It's not about "my judgement"; its about well understood standards of determining reliability. Again, if even a civil court wouldn't accept this sort of obscured 2nd and 3rd hand evidence then neither will I - nor should any independent minded person. The released transcript (the only piece of primary evidence which we've seen) simply doesn't support the editorialized complaints that were presented by the "whistleblower" unless, as I stated, you're willing to jump through sophistic and hypocritical hoops.
Since the Mueller report flop, its become increasingly obvious that Trump - who has approval rates which are comparable with Obama's - was probably going to be re-elected if the Democrats just did nothing. The impeachment inquiry is an obvious risk, but at this stage a necessary, and clearly engineered, one. The fact that you openly acknowledged that Pelosi's first thought vis-a-vis impeachment was "election strategy" rather than truth serves only to prove right my "non-sensical speculation" that her rationale remains predicated on electioneering.This speculation is pretty non-sensical since it's pretty common knowledge that Pelosi was holding off on any impeachment inquiry precisely because it would damage the Democrats' election strategy, not help it.