Politics

David Holmes Somehow Heard Enough Bits of a Trump Phone Call to Be a Democrat-Called Witness

Thursday's House Intelligence Committee impeachment hearings are finally coming to an end

Image Credit: Fox News Youtube Screenshot

Foreign Service Officer David Holmes (shown above) began his opening statement at Thursday’s House Intelligence Committee impeachment inquiry hearings with the usual pieties.

Soon after, he hit presidential personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, the Dems’ secondary target of this sham exercise, as a rogue player involved in U.S. diplomacy in Ukraine.

The diplomat then went on to defend former Ukrainian Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch and castigated the so-called “Three Amigos” — Kurt Volker, the former special envoy to Ukraine; Ambassador to the E.U. Gordon Sondland; and Energy Secretary Rick Perry — for involving themselves in diplomatic duties out of their official sphere.

The Dems have used the term “Three Amigos” because it is likely polling well for term recognition in focus groups.

Holmes on Thursday went on to relate the details of a lunch with Sondland in Ukraine.

Holmes claimed he heard President Donald Trump ask on Sondland’s personal cell phone — the president was supposedly speaking very loudly — whether Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelensky would investigate Burisma.

Related: House Intel Committee’s Impeachment Event Will End Today

Sondland said yes to Trump, that Zelensky would do “anything you ask him to.”

Then, according to Holmes, the phone — without any supposed action by Sondland — suddenly went quiet to the point that Holmes could now only hear Sondland’s side of the conversation, no longer the president’s.

But apparently, Holmes somehow heard enough bits of the conversation for the purposes of being a Democrat-called witness on Thursday.

Holmes also claimed the Ukrainians “recoiled at playing a part in U.S. elections.”

Strangely, they did not recoil in 2016 when numerous Ukrainian government officials, and even their ambassador to the U.S., criticized then-candidate Trump.

Holmes and Fiona Hill, a high-level National Security Council staffer, either were outside of that very public loop, which would be weird for their high-level assignments, or they’re not straying too far from Democrat-led talking points. Probably the latter.

Hill, coming off as a mirthless and dour policy wonk, began by trashing her native land, saying that because of her northern English accent she could not have professionally risen in the U.K., as she could here in the United States.

Related: House Hearings: Long Day’s Journey into Naught

Do you care about the impeachment hearings?

By completing the poll, you agree to receive emails from LifeZette and that you've read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement.

She repeated the Democrat mantra that only the Russians had tried to influence the 2016 U.S. election, despite given massive evidence to the contrary.

She also lectured the GOP on the falsehood of the publicly vetted evidence — though it was proven, verified, and sitting in front of her.

Hill’s arrogance was on full display during her protestations that she was not in any way a partisan player.

As she almost spat out that conviction, she did so in full adherence to every single Democrat talking point.

This not only rendered her claim of objectivity absurd to the point of comedy — but makes her a prime target for upcoming GOP questioners such as Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah), Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) and others.

Stay tuned for more.

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of LifeZette.

David Kamioner
meet the author

David Kamioner is a veteran of U.S. Army Intelligence; he served with the Pershing Nuclear Brigade and the First Infantry Division. After that, he worked as a political consultant and ran a homeless shelter for veterans in Philadelphia. In addition to writing freelance pieces for LifeZette, he also writes for American Greatness.

Join the Discussion

COMMENTS POLICY: We have no tolerance for messages of violence, racism, vulgarity, obscenity or other such discourteous behavior. Thank you for contributing to a respectful and useful online dialogue.