/----/ Of course, you have no idea what was said on the phone call, and can only lash out and make false accusations.1. It's not a transcript./—-/ Read the transcript. It blows Shytface‘a narrative out of the water.That is an outdated talking point dismantled by the testimony given during the Intel Committee hearings. It's origins are found in the efforts to discredit the whistleblower complaint. But the info contained in the complaint has been fully corroborated. We know what happened, when it happened, who was involved in what happened, and who knew about what happened.The phrase you seem unable to understand is "for personal benefit".
Look that up and get back to me.
Good luck in the Senate.![]()
99 percent of the demrat case is hearsay, opinion and hot air. None of which will make it to the senate floor. What most of the so called witnesses said in hearings and what being reported by so called press are two different tales.
However, there is more first hand testimony that could be given were it not for the Obstructionist-in-Chief's refusal to allow people like Bolton to testify. Which is why your erroneous assertion has more than a tinge of irony in it. The right wing complains about a lack of first hand accounts of events while the Orange Turd prevents them from being given.
2. It doesn't run counter to the whistleblower's complaint, and in fact is as incriminating as most of the testimony.