Democrat leaders apparently want a second impeachment trial in the Senate. Dissatisfied with the House impeachment they feel a desire to have another one with witnesses, depositions and testimony in the Senate. That isn’t the way it’s supposed to work. Witnesses should only be called after the prosecution and defense have made their cases, if the Senate needs more input or data for clarification.
The streamlined version of a constitutional impeachment process is for the House to have what amounts to a trial and the Senate acting as a jury to decide the verdict to convict the President of impeachment. When the House chooses to impeach a President it has made a material finding with a higher standard than that of a Grand Jury. It has in effect had a trial and rendered a verdict. The Senate is supposed to convict or acquit the Democrat’s finding. Democrats want to jury rig the Senate’s deliberation process and make another trial of it, and that is wrong.
The House acts as the prosecution in an impeachment movement and indicts a President if partisan or if the President has committed high crimes or misdemeanors. The House prosecutors aka impeachment managers make their case before the Senate, and the President is permitted a defense; then a vote should occur although more witnesses or other material may be brought in. In a purely partisan prosecution a purely counter-partisan acquittal is anticipated.
Democrats did not charge the President with specific crimes in the House kangaroo court. The Democrat Party is regarded by a few as lunacy in post-modernism bereft of truth and incompetent at legislating. Anti-global warming remediation for example should not be packaged with poison pill riders such as socialism. If the party were serious about that issue it would promote atmospheric remediation with free enterprise and directed economic evolution with a few good regulations and incentives.