Yes, really. He didn't use the terms quid pro quo or bribery specifically, but that's exactly what he describes in his amended testimony. He changed it to protect himself from being charged with perjury.
Bullshit. You're inferring what you want to get out of his expressions of opinion. But Stefanik asked, point blank: Do you have any evidence of quid pro quo? NO. Do you have any evidence of bribery? NO. Do you have any evidence of treason? NO.
They're just offended that the President cut through their gravy and exerted policy straight from the horse's mouth. But even Vindman yesterday acknowledged that the President makes foreign policy, not the procedures and not the advisors. And that the President has the authority to cut through the protocol and make policy on the fly, and even has the authority to request of a foreign power that an American suspected of wrongdoing in that nation be investigated. He complains the President should've followed the procedures they have for initiating such an investigation, but the authority is there. And he also acknowledged that the Biden situation at least has the potential of corruption worth investigating.