The Right Side of the News

Except that it was not. Fiona Hill testified that John Bolton told her that he didn't want to be part of any "drug deal" that Sondland and Mulvaney were cooking up. David Holmes testified what he heard President Trump say to Sondland over a cell phone. Sondland testified that everyone was in the loop, and he talked to Giuliani, Mulvaney and Perry. And outside the House committee testimony Bolton writes in his book that Trump pushed for Ukrainian investigations into the Democrats and the Bidens before he'd release the military aid.There are transcripts. If you'd care to repeat your falsehoods then I will take you through the testimony so you can point out the supposed opinion and hearsay.Your willingness to badmouth anyone and everyone who disagrees with you only brings disgrace upon you, and claims based upon stuff you make up can not stand up to facts.--Percy

Bolton confirms the accusations. As did Sondland.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

It was Sondland who said he only presumed it. He offered no direct knowledge of anything.AbE: My mistake: He did offer the direct evidence that Trump said clearly that he want4ed no quid pro quo.We need to see that Biden was in fact getting a prosecutor fired because his son was being investigated, and withholding aid until he was fired. This has to come out. Trump is being accused of what Biden actually did but there is no reason whatever to think Trump's motives were personal.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What you just reported is all hearsay. Wow, you are making that into direct testimony? And Bolton wasn't there, his stuff has been trotted out only now.And since Trump wanted corruption by a foreign country investigated he was right to withhold aid, except it doesn't seem that any aid was actually withheld. Biden's withholding aid until an investigator into his son's involvement in a corrupt business was fired is what Trump is accused of but it's Biden who was guilty of it.

You sure love your lies. It's telling that you have no response to new evidence and explanations, just repeating the same old long-debunk horseshit. (I hope you're right by your fainting couch.There never was a Ukrainian investigation of Hunter Biden. There was an investigation of the Burisma company, which investigation had been set aside befote Joe Biden called for Shokin's ouster. He didn't call for Shokin's ouster because of any investigation, he called for his ouster because he wasn't investigating any of the rampant corruption in Ukraine. Ousting Shokin was the official policy of the United States and several other countries in.Unlike Trump, who called for an investigation of something for which there is not even a scintilla of evidence. He held up aid in violation of the findings of of the Defense and State Department's findings. He would benefit personally from an investigation and the United States would not.

Bolton was there in the room. Sondland was on the phone call. The other witnesses filled in the blanks.The aid was illegally withheld until the scandal broke. Attempted extortion is a crime, as is obstruction of Congress.See my immediately previous message for the truth about the BidensYour repetition of lies gets tiresome

Yes, Trump said that. Criminals always profess innocence.

quote:

---

I know that members of this Committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a "quid pro quo?" As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes

---

Who said that?

Hearsay is bogus and it was all hearsay. Nobody who actually witnessed anything testified. And there was nothing to testify to anyway. The phone call was "perfect," in Trump's word. An unfortunately choice of word in my opinion, hyperbole, but it certainly shows that he had no sense of having said anything wrong. And there were people monitoring the phone call who never said there was anything wrong. All we got was hearsay from people who hate Trump.The only attempt extortion was done by Biden, Trump did no such thing.YOUR repetition certainly gets tiresome.

But that's the type of negative headline you've been complaining about. If you don't think that's negative then your complaints of negative headlines make no sense. Ah, so the goalposts move. It's not negative headlines you object to but anonymous sources. So when Trump cited an anonymous source about Obama's birth certificate, you object to that: Inconsistent much?So since the disclosure to the New York Times about the Bolton book came from anonymous sources ("multiple people described") within the White House, why do you believe it? Why aren't you claiming that when Bolton's book comes out in March that it will be found that those passages don't exist? Or why aren't you claiming that if Bolton testifies before the Senate that he'll tell them the New York Times report is a pack of lies and that the President fought forcefully for Ukraine to clean up its corruption because of how much he wanted to provide them that military aid and invite Zelensky for an Oval Office visit, and that when his book comes out that's what it will say?Or now that I've put the thought in your head maybe you'd like to take that route. You seem to enjoy ignoring when you're wrong, which is all the time, so here's another chance.--Percy

You are just repeating the hearsay. What people said people said people saide. THAT IS NOT EVIDENCE>

Bolton was in the room, no matter when his claims came out.But he really should testify under oath.

What people saw and heard is evidence.

Yes it is claimed there never was an investigation into Burisma. So? Lots of things are claimed that turn out not to be true, and this is why we need to find out for sure.

because trump ordered them not to, cause innocent men tell witnesses not to testify.

No, not what people saw and heard that is just what other people saw and heard. That is not direct testimony, that is hearsay