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

[M14 Shooter]

The proof is from the inquiry.

Cite the source, quote the text.

Trump admitted he did the crime.

Nothing in your source supports your assertion.

 

[Oldstyle]

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

First hand knowledge? Who has that? If this were in a court of law the defendant's lawyer would constantly be popping out of his seat like a Jack In The Box yelling "Objection...hearsay!" and the judge would be agreeing with him! This is political FARCE!

So you don't want hearsay...yet you demand the whistle blower testify...who you say only was a hearsay witness.

Logic is not your friend

I'd like to know why the man who started this whole farce...suddenly became unnecessary. I don't "demand" that he testify because I don't think he has much to say quite frankly! Your whistleblower was nothing more than a Schiff "plant" from the get go. Now Schiff doesn't want him to testify because he doesn't want any Republicans to have a chance at exposing him for what he is!

 

[dudmuck]

The proof is from the inquiry.

Cite the source, quote the text.

Trump admitted he did the crime.

Nothing in your source supports your assertion.

unnecessary to cite source or quote text because you can just read the article.

The crime of bribery comes in two parts, asking ukraine to announce investigation into Biden, and freezing military aid.

additionally, bribing GOP Senators

Federal law states that a public official is guilty of bribery if he or she “directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for . . . being influenced in the performance of any official act.”

 

[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.

Well no!
The Democrats are following the rules that the GOP instituted.
======================================
Trump might label this an attack on “due process,” but his fight isn’t with Speaker Nancy Pelosi or Schiff, it’s with the Republican-led investigative committees who instituted this precedent during their investigations of President Bill Clinton’s administration in 1997 and 1998. That practice was extended in the 112th, 113th, 114th and 115th congresses.
Opinion | Trump has the GOP to blame for the impeachment rules he hates so much
======================================
So if you want to whine about how the Dems are handling the impeachment, blame Republicans.

I didn't say anything about how dems are handling the impeachment, I said that all.of these hearings are a waste of taxpayer money. The hearings are supposed to flesh out a verdict of whether or not the house will move forward with articles of impeachment. Since articles of impeachment are going to happen no matter what, these hearings are pointless, and are a waste of money.

All this is, is a show from the dems to try and distort public opinion on trump, in order to damage his campaign.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

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.

You're parroting this from one of the Congressmen who stated this during the hearing, which was laughable crap that only a non-attorney could dream up. Your above statement is false - I practice almost exclusively in federal court, and second hand information is only admissible in evidence at trial (whether criminal or civil) if it qualifies under one of the listed exceptions to the hearsay rule under Federal Rule of Evidence 803. None of the hearsay testimony given qualifies under any of the recognized exceptions, and in fact, most all of it constituted what's known as hearsay-within-hearsay, which rarely ever qualifies even under the listed exceptions.

Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay

 

[Lesh]

So one the one hand you decry the WB as having provided only hearsay evidence...and then you demand that he testify.

Logic is not your friend. Neither is honesty

As far as Taylor...he cited ONE instance where he was told something by a staffer (that the staffer was a witness to a call between Trump and Sondland).

And that staffer will now testify. Be careful what you wish for.

Oh and there is ZERO evidence that the staffer is "anti-Trump"...other than your assertions that anyone not totally loyal to the Orange Criminal must by definition be "anti-Trump"

He will not be testifying to his feelings...he will be testifying to facts...

 

[iceberg]

So one the one hand you decry the WB as having provided only hearsay evidence...and then you demand that he testify.

Logic is not your friend. Neither is honesty

As far as Taylor...he cited ONE instance where he was told something by a staffer (that the staffer was a witness to a call between Trump and Sondland).

And that staffer will now testify. Be careful what you wish for.

Oh and there is ZERO evidence that the staffer is "anti-Trump"...other than your assertions that anyone not totally loyal to the Orange Criminal must by definition be "anti-Trump"

He will not be testifying to his feelings...he will be testifying to facts...

and the fact is he only heard something.

please cite court cases won with heresy evidence only.

 

[2aguy]

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

First hand knowledge? Who has that? If this were in a court of law the defendant's lawyer would constantly be popping out of his seat like a Jack In The Box yelling "Objection...hearsay!" and the judge would be agreeing with him! This is political FARCE!

So you don't want hearsay...yet you demand the whistle blower testify...who you say only was a hearsay witness.

Logic is not your friend

I'd like to know why the man who started this whole farce...suddenly became unnecessary. I don't "demand" that he testify because I don't think he has much to say quite frankly! Your whistleblower was nothing more than a Schiff "plant" from the get go. Now Schiff doesn't want him to testify because he doesn't want any Republicans to have a chance at exposing him for what he is!

He needs to testify so that his actual ties to joe biden and adam schiff as well as the obama administration can be put on record......as well as his part in the Russian hoax....

 

[2aguy]

So one the one hand you decry the WB as having provided only hearsay evidence...and then you demand that he testify.

Logic is not your friend. Neither is honesty

As far as Taylor...he cited ONE instance where he was told something by a staffer (that the staffer was a witness to a call between Trump and Sondland).

And that staffer will now testify. Be careful what you wish for.

Oh and there is ZERO evidence that the staffer is "anti-Trump"...other than your assertions that anyone not totally loyal to the Orange Criminal must by definition be "anti-Trump"

He will not be testifying to his feelings...he will be testifying to facts...

He will not be testifying to his feelings...he will be testifying to facts..

 

[easyt65]

You just can’t prove me wrong, can you? You’re just another Little Trumpster, gullible and clueless. You have reached your level of incompetency and the stick wasn’t even that high.

4 years....4 CONTINUOUS years.....failed illegal Russian Collusion w/assistance from foreign spies, exposed FISA Court abuses... illegal spying, working with foreign Intel Agency entities against Americans / Presidential candidates... multiple criminal investigations' run by a former president, his Deputy US AG, NSA Director, CIA Director, and FBI leadership and agents...Democrats meeting with corrupt former Ukraine officials to illegally obtain 'dirt' they used against candidate and President Trump and his team... a former VP's son working for our nation's enemies - the Chinese - and a known criminal Ukrainian energy company owner known for working with Putin, making $50K a month doing no one knows what except being 'access' for this company to seek favors from Obama's WH... a former VP giving a videotaped confession during which he brags about extorting the previous Ukraine PM... Obama's previous FBI Director, Deputy Director, and GBI Counter-Intel Expert have been recommended for Indictment for their crimes committed during the exposed treasonous conspiracy to prevent an opposition political Presidential candidate from winning in 2016 and then attempting to affect a political coup against the newly elected President of the United States....and finally the current live-action comedy Impeachment-poorly disguised coup attempt being run by a proven liar, admitted leaker of classified info, and traitor - the very 1st day of his public hearings exposing everything about this sham to be a shameless, treasonous attempt to remove the most successful President in decades from office...because butt-hurt, Trump-hating, America-hating Socialist Democrats do not adhere to the now-proven wise words spoken by former President Barak Obama: 'ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES'...'I WON'....and nothing to show for their conspiracy, sedition, and treason that has split this nation and undermined the President and our govt - to a degree the Russians could have only hoped for when their attempt to do the same thing failed - except for their own exposed crimes, billions of lost tax dollars and time investigating the President for the crimes Democrats have committed but have accused others of perpetrating, and Democrats and conspirators having been indicted...with more to follow once the US IG's report is released right after Thanksgiving.

 

[kyzr]

So one the one hand you decry the WB as having provided only hearsay evidence...and then you demand that he testify.

Logic is not your friend. Neither is honesty

As far as Taylor...he cited ONE instance where he was told something by a staffer (that the staffer was a witness to a call between Trump and Sondland).

And that staffer will now testify. Be careful what you wish for.

Oh and there is ZERO evidence that the staffer is "anti-Trump"...other than your assertions that anyone not totally loyal to the Orange Criminal must by definition be "anti-Trump"

He will not be testifying to his feelings...he will be testifying to facts...

The "facts" are that both men testified that Burisma is still corrupt, period.
Trump is bound by law to investigate corruption before sending aid. So he is totally justified holding up the aid and investigating Burisma.

The WB started this impeachment inquiry with all hearsay evidence obtained from others. Trump has the right to face his accusers based on the 6th amendment. Trump also has the right to see if the WB has any political biases that might affect his actions. The Logic is obvious.

How the fuck can one staffer overhear a phone conversation? No fucking way in a noisy restaurat, unless it was on speaker and more people would have heard the call. This "overhearing" is nonsense.

 

[easyt65]

He needs to testify so that his actual ties to joe biden and adam schiff as well as the obama administration can be put on record......as well as his part in the Russian hoax....

FACT:
Democrats met with corrupt former Ukrainian officials and illegally acquired dirt on Trump and his associates and used that to alter / affect the 2016 election.

FACT:
Former VP and 'Newly-Appointed' (then) Obama Point Man for Ukraine Joe Biden extorted the Ukraine PM and forced him to shut down a Ukrainian investigation of Hunter Biden's boss days before the Ukraine Prosecutor stated he was going to call Hunter Biden to testify. Papa Joe BRAGGED about doing so during his videotaped confession.

FACT:
The 'Whistleblower' is NOT a 'whistleblower' as per the requirements to be designated as such in the Whistleblower Act (the law).

FACT:
HEARSAY is NOT 'EVIDENCE', and the admitted, politically partisan, Trump-hating NON-Whistleblower Brennan-disciple CIA spy has made it perfectly clear they never had any 1st-hand account information.

FACT:
It has been made perfectly clear than not 1 (ONE) person who has come forward to testify in this hearing or who has any part in this treasonous circus has any 1st-hand account information regarding the false accusations levied against the President. They - to include the whistleblower - are NOT 'Witnesses' because they did NOT WITNESS anything.

FACT:
There is no evidence.
- The only 'evidence / witnesses' are those who participated in the phone call, the Ukraine PM and US President, and the original unaltered transcript. The US President said it never happened. The Ukraine PM said it never happened. The transcript debunks the Democrats' false narrative.

FACT:
There is No 'whistleblower'
-- Schiff admitted - after lying about it - that he and his staff had talked to the Whistleblower...then declared 2 days ago he doesn't know who the 'whistleblower' is. After lying for 2+ years about having direct criminal evidence against Trump that even Mueller did not have and after attempting to present a personally-authored fictional account of the phone call between the Ukraine PM and President Trump as 'evidence' (one he and the MSM quickly called a 'parody' after he was almost immediately called out for this LIE), people don't know if there is a 'Non-whistleblower' or not, if it is another lie / false claim by Schiff of having one to give hollow justification for continuing this coup, or if this 'whistleblower' is some non-existent individual in another one of Schiff's fictitious 'parodies'... UNTIL a 'whistleblower is actually, officially named, is confirmed, and they come forward, THERE IS NO 'WHISTLEBLOWER'.

FACT:
There are no witnesses. EVERY individual Schiff has called to testify has declared they have HEARSAY to share or that it was HEARSAY that helped them to formulate their opinions and presumptions.

FACT:
The ONLY real crimes - once again - the Democrats have managed to expose as a result of another butt-hurt, zero-substance Impeachment coup attempt are their own, starting with Joe and Hunter Biden and ending with D-Adam Schiff's own.


.

here is no 'witness'
- There is no 'whistleblower'
- There is no 'original source' of the HEARSAY

 

[wamose]

Pelosi has been told she has no case against Trump for influencing the election so now she is changing her talking points to bribery and extortion. Watch how quick the dweebs on CNN and MSNBC follow suit. And when these next charges point right back to the Democrat party, like the election tampering allegations did, Pelosi will just fabricate a new reason for our country to be totally terrified of Trump. Meanwhile back at the ranch, our economy is great, unemployment is way down, wages are up, taxes are down, problems that were previously ignored are being dealt with, trade deals that previously ripped us off are being rewritten, illegal immigration is down only because of Trump's efforts, we're getting away from the perpetual war philosophy we've had for the last 20 years and after the current witch hunt is over Trump will be removing quite a few deep state cons from the swamp. Trump is the best President since Eisenhower..

 

[easyt65]

According to Schiff himself earlier, he and his staff finally admitted - after lying about it - they had communicated with the 'whistleblower' prior to the person filed their complaint...and after. He gave great effort and went into great detail to describe the call as a legitimate question of how to submit a complaint from someone who did not how the process works. Schiff went on to threaten to take action against anyone who released the whistleblower's name.

Two days ago, when pressed by the GOP to release the identity of the Whistleblower so America could hear from them, Schiff lied by declaring he has no clue who the whistlebower is.

Due to Schiff's constantly LYING, his inability to be honest, and the inability to the 'whistleblower' really exists of if they are just part of another personal, fictitious Schiff 'parody', Schiff and every one of his staff members should be called to testify.

 

[easyt65]

Pelosi has been told she has no case against Trump for influencing the election so now she is changing her talking points to bribery and extortion.

This sums up the entire last 4 years for Democrats.

Trump is a compromised Russian Agent!
...We...uh...mean Trump engaged in illegal collusion with the Russians!
.......We...uh...mean Trump and his associates tried to get dirt on Hillary Clinton
..........We...uh...mean Trump Obstructed Justice by impeding the Obama Coup Attempt
.............We...uh...mean Trump has taken millions from the Russians - He pays No Taxes At All
................We...uh...mean we have a 'Whistleblower' - a direct WITNESS' - to Trump's Ukraine quid pro quo
...................We...uh...mean it was 'BRIBERY'...NOT 'quid pro quo'...and 'EXTORTION'...Yeah, it was Bribery AND Extortion

Enough is F*ing ENOUGH!

At some point, after their BS is exposed again and again and again as criminal partisan desperation, sedition, and treason, you have to have someone courageous enough to step forward and CALL IT exactly what it is!

 

[wamose]

But the big question is, will America have the courage to arrest the first Black President and the 'almost' first woman President for treason? Trumpy is one of the few people with the balls to something like that, even though God knows they deserve it.

 

[dudmuck]

He needs to testify so that his actual ties to joe biden and adam schiff as well as the obama administration can be put on record......as well as his part in the Russian hoax....

FACT:
Democrats met with corrupt former Ukrainian officials and illegally acquired dirt on Trump and his associates and used that to alter / affect the 2016 election.

FACT:
Former VP and 'Newly-Appointed' (then) Obama Point Man for Ukraine Joe Biden extorted the Ukraine PM and forced him to shut down a Ukrainian investigation of Hunter Biden's boss days before the Ukraine Prosecutor stated he was going to call Hunter Biden to testify. Papa Joe BRAGGED about doing so during his videotaped confession.

FACT:
The 'Whistleblower' is NOT a 'whistleblower' as per the requirements to be designated as such in the Whistleblower Act (the law).

FACT:
HEARSAY is NOT 'EVIDENCE', and the admitted, politically partisan, Trump-hating NON-Whistleblower Brennan-disciple CIA spy has made it perfectly clear they never had any 1st-hand account information.

FACT:
It has been made perfectly clear than not 1 (ONE) person who has come forward to testify in this hearing or who has any part in this treasonous circus has any 1st-hand account information regarding the false accusations levied against the President. They - to include the whistleblower - are NOT 'Witnesses' because they did NOT WITNESS anything.

FACT:
There is no evidence.
- The only 'evidence / witnesses' are those who participated in the phone call, the Ukraine PM and US President, and the original unaltered transcript. The US President said it never happened. The Ukraine PM said it never happened. The transcript debunks the Democrats' false narrative.

FACT:
There is No 'whistleblower'
-- Schiff admitted - after lying about it - that he and his staff had talked to the Whistleblower...then declared 2 days ago he doesn't know who the 'whistleblower' is. After lying for 2+ years about having direct criminal evidence against Trump that even Mueller did not have and after attempting to present a personally-authored fictional account of the phone call between the Ukraine PM and President Trump as 'evidence' (one he and the MSM quickly called a 'parody' after he was almost immediately called out for this LIE), people don't know if there is a 'Non-whistleblower' or not, if it is another lie / false claim by Schiff of having one to give hollow justification for continuing this coup, or if this 'whistleblower' is some non-existent individual in another one of Schiff's fictitious 'parodies'... UNTIL a 'whistleblower is actually, officially named, is confirmed, and they come forward, THERE IS NO 'WHISTLEBLOWER'.

FACT:
There are no witnesses. EVERY individual Schiff has called to testify has declared they have HEARSAY to share or that it was HEARSAY that helped them to formulate their opinions and presumptions.

FACT:
The ONLY real crimes - once again - the Democrats have managed to expose as a result of another butt-hurt, zero-substance Impeachment coup attempt are their own, starting with Joe and Hunter Biden and ending with D-Adam Schiff's own.


.

here is no 'witness'
- There is no 'whistleblower'
- There is no 'original source' of the HEARSAY

You need to back up your "facts" with references.

GOP presses empty Ukraine meddling theory


There is no evidence Hunter Biden did anything wrong, said Yuri Lutsenko, the prosecutor general who succeeded Shokin.

According to a Ukrainian official and four former American officials who specialized in Ukraine and Europe, Biden forced firing of Shokin because he wasn't pursuing corruption. Burisma was only under investigation before Hunter joined as a corporate lawyer.

Nobody is claiming the ukraine whistleblower didnt follow rules, that I can find.

Since the transcript of the ukraine call matches the whistleblower complaint, its not hearsay.

Two staffers destroy hearsay defense, David Holmes and Suriya Jayanti.
More testimony currently on-going will further destroy hearsay argument.

Impeachment is the mechanism that the Framers provided in the Constitution to address “the abuse or violation of some public trust,” as Alexander Hamilton put it in “Federalist No. 65.” Other countries might suffer unfit leaders without recourse, or oust them using extralegal violence, but not the United States. The coequal branch of Congress would check the presidency. The House would be lawfully empowered to impeach, and the Senate to conduct a trial. If two-thirds of senators voted to convict, the president would be removed.

 

[easyt65]

He needs to testify so that his actual ties to joe biden and adam schiff as well as the obama administration can be put on record......as well as his part in the Russian hoax....

FACT:
Democrats met with corrupt former Ukrainian officials and illegally acquired dirt on Trump and his associates and used that to alter / affect the 2016 election.

FACT:
Former VP and 'Newly-Appointed' (then) Obama Point Man for Ukraine Joe Biden extorted the Ukraine PM and forced him to shut down a Ukrainian investigation of Hunter Biden's boss days before the Ukraine Prosecutor stated he was going to call Hunter Biden to testify. Papa Joe BRAGGED about doing so during his videotaped confession.

FACT:
The 'Whistleblower' is NOT a 'whistleblower' as per the requirements to be designated as such in the Whistleblower Act (the law).

FACT:
HEARSAY is NOT 'EVIDENCE', and the admitted, politically partisan, Trump-hating NON-Whistleblower Brennan-disciple CIA spy has made it perfectly clear they never had any 1st-hand account information.

FACT:
It has been made perfectly clear than not 1 (ONE) person who has come forward to testify in this hearing or who has any part in this treasonous circus has any 1st-hand account information regarding the false accusations levied against the President. They - to include the whistleblower - are NOT 'Witnesses' because they did NOT WITNESS anything.

FACT:
There is no evidence.
- The only 'evidence / witnesses' are those who participated in the phone call, the Ukraine PM and US President, and the original unaltered transcript. The US President said it never happened. The Ukraine PM said it never happened. The transcript debunks the Democrats' false narrative.

FACT:
There is No 'whistleblower'
-- Schiff admitted - after lying about it - that he and his staff had talked to the Whistleblower...then declared 2 days ago he doesn't know who the 'whistleblower' is. After lying for 2+ years about having direct criminal evidence against Trump that even Mueller did not have and after attempting to present a personally-authored fictional account of the phone call between the Ukraine PM and President Trump as 'evidence' (one he and the MSM quickly called a 'parody' after he was almost immediately called out for this LIE), people don't know if there is a 'Non-whistleblower' or not, if it is another lie / false claim by Schiff of having one to give hollow justification for continuing this coup, or if this 'whistleblower' is some non-existent individual in another one of Schiff's fictitious 'parodies'... UNTIL a 'whistleblower is actually, officially named, is confirmed, and they come forward, THERE IS NO 'WHISTLEBLOWER'.

FACT:
There are no witnesses. EVERY individual Schiff has called to testify has declared they have HEARSAY to share or that it was HEARSAY that helped them to formulate their opinions and presumptions.

FACT:
The ONLY real crimes - once again - the Democrats have managed to expose as a result of another butt-hurt, zero-substance Impeachment coup attempt are their own, starting with Joe and Hunter Biden and ending with D-Adam Schiff's own.


.

here is no 'witness'
- There is no 'whistleblower'
- There is no 'original source' of the HEARSAY

You need to back up your "facts" with references.

GOP presses empty Ukraine meddling theory


There is no evidence Hunter Biden did anything wrong, said Yuri Lutsenko, the prosecutor general who succeeded Shokin.

According to a Ukrainian official and four former American officials who specialized in Ukraine and Europe, Biden forced firing of Shokin because he wasn't pursuing corruption. Burisma was only under investigation before Hunter joined as a corporate lawyer.

Nobody is claiming the ukraine whistleblower didnt follow rules, that I can find.

Since the transcript of the ukraine call matches the whistleblower complaint, its not hearsay.

Two staffers destroy hearsay defense, David Holmes and Suriya Jayanti.
More testimony currently on-going will further destroy hearsay argument.

Impeachment is the mechanism that the Framers provided in the Constitution to address “the abuse or violation of some public trust,” as Alexander Hamilton put it in “Federalist No. 65.” Other countries might suffer unfit leaders without recourse, or oust them using extralegal violence, but not the United States. The coequal branch of Congress would check the presidency. The House would be lawfully empowered to impeach, and the Senate to conduct a trial. If two-thirds of senators voted to convict, the president would be removed.

"Shortly before Yovanovitch was set to take the stand, Fox News contributor John Solomon published an explosive March interview with Yuriy Lutsenko, a former prosecutor general in Ukraine. Lutsenko claimed that Yovanovitch had given him a “do not prosecute” list — and Solomon reported that Yovanovitch pressured Ukrainian prosecutors to back off a case involving the AntiCorruption Action Centre, funded by Soros, the liberal megadonor.

The U.S. Embassy under Yovanovitch, Solomon reported, also influenced Ukraine to drop prosecution against top law enforcement official Artem Sytnyk, who was singled out by a Ukrainian court for leaking damaging information about Paul Manafort, then Trump's campaign chairman, to help Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. Ukraine courts have ruled that the Manafort financial disclosures constituted illegal election meddling."

Yovanovitch to face GOP grilling on second day of public impeachment hearings

 

[easyt65]

"Ukraine systematically worked behind the scenes to boost Clinton, Politico has reported. On his call with Zelensky in July, Trump specifically asked his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate reports that Ukraine had some involvement in 2016 election interference, before he mentioned taking a look at Joe Biden's business dealings in the country.

Making matters more complicated for Democrats, Yovanovitch's testimony was set to come just hours after a bombshell report that a top Ukrainian official said Thursday that U.S. Ambassador Gordon Sondland, a key Democrat impeachment witness, "did not link financial military assistance to a request for Ukraine to open up an investigation into former vice president and current Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden."

Hey snowflakes, ya'll need pictures to follow along, or did you get all of that? Need someone to explain it to you?

As far as the Democrats' / Schiff's Impeachment scam goes.....




.

 

[dudmuck]

He needs to testify so that his actual ties to joe biden and adam schiff as well as the obama administration can be put on record......as well as his part in the Russian hoax....

FACT:
Democrats met with corrupt former Ukrainian officials and illegally acquired dirt on Trump and his associates and used that to alter / affect the 2016 election.

FACT:
Former VP and 'Newly-Appointed' (then) Obama Point Man for Ukraine Joe Biden extorted the Ukraine PM and forced him to shut down a Ukrainian investigation of Hunter Biden's boss days before the Ukraine Prosecutor stated he was going to call Hunter Biden to testify. Papa Joe BRAGGED about doing so during his videotaped confession.

FACT:
The 'Whistleblower' is NOT a 'whistleblower' as per the requirements to be designated as such in the Whistleblower Act (the law).

FACT:
HEARSAY is NOT 'EVIDENCE', and the admitted, politically partisan, Trump-hating NON-Whistleblower Brennan-disciple CIA spy has made it perfectly clear they never had any 1st-hand account information.

FACT:
It has been made perfectly clear than not 1 (ONE) person who has come forward to testify in this hearing or who has any part in this treasonous circus has any 1st-hand account information regarding the false accusations levied against the President. They - to include the whistleblower - are NOT 'Witnesses' because they did NOT WITNESS anything.

FACT:
There is no evidence.
- The only 'evidence / witnesses' are those who participated in the phone call, the Ukraine PM and US President, and the original unaltered transcript. The US President said it never happened. The Ukraine PM said it never happened. The transcript debunks the Democrats' false narrative.

FACT:
There is No 'whistleblower'
-- Schiff admitted - after lying about it - that he and his staff had talked to the Whistleblower...then declared 2 days ago he doesn't know who the 'whistleblower' is. After lying for 2+ years about having direct criminal evidence against Trump that even Mueller did not have and after attempting to present a personally-authored fictional account of the phone call between the Ukraine PM and President Trump as 'evidence' (one he and the MSM quickly called a 'parody' after he was almost immediately called out for this LIE), people don't know if there is a 'Non-whistleblower' or not, if it is another lie / false claim by Schiff of having one to give hollow justification for continuing this coup, or if this 'whistleblower' is some non-existent individual in another one of Schiff's fictitious 'parodies'... UNTIL a 'whistleblower is actually, officially named, is confirmed, and they come forward, THERE IS NO 'WHISTLEBLOWER'.

FACT:
There are no witnesses. EVERY individual Schiff has called to testify has declared they have HEARSAY to share or that it was HEARSAY that helped them to formulate their opinions and presumptions.

FACT:
The ONLY real crimes - once again - the Democrats have managed to expose as a result of another butt-hurt, zero-substance Impeachment coup attempt are their own, starting with Joe and Hunter Biden and ending with D-Adam Schiff's own.


.

here is no 'witness'
- There is no 'whistleblower'
- There is no 'original source' of the HEARSAY

You need to back up your "facts" with references.

GOP presses empty Ukraine meddling theory


There is no evidence Hunter Biden did anything wrong, said Yuri Lutsenko, the prosecutor general who succeeded Shokin.

According to a Ukrainian official and four former American officials who specialized in Ukraine and Europe, Biden forced firing of Shokin because he wasn't pursuing corruption. Burisma was only under investigation before Hunter joined as a corporate lawyer.

Nobody is claiming the ukraine whistleblower didnt follow rules, that I can find.

Since the transcript of the ukraine call matches the whistleblower complaint, its not hearsay.

Two staffers destroy hearsay defense, David Holmes and Suriya Jayanti.
More testimony currently on-going will further destroy hearsay argument.

Impeachment is the mechanism that the Framers provided in the Constitution to address “the abuse or violation of some public trust,” as Alexander Hamilton put it in “Federalist No. 65.” Other countries might suffer unfit leaders without recourse, or oust them using extralegal violence, but not the United States. The coequal branch of Congress would check the presidency. The House would be lawfully empowered to impeach, and the Senate to conduct a trial. If two-thirds of senators voted to convict, the president would be removed.

"Shortly before Yovanovitch was set to take the stand, Fox News contributor John Solomon published an explosive March interview with Yuriy Lutsenko, a former prosecutor general in Ukraine. Lutsenko claimed that Yovanovitch had given him a “do not prosecute” list — and Solomon reported that Yovanovitch pressured Ukrainian prosecutors to back off a case involving the AntiCorruption Action Centre, funded by Soros, the liberal megadonor.

The U.S. Embassy under Yovanovitch, Solomon reported, also influenced Ukraine to drop prosecution against top law enforcement official Artem Sytnyk, who was singled out by a Ukrainian court for leaking damaging information about Paul Manafort, then Trump's campaign chairman, to help Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. Ukraine courts have ruled that the Manafort financial disclosures constituted illegal election meddling."

Yovanovitch to face GOP grilling on second day of public impeachment hearings

The only source of this "do not prosecute" list is Lutsenko.

U.S. Embassy vehemently denies Lutsenko’s absurd claim. Lutsenko’s unfounded allegation is clear retribution for the ambassador’s speech condemning the incumbent government for doing so little to fight corruption.

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs George P. Kent, under questioning, said there was “no factual basis” to any theory of Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 election — while there is ample evidence of Russian interference.

Debunked Ukraine conspiracy theory is knocked down - again