This is direct knowledge, no longer hearsay

This is no longer hearsay. What’s the next talking point?

Deep state is this staffer a never trumper?

The second person is Schiff.

1 Like

They’re all double agents!


It’s inadmissable because how dare he eavesdrop on a call not meant for him!

This one has distinct possibilities.

It was already trotted out here.

1 Like

Ukraine president and trump said no quid pro quo!

You know what else the President of the Ukraine said?

He said he had no desire to be dragged into the middle of an American election.

That’s as diplomatic a way of saying he was being asked to get involved in an American election as was possible.

1 Like

That person is just a spy. They should have shut their hears off when the President speaks… like most people already do.

1 Like

We should probably subpoena the Russian agents who listened in on the call. That, too, would be firsthand information.

It’s all fine. Trump doesn’t remember the call. And if he doesn’t remember it anything he said doesn’t count.

Well, lets say that once the staffers talk, it will no longer be hearsay. Assuming the article is correct, they will have two points to make:

  1. Sondland used an unsecure line when he should not have done so
  2. Trump mentioned the/an investigation.

Since the transcript of the day before mentioned that he wanted Ukraine to have an investigation, that really isn’t that surprising, nor does it add much.

And since Sondland isn’t being impeached…someone needs to correct his phone practices.

Yes, It’s Trumps job to investigate corruption like Biden’s bribery for aid…

Using an unsecure line… ya think?

They were also using WhatsApp for official US business.

Completely all above board.

We don’t really know what he will say, you know.

Just like no one knew what would be revealed once Alexander Butterfield let it be known that all of Nixon’s Oval Office conversations were recorded.

I can see the need to try and get out in front of such testimony with one’s own narrative, however.

Ummm…the OP is based on an article that alleges to report what the staffers heard.

It is getting ahead of the investigation to discuss the article that the OP is based on?

It’s getting ahead to assume Holmes’ testimony “won’t add much”.

Because we don’t know what Holmes heard…we only have a summary from a third party as to what he heard.

They got the aid without an investigation …

Hence he will be impeached.

Trump did his job.

The house will do theirs.

Then the senate will do theirs.

Nice and neat.


1 Like