Bill Taylor's opening statement- quid pro quo

[WEATHER53]

I find it fascinating that you believe that the role of the GOP in the House is to defend the President rather than conduct an investigation.

You don't have to believe what Taylor said- I certainly don't believe anything Trump says.
But Taylor's statement is very specific and very concise, with details that the House can follow up with in additional interviews. And that is what the House will do.

It's not a real investigation if only one side picks the witnesses. That's call a kangaroo court.

.

LOLOL

You dumbfuck...

Republicans made these rules in 2015.

Dems' closed hearings follow rules 'Republican majority' put in place: Fox News legal analyst

The powerful weapon House Republicans handed Democrats

You're comparing apples and oranges. No President was being impeached in 2015. The trouble with using a matchstick iq is that when you strike, it burns what's left of the stick. And furthermore, you're playing around with fire like a kid in a dry grass field.

LOL

So what? They changed the rules that they're now pissing about. Democrats are now using the Republicans' rules which is why the minority party, now Republicans, have no subpoena power and can't call witnesses. It matters not what the hearing is about -- it applies to all hearings in the House.

Bitch away, bitch.

There's a difference which you well know, Mr. Faun. This fiction is not really all that original, but it's like the other 5 false narratives. It's fiction. All of it is fiction down to the final letter. And you're not owning the fiction, but even in spite of yourself it's--yep--fiction.

It does not need to be fact for the liberals to try and portray it as fact. It only need be something that they feel is real or that it should/could be.

 

[Faun]

I find it fascinating that you believe that the role of the GOP in the House is to defend the President rather than conduct an investigation.

You don't have to believe what Taylor said- I certainly don't believe anything Trump says.
But Taylor's statement is very specific and very concise, with details that the House can follow up with in additional interviews. And that is what the House will do.

It's not a real investigation if only one side picks the witnesses. That's call a kangaroo court.

.

LOLOL

You dumbfuck...

Republicans made these rules in 2015.

Dems' closed hearings follow rules 'Republican majority' put in place: Fox News legal analyst

The powerful weapon House Republicans handed Democrats

You're comparing apples and oranges. No President was being impeached in 2015. The trouble with using a matchstick iq is that when you strike, it burns what's left of the stick. And furthermore, you're playing around with fire like a kid in a dry grass field.

LOL

So what? They changed the rules that they're now pissing about. Democrats are now using the Republicans' rules which is why the minority party, now Republicans, have no subpoena power and can't call witnesses. It matters not what the hearing is about -- it applies to all hearings in the House.

Bitch away, bitch.

There's a difference which you well know, Mr. Faun. This fiction is not really all that original, but it's like the other 5 false narratives. It's fiction. All of it is fiction down to the final letter. And you're not owning the fiction, but even in spite of yourself it's--yep--fiction.

Your whining doesn't alter the fact that Republiscums can't call witnesses now because they made that rule in 2015.

Sucks for them. Get over it.

 

[beautress]

we love his opinion, but when asked about if they knew the treasury was holding back funds to guarantee no more corruption, he said they had no idea. They didn’t even know about it lol

Stop spreading fake news

Sorry- I wasn't repeating any of Trump or Hannity's talking points so- no I am not spreading fake news.

Despite what you Trumpettes keep saying- repeating a person's actual statement is not "Fake News"- now repeating Trump's lies- that would be Fake News.

Glad to post Taylor's testimony again:

During this same phone call I had with Mr. Morrison, he went on to describe a

conversation Ambassador Sondland had with Mr. Yermak at Warsaw. Ambassador

Sondland told Mr. Yermak that the security assistance money would not come until

President Zelenskyy committed to pursue the Burisma investigation. I was alarmed by

what Mr. Morrison told me about the Sondland-Yermak conversation. This was the first

time I had heard that the security assistance—not just the White House meeting—was

conditioned on the investigations.

Ambassador Sondland also told me that he now recognized that he had made a mistake

by earlier telling the Ukrainian officials to whom he spoke that a White House meeting

with President Zelenskyy was dependent on a public announcement of investigations-in

fact, Ambassador Sondland said, “everything” was dependent on such an

announcement, including security assistance. He said that President Trump wanted

President Zelenskyy “in a public box” by making a public statement about ordering such

investigations.

on September 8, Ambassador Sondland and I spoke on the phone.

He said he had talked to President Trump as I had suggested a week earlier, but that

President Trump was adamant that President Zelenskyy, himself, had to “clear things up

and do it in public.” President Trump said it was not a “quid pro quo.” Ambassador

Sondland said that he had talked to President Zelenskyy and Mr. Yermak and told them

that, although this was not a quid pro quo, if President Zelenskyy did not “clear things

up” in public, we would be at a “stalemate.” I

Testimony, or unchallenged opening statement?

Both.

Glad to post Taylor's testimony again:

During this same phone call I had with Mr. Morrison, he went on to describe a

conversation Ambassador Sondland had with Mr. Yermak at Warsaw. Ambassador

Sondland told Mr. Yermak that the security assistance money would not come until

President Zelenskyy committed to pursue the Burisma investigation. I was alarmed by

what Mr. Morrison told me about the Sondland-Yermak conversation. This was the first

time I had heard that the security assistance—not just the White House meeting—was

conditioned on the investigations.

Ambassador Sondland also told me that he now recognized that he had made a mistake

by earlier telling the Ukrainian officials to whom he spoke that a White House meeting

with President Zelenskyy was dependent on a public announcement of investigations-in

fact, Ambassador Sondland said, “everything” was dependent on such an

announcement, including security assistance. He said that President Trump wanted

President Zelenskyy “in a public box” by making a public statement about ordering such

investigations.

on September 8, Ambassador Sondland and I spoke on the phone.

He said he had talked to President Trump as I had suggested a week earlier, but that

President Trump was adamant that President Zelenskyy, himself, had to “clear things up

and do it in public.” President Trump said it was not a “quid pro quo.” Ambassador

Sondland said that he had talked to President Zelenskyy and Mr. Yermak and told them

that, although this was not a quid pro quo, if President Zelenskyy did not “clear things

up” in public, we would be at a “stalemate.”

hearsay. HEARSAY, HEARSAY, HEARSAY, HEARSAY

And? Shouting it over and over doesn't change the facts.

Now the House can pull on the threads Taylor has provided. Getting Sondland back under oath. Interviewing the others.

FYI- nothing against using hearsay in an impeachment.

Oh? even if the arm has been twisted by one's name being found on the Epstein hit list? Just sayin'.

 

[beautress]

It's not a real investigation if only one side picks the witnesses. That's call a kangaroo court.

.

LOLOL

You dumbfuck...

Republicans made these rules in 2015.

Dems' closed hearings follow rules 'Republican majority' put in place: Fox News legal analyst

The powerful weapon House Republicans handed Democrats

You're comparing apples and oranges. No President was being impeached in 2015. The trouble with using a matchstick iq is that when you strike, it burns what's left of the stick. And furthermore, you're playing around with fire like a kid in a dry grass field.

LOL

So what? They changed the rules that they're now pissing about. Democrats are now using the Republicans' rules which is why the minority party, now Republicans, have no subpoena power and can't call witnesses. It matters not what the hearing is about -- it applies to all hearings in the House.

Bitch away, bitch.

There's a difference which you well know, Mr. Faun. This fiction is not really all that original, but it's like the other 5 false narratives. It's fiction. All of it is fiction down to the final letter. And you're not owning the fiction, but even in spite of yourself it's--yep--fiction.

Your whining doesn't alter the fact that Republiscums can't call witnesses now because they made that rule in 2015.

Sucks for them. Get over it.

Fiction, fiction, fiction. You get over it.

 

[Faun]

LOLOL

You dumbfuck...

Republicans made these rules in 2015.

Dems' closed hearings follow rules 'Republican majority' put in place: Fox News legal analyst

The powerful weapon House Republicans handed Democrats

You're comparing apples and oranges. No President was being impeached in 2015. The trouble with using a matchstick iq is that when you strike, it burns what's left of the stick. And furthermore, you're playing around with fire like a kid in a dry grass field.

LOL

So what? They changed the rules that they're now pissing about. Democrats are now using the Republicans' rules which is why the minority party, now Republicans, have no subpoena power and can't call witnesses. It matters not what the hearing is about -- it applies to all hearings in the House.

Bitch away, bitch.

There's a difference which you well know, Mr. Faun. This fiction is not really all that original, but it's like the other 5 false narratives. It's fiction. All of it is fiction down to the final letter. And you're not owning the fiction, but even in spite of yourself it's--yep--fiction.

Your whining doesn't alter the fact that Republiscums can't call witnesses now because they made that rule in 2015.

Sucks for them. Get over it.

Fiction, fiction, fiction. You get over it.

LOL

There's nothing I need to get over. Trump's getting impeached. And even if the Senate doesn't vote him out -- he's gonna flame out.

 

[Syriusly]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Trump certainly is trying to smear the Bidens.

Imagine a President making a secret call to a foreign government asking publicly announce that they were investigating the President's political rival.

 

[Syriusly]

Not what he said in a sworn statement. But that's not the interference the Ukriane court was referring to. Several Ukrainians fabricated some shit and publicized it on the Trump campaign.

.

Who, Shokin?

That's what he says now. And of course, he was forced out because he was a corrupt prosecutor and now has an axe to grind against Biden, the guy who helped get him out.

Has he been charged with giving false testimony?

.

Who could charge him?

He gave a sworn deposition in a British court, they would have jurisdiction. To my knowledge the only ones accusing him of lying are you commies.

.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

Dumbfuck.... did you even look at the affidavit??

It wasn't given in a British court. It was given last month in Kiev in front of a notary.

It's contradictory to what's been reported in the news.

It even states: Facts mentioned at this statement have not been verified by the notary.

Oh, and the best part ------- Shokin never signed it!

Shokin Statement

You are the dumbest fucking cuck on this forum for falling for that bullshit.

And it wasn't done in front of any court- there was no 'cross examination' and there is no court that has jurisdiction on it to charge him with false testimony.

But other than that......sure.

 

[beautress]

It's not a real investigation if only one side picks the witnesses. That's call a kangaroo court.

.

LOLOL

You dumbfuck...

Republicans made these rules in 2015.

Dems' closed hearings follow rules 'Republican majority' put in place: Fox News legal analyst

The powerful weapon House Republicans handed Democrats

You're comparing apples and oranges. No President was being impeached in 2015. The trouble with using a matchstick iq is that when you strike, it burns what's left of the stick. And furthermore, you're playing around with fire like a kid in a dry grass field.

LOL

So what? They changed the rules that they're now pissing about. Democrats are now using the Republicans' rules which is why the minority party, now Republicans, have no subpoena power and can't call witnesses. It matters not what the hearing is about -- it applies to all hearings in the House.

Bitch away, bitch.

There's a difference which you well know, Mr. Faun. This fiction is not really all that original, but it's like the other 5 false narratives. It's fiction. All of it is fiction down to the final letter. And you're not owning the fiction, but even in spite of yourself it's--yep--fiction.

It does not need to be fact for the liberals to try and portray it as fact. It only need be something that they feel is real or that it should/could be.

I think the Democrats are going to have a wake up moment when they read the AG's findings in the upcoming days and weeks ahead. And they are likely to scuttle the nonsense. And Speaker Pelosi will put her hands up as if to pray and allude to "next item." as if the last impeachment were 20 years ago.

 

[Meister]

You're comparing apples and oranges. No President was being impeached in 2015. The trouble with using a matchstick iq is that when you strike, it burns what's left of the stick. And furthermore, you're playing around with fire like a kid in a dry grass field.

LOL

So what? They changed the rules that they're now pissing about. Democrats are now using the Republicans' rules which is why the minority party, now Republicans, have no subpoena power and can't call witnesses. It matters not what the hearing is about -- it applies to all hearings in the House.

Bitch away, bitch.

There's a difference which you well know, Mr. Faun. This fiction is not really all that original, but it's like the other 5 false narratives. It's fiction. All of it is fiction down to the final letter. And you're not owning the fiction, but even in spite of yourself it's--yep--fiction.

Your whining doesn't alter the fact that Republiscums can't call witnesses now because they made that rule in 2015.

Sucks for them. Get over it.

Fiction, fiction, fiction. You get over it.

LOL

There's nothing I need to get over. Trump's getting impeached. And even if the Senate doesn't vote him out -- he's gonna flame out.

Truth or lies doesn't make a difference with the TDS'ers when the goal is impeaching Trump. Got it

 

[LaDairis]

rump certainly is trying to smear the Bidens.

"investigate" = "smear" only if there is SOMETHING to HIDE...

Trump did not ask for dirt, or a smear. He did not pressure to investigate dishonestly. He simply said he wanted it investigated. Period. US taxpayer money vanished and ended up in Hunter Biden's pocket. Do we have your permission to investigate that???

LOL!!!

Why are you and yours so SCARED of an INVESTIGATION???

LOL!!!

 

[Faun]

Trump certainly is trying to smear the Bidens.

And the morons on the right are actually trying to convince anyone with a brain that Biden isn't a political rival of Trumps.

 

[OKTexas]

Not what he said in a sworn statement. But that's not the interference the Ukriane court was referring to. Several Ukrainians fabricated some shit and publicized it on the Trump campaign.

.

Who, Shokin?

That's what he says now. And of course, he was forced out because he was a corrupt prosecutor and now has an axe to grind against Biden, the guy who helped get him out.

Has he been charged with giving false testimony?

.

Who could charge him?

He gave a sworn deposition in a British court, they would have jurisdiction. To my knowledge the only ones accusing him of lying are you commies.

.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

Dumbfuck.... did you even look at the affidavit??

It wasn't given in a British court. It was given last month in Kiev in front of a notary.

It's contradictory to what's been reported in the news.

It even states: Facts mentioned at this statement have not been verified by the notary.

Oh, and the best part ------- Shokin never signed it!

Shokin Statement

You are the dumbest fucking cuck on this forum for falling for that bullshit.

Most everything is contradictory to whats being reported in the news, that's why it's called fake news.

Like Reagan said, the only problem with commiecrats, is they know so much that isn't true.

.

 

[Faun]

LOL

So what? They changed the rules that they're now pissing about. Democrats are now using the Republicans' rules which is why the minority party, now Republicans, have no subpoena power and can't call witnesses. It matters not what the hearing is about -- it applies to all hearings in the House.

Bitch away, bitch.

There's a difference which you well know, Mr. Faun. This fiction is not really all that original, but it's like the other 5 false narratives. It's fiction. All of it is fiction down to the final letter. And you're not owning the fiction, but even in spite of yourself it's--yep--fiction.

Your whining doesn't alter the fact that Republiscums can't call witnesses now because they made that rule in 2015.

Sucks for them. Get over it.

Fiction, fiction, fiction. You get over it.

LOL

There's nothing I need to get over. Trump's getting impeached. And even if the Senate doesn't vote him out -- he's gonna flame out.

Truth or lies doesn't make a difference with the TDS'ers when the goal is impeaching Trump. Got it

LOL

You have nothing to counter Trump asking a foreign national to help take down a political rival.

Trump's getting impeached and he deserves to for abusing his office.

 

[beautress]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Trump certainly is trying to smear the Bidens.

Imagine a President making a secret call to a foreign government asking publicly announce that they were investigating the President's political rival.

Syriusly sez: "Trump certainly is trying to smear the Bidens."
​

Oh, doll, former VP Biden did that all by himself.

​

 

[Meister]

There's a difference which you well know, Mr. Faun. This fiction is not really all that original, but it's like the other 5 false narratives. It's fiction. All of it is fiction down to the final letter. And you're not owning the fiction, but even in spite of yourself it's--yep--fiction.

Your whining doesn't alter the fact that Republiscums can't call witnesses now because they made that rule in 2015.

Sucks for them. Get over it.

Fiction, fiction, fiction. You get over it.

LOL

There's nothing I need to get over. Trump's getting impeached. And even if the Senate doesn't vote him out -- he's gonna flame out.

Truth or lies doesn't make a difference with the TDS'ers when the goal is impeaching Trump. Got it

LOL

You have nothing to counter Trump asking a foreign national to help take down a political rival.

Trump's getting impeached and he deserves to for abusing his office.

Well, if the transcripts are ever released, we can get complete context....but it's better to make shit up, huh?

 

[Seawytch]

And how exactly do you what Taylor said, HEARSAY since YOU weren't there, that might be different from what he wrote? Notice how HEARSAY is perfectly OK for their side!!!!!

The congresscritters in the room couldn't say what he said, they could however say what he didn't say, and that was Ukraine knew the aid was being held up. Without that knowledge there could have been no quid pro quo, could there? Ukraine didn't find out the aid was being held till 29 Aug. Shortly after the aid was released and the sale of the anti-tank missals was completed and Ukraine had started no new investigations. They did have an ongoing investigation into Burisma that started in Feb, that wasn't mentioned in the call.

.

By August the Ukranians knew the aid was being withheld- and according to Taylor's statement, were told that unless they made a public announcement of an investigation into, among other things, the Bidens, that the aid would not be coming, that the Ukrainians wouldn't get the sought after meeting in the White House.

And give us that link about the 'ongoing investigation into Burisma since February- since in August Trump's operatives were still trying to pressure Ukraine into starting them.

Was that from 2nd, 3rd or 4th hand information? And I provided a link already, look it up.

.

You do realize that the whistleblower's testimony was backed up when the call notes were released, right?

No it wasn't.

.

What part of the whistleblower testimony has not been?

Key allegations from the Ukraine whistleblower are true, despite what Trump says

Whistleblower complaint:
“I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election. This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President’s main domestic political rivals.”

What we know:
This core claim has been confirmed. Based on Trump’s public comments and the White House transcript of his call with Zelensky, it’s now clear that Trump used his position to pressure Ukraine to investigate Biden. If Zelensky bowed to this pressure, Ukraine would have been interfering in the 2020 election to help Trump win.

Whistleblower complaint:
“The President’s personal lawyer, Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, is a central figure in this effort. Attorney General Barr appears to be involved as well.”

What we know:
The whistleblower was spot-on about Giuliani, who has been transparent about his role and maintains he hasn’t done anything wrong. The whistleblower was less sure about Barr. Trump mentioned Barr on the Zelensky call, but the Justice Department said Barr didn’t learn about it for “several weeks” and that he never discussed Ukraine with Giuliani

Whistleblower complaint:
“According to the White House officials who had direct knowledge of the call, the President pressured Mr. Zelenskyy to … initiate or continue an investigation into the activities of former Vice President Joseph Biden and his son, Hunter Biden.”

What we know:
The White House transcript of the call revealed that this is accurate. Trump told Zelensky: “There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution, and a lot of people want to find out about that, so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great.” In addition, after the complaint was publicly released, Trump publicly asked Ukraine to investigate the Biden family

Whistleblower complaint:
“According to the White House officials who had direct knowledge of the call, the President pressured Mr. Zelenskyy to … assist in purportedly uncovering that allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election originated in Ukraine, with a specific request that the Ukrainian leader locate and turn over servers used by the Democratic National Committee and examined by the US cybersecurity firm Crowdstrike.”

What we know:
The White House transcript of the call included Trump’s mention of CrowdStrike, which is at the center of a Trump-supported conspiracy theory about alleged Ukrainian meddling in 2016. Trump said: “I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike … I guess you have one of your wealthy people … The server, they say Ukraine has it … I would like to have the attorney general call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it.”​

And that is just a small sample.

Now you...

 

[beautress]

There's a difference which you well know, Mr. Faun. This fiction is not really all that original, but it's like the other 5 false narratives. It's fiction. All of it is fiction down to the final letter. And you're not owning the fiction, but even in spite of yourself it's--yep--fiction.

Your whining doesn't alter the fact that Republiscums can't call witnesses now because they made that rule in 2015.

Sucks for them. Get over it.

Fiction, fiction, fiction. You get over it.

LOL

There's nothing I need to get over. Trump's getting impeached. And even if the Senate doesn't vote him out -- he's gonna flame out.

Truth or lies doesn't make a difference with the TDS'ers when the goal is impeaching Trump. Got it

LOL

You have nothing to counter Trump asking a foreign national to help take down a political rival.

Trump's getting impeached and he deserves to for abusing his office.

President Trump never did such a thing. It's too bad cannabis is now legal. I can understand where your toxic gas plume is coming from.

 

[Seawytch]

Your whining doesn't alter the fact that Republiscums can't call witnesses now because they made that rule in 2015.

Sucks for them. Get over it.

Fiction, fiction, fiction. You get over it.

LOL

There's nothing I need to get over. Trump's getting impeached. And even if the Senate doesn't vote him out -- he's gonna flame out.

Truth or lies doesn't make a difference with the TDS'ers when the goal is impeaching Trump. Got it

LOL

You have nothing to counter Trump asking a foreign national to help take down a political rival.

Trump's getting impeached and he deserves to for abusing his office.

Well, if the transcripts are ever released, we can get complete context....but it's better to make shit up, huh?

So you think Trump should release the full transcript of the call? Why do you think he did not?

 

[Meister]

The congresscritters in the room couldn't say what he said, they could however say what he didn't say, and that was Ukraine knew the aid was being held up. Without that knowledge there could have been no quid pro quo, could there? Ukraine didn't find out the aid was being held till 29 Aug. Shortly after the aid was released and the sale of the anti-tank missals was completed and Ukraine had started no new investigations. They did have an ongoing investigation into Burisma that started in Feb, that wasn't mentioned in the call.

.

By August the Ukranians knew the aid was being withheld- and according to Taylor's statement, were told that unless they made a public announcement of an investigation into, among other things, the Bidens, that the aid would not be coming, that the Ukrainians wouldn't get the sought after meeting in the White House.

And give us that link about the 'ongoing investigation into Burisma since February- since in August Trump's operatives were still trying to pressure Ukraine into starting them.

Was that from 2nd, 3rd or 4th hand information? And I provided a link already, look it up.

.

You do realize that the whistleblower's testimony was backed up when the call notes were released, right?

No it wasn't.

.

What part of the whistleblower testimony has not been?

Key allegations from the Ukraine whistleblower are true, despite what Trump says

Whistleblower complaint:
“I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election. This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President’s main domestic political rivals.”

What we know:
This core claim has been confirmed. Based on Trump’s public comments and the White House transcript of his call with Zelensky, it’s now clear that Trump used his position to pressure Ukraine to investigate Biden. If Zelensky bowed to this pressure, Ukraine would have been interfering in the 2020 election to help Trump win.

Whistleblower complaint:
“The President’s personal lawyer, Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, is a central figure in this effort. Attorney General Barr appears to be involved as well.”

What we know:
The whistleblower was spot-on about Giuliani, who has been transparent about his role and maintains he hasn’t done anything wrong. The whistleblower was less sure about Barr. Trump mentioned Barr on the Zelensky call, but the Justice Department said Barr didn’t learn about it for “several weeks” and that he never discussed Ukraine with Giuliani

Whistleblower complaint:
“According to the White House officials who had direct knowledge of the call, the President pressured Mr. Zelenskyy to … initiate or continue an investigation into the activities of former Vice President Joseph Biden and his son, Hunter Biden.”

What we know:
The White House transcript of the call revealed that this is accurate. Trump told Zelensky: “There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution, and a lot of people want to find out about that, so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great.” In addition, after the complaint was publicly released, Trump publicly asked Ukraine to investigate the Biden family

Whistleblower complaint:
“According to the White House officials who had direct knowledge of the call, the President pressured Mr. Zelenskyy to … assist in purportedly uncovering that allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election originated in Ukraine, with a specific request that the Ukrainian leader locate and turn over servers used by the Democratic National Committee and examined by the US cybersecurity firm Crowdstrike.”

What we know:
The White House transcript of the call included Trump’s mention of CrowdStrike, which is at the center of a Trump-supported conspiracy theory about alleged Ukrainian meddling in 2016. Trump said: “I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike … I guess you have one of your wealthy people … The server, they say Ukraine has it … I would like to have the attorney general call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it.”​

And that is just a small sample.

Now you...

Has the whistlblower been cross examined? hmmmm?

 

[ThisIsMe]

I recommend everyone read Bill Taylor's opening statement today.
Top US diplomat to Ukraine testifies there was a quid pro quo

I suggest reading the entire thing because there is great perspective in his statement.

While it confirms the quid pro quo that had been suspected- what is perhaps even more disturbing is his description of a shadow diplomacy being led by Rudy Giuliani- the President's private attorney- in leading America's diplomatic conversation with Ukraine.

I know that the Trump supporters will reflexively attack Bill Taylor.....but for anyone who thinks that they are objective- read his statement.

Read it.

I'm not a trump supporter, but I do lean to the right. I wont attack him, rather, I say, lets get this thing started. The dems.have the evidence, let's get the articles drawn up and sent to the house for a full vote so we can get this thing moving.

That's the last thing they want.

Maybe, maybe not, but in the words of mills lane (cdm version) "let's get it on!" [emoji16]

Man oh, man ThisisMe, you been had. The Democrats not only never had any evidence, they've been proven liars on 5 different expensive explorations into the possibilities they postulate.
This feely-good closed door crapshoot also has no evidence. At best, it's a wannabe quid pro quo that isn't and never was a quid pro quo, and it never will be. Bring it on again? Pass the melatonin, please.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but, it doesnt matter what is true or not, what matters is what dems can get the media to report. Part of what is going on is not just trump impeachment, its public opinion. The dems have done a good job at monopolizing all avenues of media. For the last 3 years, it's been trump, russia, ukraine, collusion, corruption.

My stance, as of late, is, you cant convince anyone they are right or wrong, so why bother. That dent in the cement wall is deep enough, and eventually your head will hurt, so why keep banging.

The dems control the house, so, they basically control the narrative. Repubs can come out and show proof that they are right, and the dems can just leak another news story that will occupy the media cycle, and divert attention to what they want you to "know".

Maybe my stance will change once all this comes out in the open and we can start seeing information coming from the repubs, once they are allowed to start their defense and do some questioning of their own.

I'm just ready to get all this behind us. So my stance is, let's do it! If trump is guilty, then he needs to go, if hes innocent, then we can finally put all this to rest.