Originally Posted by
lardy
Yes, all of lifeonmars' concerns have been addressed one way or another weeks ago.
Not a direct witness to the phone call? The WH have released the transcript and Vindman was on the call and gave testimony.
Political allegiance? Sondland is US ambassador to the EU because he was a massive Trump donor, and he gave testimony.
Was informed of what happened, that's a bit weak and any lawyer would shoot him down: Yes Rumpole, that's why there's no point in him giving any further testimony.
Lifeonmars, if you're worried about people not giving testimony, wonder why Mulvaney, Pompeo, Bolton and many other very involved characters aren't giving theirs. Which ties into...
"what I dont, get why bring new evidence to the for now ,surely they had it already , it cant just have popped out of nowhere, of course witnesses should be allowed," - there are plenty of holes in the narrative, new evidence/witnesses/testimony would fill them. They didn't have it already as the above names haven't spoken and the Lev Parnas business was under a court's lock and key at the time.
Now another question for you to ponder is: if Trump did nothing wrong, why is he so desperate to stop anyone talking?