Illustration by João Fazenda

The Monday before Thanksgiving, Adam Schiff, the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, sent a letter to his congressional colleagues saying that, in effect, his work was done. The committee’s report on President Trump’s almost certainly impeachable dealings with Ukraine would be ready soon after the members returned from the holiday break. Schiff left open the possibility that more materials might “come to light,” but he emphasized that the evidence the committee found is “clear and hardly in dispute.” The public heard testimony from twelve witnesses, which was, in turn, stirring (Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman’s tribute to his immigrant father), gripping (Fiona Hill’s realization that the “irregular channel” in Ukraine policy was backed by the President), and absurd (repeated references to A$AP Rocky). The report will go to the House Judiciary Committee, whose chair, Jerrold Nadler, will gavel open a new set of hearings on Wednesday. Schiff is putting together a neatly wrapped package; the question, as the proceedings move to the next stage, is whether it will be enough.

The answer depends on what the Democrats are trying to achieve. When such discussions get too specific, or too mathematical—with regard to the sixty-seven votes in the Senate that it will take to convict and remove Trump—Democratic legislators invoke such phrases as “constitutional duty” and “judgment of history.” Those are good and, indeed, essential words, but there may be more practical measures of success. If the point is just to get enough Democratic votes in the House to impeach the President, then Schiff and Nadler can probably declare victory. But the Democrats are facing the prospect that, when they take their case to the Senate, only a few Republicans may be willing to even hear them out.

It had seemed possible that the Judiciary Committee would basically serve as a rewrite desk, translating the Intelligence Committee’s findings into the legal language of articles of impeachment, then rushing them to the full House, for a vote, and on to the Senate, for a trial. (One concern is that a long trial will keep Democratic senators off the Presidential campaign trail, since they would have to serve in the role of jurors.) Nadler appears to have more than that planned. Last Tuesday, he sent a letter to Trump, asking him to let the committee know if “you and your counsel plan to attend” the proceedings. Nadler said that the committee would explore the constitutional meaning of impeachment, but he was otherwise vague as to the parameters of the new hearings. How many witnesses will there be? Will charges go beyond the Ukraine imbroglio and perhaps include allegations of obstruction of justice described in the Mueller report? Nadler may not yet know, in part because each day seems to bring another revelation; at this stage, it may be a mistake for Democrats to be too wedded to a strict timetable.

This is particularly true because Schiff does not seem to have won over any Republicans. In fact, Trump’s support within the Party is getting louder—and weirder. Last week, Senator John Kennedy argued on Fox News that, if the President believed that someone—namely, Joe Biden—who “happens to be a political rival” was corrupt, then asking the Ukrainians to investigate that person would be “in the national interest.” Senator Lindsey Graham is now demanding that the focus be on Biden’s son, Hunter, and his connections to a Ukrainian gas company. “I am not going to create a country where only Republicans get investigated,” Graham told Fox News. When reporters asked him about those remarks in light of his long friendship with Joe Biden, Graham said, “My conscience is clear.” Defending Trump has required Republicans to become increasingly comfortable with the conspiratorial; these days, they barely seem persuadable. But this is not the moment to stop trying; even one Republican vote for a conviction would shift the historical record.

In the Intelligence Committee, Schiff limited the number of witnesses in order to lay out a coherent story, and he succeeded in doing so. If he had been less disciplined, the Republicans, led by Devin Nunes, the ranking member, and Jim Jordan, might have turned the hearings into a slander-filled mêlée. Now, though, the Judiciary Committee can be a little looser, and make meaningful use of the presence of Trump’s lawyer, if he sends one. Nadler has a lot of discretion in deciding what to allow. One way to counter the President’s complaints about being denied “due process” would be to give him room to make whatever case he has; based on all that we know, this would only expose its weaknesses. (At a rally in Florida on Tuesday night, Trump dismissed the inquiry as “bullshit.”) It would be prudent for the committee to do so in advance of a Senate trial, where Mitch McConnell, the Majority Leader, will determine many of the rules.

At the same time, Republicans’ complaints about the process, particularly their not being free to call witnesses, are largely disingenuous; the President has ordered a dozen officials with direct knowledge of the Ukraine matter to stay silent. These include John Bolton, the former national-security adviser; Don McGahn, the former White House counsel; and Mick Mulvaney, the acting chief of staff. Indeed, the Administration has been fighting subpoenas from both the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees. Schiff, in his letter, said that the President would not be allowed to “drag this out for months on end in the courts,” and suggested that his stonewalling might, in itself, be an impeachable offense.

But what’s going on in the courts is consequential in its own right, and some judges are moving quickly. Last Monday, the D.C. district-court judge Ketanji Brown Jackson ordered McGahn to appear before the Judiciary Committee, and wrote that her decision also applies broadly, to other officials. She rebuked the Administration’s lawyers for trying to argue that “the President wields virtually unchecked power,” adding that “Presidents are not kings.” The Administration is appealing the decision, and there is no way to know how fast the higher courts may act. These cases have the potential to establish important precedents regarding Presidential power, and there is value in letting them play out. In a series of tweets last week, Trump said that he would “love” to have his aides testify, but he is fighting the subpoenas because “future Presidents should in no way be compromised.” He’s right about the stakes, if nothing else. ♦