[Hoot Gibson]

Exactly right Hoot. There is established procedural precedent for the House to compel witnesses and obtain any documentation they see fit. It's just that they tried to scare the people into thinking some kind of constitutional crisis loomed with immediate consequence. And that being their allege, the country and therefore the House, did not have time to go by established precedent. Like you said, their intent was to amend the impeachment process on the fly, on sky-is-falling grounds. But of course that tack did not work. So now all they have left is to besmirch the Senate of all things, and all indications are that Senate Dems are all-in if you listen to what they have to say.

The President's defense team revelatory opening to that end, was devastating to the House's case. And all the so-called Republican Senate 'leaners' like Mike Lee, have stated firmly that they ain't buying.

In the end though I've heard many talking heads say this is all about 2020; But I believe the Dems are giving impeachment their best possible shot. And failing that, they will use the sham proceedings to taint the Republican Presidential campaign. Tainting efforts the like of which will unquestionably prove to be as toxic as they will be epic.

The House Democrats have always known that there is no chance that the Senate will convict and remove President Trump from office. IMO, the reason that they did not subpoena Bolton and other potential witnesses who were members of Trump's inner circle is that they were afraid that Trump's claim of executive privilege would have been upheld by the Supreme Court.

This way, Democrats get to complain that Senate Republicans are engaging in a cover up by not allowing Bolton and other close presidential advisers to be called as witnesses and then allege that Trump was acquitted because evidence was suppressed in the Senate.

I don't think that Democrats are giving impeachment a best shot because there is no case to be made. There is very little legal precedent for presidential impeachments, so I wonder how Chief Justice Roberts would respond to a motion to dismiss because no high crime or misdemeanor has been alleged. Democrats have failed to meet the Constitutional threshold for removing a president from office. I doubt that Roberts would grant such a motion, but judges entertain motions to dismiss charges in other types of trials.