If Chuck Schumer has the right to put forward amendments, and if the Senate has to debate those amendments, why couldn't he put forward 3 amendments to force the recusal of those 3 GOP jurors who are witnesses in the case? In argument, the managers could establish their conflict.
PS/ The worst that happens is America sees vigorous debate over the problematic role of Johnson, Graham, and Portman as jurors on a case that's already established them as witnesses. It'd show America this isn't a real trial, and that a majority of non-conflicted jurors want one.
PS2/ The argument for Schumer to do this is a strong one politically and legally. Had Johnson, Graham, or Portman voted for witnesses in the Senate trial, they would've opened themselves up to being subpoenaed to testify. Their vote against witnesses was therefore *compromised*.
PS3/ Moreover, Democrats would be able to correctly argue this has been a trend throughout the "trial," with Cipollone also remaining involved in the case despite knowing himself to be a witness. The Democrats could thus help America understand this really was a *rigged* "trial."
