Sorry about this - but I have never understood the 'witnesses' question.

Is there any real, credible concern that he’ll be removed? I thought this was all a pantomime and the R majority was a lock?

It's clearly a railroad job and unfortunately there's a willfully compliant media to see that this perversion of Justice is enacted, even though by the grace of God it will fail, the framework to succeed with a different Congressional make up, even a slightly different make up, has been put in place.

I don't ever see the Republicans using this blue print as I expect more from those whom I and like minded people vote for with them BUT the Dems don't play by moral rules, unless you consider the unmitigated pursuit of power "moral" because that's all this is about.

Maybe next time we as a nation won't screw around in mid term elections so cavalierly...for a little while at least. Or even better, maybe the Republicans won't screw around when they have both Chambers of Congress like they did this last opportunity.

You’re not a fan of hearsay baw? Cmon!

I’ve vacillated about whether witnesses are a good idea.

A witness you’ve never interviewed before is a bad idea. You think Hunter Biden cares if he’s under oath? The guy is a dirtbag. I think he should testify before the senate and in public, but in a different context.

I do agree with you tho that there should be rebuttal witnesses. I thinK Rudy should testify about why he was engaged; and what evidence he found. I also think the people Rudy took sworn statements from should testify. They’re already locked in.

Just because they don't call a Witness, don't mean they can't put the facts/information that said Witness's offer, into the Record, CB. Schiff offers (speculative/hearsay) ad infinitm.

They should introduce Rudy's investigatory facts into that Public Record. Graham has already said that a comprehensive Investigation will be undertaken in a Senate Committee...as soon as this Partisan Impeachment witchhunt ends.

This is going to be like the Clemson game...rocky start...but after adjustments...bring the hammer.

It's worse than that, though. The Dems want to call witnesses that they did not call in the House proceeding and deny witnesses for the President's defense.

Bandit, you must remember that this is NOT a judicial proceeding and that (while there are some analogies) it is NOT a criminal prosecution.

The arguments we have been hearing for three days and WILL be hearing for another three days are NOT “evidence.”. They are each side’s summaries of the hundreds of hours of testimony and thousands of pages of evidence already “admitted“ in the House.

There is an underlying assumption that each side will highlight that portion of the House record which best serves its own purposes. The Senators are presumed to have access to the entire record. Incidentally, reliance upon the House record is one reason that the unfair Dem practices in the House were so problematic.

The whole “witness” issue in the Senate thus has two branches.

The first ties to the Dems. They had every chance to call witnesses in the House, so it seems reasonable to limit them in the Senate to only witnesses or testimony which (for whatever reason) was not available to them during House proceedings.

The second ties to the GOP. Normally, they should be subject to the same standard, but the Dems basically precluded them from developing evidence in the House, so there is a decent argument that they should have greater leeway in the Senate.

Thus, two questions arise. First, do they even NEED witnesses? Davy addressed that question quite well. The second question is whether the less-zealous-for-Trump Senators are willing to hear from witnesses of questionable direct relevance.

In a real legal proceeding, the single question would be whether Trump had objective evidence of wrongdoing by the Bidens when he requested help from Ukraine, but of course this is not a legal proceeding. Set that aside for a moment.

If we use that standard, I think ALL GOP Senators would vote in favor of testimony from a new witness who had been suppressed by the Dems but who provided Trump a pre-Zelensky-call briefing about Biden wrongdoing. However the Bidens themselves have nothing to add on that point. Thus, there is a dispute among the GOP as whether to allow their testimony.