Nope. That would be "ironic", not "redundant". You realize that part of this process is to give us--that includes you, so pay attention---a bigger picture of Bonespurs' abuse of office. Having crazy Rudy with his 2 moon-faced buddies run amok and paint an untrue picture so that Bonespurs can fire a well-respected ambassador is part of the big picture of abuse of his office.
Prove it, prove she did not testify as she did in the closed door. What changed especially after Trumps tweet.
*rolling eyes* Read the transcript of her closed door session. You can make the comparison for yourself. Nobody needs to prove anything that's as available to you as it is for them.
Of course you should. And do not forget a yellow hairdo, I'm sure it'll fit into one article or another.
Trump attacked a witness as she was testifying. She testified that she felt intimidated. You want to call that a hoax?
Sorry, an ambassador that got her feelings hurt because Zelensky didn’t trust her is not a real issue.
The Democrats said obstruction of justice does not warrant impeachment and removal along with perjury and subornation of perjury and witness tampering.
Yes there is, your assertion this was new testimony and not previously given in her deposition. Well what did she testify to in her deposition that was not in her public testimony?
Yes, the “presudint” threatening witnesses is magically acceptable in the whacko parallel universe where trumpers live.
He gave his opinion of her just as the witnesses have been giving their opinion of him, why is he muzzled and not they about their opinions?
It's YOUR assertion, what new testimony did she give in her public testimony? You do know they took the behind closed doors so they could test their questions and know in advance what would be her answers.
Republicans said that it was, in a much more trivial situation. But now that, and much worse, is a magical hoax.
No, it’s not. You made that utterly vacuous and pointless claim. The public record is available to you; use it.