re: Ms. Lindsey offers Hearings on Ukraine separate from Impeachment

Short answer - yes. Long answer under these terms:

I think there should be witnesses (see point 2 in my OP). These witnesses should be ltd to Adam Schiff, and Eric The whistleblower, along with Mr. Lt. Col, to prove that this Impeachment was a manufactured effort. That shite needs to be directly exposed.

I’d also call that guy who works for the Budget Office to testify (as he did in unreleased testimony) that trump held the aid bc he thought Ukraine was corrupt and bc other countries should pay more.

If McConnell has counted heads-those 3 witnesses will not prevent even RINOs from voting to acquit Trump, and in fact would support acquittal. It may even back a few Democrats into the corner to acquit, based on how badly they embarrass Eric, Vindman and Schifforbrains.

All the other “witnesses” have already testified to Congress, and half the shite they said wouldn’t be admissible. Roberts would have no choice to exclude the hearsay and speculation of these witnesses. In fact the only parts of the HR testimony that is admissible are the parts where they testify that they have no evidence that Trump conditioned aid or otherwise did anything wrong.

Yes. If I’m Trump, or advising him - my advice is to give McConnell the green light to proceed as above in exchange for actually seeing the scheduled dates for the Judiciary Committee Hearings on the calendar. He wins the legal and political battle that way.