characterization. Firstly, the corrupt official referred to was Paul Manafort, who was in fact found to be corrupt in US courts, and is in prison. Vindman, according to another link I found from ABC, does not dispute that there were individual Ukrainian officials criticizing Trump, but he emphatically denies the existence of any concerted Ukrainian-sanctioned effort to disrupt the election, as we now know existed in Russia. Hill apparently went further, expressing great frustration into repub reliance on that Politico article you showed us from January, 2017.

I don't see the relevance of this to the accusations against Trump now. He asked on his July 25 call about Crowdstrike, which is a baseless conspiracy theory not supported in the least by that Politico article from 2017, or anything else. And Burisma, which was about the Bidens. So other than being a distraction, how would this change anything, even if Vindman and Hill are completely wrong?