The core accusations are that trump abused his office by withholding congressionally approved funds in exchange for a public announcement of the start of a fraudulent investigation into a political rival.
This ambassadors testimony was what we already knew: That in addition to the above, trump fired a lifelong public servant, for no discernible reason other than two Ukrainian criminals working with his private attorney (who was also the person sent in secret to negotiate the CORE offenses in Ukraine) asked him to, so as to promote pro-russian positions.
Do you guys really think that playing dumb and repeating "No 1st hand," is a valid smokescreen? She DID have first hand knowledge of how she got fired. And that is relevant.
Christ. If you're so upset about a lack of 1st hand information coming your way, aren't you livid for the WH preventing anyone with actual first hand knowledge of the contents of that phone call, in testifying? What's your excuse for that one?