I'm confused about what you are calling BS on. If my statement is not accurate, then please provide a link to the list of witnesses who were deposed in the House impeachment hearings. Which ones testified and were they cross-examined? The point is that the House did not establish an evidentiary record. As more facts come to light, they cut off the legs of the premise of the Impeachment Article that Trump incited a crowd to riot and attack the Capitol. There is widespread reporting the Capitol Police knew days in advance small groups of extremists were planning to storm the Capitol. https://www.vox.com/2021/1/16/22234574/washington-post-capitol-police-report-congress-targeted-riot Even AOC said she had been warned before the event. All of that undercuts the "incitement" premise of the Article of Impeachment. Shouldn't it have all been introduced into evidence before the House voted? Why can't Trump and his lawyers introduce it in his defense in the Senate trial?
Some Democrat Senators want to call witnesses this time to repair the thin case the House has provided. But if they do, then the Republicans get their witnesses too. Trump will just love getting center stage thanks to the clever maneuvering of the Democrats. I am agreeing with Eric Scholl on that point which was the central point he was making in his essay.