Did Dianne Feinstein just suggest that she might vote to acquit Donald Trump? The LA Times seems to think so; UPDATE: Feinstein responds

Well, well, well … what do we have here? Could Dianne Feinstein be about to throw an even bigger wrench into the Resistance’s impeachment pipe dream? The L.A. Times seems to think that’s a possibility:

Breaking: Sen. Dianne Feinstein became the first Democrat to suggest that she could vote to acquit President Trump despite serious concerns about his character. https://t.co/82GoQkmpAB

— Los Angeles Times (@latimes) January 28, 2020

FEINSTEIN — the top Dem on Judiciary — is leaning toward acquital, per the LA Times. https://t.co/3XyvbTKeAS

— Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) January 28, 2020

More from the L.A. Times:

“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.”

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.”

…

Feinstein told reporters that her office had received roughly 125,000 letters in support of the impeachment last week, and about 30,000 against it. “There is substantial weight to this,” she said, “and the question is: Is it enough to cast this vote?”

My first thought was the Times was reading too much into Feinstein’s comments, but… uh, nope: “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. That was my view and it still is my view.”

— Jim Geraghty (@jimgeraghty) January 28, 2020

Guess we’d better stay tuned, huh?

https://t.co/Afo4UiRtgM pic.twitter.com/iT7eMQIyAX

— Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) January 28, 2020

https://t.co/zKen9xDNtU pic.twitter.com/DSeM7jwY5m

— kaitlin (@thefactualprep) January 28, 2020

For the record, here’s what Feinstein had to say on Twitter:

“In this case we have a president who decided to ignore Congress by illegally withholding nearly $400 million of military aid – authorized and appropriated through bipartisan legislation and signed by him as president – all for his own, personal political benefit.”

— Senator Dianne Feinstein (@SenFeinstein) January 28, 2020

“This wasn’t an isolated action. In October, President Trump asked China to investigate the Biden family. And the Mueller Report lays out a series of actions leading up the 2016 election where the Trump campaign solicited foreign interference.”

— Senator Dianne Feinstein (@SenFeinstein) January 28, 2020

“The decision the Senate must make is whether we hear from John Bolton now – testimony that may well have a determining factor in senators’ consideration of their votes – or if we postpone learning what he has to say until his book comes out in March.” pic.twitter.com/vRwjvEBXeU

— Senator Dianne Feinstein (@SenFeinstein) January 28, 2020

So it’s probably not accurate to say that she’s definitively “leaning toward acquittal” just yet.

Her staff will walk back/clean up these comments within an hour, just as they did when she criticized Pelosi for holding on to the articles. https://t.co/w3raVTi6hA

— Matt Whitlock (@mattdizwhitlock) January 28, 2020

In any event, acquittal is still all but guaranteed to be the ultimate outcome of the impeachment proceedings.

Given that Trump is going to be acquitted anyway, the entire political value of impeachment is in tying Republicans to Trump's misconduct.

That is vastly harder to do if you have Democrats breaking ranks.

— Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) January 28, 2020

***

Update:

Well, Dianne Feinstein herself has some thoughts on the L.A. Times’ article:

The LA Times misunderstood what I said today. Before the trial I said I'd keep an open mind. Now that both sides made their cases, it’s clear the president’s actions were wrong. He withheld vital foreign assistance for personal political gain. That can’t be allowed to stand.

— Senator Dianne Feinstein (@SenFeinstein) January 28, 2020

Welp.

… that didn't take long https://t.co/KTVpJxPF4O

— Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) January 28, 2020

Backpedaling faster than Deion Sanders

— Comfortably Smug (@ComfortablySmug) January 28, 2020

LOL. OK, did they make up the stuff about 9 months, letting the voters decide, and it's not over, and really you clearly said this? Really bad reportage if so. Epically. https://t.co/LllSpnUFK0

— Fr. Bill Dailey, CSC (@wrdcsc) January 28, 2020

The mental conditioning has been restored. https://t.co/npOv6uC1St

— Varad Mehta (@varadmehta) January 28, 2020

Hopefully the Resistance is satisfied for now. They should enjoy it while it lasts, because barring something literally incredible, Donald Trump’s going to be acquitted.