Pure fact free nonsense. All of it.Again, we have a transcript, nothing can change that. That is what the left are using to impeach. Now, all of these hearsay conversations, especially those from the anti trump group should probably be disregarded, as it's not admissible as evidence. The problem with hearsay is that, it may be true, or it may not be true. Some of it may be twisted to make a desired narrative, and some of it could be incorrect with people getting facts wrong with the transition of the story from one person to the next.
About the only 2 people who have direct knowledge are the whistleblower, and apparently sondland. Those are the only two who's testimony would have any relevancy.
Without that testimony, then it boils down to the interpretation of the transcript, which says nothing about getting dirt on biden, nor asking ukraine to influence a campaign.
Yes, you do have trump asking ukraine to look into the server, and also to look into why the prosecutor who was investigating burisma was fired, but that could be because trump was genuinely wanting to know more about those events, or it could be because he was wanting dirt. The point being, the transcript doesnt give any actual context either way, and everything else is just hearsay, some of it from people with an anti trump agenda.
If sondland does have direct knowledge, then his testimony alone would probably be the most damaging to trump.
all of the witnesses have knowledge of what occurred. Many because they dealt with it in Ukraine as diplomats. Others because they were privy to what occurred in the White House
First hand knowledge? Who has that? If this were in a court of law the defendant's lawyer would constantly be popping out of his seat like a Jack In The Box yelling "Objection...hearsay!" and the judge would be agreeing with him! This is political FARCE!