Your three arguments can easily coexist, they are not exclusive of one another.
Agree. They could be all true, all false, or any combination. What do you think about each of them?
1- 'it was a perfect phone call, there was no quid pro quo'
2 - 'it's all hearsay and second hand information' (this implies that direct evidence would be relevant)
3 - 'even if he did do it, it's not impeachable'
These are all strong legal arguments. You and I have had a couple discussions before about, IIRC, what constitutes, facts, evidence, "beyond a reasonable doubt" and now hearsay. You might put these definitions in a category named "Irrefutable rebuttals."
This is different than asking "did Trump do XYZ." I kind of get it, how those persecuting and harassing Trump wouldn't care about these realities of a legal case, IF their goal is just to parade anti-Trump memes before a public they think is gullible.
But this is exactly what those who criticize the whole thing as a total scam think.
So in my case, I'm forced to the conclusion the whole thing was a scam and a sham trial, because the weakness of the arguments presented is so laughable.
By the way, your statement above "it's all hearsay ---> implies" is curious. Nobody needs hearsay to imply that direct evidence would be relevant; the existence of hearsay is not a proof that direct evidence is relevant. There are standards for evidence.
The only one of the 1,2 and 3 that's even worth discussing is 3. What is the standard for impeachment? The other two are jokes. Here appears to be your case.
"We think the call in which he asks politely for help was strong-armed pressuring, and some people say they heard other people say other people said that was what it was, and we need to broaden the constitutional requirement of 'high crimes and misdemeanors' to include Trump's behavior as implied by letters that don't say it and as implied by hearsay not evidence."
That's pretty crazy and that's what you got.