A few pros and cons on the witness issue.

Rich Terrell

Key GOP Senator Announces Impeachment Witness Vote. Game Over?
. . . "The retiring Tennessee senator, who has nothing to gain (or lose) politically with his vote, announced on Twitter that "there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the U.S. Constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense.' " . . .
Why doesn't this logic affect the position of the Utah Weathervane?
. . . "Alexander's decision all but guarantees that the impeachment trial will conclude this weekend with a vote to acquit the president because, despite the defection of Sen. Susan Collins, who announced Thursday night that she will vote to call more witnesses, Republicans will likely have enough votes to block the motion. Republican Sens. Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski have yet to announce how they will vote, but it is thought their votes will not be needed." . . . Sen. Collins, not so much

Lindsey Graham Schools Democrats Over Impeachment Witness Debate

. . . "According to Graham, that is one of the most ridiculous claims being thrown out there by Democrats. On Thursday, Graham took to Twitter to address this oft-repeated claim by Democrats and prove how ridiculous it is.

“FACT: It was the House of Representatives who refused to pursue the testimony of the witnesses because they wanted to impeach the President before Christmas,” he explained. “Only in Washington would someone call that decision ‘Blocking Witnesses.’”

. . . "Impeachment may be over on Saturday, but make no mistake, the Democrats aren't done trying to undermine President Trump." . . .

Should Republican senators want witnesses?  . . . "In a courtroom, the prevailing theory would be to end the trial and celebrate acquittal. If you’re winning, there’s no need to take any risks.  But this is an impeachment trial and there are political implications. Senate Republicans are seemingly not considering the political benefits of calling witnesses, their only goal seems to be acquittal, as if this were a standard criminal trial. 

"The past few days have made it abundantly clear: the first witness for Democrats would be President Trump’s former National Security Advisor John Bolton and the Republicans' highest priority witness would be Hunter Biden, son of former Vice President Joe Biden.  If these witnesses are called, the next phase would allow Republicans to run away with the lead." . . . 

. . . "Consider the downside for Republicans if additional witnesses aren’t called.  If Bolton doesn’t speak in front of the Senate, the Democrats would accuse Republicans of a cover-up throughout the election season.  Bloomberg ads would ask what Republicans are hiding, and accuse Republicans of blocking witnesses without any regard for bipartisanship.  Democratic candidates Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren would ask why their Republican Senate colleagues don’t want to hear the whole truth.  The eventual Democrat nominee will bring a copy of Bolton’s new book with them everywhere, quoting it in stump speeches and mentioning it at campaign rallies.  Republicans can prevent these talking points by letting Bolton air his grievances now, 10 months before the election. 

"With witnesses, Republicans can continue their winning streak by exposing the Bidens.  The GOO can avoid the Democrat talking point that loose ends remain. Republicans have a winning argument, so they should prolong the platform on which they can argue it.  The GOP has an opportunity to run up the score, and they would be wise to do exactly that."

Wise counsel, but I do not believe this wisdom is a factor in Romney's decision. TD