See what I mean JL, the first line of the previous post was my answer, as to the rest of your assignment...DO IT YOURSELF first, and for the record, you may have blown your own mind, but have not blown the two witnesses story out of the water. None of the repubs in the House did when it was their time to do so. I will elaborate a bit for you my position based on the testimony I have heard so far and refer you to the fact that it was revealed that the Ukrainians did know of the dufus with holding funds and brought it to the attention of the diplomatic corps in late July I think, and this was after the Ukrainian president had scheduled an interview on CNN for 9/16/2019, which was cancelled after the congress guaranteed they would get the money the congress passed and the dufus signed before he unsigned, which as I referenced may in of itself be a violation of law which I have linked before.
From the link
"We had been negotiating with President Zelensky and his office for a while, for months, to try to get an interview with him anyway, ever since he was elected President," Zakaria, host of "Fareed Zakaria GPS," told Baldwin.
Once news of the whistleblower's complaint surfaced, "it became clear to us that the interview was off," he continued.
The Times reported that the decision to unfreeze the aid to Ukraine erased the need for Zelensky's televised appearance."
So I'll stick with my position that there is sufficient evidence to formulate charges and we may yet get more testimony. Personally, I would press for subpoenas to wind through the courts for key witnesses no matter how close to the election it may be and let you repubs deal with whatever comes of it. And then there is that Rudy Giuliani contribution to this rather bizarre process, and his cronies that got Amb. Yovanovitch removed from her post and reputation smeared publicly.
Plenty to see here and more to learn.
