This is a ramped up nothing story at the end of the day...

Senate votes to allow witnesses to testify in Trump’s impeachment trial

The Senate unexpectedly voted Saturday to permit lawyers in Donald Trump's impeachment trial to call witnesses, following a surprise request by the Democrats prosecuting the case to seek the testimony of a key House Republican who has publicly described evidence that Trump refused to pull back the violent mob on Jan. 6. The 55-45 vote came after the House prosecutors said they would seek the testimony of Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-Wash.) about her knowledge of a call between the former president and House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy as violence escalated at the Capitol on Jan. 6.

A single witness is supposed to be called to verify a conversation that took place "after" the riot started. The reason this is unexpected because there was an agreement not to call witnesses. Even without Republican support, this move could have been rammed through on a tie break.

At this point, there is no way to know if Beutler (a GOP Congressperson) will be willing to testify or what she would even say.

If Democrats are serious about their charge of incitement (which by legal definition requires you to do things to "cause" the criminal action) then they wouldn't be calling someone to make a claim about something that took place "after" the riot started.

First, there is little reason to doubt that a conversation between Trump and McCarthy took place and that it probably largely involved exactly what was being claimed by Buetler (as Democrats describe). But obviously a "real" Judge would never allow a second hand witness to testify (hearsay). Especially when they could actually call McCarthy to testify?

That being said. Let's assume the "worst".

• Do I believe that Trump probably told McCarthy that the riots were started by instigators and possibly even antifa? Sure. I believe that. In fact we now know that a large portion of those charged were instigators and that more than one of those arrested is actually associated with Antifa. At the end of the day there may be more non-partisan instigators than actual Trump supporters being charged.
•  Do I believe that Trump probably told McCarthy that the protesters were just more upset about the election than McCarthy was? Absolutely believe that Trump would say that.... because largely it was a true statement. You got a sense that there were many Republican voters very upset and there were many Republicans in Congress who were not.
• Do I believe that McCarthy pleaded with Trump to make a statement? Sure. Which Trump did in multiple forums. The White House put out a press release that included a recorded statement. Also using his personal favorite at the time, Trump tweeted for people to stop. Ironically with over 80 million followers, a Tweet was probably the most effective way to get that message our there. Face the facts, those who were rioting were not watching television. 

At the end of they none of that proves  ANYTHING regarding the charges of incitement. You cannot be charged with incitement because the prosecution believes your attempts to put an end to something already taking place was not robust enough. 

So what is is really about? Delay!

The first reality is that the Democrats got hammered yesterday by the Trump team. The second reality is that the Trump decided to only use part of one day, basically drawing this whole thing to a close prematurely. The Democrats were loath to let this whole thing end on that sort of note. So they will drag it out for another day or two in order to try to change the weekend narrative that they got their argument annihilated. 

More to the point, they are attempting to simply change the narrative "again" from the idea that Trump "caused" the riots (an argument that they are conceding that they lost) to the idea that his actions "during" the riot were really what was impeachable. In other words, they failed to prove their first argument. Now they want a do over with a completely different argument.