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

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

OF COURSE Lutsenko denies it.....there is more evidence to prove this to be so than Schiff has from any of his MISSING 'whistleblowers' and NON-EXISTENT 'witnesses'.

:p
 
Cite the source, quote the text.
Nothing in your source supports your assertion.
unnecessary to cite source or quote text because you can just read the article.
Incorrect - the article does not provide the complete text of what was said.
Cite the source, quote the text.
The crime of bribery comes in two parts, asking ukraine to announce investigation into Biden, and freezing military aid.
Unsupportable nonsense.
 
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. :up:
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.

Yes, you are correct, I jumped on the wrong ship.
However, there was the GOP's attempt to tarnish Hillary Clinton and her presidential campaign. (I want to point out not only did I not vote for Trump, I also didn't vote for Clinton, I was and still am, convinced that neither one had enough good character to be president.)
"“Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee," McCarthy said. “What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she's untrustable. But no one would have have known any of that had happened had we not fought and made that happen.”"- House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy
McCarthy Links Benghazi Panel, Clinton's Sinking Poll Numbers

In the end, the GOP accomplished their goal. They also created a precedent for future hearings.
In the end, the conclusion of the Benghazi did single out Hillary as a primary player that was involved in the Benghazi disaster as noted in the final report.
H. Rept. 114-848 - FINAL REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE EVENTS SURROUNDING THE 2012 TERRORIST ATTACK IN BENGHAZI
 
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.

Please read Post 84. Enough said, hypocrite.
 
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.
And your proof?
The proof is from the inquiry.

Trump admitted he did the crime.
Uh, no. In that link he said he mentioned Biden. No crime there.
 
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.

AmbassadorTaylor.sized-770x415xc.png



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.

You have to understand what they're really trying to do. They know they don't have a winning case and they won't get Trump thrown out of office, at least not with this weak case. What they want is a campaign issue, and they expected Trump to protect the call so they could say whatever they wanted about it.

I'd go along with that. They spent 6 hours with the homely woman Ambassador asking her about her feelings, as if they meant anything.

I'm starting to believe they may not file an Article of Impeachment against the President. They've got to know that they will be trampled in the
Senate, especially when every witness starts to answer what they "were told by someone else" it is objected to on the grounds of Hearsay
and sustained by the Chief Justice. It's kind of difficult to get someone removed from office if no evidence is produced.
 
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.

AmbassadorTaylor.sized-770x415xc.png



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.

You have to understand what they're really trying to do. They know they don't have a winning case and they won't get Trump thrown out of office, at least not with this weak case. What they want is a campaign issue, and they expected Trump to protect the call so they could say whatever they wanted about it.

I'd go along with that. They spent 6 hours with the homely woman Ambassador asking her about her feelings, as if they meant anything.

I'm starting to believe they may not file an Article of Impeachment against the President. They've got to know that they will be trampled in the
Senate, especially when every witness starts to answer what they "were told by someone else" it is objected to on the grounds of Hearsay
and sustained by the Chief Justice. It's kind of difficult to get someone removed from office if no evidence is produced.
Your position is logical, but I'm not sure they are acting rationally.
 
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.

AmbassadorTaylor.sized-770x415xc.png



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.

You have to understand what they're really trying to do. They know they don't have a winning case and they won't get Trump thrown out of office, at least not with this weak case. What they want is a campaign issue, and they expected Trump to protect the call so they could say whatever they wanted about it.

I'd go along with that. They spent 6 hours with the homely woman Ambassador asking her about her feelings, as if they meant anything.

I'm starting to believe they may not file an Article of Impeachment against the President. They've got to know that they will be trampled in the
Senate, especially when every witness starts to answer what they "were told by someone else" it is objected to on the grounds of Hearsay
and sustained by the Chief Justice. It's kind of difficult to get someone removed from office if no evidence is produced.
Your position is logical, but I'm not sure they are acting rationally.

I'd go along with that, also. They are being driven by their far left base. But if they want to keep the House, they cannot get those folks
to vote for the Articles. If they do get the votes, this will be a rout in the Senate.

We all have to remember that all the depositions have not been made public, nor have all those deposed been order to testify in public.
For every member the dems can produce that actually listened to the call and said it was inappropriate, the Presidents attorney's
will produce folks who listened to the call and said it was okay.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top