"Only"! — "Dem leaders see only handful of defections on impeachment."

The news isn't "only a handful" — it's that there are defections.

The story is at Politico.

Democratic leaders are privately expecting no more than a half-dozen defections on next week’s vote to impeach President Donald Trump, even as many of their most endangered lawmakers remain publicly mum on their decision....

The same story at WaPo is "House Democrats brace for some defections among moderates on impeachment of Trump."

Lawmakers and senior aides are privately predicting they will lose more than the two Democrats who opposed the impeachment inquiry rules package in late September, according to multiple officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk frankly. Two senior Democratic aides said the total could be as many as a half-dozen, while a third said the number could be higher.

So... Politico says "no more than a half-dozen" and WaPo has 2 sources who say that and one who says "could be higher."

Several moderates have privately pined for other options, including a censure vote they know they’re unlikely to get. Others have even considered what one moderate called “splitting the baby”: backing one article of impeachment but not the other to try to show independence from the party.

Ugh! Splitting the baby. The Solomon story isn't about splitting something so the halves can be kept. It's about threatening to do something that triggers the disputants to reveal something about themselves, creating new evidence that allows the judge to decide. The woman who objects to splitting the baby is identified as the mother and she gets the whole, living baby.

I wrote a law review article that old Bible story, questioning whether that woman really was the mother and why this story was elevated over all the other stories about what a great judge Solomon was. Excerpt (for your edification, not because it has anything to do with the "moderate"'s trite and inaccurate use of the idiom):

Consider how you would feel if someone whose child had died began asserting that your child was hers, and then incredibly, her assertion led the authorities to start to kill your child as a method of dispute resolution. It would seem as if the world had gone mad. If at that point you blurted out, “Then go ahead, kill the child,” what would that say about you? Would it really mean the child was not biologically yours?

And what if we change the question and say that the issue is not who the biological mother is but who will make the better custodian for the child?
This is, of course, the traditional evidence class resolution of the problem. Does everything really suddenly become clear? Does the fact that you might blurt out “kill the child” in a situation of extreme distress and coercion really mean that you would not be a good parent, a good custodian for the child? Maybe it means that you are fierce and passionate and would protect your child and love your child more than someone who backed down, someone who acquiesced. The Other would not give in to the power of a king who held a sword directly over the child. Why not infer that she would bravely and defiantly defend against any lesser marauder?

In the traditional evidence course interpretation, Solomon’s violence and impatience and radical disregard for due process recede into the background. We are supposed to stand in awe of Solomon for anticipating the modern “best interest of the child” standard. Solomon did not have to determine who the biological mother was – that is not the “fact of consequence,” as professors like to say, using Federal Rules of Evidence language. He determined who should have custody, and of course, we say a woman who would have her baby cut in two if she could not get her selfish way is a worse custodian than the woman who gives up her own interests for the sake of the child. Of course.

But wait. If we revile the Other, how can we admire Solomon? Cutting the baby in two was his idea: He wielded the sword. All the Other did was to refuse to yield to his power. We expect witnesses to testify when a criminal defendant’s cronies threaten to kill one of their children, and we cite them for contempt if they don't. We canonize civil rights workers who persisted in spite of the Klan. Why do we not admire the Other for sticking to her claim in spite of the threat of violence? Why do we not revile the king as we would revile the Klansmen and gangsters who use violence?

Ah, you may say, but the beauty of the Solomon story is that Solomon never intended to cut the baby in two. Solomon was not a gangster or a Klansman. He was just bluffing, using a brilliant method to extract revealing statements from the two women. But let’s consider first whether he was just bluffing and then whether his bluffing should convert our contempt to admiration....

Read the whole thing. The Biblical text is at the link.