From your link:
Fact: Ukraine law enforcement reopened the Burisma investigation in early 2019, well before President Trump mentioned the matter to Ukraine’s new president Vlodymyr Zelensky.
This may be the single biggest under-reported fact in the impeachment scandal: four months before Trump and Zelensky had their infamous phone call, Ukraine law enforcement officials officially reopened their investigation into Burisma and its founder.
The effort began independent of Trump or his lawyer Rudy Giuliani’s legal work. In fact, it was NABU – the very agency Joe Biden and the Obama administration helped start – that recommended in February 2019 to reopen the probe.
NABU director Artem Sytnyk made this announcement that he was recommending a new notice of suspicion be opened to launch the case against Burisma and its founder because of new evidence uncovered by detectives.
Ukrainian officials said that new evidence included records suggesting a possible money laundering scheme dating to 2010 and continuing until 2015.
A month later in March 2019, Deputy Prosecutor General Konstantin Kulyk officially filed this notice of suspicion re-opening the case.
And Reuters recently quoted Ukrainian officials as saying the ongoing probe was expanded to allegations of theft of public funds.
The implications of this timetable are significant to the Trump impeachment trial because the president couldn’t have pressured Ukraine to re-open the investigation in July 2019 when Kiev had already done so on its own, months earlier.
NABU prepares draft notice of suspicion on episode involving ex-minister Zlochevsky
By Interfax-Ukraine. Published Feb. 10, 2019.
Thank you so much. I can print it and read it and then mail it to people who don’t have computers....yes - there are such people...worse than myself. I did get as far as computers but I’ve drawn the line there - no techy gadgets for me...If my hands get crippled it will be from old age and not from CLINGING to a cell phone 24/7. I’m at the old age stage and so far so good!
The RATs could claim that the President did not know this and needlessly intimated them. In a real court of law they would have to prove this otherwise it's reasonable to doubt the RATs claim and the President must be aquited.