What would be the downside ( if Robert's isn't in the tank for Trump) of proposing to

[Atticus]

subpoena any witness who can provide RELEVANT evidence, with that relevancy determination to be made by CJ Roberts in open session? It seems to me this would rule out the Bidens and open up Bolton, Mulvaney, Pompeo, etc.

Merriam-Webster defines "relevant" as: a.) "having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand"; b.) "affording evidence tending to prove or disprove the matter at issue or under discussion."

I am not aware of any information either Biden could provide that would be legitimately relevant to either Article of Impeachment.

This would not have us "trading" witnesses and would not even require that any proposed witness be named. I'd love to hear a Republican justify turning down such an offer.

Addendum: I STRONGLY oppose any trade of either Biden or Obama or any other irrelevant witnesses, whether it is "one for one" or "one for ten".

[Tech]

1. I don't trust Roberts.

[Atticus]

3. I don't either, but finding that Joe Biden was likely to provide relevant testimony would

be the rough equivalent of holding up a banana and then ruling that it was a watermelon. Unlike most of the GOP senators, I think Roberts DOES have a sense of shame.

[LakeArenal]

2. I think it's odd that Roberts would not want to be the savior of our Democracy.

He’d be a legend.

But that’s just me.