A transcript of the call has been released, so it is irrelevant what the guy thought he heard.
That's something different from what you said. You said he fabricated evidence, that "there was no evidence... not even what he heard or saw, but just his opinion".
BTW, from what I've heard, the transcript that was released was not the full transcript. The witness heard the
entire call as it took place.
Another thing that seems to be misunderstood, not necessarily by you, is what an '
acquittal' actually means.
According to the Cornell Law school's website (emphasis in the quoted text is mine):
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/acquittalAcquittal
Definition
At the end of a criminal trial, a finding by a judge or jury that a defendant is not guilty. An acquittal signifies that a prosecutor failed to prove his or her case beyond a reasonable doubt, not that a defendant is innocent. Thus, a person may be acquitted of a crime but found civilly liable in a civil case regarding that same crime, e.g. O.J. Simpson, because civil cases have a lower burden of proof than criminal cases.
I repeat, "not that a defendant is innocent."
It's the failure of the Senate to prove Donald J. Trump innocent.
They didn't, because they couldn't, and they just didn't want to convict him, thus an acquittal.
