The only one of the 1,2 and 3 that's even worth discussing is 3.
Will you answer anyway?
Sure. My answer will be based on how these three things are considered in a court of law. T, T, T.
Now how about you answer how would they be considered in a court in Russia during the Stalinist era.
True or False: 1- 'it was a perfect phone call, there was no quid pro quo'
True or False: 2 - 'it's all hearsay and second hand information' (this implies that direct evidence would be relevant)
True 3 - 'if he did do it, it's not impeachable'
The other two are jokes.
Why do you think so much effort was put into making the arguments then?
"If you could show me that Trump actually was engaging in a quid pro quo, outside the phone call, that would be very disturbing"
-Lindsay Graham
Why would Graham say that, and then vote against having direct evidence in the trial?
And it wasn't just Graham. The overall defense for weeks was 'there isn't enough evidence from just the transcript'. Then after all the house testimony it was 'that's all just hearsay, none of the witnesses have first hand knowledge'. And then when they found out someone was willing to provide direct evidence, they voted against hearing it. It's an overused saying, but why do you think they keep moving the goalpost when they could've just went with argument 3 from the beginning?
My opinion? They're all remembering the Kavanaugh fiasco, where there was time after time, "one more witness," "One more reason to keep it going." So if they shut it down quicker, it's the Dems past behavior as the cause. You got what you deserved.