General Michael Flynn's attorneys have requested a writ of mandamus from the D.C. Circuit ordering that the Department of Justice's unopposed motion to dismiss be granted.  While mandamus is an extraordinary writ, the district judge's actions in the past two weeks have also been extraordinary.  As Hans von Spakovsky explained:

Continuing their wide-ranging efforts not to let a good crisis go to waste, Democrats and their liberal allies are using the novel coronavirus pandemic as an excuse to call for increased censorship, particularly of online speech.  This is not a new effort for them but merely a new excuse, and they are alarmingly praising communist China as a model for online speech censorship (yes, the same China that recently suppressed and threatened those who shared accurate information at the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak, blocks its citizens access to many websites, and regularly monitors individuals' "private" conversations on various chat and email platforms).  As George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley wrote:

The voters in November 2020 can and should be the judge of President Trump.   In light of the recent struggles of their party’s candidates, it seems House Democrats fear that potential judgment and want to insert their own.  Professor Jonathan Turley, a Democrat and Trump opponent, breaks down how that judgment may damage all future Presidents in his written testimony today:

To put it simply, I hold no brief for President Trump. My personal and political views of President Trump, however, are irrelevant to my impeachment testimony, as they should be to your impeachment vote. Today, my only concern is the integrity and coherence of the constitutional standard and process of impeachment. President Trump will not be our last president and what we leave in the wake of this scandal will shape our democracy for generations to come. I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger. If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, this impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president.

As Rep Adam Schiff finishes his impeachment inquiry report there seems to be a feeling among even a few Democrats and academicians that there is nothing there for impeachment.  Keep in mind, this is without Republicans or the President even able to present their side. 

Democrat Rep. Jefferson Van Drew of New Jersey stated:

No president has ever been removed from office, Van Drew, 66, points out. And to have a "small, elite group" of lawmakers do so when an election is less than a year away seems to him to be not only unfathomable but un-American.

 “To some folks, that’s reminiscent of what was done to kings and queens many years ago," he said. "Everything our country doesn’t stand for."

Today was the testimony of expert panelists regarding the confirmation of the Honorable William Barr to become Attorney General of the United States. Republican witnesses offered testimony explaining why Mr. Barr is the right fit at the U.S. Department of Justice. Meanwhile, the Democratic witnesses failed to present any real concerns about Mr. Barr or his past tenure as Attorney General in the early 1990s but rather focused on other, systemic issues they perceive in the laws and justice system. Some of most noteworthy testimony for Republican witnesses included: