LA Times reports (apparently wrongly) that Dianne Feinstein suggested she may vote to acquit Trump
By 
Apparently that whole “impeachment” thing is some sort of insult to the very concept of democracy — unlike, say, the Senate, which gives a voter in Wyoming 67 times more representation than a voter in Feinstein’s home state:
Just after President Trump’s defense lawyers ended arguments in their Senate trial Tuesday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California became the first Democrat to suggest that she could vote to acquit him despite serious concerns about his character.
“Nine months left to go, the people should judge. We are a republic, we are based on the will of the people — the people should judge,” Feinstein said Tuesday, after the president’s team finished a three-day presentation in his defense. “That was my view and it still is my view.”
Feinstein is richer than Croesus and 117 years old, plus Trump has an approval rating in California of -28, so this obviously isn’t strategic behavior on her part — it’s her genuine, considered opinion!
All isn’t lost quite yet:
Still, she indicated that arguments in the trial about Trump’s character and fitness for office had left her undecided. “What changed my opinion as this went on,” she said, is a realization that “impeachment isn’t about one offense. It’s really about the character and ability and physical and mental fitness of the individual to serve the people, not themselves.”
Asked whether she would ultimately vote to acquit, she demurred, saying, “We’re not finished.”
Incredibly (this is a rhetorical phrase; it’s actually quite believable given the degenerate state of our political culture), it’s practically certain that neither article of impeachment will get even a majority vote, which Trump will no doubt interpret as a sign that he can do whatever he goddamned wants between now and next January. And he can.
Thanks, Obama James Madison!
. . . Feinstein claims her comments were misconstrued:
It’s hard to square this tweet with her statement earlier today that with nine months left before the election “the people should judge,” but my guess is that her office got some rather pointed feedback very quickly.
. . . upon further review, it looks increasingly like the LA Times screwed this up pretty badly, and that Feinstein actually was saying that she was leaning toward acquittal before the trial but that the trial changed her mind.