• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bill Taylor dropped a bombshell in his impeachment hearing opening statement

I stopped at your first fib.

Get it together....

And there it is - Taylor and Kent BOTH testified that they believe Trump was doing this for personal gain.

BOOM - here comes the boom - ready or not.

Your boy is a ****ing fraud and a crook.
 
Nobody is found innocent. In some places they might be "not proven", but elsewhere it's not guilty, which is not the same as innocent. Trump has never been that, even as a child.

Quid pro quo might not exist, but attempted extortion is still there. Then there's the bribery.

So let's cut the crap and just hear you say that you are calling President Zellensky, whose public statements don't match yours, a liar?
 
it wasn't extortion because there is no tangible evidence of extortion. only opinions on whether the president thought he was extorting someone or not.
Only if that "evidence" is Trump writing a book called "I Extorted Ukraine And Got Away With It."

Lots of people in the White House and State Department figured it out. So did lots of people in the government of Ukraine.

Trump explicitly stated he wanted China to investigate his political rival. How much more obvious can he get?


go get a psychic or a mind reader to tell us whether it was extortion or not, it will be just as admissable.
Hello, McFly? This is not a criminal proceeding. It's an impeachment investigation. Taylor is telling them where to look, and what to look for.
 
It's ironic that the Republicans on the committee are still mumbling on about the whistleblower, when the witnesses are in front of them corroborating the whistleblower's testimony!
 
It's ironic that the Republicans on the committee are still mumbling on about the whistleblower, when the witnesses are in front of them corroborating the whistleblower's testimony!

Oh - and they're still completely obsessed with sucking up to the boss - by ensuring they continuously compare his presidency to that of Obama.

It's neurotic at best.
 
corroborating WHAT? their OPINION that the president meant this and not THAT? are they frikking MIND readers?


DID THEY HEAR THE PRESIDENT SAY TO THE Ukrainian PM "I need you to investigate BIDEN so I Can win an election" ?

that is all I want to know.

What if he did say that, would you care? What we're witnessing in this country is the most cowardly betrayal of the justice system that the right wing has ever engaged in.

I'm reminded of when Reagan suddenly lost his memory of his own TERRORIST activity and the Republicans were like, well, we can't find him guilty if he doesn't remember anything. Case closed, *organized hand washing* blah, blah, blah.

I just realized, whenever I hear the conservatives talking about how corrupt government is, they're not complaining, they're bragging. Every time some politician gets away with betraying our national values, it's never because of a lack of evidence, it's always due to a lack of public integrity. In the case of Trump, their disregard for the quantity of damning evidence is so obvious that I wonder if this won't be the last American presidency. If literally NOTHING is prosecutable then justice, and that which is supposed to make our nation great, is a long-dead fantasy that no fool from either side of the aisle will ever again believe in.
 
It's ironic that the Republicans on the committee are still mumbling on about the whistleblower, when the witnesses are in front of them corroborating the whistleblower's testimony!


What exactly are they witnesses to? What did they witness?
 
This can be interpreted in many ways.
It really can't.


The dems push to specific only to Burisma, Bidens would be a edifier. But by adding in "everything" this muddies the waters more.
Dude. You're reading it backwards.

There is no indication of Trump ever issuing a general demand for Ukraine to work on corruption. The administration wanted Ukraine to announce a specific investigation into Biden and Burisma.

"Everything depended upon getting an investigation against Biden" doesn't mean "every other corruption investigation cannot start until Biden is investigated." It means "Zelensky and Ukraine gets nothing unless they play ball."

By the way, one of the big corruption issues that Ukraine faced was... wait for it... using investigations to target a political rival. That's only one of many reasons why the government in Ukraine was unhappy, because Trump was demanding that Zelensky undercut his own anti-corruption stance by doing Trump's corrupt bidding.
 
Is the “edit my testimony window” still open for Sondland?
 
hearsay is not testimony and is thrown out for a reason next.

Don’t know if this is one of them, but there are lots of exceptions to the hearsay rule.
 
I have been listening to the entire thing.

What I hear is, a president withholding aid for months, on the prerequisite, without congressional approval for the impoundment, literally undermined trusting allies, facing a global power invading and occupying their territory, so a two bit new york lawyer and his soviet born cronies can dig up scandals on political rivals unfettered.

IDK about you, but I find it stark and grotesque that you people are accepting of this, that this is ok, and that this is something we should expect as acceptable.

Truly grotesque.

I find it grotesque that Dems are defending Biden because they want to make him President in the face of corruption allegations .....Joe is dirty so impeach Trump...:roll:
 
This can be interpreted in many ways. The Dems right now are trying to prove the POTUS had intent to commit some type of crime (extortion, bribery, abuse of power)

But here is the hard part that I see with "Everything" The dems push to specific only to Burisma, Bidens would be a edifier. But by adding in "everything" this muddies the waters more. Precedence and consistency shows Trump's unwillingness to release Aid to many countries and organizations. Regardless of congresses appropriations. As he questions the "good use" and the corrupt nature that it may fund. (yes yes this might sound like I am defending, but here me out)


Again Everything and is specificity. it was stated "Trump wanted the Ukraine to publicly announce Anti-Corruption" This is BLANKET not specific to Biden & Burisma, SURE its easy to throw it under. But again not specific and by adding "everything" How do you now justify that he had ALL intent and specific intent to gain per personal political purposes. When everything was on the table.... not JUST Biden..... this does not help the QPQ cause in my opinion.

Very true -- if Trump actually had used the word CORRUPTION, which he didn't. He only focused on investigating Biden. You are grasping at straws to give Trump every benefit of every doubt.
 
Is the “edit my testimony window” still open for Sondland?

Maybe. If it's inculpatory, the window is open. If it's exculpatory, there never was a window. People bearing any exculpatory evidence have been suppressed, and. will eventually be wiped out. We're gonna unify the people. Trump is simply too divisive.
 
I find it grotesque that Dems are defending Biden because they want to make him President in the face of corruption allegations .....Joe is dirty so impeach Trump...:roll:
Ah, "allegations." Unfounded "allegations' that are actually lies. The fact that there is not even a hint of corruption by Biden makes no way into your analysis.
 
He said a member of his staff gave an account of a previously unknown Trump phone call.

This call took place on July 26, the day after Trump’s now-infamous phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Taylor’s staff member told him that Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland had called Trump on the phone from a restaurant; the staffer was present for that call. During the call, the staffer heard Trump asked Sondland about “the investigations,” and Sondland replied that the Ukrainians were ready to move forward.

“Following the call with President Trump, the member of my staff asked Ambassador Sondland what President Trump thought about Ukraine,” Taylor said. “Ambassador Sondland responded that President Trump cares more about the investigations of Biden, which Giuliani was pressing for.”

Impeachment hearing: Bill Taylor drops a bombshell in opening statement - Vox

View attachment 67268132


Kevin McCarthy
‏Verified account @GOPLeader

.@Jim_Jordan: You didn’t listen in on President Trump & Zelensky’s call?

Taylor: I did not.

Jordan: You’ve never talked with Chief of Staff Mulvaney?

Taylor: I never did.

Jordan: You’ve never met the President?

Taylor: That’s correct.

Jordan: And you’re their star witness.
:doh

Kevin McCarthy on Twitter: ".@Jim_Jordan: You didn’t listen in on President Trump & Zelensky’s call?

Taylor: I did not.

Jordan: You’ve never talked with Chief of Staff Mulvaney?

Taylor: I never did.

Jordan: You’ve never met the President?

Taylor: That’s correct.

Jordan: And you’re their star witness.… https://t.co/ADYvCnIK9f"
 
So...more third person info?

"I was told by a friend of a friend that...."

"Heard it from a friend who, heard it from a friend who, heard it from another you been messin' around."

So the impeachment is basically a REO Speedwagon song?
 
This can be interpreted in many ways. The Dems right now are trying to prove the POTUS had intent to commit some type of crime (extortion, bribery, abuse of power)

But here is the hard part that I see with "Everything" The dems push to specific only to Burisma, Bidens would be a edifier. But by adding in "everything" this muddies the waters more. Precedence and consistency shows Trump's unwillingness to release Aid to many countries and organizations. Regardless of congresses appropriations. As he questions the "good use" and the corrupt nature that it may fund. (yes yes this might sound like I am defending, but here me out)


Again Everything and is specificity. it was stated "Trump wanted the Ukraine to publicly announce Anti-Corruption" This is BLANKET not specific to Biden & Burisma, SURE its easy to throw it under. But again not specific and by adding "everything" How do you now justify that he had ALL intent and specific intent to gain per personal political purposes. When everything was on the table.... not JUST Biden..... this does not help the QPQ cause in my opinion.

:yt.....
 
Taylor and the Democratics kept saying Zelensky was pressured to help Trump in his election.
It wasn't in the transcript so it should have been addressed as not being supported by anything other than opinion.
 
My question is this:

When we are suffering through the next 4 years of Trump, will any of these people who do things like have congressional hearings about what a friend said on the phone admit that they are the reason why?
 
It really can't.



Dude. You're reading it backwards.

There is no indication of Trump ever issuing a general demand for Ukraine to work on corruption. The administration wanted Ukraine to announce a specific investigation into Biden and Burisma.

"Everything depended upon getting an investigation against Biden" doesn't mean "every other corruption investigation cannot start until Biden is investigated." It means "Zelensky and Ukraine gets nothing unless they play ball."

By the way, one of the big corruption issues that Ukraine faced was... wait for it... using investigations to target a political rival. That's only one of many reasons why the government in Ukraine was unhappy, because Trump was demanding that Zelensky undercut his own anti-corruption stance by doing Trump's corrupt bidding.

Im still waiting for direct access where an order from the president... NOT just hear say.... that Trump said, I want Zelensky to investigate the Bidens or I am holding your Aid package.


Secondly. In reading both the call transcript and an active criminal investigation. Trump Directed Zelensky to AG BARR the US Attorney General. This means there is an active investigation to go on. Now if he directed Zelensky to Barr without an investigation going or directly to Guilliani then we could see a back channel or un authorized investigation.


HOW does a President ask another President to cooperate with an on going investigation then? Is AG Barr actively investigating around the world (Russian's, Australia, Ukraine) the origins of the 2016 election yes or no. If there is reason to believe interaction from Ukraine and AG Barr our chief law enforcement officer is to contact the Ukraine President, not sure how what else protocol is required?

But twisting it to some political spectacle while potential merits... I think this is blown WAY out of proportion.


Finally.... just watching Taylor's Testimony.

1) He was not on any call between the 2 Presidents
2) He was told by one of his aids who heard...
3) He was told by Sonland


Meaning he never actually heard anything from Trumps mouth.

Secondly he admits Ukraine had NO idea after 2/3 phone calls that aid was held ONLY after a media press release of the held aid did Ukraine find out about the holding of the aid.

Finally. In the subsequent meetings..... Taylor acknowledge that never in his 3/3 meetings did president Zelensky bring up anything to do with the aid NOR an investigation and in specificity investigation into Burisma or Bidens.
 
Last edited:
10 reasons why this impeachment ‘inquiry’ is really a coup

10 reasons why this impeachment 'inquiry' is really a coup

There are at least 10 reasons why the Dem impeachment “inquiry” is really a coup.

1) Impeachment 24/7. The “inquiry,” supposedly prompted by President Trump’s Ukrainian call, is only the most recent coup seeking to overturn the 2016 election.

Usually, the serial futile attempts — with the exception of the Mueller debacle — were characterized by about a month of media hysteria. We remember the voting-machines-fraud hoax, the Logan Act, the Emoluments Clause, the 25th Amendment, the McCabe-Rosenstein faux coup and various Michael Avenatti-Stormy Daniels-Michael Cohen psychodramas. Ukraine, then, isn’t unique, but simply another mini-coup.

2) False whistleblowers. The “whistleblower” is no whistleblower by any common definition of the noun. He has no incriminating documents, no information at all. He doesn’t even have firsthand evidence of wrongdoing.

Instead, the whistleblower relied on secondhand water-cooler gossip about a leaked presidential call. Even his mangled version of the call didn’t match that of official transcribers.
He wasn’t disinterested but had a long history of partisanship. He was a protégé of many of Trump’s most adamant opponents, including Susan Rice, John Brennan and Joe Biden. He did not follow protocol by going first to the inspector general but instead caucused with the staff of Rep. Adam Schiff’s impeachment inquiry. Neither the whistleblower nor his doppelganger, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, was bothered by the activities of the Bidens or by the Obama decision not to arm Ukraine. Their outrage, in other words, was not about Ukraine but over Trump.

Read the full article at the link!
 
Very true -- if Trump actually had used the word CORRUPTION, which he didn't. He only focused on investigating Biden. You are grasping at straws to give Trump every benefit of every doubt.

Any there you go.... No he did NOT only speak about the Bidens.

He spoke about the 2016 elections, He spoke about the prosecutor, he spoke about crowd strike. Do not twist again "EVERYTHING" thing was on the table this dilutes the Biden Burisma implication....

Show me where he ONLY focused, it was NOT it was "Everything" Anti Corruption as a WHOLE. As edified by Sonland's revised testimony as well.
 
The staff attorneys were a picture in contrast.

The Dem attorney was slick and methodical and the Pub attorney was like from the streetcorner who wasn't getting cooperation from the witnesses.
 
Back
Top Bottom