The witnesses have systematically destroyed every defense the Trumpers had. So what is their defense now, other than, "corruption is bad, but we don't want to impeach him because he's an R"? I know there will be an ignoring of the facts laid out in the testimony, and I know there will be the usual character assassinations, but really at this point it seems the only defense is, "I don't wanna..."
Some of their defenses:
There was no Quid Pro Quo: "Was there a quid pro quo? The answer is yes." - Gordon Sondland
The Bidens are corrupt and needed to be investigated: "I don't find it plausible or credible" - Volker
Ukraine intervened in the US elections: it's a "fictional narrative" - Fiona Hill
Trump is interested in rooting out corruption: "He (Zelensky) had to announce the investigations. He didn't have to do them" - Gordon Sondland
Trump didn't know about it: "Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret." - Gordon Sondland
Isn't it in US policy to root out corruption?: What Trump did "ran contrary to the goals of longstanding US policy." - Bill Taylor
These types of quid pro quos are normal: 'no it's not' - nearly every witness
Some of their defenses:
There was no Quid Pro Quo: "Was there a quid pro quo? The answer is yes." - Gordon Sondland
The Bidens are corrupt and needed to be investigated: "I don't find it plausible or credible" - Volker
Ukraine intervened in the US elections: it's a "fictional narrative" - Fiona Hill
Trump is interested in rooting out corruption: "He (Zelensky) had to announce the investigations. He didn't have to do them" - Gordon Sondland
Trump didn't know about it: "Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret." - Gordon Sondland
Isn't it in US policy to root out corruption?: What Trump did "ran contrary to the goals of longstanding US policy." - Bill Taylor
These types of quid pro quos are normal: 'no it's not' - nearly every witness
