In the next phase of the comedy gold of Democrat beliefs do the republicans get the chance to call or force witnesses to give evidence?
Oh dear there could be some very worried people who knee jerked on this impeachment.
I think this is an outcome trump would have wanted in a strange way.
Clear the decks and all that.

I suppose the two questions to ask are Did Trump do anything wrong? and if he did does it warrant impeachment?

I personally fail to see how anyone is able to conclude that Trump hasn't done anything wrong as he openly does such things on a very regular basis. Whether he is guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanours" is for the Senate to determine and with the super majority demanded and the level of pre-judgement going on that seems highly unlikely. That he has a case to answer though seems obvious as anyone who actually watched the hearings would know.

I was listening to a constitutional expert who was of the opinion that Trump may have done something wrong (morally yes legally maybe) but that it didn't warrant impeachment.

His view was that impeachment was meant to prevent the most serious of crimes by a president e.g. attempting the over throw of the government and that both Trump and previously Clinton's alleged crimes simply do not meet that criteria.

Not his call. That's for the Senate.

There are other ways of censoring a President who may have behaved badly. Impeachment is pushing the nuclear button before you have tried any alternatives.

Not really until he leaves office and by then it's too late.

The Senate hearing is different in operation.
Witnesses are called but not grilled By the republicans one to one.
Questions are written down and each asked by a judge.
How the judge interprets the question and in which sense is an individual choice of one person.
I wonder who will be called as a witness.
Biden senior or junior maybe.

He didnt withhold the aid.
Ukraine got the aid.

As it was released immediately AFTER it became public it had been withheld that actually adds circumstantial evidence.

This is the thing.
No terms have or were put down.

How do you or anyone else know? Those that do have been instructed not to testify.

Reading and watching even you have to admit hunter Biden's position within that company seems somewhat
Corrupt or in the least convenient.

Irrelevant. Biden has admitted that as the appearance of his son's appointment looks questionable that, in hindsight, it looks to be a mistake. However my understanding is that many of those with knowledge of the events have said that he has no case to answer and the accusations are all political mud slinging. It is however a totally separate issue. If evidence exists of anything deserving investigation then let the appropriate authorities take the appropriate actions and due process proceed. Trump dealing directly with another President is NOT appropriate.

Trumps staff had an option to appear and they chose not to for whatever reasons.

They were instructed not to.

If they were that important they could have been legally obliged to attend.

In some cases subpoenas have been issued but not complied with. Legal actions are underway but take months to be heard. As they would then be appealed all of this means that the impeachment trial would be over before decisions are made.

That being utilised of course would mean the subject matter of the bidens could also have been bound legally to attend.

Untrue as it is unrelated.

Maybe this would all be cleared up by now if that were the case.

Untrue. Diversion.

I'm sure some shredders somewhere have been doing overtime though.

Maybe but duplicates have a habit of turning up in this age of electronic documents and verbal testimony is what is really important.

All of this impeachment is on the primary evidence of an overhead phone call.

On one of the charges a call overheard by several, confirmed by a partial transcript and circumstantial evidence which includes the refusal of those with direct knowledge to testify. On the second charge the evidence of obstruction is obvious and in plain sight.