Trump, and for the Senate Republicans covering his ass.
And even if McConnell gets what he wants and doesn't call any witnesses, that's still bad news for vulnerable senators like Collins and McSally, because the public overwhelmingly favors calling witnesses.
I continue to view this as more about what happens in November than what happens in the next two weeks. Either a plurality or a majority of the public already thinks Trump is guilty, depending on what poll you're looking at, and I don't know if that number will increase, but I sure don't think it's going to go any lower. And an overwhelming majority, 69% according to the latest CNN poll, believes that the Senate should call witnesses.
The Republicans have successfully delayed that decision; they defeated initial calls for witnesses on a party-line vote, but there will be another vote in a few days, after opening arguments. The press is focusing heavily on Republicans who might vote with the Democrats, and Collins in particular. I think that's Lucy and the football shit; don't count on Collins to do the right thing -- but again, if you look at this as being about November, if she votes No then she's just written the attack ads her opponent will be running. (I think Collins's ideal political outcome is one where she votes Yes but there aren't enough Yes votes for the motion to pass. That way she doesn't alienate Republican primary voters, because no harm no foul, but she prevents Democrats from running "she didn't even want to call witnesses" ads against her.)
Securing a conviction is almost certainly an unattainable goal. But making the case that Trump is a crook and his party is shielding him from consequences is a very attainable goal. And I think so far Schiff and Schumer are both doing a good job of that.