If Republicans refuse to call any witnesses, it will mostly help Democrats?

What do you think?

If they call witnesses, they are still going to acquit. But, they covered their bases and no one changed their minds. Their opinions are set in stone.

Howver, if they don't call witnesses, Democrats will call it a sham trial and most people agree with them, if we are to believe all the polls?

From a purely political viewpoint, Democrats may be better off if Republicans refuse to permit any witnesses.

Many Democrats are under the hopeful illusion that Repubs will change their minds if they hear from John Bolton or Mick Mulvaney. But that is not necessarily true.

Should the "Whistleblower" testify in front of the Senate?

Either in vocal disguise, or by pixelated video, or both?

Could he answer any questions?

How valuable could he be?

Witnesses loom large in Republican minds.

They know there are not enough votes to convict.

But, the decision they have to make, a political one, is whether or not to shut down the trial, without any witnesses or documents.

How will it play with the public? If it takes root, then it could be very damaging to them in the next election?

Or do they agree to take witnesses, and immediately acquit after the witnesses testimony?

Is it safer, politically, for them to immediately shut down the trial, and take the vote to acquit?

That is the decision they have to make.

Me and Bobby McGee

With their base, it doesn't matter if Repubs vote for witnesses or not.

All that matters is that on the final vote, they vote to acquit.

Senators should have no fear of the "base". They don't care. So their only fear is from Trump himself.

But, on reflection, if four Senators vote with the Democrats, they take the power away from Trump and McConnell. It is they that have the power, not Donald Trump.

Because the "base" doesn't care, so long as they vote to acquit.

With all arguments being weighed, it would be better for Repubs to vote for witnesses and then vote to acquit on final vote.

Unless, of course, they fear what the witnesses might say?

Philbin is complaining a lot about the process.

Herr Leader did not get a fair shake during the inquiry. The full House did not vote on the inquiry and that is why they did not honor the subpoenas.

De-legitimize the process. Now, it's the whistleblower...political bias. Etc..

What I think the defense lawyers will argue?

That the House impeachment process was a sham and the Senate should not promote it any further. They should not call any witnesses. They should vote to acquit as soon as possible.

Will CJ Roberts make a ruling on "executive privilege" before the Senate votes to acquit?

Where he would state that there is no "executive privilege", if the witness is directly relative to the evidence in the impeachment trial? Also, that either side could call whatever witnesses they wanted, to help prove their case?

Wouldn't that be something?

But, don't hold your breath.

Adam Schiff stood like a Billy Graham and preached the truth to the US Senate.

Not in a particular religious sense, but in the sense of telling the people the truth to their faces.

Republicans would look downward as the truth came at them like glancing bullets.

Because there is corruption. Massive corruption.

And Adam Schiff pointed it out, line by line. He had magnificent help from his fellow managers. I thought Hakeem Jeffries laid it out so even a child could understand it. He was great.

It was dramatic. Republicans got themselves into a trap and promised not to try to escape. They made their beds and now, they will have to lie in them.

Naive Republicans?

Were Senators like Murkowski, Collins, Romney, Tillis, and Gardner 'tricked' into committing to supporting Trump thru the entire process?

Did Trump and McConnell suck them into a private meeting and get them to promise to not vote against Donald Trump on anything the Democrats presented?

It does seem that Murkowski and Collins are angry at themselves. They have short fuses lately.

Did they "promise" McConnell and Trump to stand with them, regardless of the evidence that might come up?

And now, even with the evidence, they cannot break their "promise"?

That's what it looks like from this perspective.