Four big things to watch for as impeachment trial begins

[Bloomberg]( Follow Us //link.mail.bloombergbusiness.com/click/19218889.14580/aHR0cHM6Ly90d2l0dGVyLmNvbS9ib3Bpbmlvbg/57d8157f3f92a424d68d6450Be6eeb170 [Get the newsletter](hash=b9b2681361bede0e1069ca238efb1ec2) Get Jonathan Bernstein’s newsletter every morning in your inbox. [Click here to subscribe](hash=b9b2681361bede0e1069ca238efb1ec2). After the formalities last week, the U.S. Senate on Tuesday will begin the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump for real. Republican Leader Mitch McConnell has prepared a plan for how the Senate will proceed, which is in many ways similar to what the Senate agreed to in 1999 for the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton. But in several ways, it departs from that precedent. The plan must be adopted by the Senate. Before the final vote, Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer will offer one or more amendments laying out alternative procedures. It appears, from reporting on Monday, that McConnell has the votes to do it his way. But there are still several things to watch for. - Will all 53 Republicans unite behind McConnell in these early procedural votes? That would certainly be a show of strength. It wouldn’t guarantee that McConnell will get his way later on, when votes will be taken about witness testimony and other evidence, and perhaps to dismiss the case before a final verdict. But it would at least hint that Republicans will be united when it counts. (Remember that for procedural motions, Republicans can win even if only 51 of the 53 Senators stick together. That’s way more unity than they’ll need for any final votes on the [articles of impeachment](, where Democrats will need at least 20 Republicans to join them to remove Trump from office.) - Will Chief Justice John Roberts play a more aggressive or more passive role in the proceedings? It’s possible, as Margaret Taylor [argues]( at Lawfare, that Roberts may have to make at least one critical decision on Tuesday on whether information may be presented on matters that surfaced after the House of Representatives finished its impeachment inquiry. How he acts may signal what he’ll do as the trial goes along. Of course, there’s also the question if he is more aggressive of whether he’ll be even-handed or intercede mainly for the president’s defense. - To what extent will the president’s defense team — and Republican Senators — lean on preposterous claims that a president cannot be impeached for abuse of power? Or will they instead put more emphasis on arguments that he isn’t guilty of the specific allegations the House has made? Will they really stick with the claim, repeated in [Saturday’s filing](, that somehow the entire impeachment is invalid because the lead impeachment manager, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, paraphrased Trump’s words in a House hearing? Or will they actually make serious arguments? - How heavily do Democrats want to push their procedural grievances? Over the month since the House passed the articles of impeachment, Democrats have put Senate trial arrangements front and center in their messaging — even more than the actual charges against Trump. They certainly will be fighting over the rules on Tuesday, since that’s the day for it, and they may feel that they have some complaints that will put public opinion on their side. For example, calling witnesses in the Senate trial polls extremely well. McConnell’s plan is to give the House the same 24 hours to present its case that it had in 1999, but to do it in two marathon 12-hour sessions going well past midnight instead letting it happen over four days. That, too, will probably seem unfair to most people. I suspect some Democrats believe their best strategy is to force swing-state senators up for election this year to take difficult votes, while others think the best strategy is to pound on the evidence against the president. 1. Tom Mann and Norm Ornstein on [bipartisanship](. 2. Kimberly Cowell-Meyers and Carolyn Gallaher at the Monkey Cage on [Northern Ireland](. 3. Seth Masket at Mischiefs of Faction with all the evidence of [what’s wrong with legislative term limits](. As it happens, state-level term limits has been one of the reforms political scientists have paid the most attention to, mainly because (and not to take anything away from the authors Masket cites) it’s such an easy thing to study: There’s a clear before and after for the states that have passed these limits, plus it’s possible to compare across states. 4. Jamelle Bouie on [term limits](. 5. Alexander Agadjanian and G. Elliott Morris on [non-ideological voters.]( 6. And my Bloomberg Opinion colleague Justin Fox on [single-family zoning.]( Get Early Returns every morning in your inbox. [Click here to subscribe](hash=b9b2681361bede0e1069ca238efb1ec2). Also subscribe to [Bloomberg All Access]( and get much, much more. You’ll receive our unmatched global news coverage and two in-depth daily newsletters, the Bloomberg Open and the Bloomberg Close.  Before it’s here, it’s on the Bloomberg Terminal. Find out more about how the Terminal delivers information and analysis that financial professionals can’t find anywhere else. [Learn more](.  You received this message because you are subscribed to Bloomberg's Early Returns newsletter. [Unsubscribe]( | [Bloomberg.com]( | [Contact Us]( Bloomberg L.P. 731 Lexington, New York, NY, 10022