The testimony indicated to me that they don't have enough evidence to take Trump down, which was a point I was unsure on before. I don't know if that counts as feeling better, but regardless I don't think we can draw conclusions from asking a sample of nine people.
It's obstruction of justice, a very serious violation of the separation of powers and the checks and balances. Much of the Constitution delineates the rights and non-rights of the President so that the President cannot be a dictator. The FBI, with all the resources that it has, is not and must not become an enforcer of the whims of the President as if a secret police.
There was a closed session involving classified data. To be sure, we must act as if nothing happened in that session because we are not privy to classified information -- but Senator Kamala Harris asked questions that suggest that damning testimony could be made in the closed session.
There is no cabal capable of taking down an embattled President. Thank God -- for such would involve a military coup, something far too risky for the "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" for too many of us. We do not have the parliamentary vote of no confidence because our Founding Fathers found the British parliament of the time a bad model for the new America. (Never mind that Canada, Australia, and New Zealand became independent after the British Parliament had greatly reformed itself to be worthy of imitation.
Impeachment? The process is messy and scary -- and it is just as well that it be messy and scary. Democrats have much cause to not press for impeachment because the line of succession is mostly yes-men and fanatics.
We may have a Constitutional crisis on our hands. If the Russian spy services succeeded in shaping the 2016 election in the direction that it wanted, then we Americans did not have a valid election. Electoral fraud is grounds for invalidating an election even if the winner was in no way culpable in the fraud.
There are circumstances in which a re-do of the 2016 election as part of the 2018 election would be appropriate. If the Presidency is shaky because of foreign interference in the election, then so is the Senate majority. Any cheats that won President Trump the presidency in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin probably also won the elections of Senators Toomey and Johnson, too. (Maybe Burr, Blunt, and who knows who else?) If Hillary Clinton were president, then those two Senate seats would be enough to allow an effective majority by the Democrats if they went instead to Democrats. All that would be missing would be the mystery of conduct of the politicians who would be up for re-election.
An electoral re-do would have no precedent in American history. But rigging of the overall election (and this goes beyond the shady act of gerrymandering) is also without precedent.
Trump cultists, cry me a river about the Big Bad Media not giving us Americans a personality cult centered around your President. We fans of Obama didn't want such a personality cult, and we did not get it.
Poll
