Amb William Taylor, is Tramp embezzeling, its like he thinks the money

[Ringel05]

Having spent many years in a modern court (as law enforcement on the side of the prosecution) it's rarely admitted without convincing, persuasive, corroborating evidence. Oh and the "etc" was my catch all..........

Having spent more time than I should have in modern court, any evidence is rarely admitted without convincing corroborative evidence. You've gotta show why any evidence is believable, no matter what form it might take.

This is true but your problem in this instance is the supposed corroborating evidence appears to be interpretive as opposed to concrete as is evidenced on this board with one side claiming it's a slam dunk and the other side claiming it's bull shit.
Personally I suspect it's like the Clinton impeachment, 99.9% political. That's based on quite a few facts not the least of which is that the election of Trump heavily disrupted not only the political status quo, it stopped the progressives march dead in it's tracks towards their desired socio-political goals. If you understand human nature then you understand the backlash and all that encompasses.

Trump's election has nothing to do with whether Taylor's testimony is true or not. There is nothing subjective about whether his contemporaneous notes match what actually happened.

If you say so........ Wait. Are you saying Taylor's not human? Is he one of those lizard people the nutjobs believe in?

Taylor was hand picked by Pompeo to be ambassador.

So? What does that have to do with anything?

 

[kyzr]

What we're saying is that your "evidence" isn't worth anything.
First, Professor Alan Dershowitz says the Ukraine call isn't "evidence" of wrongdoing.
Ukraine Transcript Isn't Impeachable or Criminal: Kevin McCullough with Alan Dershowitz - Townhall Review | Conservative Commentary On Today's News - Omny.fm

Second, the timeline for the "evidence" disproves any "quid-pro-quo".
Ukrainian official appears to cast doubt on quid pro quo claim

So please stop with the fake news already. There is no there there.

Deshowitz is a trained lapdog for faux. He will say what they tell him to.

The other link is a month outta date and completely irrelevant in light of the last few weeks revelations.

Try again tRumpling.

1. I'll take a Harvard law professor's opinion over anyone you have. Who do you have? I never see any major Law professors putting their reputation on the line for the democrat's list of bullshit "impeachable crimes".

2. The timeline is what is valid. There was no QPQ because the Ukraine didn't know that the funding was being delayed, duh. From the article:
"An unnamed Ukrainian official said that Kiev was not made aware that the U.S. suspended security funds until a month after President Trump's call with his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky, which calls into question the whistleblower's account and Democrats' arguments that there was a quid pro quo for the aid."

Wow. A Ukrainian official, desperate for US help said what he knows Trump wants to hear. Of course, since he is unnamed, he might not even exist.

Like the anonymous whistle-blower, and the anonymous op-ed writer, sure, Trump's source doesn't exist?
Maybe he just doesn't want to end up dead.

Don't worry. Just keep that tinfoil hat close, and you'll be fine.

You just can't handle the truth, huh?

 

[Crepitus]

is his.
------------------------------------------

A few days later, on Sept. 7, Taylor testified that Morrison related to him another conversation that Trump had with Sondland that gave him a “sinking feeling.” He told Taylor that Trump “did insist that President Zelensky go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference, and that President Zelensky should want to do this himself,” Taylor said, summarizing what he heard for lawmakers.

Taylor also told lawmakers that Sondland had explained that Trump is a “businessman” and that when a businessman is about to sign a check to someone he asks for what he is owed. Taylor scoffed at the notion that Ukraine “owed” anything to Trump.

U.S. envoy says he was told release of Ukraine aid was contingent on public declaration to investigate Bidens, 2016 election
-----------------------------------------------

He is using our tax payers money like its his!! Its just unbelievable.

Yeah, I read his 15 page opening statement.

It's pretty damning. Added to the texts and the other testimony in any regular criminal trial it would be a slam-dunk on tRump with a side perjury for Sondham.

Obviously you have no clue how a court of law works but that's true of 99.9 percent of the people on this board.
Number one: It has to be illegal. So it has to be determined if the activity breaks any laws. It has to be determined by attorneys and the courts excluding the court of public opinion.

Number two: If the action is declared illegal a real attorney would never attempt to prosecute on such truly flimsy evidence, most of it second hand with a high probability of built in bias.

Abusing the office for personal gain is illegal.

Sworn testimony is not "flimsy evidence", nor is the call summary, nor a tRumps own actions and admissions.

The only thing that's flimsy here is your excuse making.

Dude, I'm not making an excuse, I'm pointing out reality to a whole bunch of partisan hacks who don't want to see it..........

No, you aren't. Reality is way over here.

 

[Crepitus]

So you will call any evidence of trump's wrong doing nothing more than confirmation bias? That's as goofy as trump calling everything he doesn't like "fake news" That fat fool is so used to calling everything fake till he even said the emoluments clause in the constitution is a fake clause. Are you really gonna be as predictable and goofy as him?

What we're saying is that your "evidence" isn't worth anything.
First, Professor Alan Dershowitz says the Ukraine call isn't "evidence" of wrongdoing.
Ukraine Transcript Isn't Impeachable or Criminal: Kevin McCullough with Alan Dershowitz - Townhall Review | Conservative Commentary On Today's News - Omny.fm

Second, the timeline for the "evidence" disproves any "quid-pro-quo".
Ukrainian official appears to cast doubt on quid pro quo claim

So please stop with the fake news already. There is no there there.

Deshowitz is a trained lapdog for faux. He will say what they tell him to.

The other link is a month outta date and completely irrelevant in light of the last few weeks revelations.

Try again tRumpling.

1. I'll take a Harvard law professor's opinion over anyone you have. Who do you have? I never see any major Law professors putting their reputation on the line for the democrat's list of bullshit "impeachable crimes".

2. The timeline is what is valid. There was no QPQ because the Ukraine didn't know that the funding was being delayed, duh. From the article:
"An unnamed Ukrainian official said that Kiev was not made aware that the U.S. suspended security funds until a month after President Trump's call with his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky, which calls into question the whistleblower's account and Democrats' arguments that there was a quid pro quo for the aid."

Your lame excuses change nothing. Dershowitz is a paid shill, and the other has been directly contradicted by all the other evidence.

You are wrong.

Get over it.

No, you get over it. I provide credible links below proving my assertions, you put up bullshit.
1. Prove Dershowitz's arguments are not valid.
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
Opinion | Hamilton Wouldn’t Impeach Trump
Trump's Ukraine transcript: Unwise words but no proof of a crime
p.s. this last opinion is by Jonathon Turley a GW Law Professor.

2. The democrats are not using a correct -protocol to start an impeachment inquiry, so the senate will just dismiss it.
Graham to introduce resolution condemning House impeachment inquiry

Opinions.

Everyone has one.

 

[Crepitus]

is his.
------------------------------------------

A few days later, on Sept. 7, Taylor testified that Morrison related to him another conversation that Trump had with Sondland that gave him a “sinking feeling.” He told Taylor that Trump “did insist that President Zelensky go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference, and that President Zelensky should want to do this himself,” Taylor said, summarizing what he heard for lawmakers.

Taylor also told lawmakers that Sondland had explained that Trump is a “businessman” and that when a businessman is about to sign a check to someone he asks for what he is owed. Taylor scoffed at the notion that Ukraine “owed” anything to Trump.

U.S. envoy says he was told release of Ukraine aid was contingent on public declaration to investigate Bidens, 2016 election
-----------------------------------------------

He is using our tax payers money like its his!! Its just unbelievable.

Yeah, I read his 15 page opening statement.

It's pretty damning. Added to the texts and the other testimony in any regular criminal trial it would be a slam-dunk on tRump with a side perjury for Sondham.

Obviously you have no clue how a court of law works but that's true of 99.9 percent of the people on this board.
Number one: It has to be illegal. So it has to be determined if the activity breaks any laws. It has to be determined by attorneys and the courts excluding the court of public opinion.

Number two: If the action is declared illegal a real attorney would never attempt to prosecute on such truly flimsy evidence, most of it second hand with a high probability of built in bias.

Abusing the office for personal gain is illegal.

Sworn testimony is not "flimsy evidence", nor is the call summary, nor a tRumps own actions and admissions.

The only thing that's flimsy here is your excuse making.

Oh and your claim that "Abusing the office for personal gain is illegal" must also be provable in a court of law, not the court of public opinion for it to be illegal, so far from what I've seen it's currently only a court of public opinion ruling.
Sworn evidence, if it's second hand or lacks any concrete, substantial, corroborative evidence is considered in a court of law to be flimsy.
I'm addressing how courts and law work, not whether Trump is guilty or not.

The trial hasn't happened yet, and sworn testimony from credible witnesses is grade A evidence. Not flimsy at all.

 

[Crepitus]

Obviously you have no clue how a court of law works but that's true of 99.9 percent of the people on this board.
Number one: It has to be illegal. So it has to be determined if the activity breaks any laws. It has to be determined by attorneys and the courts excluding the court of public opinion.

Number two: If the action is declared illegal a real attorney would never attempt to prosecute on such truly flimsy evidence, most of it second hand with a high probability of built in bias.

Impeachment is neither a court proceeding nor requires a crime.

No shit Sherlock, I'm not addressing that. I'm addressing the claim by some that Trump is guilty of any crime, a claim that so far can only stand up in the court of public opinion. But more so I'm addressing HOW evidence is viewed by the courts, nothing more, nothing less. Hell, my point should have been obvious with "you have no clue how a court of law works".........

Soliciting foreign assistance in elections is a crime.

It is? Show the statute.

[USC02] 52 USC 30121: Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

 

[Ringel05]

is his.
------------------------------------------

A few days later, on Sept. 7, Taylor testified that Morrison related to him another conversation that Trump had with Sondland that gave him a “sinking feeling.” He told Taylor that Trump “did insist that President Zelensky go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference, and that President Zelensky should want to do this himself,” Taylor said, summarizing what he heard for lawmakers.

Taylor also told lawmakers that Sondland had explained that Trump is a “businessman” and that when a businessman is about to sign a check to someone he asks for what he is owed. Taylor scoffed at the notion that Ukraine “owed” anything to Trump.

U.S. envoy says he was told release of Ukraine aid was contingent on public declaration to investigate Bidens, 2016 election
-----------------------------------------------

He is using our tax payers money like its his!! Its just unbelievable.

Yeah, I read his 15 page opening statement.

It's pretty damning. Added to the texts and the other testimony in any regular criminal trial it would be a slam-dunk on tRump with a side perjury for Sondham.

Obviously you have no clue how a court of law works but that's true of 99.9 percent of the people on this board.
Number one: It has to be illegal. So it has to be determined if the activity breaks any laws. It has to be determined by attorneys and the courts excluding the court of public opinion.

Number two: If the action is declared illegal a real attorney would never attempt to prosecute on such truly flimsy evidence, most of it second hand with a high probability of built in bias.

Abusing the office for personal gain is illegal.

Sworn testimony is not "flimsy evidence", nor is the call summary, nor a tRumps own actions and admissions.

The only thing that's flimsy here is your excuse making.

Dude, I'm not making an excuse, I'm pointing out reality to a whole bunch of partisan hacks who don't want to see it..........

No, you aren't. Reality is way over here.

Yeah...... right......

 

[Ringel05]

is his.
------------------------------------------

A few days later, on Sept. 7, Taylor testified that Morrison related to him another conversation that Trump had with Sondland that gave him a “sinking feeling.” He told Taylor that Trump “did insist that President Zelensky go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference, and that President Zelensky should want to do this himself,” Taylor said, summarizing what he heard for lawmakers.

Taylor also told lawmakers that Sondland had explained that Trump is a “businessman” and that when a businessman is about to sign a check to someone he asks for what he is owed. Taylor scoffed at the notion that Ukraine “owed” anything to Trump.

U.S. envoy says he was told release of Ukraine aid was contingent on public declaration to investigate Bidens, 2016 election
-----------------------------------------------

He is using our tax payers money like its his!! Its just unbelievable.

Yeah, I read his 15 page opening statement.

It's pretty damning. Added to the texts and the other testimony in any regular criminal trial it would be a slam-dunk on tRump with a side perjury for Sondham.

Obviously you have no clue how a court of law works but that's true of 99.9 percent of the people on this board.
Number one: It has to be illegal. So it has to be determined if the activity breaks any laws. It has to be determined by attorneys and the courts excluding the court of public opinion.

Number two: If the action is declared illegal a real attorney would never attempt to prosecute on such truly flimsy evidence, most of it second hand with a high probability of built in bias.

Abusing the office for personal gain is illegal.

Sworn testimony is not "flimsy evidence", nor is the call summary, nor a tRumps own actions and admissions.

The only thing that's flimsy here is your excuse making.

Oh and your claim that "Abusing the office for personal gain is illegal" must also be provable in a court of law, not the court of public opinion for it to be illegal, so far from what I've seen it's currently only a court of public opinion ruling.
Sworn evidence, if it's second hand or lacks any concrete, substantial, corroborative evidence is considered in a court of law to be flimsy.
I'm addressing how courts and law work, not whether Trump is guilty or not.

The trial hasn't happened yet, and sworn testimony from credible witnesses is grade A evidence. Not flimsy at all.

You keep telling yourself that. Me? Unlike you partisan hacks I won't convict until the evidence is irrefutable and not in a partisan "I say it is" way........

 

[bodecea]

is his.
------------------------------------------

A few days later, on Sept. 7, Taylor testified that Morrison related to him another conversation that Trump had with Sondland that gave him a “sinking feeling.” He told Taylor that Trump “did insist that President Zelensky go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference, and that President Zelensky should want to do this himself,” Taylor said, summarizing what he heard for lawmakers.

Taylor also told lawmakers that Sondland had explained that Trump is a “businessman” and that when a businessman is about to sign a check to someone he asks for what he is owed. Taylor scoffed at the notion that Ukraine “owed” anything to Trump.

U.S. envoy says he was told release of Ukraine aid was contingent on public declaration to investigate Bidens, 2016 election
-----------------------------------------------

He is using our tax payers money like its his!! Its just unbelievable.

if withholding aid to get a corrupt politician in jail its well worth it,,,

Since you are talking about tramp, yes he belongs in jail. He would be in jail if he wasn't Potus. Soon he won't be.

after 2024.

So you agree he belongs there.

And that that poster would vote for a criminal....knowing he's a criminal.

 

[Ringel05]

Impeachment is neither a court proceeding nor requires a crime.

No shit Sherlock, I'm not addressing that. I'm addressing the claim by some that Trump is guilty of any crime, a claim that so far can only stand up in the court of public opinion. But more so I'm addressing HOW evidence is viewed by the courts, nothing more, nothing less. Hell, my point should have been obvious with "you have no clue how a court of law works".........

Soliciting foreign assistance in elections is a crime.

It is? Show the statute.

[USC02] 52 USC 30121: Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

View attachment 285965

Just because it's there doesn't specifically mean it applies. As legal scholars have already pointed out nothing of value was exchanged.

See, unlike you all I'm not a self appointed judge, jury and executioner.

 

[JimH52]

William Taylor is an American Hero. He is the John Dean of the 21st Century.

 

[BULLDOG]

William Taylor is an American Hero. He is the John Dean of the 21st Century.

And Trump is the Nathan Thurm of politics.

 

[Crepitus]

Yeah, I read his 15 page opening statement.

It's pretty damning. Added to the texts and the other testimony in any regular criminal trial it would be a slam-dunk on tRump with a side perjury for Sondham.

Obviously you have no clue how a court of law works but that's true of 99.9 percent of the people on this board.
Number one: It has to be illegal. So it has to be determined if the activity breaks any laws. It has to be determined by attorneys and the courts excluding the court of public opinion.

Number two: If the action is declared illegal a real attorney would never attempt to prosecute on such truly flimsy evidence, most of it second hand with a high probability of built in bias.

Abusing the office for personal gain is illegal.

Sworn testimony is not "flimsy evidence", nor is the call summary, nor a tRumps own actions and admissions.

The only thing that's flimsy here is your excuse making.

Dude, I'm not making an excuse, I'm pointing out reality to a whole bunch of partisan hacks who don't want to see it..........

No, you aren't. Reality is way over here.

Yeah...... right......

Yes, exactly right.

 

[Crepitus]

Yeah, I read his 15 page opening statement.

It's pretty damning. Added to the texts and the other testimony in any regular criminal trial it would be a slam-dunk on tRump with a side perjury for Sondham.

Obviously you have no clue how a court of law works but that's true of 99.9 percent of the people on this board.
Number one: It has to be illegal. So it has to be determined if the activity breaks any laws. It has to be determined by attorneys and the courts excluding the court of public opinion.

Number two: If the action is declared illegal a real attorney would never attempt to prosecute on such truly flimsy evidence, most of it second hand with a high probability of built in bias.

Abusing the office for personal gain is illegal.

Sworn testimony is not "flimsy evidence", nor is the call summary, nor a tRumps own actions and admissions.

The only thing that's flimsy here is your excuse making.

Oh and your claim that "Abusing the office for personal gain is illegal" must also be provable in a court of law, not the court of public opinion for it to be illegal, so far from what I've seen it's currently only a court of public opinion ruling.
Sworn evidence, if it's second hand or lacks any concrete, substantial, corroborative evidence is considered in a court of law to be flimsy.
I'm addressing how courts and law work, not whether Trump is guilty or not.

The trial hasn't happened yet, and sworn testimony from credible witnesses is grade A evidence. Not flimsy at all.

You keep telling yourself that. Me? Unlike you partisan hacks I won't convict until the evidence is irrefutable and not in a partisan "I say it is" way........

So, you understand there is a trial phase coming, right?

 

[JimH52]

Rudy has been carrying water back and forth to Ukraine for trump for months. Everyone knew he was pressuring Ukraine to investigate Biden....on behalf of his client.....trump.

The facts are lining up.....If the Republican Party is okay with holding military aid hostage in order to get a foreign country to open an investigation into a politician opponent.....LET THEM SAY IT IN A PUBLIC MEETING!

Maybe they can buy a banner and fly it over the Capital....

THE GOP IS OKAY WITH EXTORTING A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT FOR POLITICAL PROFIT!

It seems that is their new refrain....

 

[Crepitus]

No shit Sherlock, I'm not addressing that. I'm addressing the claim by some that Trump is guilty of any crime, a claim that so far can only stand up in the court of public opinion. But more so I'm addressing HOW evidence is viewed by the courts, nothing more, nothing less. Hell, my point should have been obvious with "you have no clue how a court of law works".........

Soliciting foreign assistance in elections is a crime.

It is? Show the statute.

[USC02] 52 USC 30121: Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

View attachment 285965

Just because it's there doesn't specifically mean it applies. As legal scholars have already pointed out nothing of value was exchanged.

See, unlike you all I'm not a self appointed judge, jury and executioner.

LMf'nAO!!!!

Dude, give it a rest.

Otherwise you might never get the orange off your lips.

 

[JimH52]

Obviously you have no clue how a court of law works but that's true of 99.9 percent of the people on this board.
Number one: It has to be illegal. So it has to be determined if the activity breaks any laws. It has to be determined by attorneys and the courts excluding the court of public opinion.

Number two: If the action is declared illegal a real attorney would never attempt to prosecute on such truly flimsy evidence, most of it second hand with a high probability of built in bias.

Abusing the office for personal gain is illegal.

Sworn testimony is not "flimsy evidence", nor is the call summary, nor a tRumps own actions and admissions.

The only thing that's flimsy here is your excuse making.

Oh and your claim that "Abusing the office for personal gain is illegal" must also be provable in a court of law, not the court of public opinion for it to be illegal, so far from what I've seen it's currently only a court of public opinion ruling.
Sworn evidence, if it's second hand or lacks any concrete, substantial, corroborative evidence is considered in a court of law to be flimsy.
I'm addressing how courts and law work, not whether Trump is guilty or not.

The trial hasn't happened yet, and sworn testimony from credible witnesses is grade A evidence. Not flimsy at all.

You keep telling yourself that. Me? Unlike you partisan hacks I won't convict until the evidence is irrefutable and not in a partisan "I say it is" way........

So, you understand there is a trial phase coming, right?

We are in the Indictment phase....the Dems are performing the task of a Grand Jury. The Senate will hold the trial.

Voters will see what Repubs publicly defend a proven extortion ....

 

[beautress]

is his.
------------------------------------------

A few days later, on Sept. 7, Taylor testified that Morrison related to him another conversation that Trump had with Sondland that gave him a “sinking feeling.” He told Taylor that Trump “did insist that President Zelensky go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference, and that President Zelensky should want to do this himself,” Taylor said, summarizing what he heard for lawmakers.

Taylor also told lawmakers that Sondland had explained that Trump is a “businessman” and that when a businessman is about to sign a check to someone he asks for what he is owed. Taylor scoffed at the notion that Ukraine “owed” anything to Trump.

U.S. envoy says he was told release of Ukraine aid was contingent on public declaration to investigate Bidens, 2016 election
-----------------------------------------------

He is using our tax payers money like its his!! Its just unbelievable.

if withholding aid to get a corrupt politician in jail its well worth it,,,

Since you are talking about tramp, yes he belongs in jail. He would be in jail if he wasn't Potus. Soon he won't be.

And since you are slurring the President's name, I remind you that so far on the DNC v. itself rating is convictions against a competitor the DNC lied about is ZERO. A man is innocent until he is proven guilty in a court of law. That isn't going to happen to a man who has broken no U.S. law whatever. President Trump is innocent of your false witness.

 

[beautress]

Abusing the office for personal gain is illegal.

Sworn testimony is not "flimsy evidence", nor is the call summary, nor a tRumps own actions and admissions.

The only thing that's flimsy here is your excuse making.

Oh and your claim that "Abusing the office for personal gain is illegal" must also be provable in a court of law, not the court of public opinion for it to be illegal, so far from what I've seen it's currently only a court of public opinion ruling.
Sworn evidence, if it's second hand or lacks any concrete, substantial, corroborative evidence is considered in a court of law to be flimsy.
I'm addressing how courts and law work, not whether Trump is guilty or not.

The trial hasn't happened yet, and sworn testimony from credible witnesses is grade A evidence. Not flimsy at all.

You keep telling yourself that. Me? Unlike you partisan hacks I won't convict until the evidence is irrefutable and not in a partisan "I say it is" way........

So, you understand there is a trial phase coming, right?

We are in the Indictment phase....the Dems are performing the task of a Grand Jury. The Senate will hold the trial.

Voters will see what Repubs publicly defend a proven extortion ....

Your mind is a dangerous place. It finds extortion only in the windmills of its own sick little mind.

 

[Crepitus]

Abusing the office for personal gain is illegal.

Sworn testimony is not "flimsy evidence", nor is the call summary, nor a tRumps own actions and admissions.

The only thing that's flimsy here is your excuse making.

Oh and your claim that "Abusing the office for personal gain is illegal" must also be provable in a court of law, not the court of public opinion for it to be illegal, so far from what I've seen it's currently only a court of public opinion ruling.
Sworn evidence, if it's second hand or lacks any concrete, substantial, corroborative evidence is considered in a court of law to be flimsy.
I'm addressing how courts and law work, not whether Trump is guilty or not.

The trial hasn't happened yet, and sworn testimony from credible witnesses is grade A evidence. Not flimsy at all.

You keep telling yourself that. Me? Unlike you partisan hacks I won't convict until the evidence is irrefutable and not in a partisan "I say it is" way........

So, you understand there is a trial phase coming, right?

We are in the Indictment phase....the Dems are performing the task of a Grand Jury. The Senate will hold the trial.

Voters will see what Repubs publicly defend a proven extortion ....

They act like they don't understand the process. Investigation first. Then indictment, then trial. The trial is when the defense gets to call it's it' witnesses, cross examine prosecution witnesses, and all the other stuff they are bitching about. They wanna put the cart before the horse.

They do understand that though. They have finally come up against something they can't defend, so they are attacking the process.