——why does Schumer seek new evidence ——
Schumer is not seeking new evidence. He is seeking evidence
He knows the House managers have no evidence to be presented at all
It's going to look pretty bad when only one witness is called ( all the others produced hearsay - not allowed under federal court rules of evidence) and his evidence is based on his own assumption which President Trump specifically stated was not the case. Their case isn't just bad it's non-existent. My guess is that Pelosi may be having trouble finding house managers who want anything to do with this dogs dinner.
There was only one fact witness (meaning one witness that had first-hand knowledge, not hearsay) who testified in the House, and that was ambassador Gordon Sondland. When asked why he thought there was a quid-pro-quo, he answered he assumed it. When asked what President Trump told him, he answered that PDJT told him he wanted nothing from the Ukrainians, he did not want a quid-pro-quo.
Case closed.
Mitch to House prosecutors: "Do you have any other witnesses with first hand knowledge?"
House Prosecutors: "We rest our case".
Mitch: "Let's vote"