Taylor Admits His Opinion Based On Conversations With Anti-Trump Staffers

[iceberg]

Again, we have a transcript, nothing can change that. That is what the left are using to impeach. Now, all of these hearsay conversations, especially those from the anti trump group should probably be disregarded, as it's not admissible as evidence. The problem with hearsay is that, it may be true, or it may not be true. Some of it may be twisted to make a desired narrative, and some of it could be incorrect with people getting facts wrong with the transition of the story from one person to the next.

About the only 2 people who have direct knowledge are the whistleblower, and apparently sondland. Those are the only two who's testimony would have any relevancy.

Without that testimony, then it boils down to the interpretation of the transcript, which says nothing about getting dirt on biden, nor asking ukraine to influence a campaign.

Yes, you do have trump asking ukraine to look into the server, and also to look into why the prosecutor who was investigating burisma was fired, but that could be because trump was genuinely wanting to know more about those events, or it could be because he was wanting dirt. The point being, the transcript doesnt give any actual context either way, and everything else is just hearsay, some of it from people with an anti trump agenda.

If sondland does have direct knowledge, then his testimony alone would probably be the most damaging to trump.

Pure fact free nonsense. All of it.

all of the witnesses have knowledge of what occurred. Many because they dealt with it in Ukraine as diplomats. Others because they were privy to what occurred in the White House

It's not a crime to have a different foreign policy than the entrenched swamp.
Trump needs to fire them all.

correct.

Its a crime to withhold funds approved by congress for personal benefit.
Its called bribery.

what's it called when you get your son hired to a corp that is being paid by funds given to the government then to corp then to said son?

pretty sure that's a personal benefit also.

 

[Crepitus]

"A key Democratic witness against Trump admitted in congressional testimony last month that he was not part of the July 25 phone call between the U.S. and Ukrainian presidents, that he didn’t see a transcript or readout of it until late September when it was declassified and released, and that he has never even spoken to President Donald Trump.

William Taylor, the charge d’affairs of the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine, told lawmakers in secret testimony two weeks ago that his opinions about an alleged quid pro quo demanded by Trump were formed largely from conversations with anti-Trump staffers within the diplomatic bureaucracy."

"Taylor also testified that his knowledge of the phone call between Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymr Zelensky wasn’t first-hand knowledge."

Wow - that's got to be completely disappointing to / deflating for Pro-coup snowflakes / Democrats.....still no evidence.


Transcript: Taylor Wasn't On July 25 Phone Call, Never Spoke To Trump

.

We already knew he wasn't on the call. This is not new.

then how can he be a witness to what happened? this would be like getting someone to be a witness for an event after they watched it on the news. that isn't far off at this point and that's so very dangerous.

all cause "orange man bad".

Lol, nice try. Your desperation is showing though.

1. Second hand information is used in criminal trials all the time.

2. There are first hand witnesses to the same things.

3. There would be a lot more first hand witnesses if tRump wasn't preventing them from testifying.

 

[Defiant1]

"A key Democratic witness against Trump admitted in congressional testimony last month that he was not part of the July 25 phone call between the U.S. and Ukrainian presidents, that he didn’t see a transcript or readout of it until late September when it was declassified and released, and that he has never even spoken to President Donald Trump.

William Taylor, the charge d’affairs of the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine, told lawmakers in secret testimony two weeks ago that his opinions about an alleged quid pro quo demanded by Trump were formed largely from conversations with anti-Trump staffers within the diplomatic bureaucracy."

"Taylor also testified that his knowledge of the phone call between Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymr Zelensky wasn’t first-hand knowledge."

Wow - that's got to be completely disappointing to / deflating for Pro-coup snowflakes / Democrats.....still no evidence.


Transcript: Taylor Wasn't On July 25 Phone Call, Never Spoke To Trump

.

We already knew he wasn't on the call. This is not new.

then how can he be a witness to what happened? this would be like getting someone to be a witness for an event after they watched it on the news. that isn't far off at this point and that's so very dangerous.

all cause "orange man bad".

Lol, nice try. Your desperation is showing though.

1. Second hand information is used in criminal trials all the time.

2. There are first hand witnesses to the same things.

3. There would be a lot more first hand witnesses if tRump wasn't preventing them from testifying.

Like who?
We have the transcript.

 

[Crepitus]

"A key Democratic witness against Trump admitted in congressional testimony last month that he was not part of the July 25 phone call between the U.S. and Ukrainian presidents, that he didn’t see a transcript or readout of it until late September when it was declassified and released, and that he has never even spoken to President Donald Trump.

William Taylor, the charge d’affairs of the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine, told lawmakers in secret testimony two weeks ago that his opinions about an alleged quid pro quo demanded by Trump were formed largely from conversations with anti-Trump staffers within the diplomatic bureaucracy."

"Taylor also testified that his knowledge of the phone call between Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymr Zelensky wasn’t first-hand knowledge."

Wow - that's got to be completely disappointing to / deflating for Pro-coup snowflakes / Democrats.....still no evidence.


Transcript: Taylor Wasn't On July 25 Phone Call, Never Spoke To Trump

.

We already knew he wasn't on the call. This is not new.

then how can he be a witness to what happened? this would be like getting someone to be a witness for an event after they watched it on the news. that isn't far off at this point and that's so very dangerous.

all cause "orange man bad".

Lol, nice try. Your desperation is showing though.

1. Second hand information is used in criminal trials all the time.

2. There are first hand witnesses to the same things.

3. There would be a lot more first hand witnesses if tRump wasn't preventing them from testifying.

Like who?
We have the transcript.

They released all the transcripts. Some of them are first hand accounts. Lt. Col. Vindman for instance.

 

[iceberg]

"A key Democratic witness against Trump admitted in congressional testimony last month that he was not part of the July 25 phone call between the U.S. and Ukrainian presidents, that he didn’t see a transcript or readout of it until late September when it was declassified and released, and that he has never even spoken to President Donald Trump.

William Taylor, the charge d’affairs of the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine, told lawmakers in secret testimony two weeks ago that his opinions about an alleged quid pro quo demanded by Trump were formed largely from conversations with anti-Trump staffers within the diplomatic bureaucracy."

"Taylor also testified that his knowledge of the phone call between Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymr Zelensky wasn’t first-hand knowledge."

Wow - that's got to be completely disappointing to / deflating for Pro-coup snowflakes / Democrats.....still no evidence.


Transcript: Taylor Wasn't On July 25 Phone Call, Never Spoke To Trump

.

We already knew he wasn't on the call. This is not new.

then how can he be a witness to what happened? this would be like getting someone to be a witness for an event after they watched it on the news. that isn't far off at this point and that's so very dangerous.

all cause "orange man bad".

Lol, nice try. Your desperation is showing though.

1. Second hand information is used in criminal trials all the time.

2. There are first hand witnesses to the same things.

3. There would be a lot more first hand witnesses if tRump wasn't preventing them from testifying.

please cite these cases and how it was used and why allowed.

fyi - i've already looked those up - so stop blowing smoke up our collective asses and simply prove your points with unbiased facts, not your totally biased rants.

 

[Defiant1]

"A key Democratic witness against Trump admitted in congressional testimony last month that he was not part of the July 25 phone call between the U.S. and Ukrainian presidents, that he didn’t see a transcript or readout of it until late September when it was declassified and released, and that he has never even spoken to President Donald Trump.

William Taylor, the charge d’affairs of the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine, told lawmakers in secret testimony two weeks ago that his opinions about an alleged quid pro quo demanded by Trump were formed largely from conversations with anti-Trump staffers within the diplomatic bureaucracy."

"Taylor also testified that his knowledge of the phone call between Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymr Zelensky wasn’t first-hand knowledge."

Wow - that's got to be completely disappointing to / deflating for Pro-coup snowflakes / Democrats.....still no evidence.


Transcript: Taylor Wasn't On July 25 Phone Call, Never Spoke To Trump

.

We already knew he wasn't on the call. This is not new.

then how can he be a witness to what happened? this would be like getting someone to be a witness for an event after they watched it on the news. that isn't far off at this point and that's so very dangerous.

all cause "orange man bad".

Lol, nice try. Your desperation is showing though.

1. Second hand information is used in criminal trials all the time.

2. There are first hand witnesses to the same things.

3. There would be a lot more first hand witnesses if tRump wasn't preventing them from testifying.

Like who?
We have the transcript.

They released all the transcripts. Some of them are first hand accounts. Lt. Col. Vindman for instance.

Then why isn't he on the witness list?
We want to know who he called.
We want to know who he talked to.
We want to know who he is working for.
We want to know what makes him think he has a right to access and change transcripts of the President's phone calls.

 

[kiwiman127]

Why is the White Housing stonewalling the impeachment process by withholding hard copy evidence and pertinent staff's availability?
If this whole thing is a nothing burger, why not flood the impeachment proceedings with evidence of no wrong doing?

 

[Zorro!]

OOPS: Amb. Taylor’s Awkward Silence in Response to a Question About Hunter Biden Was Very Telling.

During Wednesday's impeachment hearings, Steve Castor, House Intelligence Committee counsel for the minority, asked Ambassador Taylor a rather simple question about Hunter Biden and his position at Burisma, that he couldn't (or perhaps refused) to answer, resulting in perhaps the most awkward silence I've ever seen in such a hearing.

CASTOR: Ambassador Taylor, do you know whether Hunter Biden offers anything other than the fact that his dad's the former vice president

AMB. TAYLOR: I don't—

CASTOR: Or at the time was the vice president.

AMB. TAYLOR: I have no knowledge of Hunter Biden—

CASTOR: But you agree it raises questions?

AMB. TAYLOR: (five seconds of silence)

Ambassador Taylor is a key witness of House Democrats whose testimony is based not on direct knowledge, but on hearsay. Yet, that he couldn't admit that Hunter Biden being given a position on the board of Burisma (despite no relevant experience, familiarity with the language, and not having anything to offer besides being the son of the vice president) raised serious, legitimate questions is astounding.

Ambassador Taylor knows the answer, he just couldn't say so because to do so would undermine the very reason this impeachment inquiry is even happening. To admit that Hunter Biden's appointment to the board of Burisma raised questions would justify Trump's belief that an investigation was necessary, and negate this entire sham impeachment.

But, The American People get it.

The biggest silence of the day was when Ratliff asked both Kent and Taylor what was the impeachable offense. They both, along with their
attorneys just stared at each other and Ratliff seized the moment and said..."Go on...shout it out!"

If this is the best the Dems have...they are in deep shit. The former ambassador who is one stupid bitch testifies Friday and then 8 next
week. I have no doubt we'll see this move onto the Judiciary committee for that circus and they probably will vote for an Articles of
Impeachment, but that is where it will get very sticky for the dems. Then they will need at least 17 of their "moderate" rookie
members to vote for impeachment. They may not have that many. Not if the rest of the witnesses are gonna be less than what we
saw today.

Reminds me of Balsey Ford and as she fell apart, suddenly the Porn Lawyer and others were throwing in more witnesses, each less credible than the previous until it collapsed under it's own unsupported weight.

I don't understand their convulsions, but, I do think they think they are accomplishing something. Could it be that they are trying to keep their narrow base consolidated? They probably fund-raise very well during these episodes. And then I think they may truly believe in this "arc of history" crap and figure if they keep throwing for the endzone that at some point they will make a completion, except that this isn't football.

I guess there is no point in me trying to rationalize what may simply be irrational.

 

[M14 Shooter]

all of the witnesses have knowledge of what occurred.

All of which is supposition or presumption, based on 2nd or 3rd hand information.
No one with 1st hand knowledge has testified.
Nothingburger.

 

[M14 Shooter]

1. Second hand information is used in criminal trials all the time.

Suppositions and presumptions based ion 2nd and 3rd hand information is not.

2. There are first hand witnesses to the same things.

What have these 1st hand witnesses said?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why is the White Housing stonewalling the impeachment process by withholding hard copy evidence and pertinent staff's availability?
If this whole thing is a nothing burger, why not flood the impeachment proceedings with evidence of no wrong doing?

Why do you believe the fact the suspect refuses to cooperate with the prosecution proves the suspect is guilty?

 

[kiwiman127]

Why is the White Housing stonewalling the impeachment process by withholding hard copy evidence and pertinent staff's availability?
If this whole thing is a nothing burger, why not flood the impeachment proceedings with evidence of no wrong doing?

Why do you believe the fact the suspect refuses to cooperate with the prosecution proves the suspect is guilty?

If the White House had been cooperative and forthcoming, maybe taxpayers wouldn't be footing the bill of the impeachment process?
And, why stonewall? Your response is very weak.

 

[iceberg]

"A key Democratic witness against Trump admitted in congressional testimony last month that he was not part of the July 25 phone call between the U.S. and Ukrainian presidents, that he didn’t see a transcript or readout of it until late September when it was declassified and released, and that he has never even spoken to President Donald Trump.

William Taylor, the charge d’affairs of the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine, told lawmakers in secret testimony two weeks ago that his opinions about an alleged quid pro quo demanded by Trump were formed largely from conversations with anti-Trump staffers within the diplomatic bureaucracy."

"Taylor also testified that his knowledge of the phone call between Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymr Zelensky wasn’t first-hand knowledge."

Wow - that's got to be completely disappointing to / deflating for Pro-coup snowflakes / Democrats.....still no evidence.


Transcript: Taylor Wasn't On July 25 Phone Call, Never Spoke To Trump

.

We already knew he wasn't on the call. This is not new.

then how can he be a witness to what happened? this would be like getting someone to be a witness for an event after they watched it on the news. that isn't far off at this point and that's so very dangerous.

all cause "orange man bad".

Lol, nice try. Your desperation is showing though.

1. Second hand information is used in criminal trials all the time.

2. There are first hand witnesses to the same things.

3. There would be a lot more first hand witnesses if tRump wasn't preventing them from testifying.

i'll ask again - please cite precedents on how this is viable, this hearsay evidence.

you scream at a lot of people calling bullshit to it, but you never say how it's valid.

how...like you.

 

[B. Kidd]

One is starting to think that none of these accusers actually heard anything first hand.

Because none did, they are 'testifying' to 3rd and 4th hand conversations. The Dem's two 'star' witnesses today testified to office water cooler gossip, what a laughable disaster this was for Dem's.

Yupp!

It's a totally fact-less 'Hearsay-A-Thon'.

 

[Syriusly]

"A key Democratic witness against Trump admitted in congressional testimony last month that he was not part of the July 25 phone call between the U.S. and Ukrainian presidents, that he didn’t see a transcript or readout of it until late September when it was declassified and released, and that he has never even spoken to President Donald Trump.

William Taylor, the charge d’affairs of the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine, told lawmakers in secret testimony two weeks ago that his opinions about an alleged quid pro quo demanded by Trump were formed largely from conversations with anti-Trump staffers within the diplomatic bureaucracy."

"Taylor also testified that his knowledge of the phone call between Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymr Zelensky wasn’t first-hand knowledge."

Wow - that's got to be completely disappointing to / deflating for Pro-coup snowflakes / Democrats.....still no evidence.


Transcript: Taylor Wasn't On July 25 Phone Call, Never Spoke To Trump

.

Where did Taylor ever state he was ever talking with 'anti-Trump staffers'?

Oh wait- you just made that up.

You Trumpettes and your lies to protect your Orange Messiah.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why is the White Housing stonewalling the impeachment process by withholding hard copy evidence and pertinent staff's availability?
If this whole thing is a nothing burger, why not flood the impeachment proceedings with evidence of no wrong doing?

Why do you believe the fact the suspect refuses to cooperate with the prosecution proves the suspect is guilty?

If the White House had been cooperative and forthcoming, maybe taxpayers wouldn't be footing the bill of the impeachment process?
And, why stonewall? Your response is very weak.

Ah.
You can't tell me -why- you believe the fact the suspect refuses to cooperate with the prosecution proves the suspect is guilty - you just do.
Thanks.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Again, we have a transcript, nothing can change that. That is what the left are using to impeach. Now, all of these hearsay conversations, especially those from the anti trump group should probably be disregarded, as it's not admissible as evidence. The problem with hearsay is that, it may be true, or it may not be true. Some of it may be twisted to make a desired narrative, and some of it could be incorrect with people getting facts wrong with the transition of the story from one person to the next.

About the only 2 people who have direct knowledge are the whistleblower, and apparently sondland. Those are the only two who's testimony would have any relevancy.

Without that testimony, then it boils down to the interpretation of the transcript, which says nothing about getting dirt on biden, nor asking ukraine to influence a campaign.

Yes, you do have trump asking ukraine to look into the server, and also to look into why the prosecutor who was investigating burisma was fired, but that could be because trump was genuinely wanting to know more about those events, or it could be because he was wanting dirt. The point being, the transcript doesnt give any actual context either way, and everything else is just hearsay, some of it from people with an anti trump agenda.

If sondland does have direct knowledge, then his testimony alone would probably be the most damaging to trump.

Pure fact free nonsense. All of it.

all of the witnesses have knowledge of what occurred. Many because they dealt with it in Ukraine as diplomats. Others because they were privy to what occurred in the White House

And none have first hand knowledge. Just because they are privy or worked in the country where it allegedly happened doesnt mean they know what went on.

A friend who told a friend who told a friend isnt a credible source of evidence.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Again, we have a transcript, nothing can change that. That is what the left are using to impeach. Now, all of these hearsay conversations, especially those from the anti trump group should probably be disregarded, as it's not admissible as evidence. The problem with hearsay is that, it may be true, or it may not be true. Some of it may be twisted to make a desired narrative, and some of it could be incorrect with people getting facts wrong with the transition of the story from one person to the next.

About the only 2 people who have direct knowledge are the whistleblower, and apparently sondland. Those are the only two who's testimony would have any relevancy.

Without that testimony, then it boils down to the interpretation of the transcript, which says nothing about getting dirt on biden, nor asking ukraine to influence a campaign.

Yes, you do have trump asking ukraine to look into the server, and also to look into why the prosecutor who was investigating burisma was fired, but that could be because trump was genuinely wanting to know more about those events, or it could be because he was wanting dirt. The point being, the transcript doesnt give any actual context either way, and everything else is just hearsay, some of it from people with an anti trump agenda.

If sondland does have direct knowledge, then his testimony alone would probably be the most damaging to trump.

Pure fact free nonsense. All of it.

all of the witnesses have knowledge of what occurred. Many because they dealt with it in Ukraine as diplomats. Others because they were privy to what occurred in the White House

It's not a crime to have a different foreign policy than the entrenched swamp.
Trump needs to fire them all.

correct.

Its a crime to withhold funds approved by congress for personal benefit.
Its called bribery.

Where does trump say hes going to withold funds until ukraine digs up dirt for his campaign?

 

[kiwiman127]

Why is the White Housing stonewalling the impeachment process by withholding hard copy evidence and pertinent staff's availability?
If this whole thing is a nothing burger, why not flood the impeachment proceedings with evidence of no wrong doing?

Why do you believe the fact the suspect refuses to cooperate with the prosecution proves the suspect is guilty?

If the White House had been cooperative and forthcoming, maybe taxpayers wouldn't be footing the bill of the impeachment process?
And, why stonewall? Your response is very weak.

Ah.
You can't tell me -why- you believe the fact the suspect refuses to cooperate with the prosecution proves the suspect is guilty - you just do.
Thanks.

What pathetic reasoning.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Why is the White Housing stonewalling the impeachment process by withholding hard copy evidence and pertinent staff's availability?
If this whole thing is a nothing burger, why not flood the impeachment proceedings with evidence of no wrong doing?

Why do you believe the fact the suspect refuses to cooperate with the prosecution proves the suspect is guilty?

If the White House had been cooperative and forthcoming, maybe taxpayers wouldn't be footing the bill of the impeachment process?
And, why stonewall? Your response is very weak.

The taxpayers are footing the bill for impeachment because the dems were determined to impeach him before he took office. These hearings are not even needed as there is no way at all that the dems are not going to impeach him.

They could simply write up their articles and turn them over to the senate. What all this is about is them trying to damage public opinion of trump in hopes it will hurt him in the election.