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

easyt65

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2015
Messages
62,659
Reaction score
17,183
Points
2,290
"A key Democratic witness against Trump admitted in congressional testimony last month that he was not part of the July 25 phone call between the U.S. and Ukrainian presidents, that he didn’t see a transcript or readout of it until late September when it was declassified and released, and that he has never even spoken to President Donald Trump.

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


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

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


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

.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
24,469
Reaction score
3,267
Points
280
"A key Democratic witness against Trump admitted in congressional testimony last month that he was not part of the July 25 phone call between the U.S. and Ukrainian presidents, that he didn’t see a transcript or readout of it until late September when it was declassified and released, and that he has never even spoken to President Donald Trump.

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


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

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


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

.
One is starting to think that none of these accusers actually heard anything first hand.
 
OP
easyt65

easyt65

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2015
Messages
62,659
Reaction score
17,183
Points
2,290
One is starting to think it is ALL fabricated BS...especially after it has been revealed the 'Whistle Blower's lawyer texted ' The Coup Has Started' back in 2017!
 

Zorro!

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2019
Messages
7,221
Reaction score
999
Points
245
OOPS: Amb. Taylor’s Awkward Silence in Response to a Question About Hunter Biden Was Very Telling.

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




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

AMB. TAYLOR: I don't—

CASTOR: Or at the time was the vice president.

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

CASTOR: But you agree it raises questions?

AMB. TAYLOR: (five seconds of silence)

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

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

But, The American People get it.
 

BluesLegend

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2014
Messages
46,047
Reaction score
10,256
Points
2,410
Location
Trump's Army
One is starting to think that none of these accusers actually heard anything first hand.
Because none did, they are 'testifying' to 3rd and 4th hand conversations. The Dem's two 'star' witnesses today testified to office water cooler gossip, what a laughable disaster this was for Dem's. :auiqs.jpg:
 

Sun Devil 92

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2015
Messages
27,403
Reaction score
6,218
Points
290
This is a huge nothing burger.

I hope Adam Schitt goes to jail....he'll be very popular.
 

DJT for Life

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2017
Messages
3,190
Reaction score
614
Points
195
OOPS: Amb. Taylor’s Awkward Silence in Response to a Question About Hunter Biden Was Very Telling.

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




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

AMB. TAYLOR: I don't—

CASTOR: Or at the time was the vice president.

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

CASTOR: But you agree it raises questions?

AMB. TAYLOR: (five seconds of silence)

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

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

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

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

Lesh

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
17,186
Reaction score
2,488
Points
290
First a we’re told that the WB can’t believed because he wasn’t on the call and then colonel Vidman surfaced who WAS on the call but Trumpers demand that “second hand testimony” anyway

now we’re told that current witnesses can’t be believed because THEY were not on the call. too bad that they aren’t testifying to what was in the call but rather actions that occurred elsewhere.

Of course the State Department at Trump’s direction is refusing to turn over their contemporaneous not and they phones

and still witnesses are being produced to shoot down every weak defense that the GOP is making
 

kyzr

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
14,674
Reaction score
4,837
Points
350
Location
The AL part of PA
First a we’re told that the WB can’t believed because he wasn’t on the call and then colonel Vidman surfaced who WAS on the call but Trumpers demand that “second hand testimony” anyway

now we’re told that current witnesses can’t be believed because THEY were not on the call. too bad that they aren’t testifying to what was in the call but rather actions that occurred elsewhere.

Of course the State Department at Trump’s direction is refusing to turn over their contemporaneous not and they phones

and still witnesses are being produced to shoot down every weak defense that the GOP is making
In order to have someone arrested for a crime you need a witness that saw the person commit the crime, and then you need to have an actual crime.
1. Trump did not commit a crime, none, nada, zilch, zero, nil
2. None of the witnesses accused Trump of committing a crime. Trump did nothing illegal, let alone impeachable.

If the dems push this impeachment farce they will pay in spades in 2020.
 

iceberg

Gold Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
26,616
Reaction score
4,967
Points
290
First a we’re told that the WB can’t believed because he wasn’t on the call and then colonel Vidman surfaced who WAS on the call but Trumpers demand that “second hand testimony” anyway

now we’re told that current witnesses can’t be believed because THEY were not on the call. too bad that they aren’t testifying to what was in the call but rather actions that occurred elsewhere.

Of course the State Department at Trump’s direction is refusing to turn over their contemporaneous not and they phones

and still witnesses are being produced to shoot down every weak defense that the GOP is making
should have they have:
smashed their phones with a hammer?
deleted all the requested info?
said "like a cloth" when asked about wiping the server...

seems those reasons are acceptable but nothing else can be. pure definition of a witch hunt, son.
 

ThisIsMe

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
1,710
Reaction score
227
Points
140
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.
 

Hellokitty

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
2,846
Reaction score
956
Points
280
"A key Democratic witness against Trump admitted in congressional testimony last month that he was not part of the July 25 phone call between the U.S. and Ukrainian presidents, that he didn’t see a transcript or readout of it until late September when it was declassified and released, and that he has never even spoken to President Donald Trump.

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


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

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


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

.
I recall awhile back democrats having an issue with I think it was people involved with TRUMP's legal counsel having a conversation about something involving the Russia investigation in a restaurant. They said such sensitive conversations shouldn't be held in public places where people could possible overhear classified or sensitive information.
 
Last edited:

Lesh

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
17,186
Reaction score
2,488
Points
290
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
 

Zorro!

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2019
Messages
7,221
Reaction score
999
Points
245
One is starting to think that none of these accusers actually heard anything first hand.
Because none did, they are 'testifying' to 3rd and 4th hand conversations. The Dem's two 'star' witnesses today testified to office water cooler gossip, what a laughable disaster this was for Dem's. :auiqs.jpg:
And even if first hand, it's all mind-reading.
 

Defiant1

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
7,579
Reaction score
1,178
Points
290
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.
 

iceberg

Gold Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
26,616
Reaction score
4,967
Points
290
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
you cannot have first hand knowledge of something you were not a part of. period. "knowledge" of what happened can come from anywhere. we have "knowledge" hillary was out to alter e-mail headers, you didn't care.

stop being conditional with applying the rules we all need to abide by.
 

Crepitus

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2018
Messages
34,962
Reaction score
5,478
Points
1,140
"A key Democratic witness against Trump admitted in congressional testimony last month that he was not part of the July 25 phone call between the U.S. and Ukrainian presidents, that he didn’t see a transcript or readout of it until late September when it was declassified and released, and that he has never even spoken to President Donald Trump.

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


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

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


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

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

iceberg

Gold Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
26,616
Reaction score
4,967
Points
290
"A key Democratic witness against Trump admitted in congressional testimony last month that he was not part of the July 25 phone call between the U.S. and Ukrainian presidents, that he didn’t see a transcript or readout of it until late September when it was declassified and released, and that he has never even spoken to President Donald Trump.

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


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

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


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

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

all cause "orange man bad".
 

dudmuck

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2017
Messages
6,154
Reaction score
1,275
Points
275
Location
Camarillo, CA
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.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top