This is the Impeachment Briefing, The Times’s newsletter about the impeachment investigation. Sign up here to get it in your inbox every weeknight.

What happened today

Senate Republican leaders said that they had the votes — including those of moderates like Susan Collins — to shape an impeachment trial on their own terms, allowing them to move ahead without reaching a deal with Democrats, who want to call new witnesses and introduce new evidence.

The plan put forward by Senator Mitch McConnell would feature representatives of the House and the president making opening arguments before senators question both sides. A decision on witnesses would come afterward.

The plan is like the one used during the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton in 1999, which was approved by unanimous vote. But unlike then, when testimony from every major witness had already been made public by the time the case came to trial, President Trump has withheld key witnesses and nearly every piece of documentary evidence related to the case.

Senator Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader, called the plan a “kick-the-can down the road theory” and promised to force votes on four witnesses and document requests regardless. Senate Democrats are expected to oppose the Republican plan almost unanimously.

What Republicans and Democrats want from the trial

It appeared that all 53 Republican senators would vote for Mr. McConnell’s plan at the outset of the trial. Here’s where both sides stand on what a trial should look like.

REPUBLICANS

Many Senate Republicans have for weeks advocated a brief, narrow trial without witnesses, accusing House Democrats of failing to build a thorough enough case against Mr. Trump to warrant consideration of new material. Mr. McConnell is betting that once a trial starts, the desire to get it over with may persuade members of his party not to vote to hear from more witnesses.

That abbreviated trial could include only what Mr. McConnell announced Tuesday: opening statements and cross-examination, giving a voice to both sides without incorporating new revelations. An acquittal of Mr. Trump would cap it off.

Some moderate Republicans have signaled that they would support a more deliberate trial featuring witnesses like John Bolton, Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser. “Going with the Clinton impeachment process is satisfactory to me because that process did provide, down the road, for an opportunity to hear from witnesses, and I would like to hear from John Bolton,” Senator Mitt Romney said.

DEMOCRATS

Senate Democrats have focused on two elements of a potential trial — new witnesses and new documents. They want to hear from four people: Mr. Bolton, Mick Mulvaney, one of Mr. Mulvaney’s deputies and a White House budget official, none of whom testified in the House. Mr. Schumer has also said he wants to see more documents in the vein of the White House emails released in December.

Democrats want Mr. Trump removed from office. But at the very least, they want to put vulnerable Republican senators in uncomfortable positions. The rules require only a simple majority — 51 senators — to call witnesses, meaning that Republicans unwilling to publicly protest more fact-finding can break ranks on motions that Democrats introduce. “Our best leverage right now over Republicans is votes inside the Senate trial,” Senator Chris Murphy said Tuesday. “We should probably get to the point where we can put Republicans on record as soon as possible.”

What’s going on with the impeachment articles?

Before the Senate trial can begin, Speaker Nancy Pelosi must send over the two impeachment articles that House Democrats passed in December. Why is she still holding on to them? I asked my colleague Nick Fandos, who’s been covering the discussion in the Democratic caucus.

Nick, did anything happen with the articles over the two-week break?

Democrats will tell you they succeeded in some ways, by using the time to try to focus on the need for witnesses and documents in the Senate trial and put pressure on Republicans to have to take a position on whether they’d support calling witnesses. They did that both in private and by giving speeches and interviews that attempted to shift the media narrative around these questions to ensure that moderate senators like Ms. Collins and Lisa Murkowski, when they went home, got questioned about a trial and its fairness.

But Mr. McConnell didn’t give over anything today. What is Ms. Pelosi hoping for by continuing to hold the articles even after Congress’s return this week?