• 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

Risky Thicket said:
So we all agree then that Sondland, his staff member and Donald Trump should all be required to answer questions under oath regarding the alleged phone call. I'm up for that. I have no problem with it. Let's quit assing around and go balls to wall. More than anything I want the truth. Don't you?
Click to expand...
Absolutely. Get the testimony from the horse's mouth and let the chips fall where they may.

I actually made the comment after being struck by the irony of a 200+ post thread filled with zeal, damnation, exculpation, inculpation, explanation, exclamation, and speculation that will become utterly moot in a matter of days. The thread should have been over with @ObjectiveVoice's first comment--in post #5.
 
COTO said:
Absolutely. Get the testimony from the horse's mouth and let the chips fall where they may.

I actually made the comment after being struck by the irony of a 200+ post thread filled with zeal, damnation, exculpation, inculpation, explanation, exclamation, and speculation that will become utterly moot in a matter of days. The thread should have been over with @ObjectiveVoice's first comment--in post #5.
Click to expand...

Wait, how can I trust anyone who supported Rob Ford?
 
Risky Thicket said:
You didn't watch the testimony today, did you? Those questions were addressed.
Click to expand...


Yes it was ANSWERED Today but not at the time it was appropriated back in 2018, You see my point? POTUS chose to intervene after due to questions of corruption. THIS is no different with Nikki Haley at the UN and NATO asking about the contributing countries and their 6% GDP

And other countries like Puerto Rico and countless corruption allegations. Etc Etc.


Trump surely disrupts the political landscapes. But surely this is eye opening to the basis of voters. Really $400 million in defense spending to Ukraine. in which we allocated Billions from the prior administration. Which Crimea was actually invaded and taken over during the Obama Admin (2013-2014).... how did we arm them and support an ally... Javelins? How about weapons..... Yeah you see what I am talking about. food, blankets and rations.....


easy to throw stones...
 
Last edited:
ludin said:
hearsay is not testimony and is thrown out for a reason next.
Click to expand...


Barnacle said:
... and it's the truth ... according to democrats ... :lol:


Democrat Rep. Quigly: “hearsay can be much better evidence than direct“

Democrat Rep. Quigly: “hearsay can be much better evidence than direct“


... and if you don't believe it, just ask the blind man over there ... he saw it too.
Click to expand...

Certain types of hearsay are indeed admissible, including impressions of conversations or events...

"....Rule 803 (1). Present sense impression. A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter.......

...and there are 23 other "hearsay" items that are considered evidential matter.

http://www.columbia.edu/~mr2651/ecommerce3/2nd/statutes/FRE.pdf

That all said, this is a congressional inquiry, not a court proceeding. But, if it were a court proceeding, hearsay can be evidence, and sometimes even "...better evidence than direct..."
In this case, when the person's impression is based on a long career in diplomacy, his impressions would be more than germane to understanding the issue at hand.

So, laugh as you will at his statement, but its only a reflection of your own ignorance on the matter.
 
Last edited:
cracks are showing up.... even on CNN:popcorn2:

 
Risky Thicket said:
Wait, how can I trust anyone who supported Rob Ford?
Click to expand...
A little known fact is that Mr. Ford turned to drugs because of his love for following US federal politics.

He's quoted as saying, "Those Yankees just never, ever made sense. But then, with the drugs... with the drugs..."

That might be his epitaph. Have to check on that.
 
Trump said:
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:
Click to expand...

No, I dont want biden as potus. Has nothing to do with that. Has to do with abuse of power.
 
Exactice said:
What are you taking about? thats NOT what I am saying. To convict of murder

1) A murder has to occur (crime)
2) A person has to witness the person murder someone (witness to the crime)
3) The accuser must face the accused and identify that THAT person MURDERED Someone. (court of law point to the accused)


1) What crime was committed? there is NO QPQ foundation. There is no Bribery condition as there is NO direct evidence that an exchange occured, Extortion, the person who was seemingly extorted had no Idea NOR did not feel extorted
2) All witnesses at this time is implying what they heard from OTHERS. there is NO ONE that has first hand direct knowledge that Trump explicitly extorted, bribed or abused his positions. Its all opinions to which 2 consenting parties denies.
3) The WB whom is accusing Trump of impropriety is not facing the accused. You cannot accuse a crime from an anonymous source. (while yes its a house inquiry it will be DOA at the senate no matter how far this goes)


As for the "Favor" It is stated in the paragraph which highlighted ALL thoughts, crowdstrike, server etc, which is under investigation it was stated to talk to the AG.


the Follow on paragraphs in reference he told Zelensky I want to have Guiliani and AG call him does not reference BIDEN in that sentence. The o

The follow on sentence refers to Bidens to which again he refers him to AG Barr, NOT Guiliani. "The Other thing" in other words Its not a tie with with Guiliani, that was 2 different sentences. Point being any thing legal was directed to speak to AG Barr. With an on going investigation.


There is an on going investigation in the Origins of the 2016 election interference. If Ukraine is implicated in anyway there is Jurisdiction. I do NOT know nor do you but there is an on going criminal investigation in to the 2016 election period.

Attempted MURDER is a crime. That is statute.

Please indicated a crime that was committed. The only applicable one that may be is "Solicitation". Bribery? Nope There was no exchange, QPQ, nope no physical action for exchange was done. Extortion? The Extorted say he was not pressured.

Only thing you guys got is to try to prove that he had intent to hold funds ONLY for his personal political gain.... good luck


Your blue highlights do NOT prove Trump had intent for personal political gain. As you highlighted "Anti-Corruption statement" cannot implicate a personal political gain. I would love to see that fly.... good luck!
Click to expand...

1) There may have been one to seven crimes committed including bribery, attempted extortion, soliciting help of a foreign government in a US campaign, conspiracy, contempt of congress, obstruction of justice and witness tampering. Then, of course, there is abuse of power, which is not necessarily a crime, but is very much an impeachable offense.

2) There are many facets to these charges, with many witnesses, each with a first hand account of some aspect of the potential charge, Moreover, as discussed in post # 204, you don't need to have a first hand account of all aspects to not have a valuable say in some aspect. There is more to this than a simple phone call.

3) The whistleblower is not the accuser. (s)he was merely the informant. The alleged crimes were committed against the Constitution of the United States (and the rule of law), not against a particular person. The House of Representatives is positioning itself to be the accuser. Trump's attorney's and flunkies will be able to face the accusers.
 
Last edited:
Obscurity said:
No, I dont want biden as potus. Has nothing to do with that. Has to do with abuse of power.
Click to expand...

so if you're running for President corruption investigations should be put on hold because another candidate may benefit?
 
marke said:
If Schitff can just keep republicans from asking the questions that should be asked, Schitff may just pull off this kangaroo court lynching for his deluded dummass democrat followers.
Click to expand...

Like what did Schiff prevent?
 
upsideguy said:
1) There may have been one to seven crimes committed including bribery, attempted extortion, soliciting help of a foreign government in a US campaign, conspiracy, contempt of congress, obstruction of justice and witness tampering. Then, of course, there is abuse of power, which is not necessarily a crime, but is very much an impeachable offense.

2) There are many facets to these charges, with many witnesses, each with a first hand account of some aspect of the potential charge, Moreover, as discussed in post # 204, you don't need to have a first hand account of all aspects to not have a valuable say in some aspect.

3) The whistleblower is not the accuser. (s)he was merely the informant. The alleged crimes were committed against the Constitution of the United States (and the rule of law), not against a particular person. The House of Representatives is positioning itself to be the accuser. Trump's attorney's and flunkies will be able to face the accusers.
Click to expand...

Yups may be crimes from accusations. But a lot is lacking in each case and a lot of "reasonable doubts" but he thats just me.

Many witnesses? Like Taylor Today that did NOT give direct first hand account (in relation to a crime) other than his Perception of what he heard from Sonland and his aids that over heard a conversation? Here is the issue at hand. A lot of them are perceptions of how they interpreted the conversations (separate conversations and interpretations of each account but no corroboration)

The whistle blower is a whistle blower. They are protect from retribution, but not from public scrutiny and anonymity....... The Whistle blower is no less then the Christopher Steel Dossier. Not a legit WB anyways in my book. He really changes nothing but shows potential bias and unsubstantiated accusations as it potentially derived from a political bias and not from factual point...... (opinion)
 
COTO said:
A little known fact is that Mr. Ford turned to drugs because of his love for following US federal politics.

He's quoted as saying, "Those Yankees just never, ever made sense. But then, with the drugs... with the drugs..."

That might be his epitaph. Have to check on that.
Click to expand...

I was joking you.

Several people from DP now and in the past were from Toronto and were Ford fans. I've always liked Canada and we have traveled there many times. It's a fine country. I came to know more and more about Ford and even followed him in the online press for a while. He was a fascinating character and was apparently well-liked by many Torantans. Drugs and alcohol were an issue, yes. At the same time, it seems to me he really did have the best interest of the people in his heart.
 
Exactice said:
What are you taking about? thats NOT what I am saying. To convict of murder

1) A murder has to occur (crime)
Click to expand...
My example is an analogy, not a legal judgment.

To further the analogy: Attempted murder is also a crime. The target doesn't even need to know about the murder attempt for it to be a criminal act.

The impeachable offense is Trump abusing his power, by extorting Ukraine into tarring Trump's political rivals. That wasn't done for the benefit of Ukraine or the US, but for Trump.


2) A person has to witness the person murder someone (witness to the crime)
Click to expand...
*bzzt* wrong, you don't need a witness to convict. You need evidence. Witness testimony is only one type of evidence.


3) The accuser must face the accused and identify that THAT person MURDERED Someone. (court of law point to the accused)
Click to expand...
Meaning what, the person who was murdered has to appear in court?

More importantly, and as I already said: This is not a trial. This is an INVESTIGATION. The trial will happen in the Senate.

I might add that your grasp of jurisprudence is a mess. You don't seem to understand how the law works. What a surprise.


All witnesses at this time is implying what they heard from OTHERS.
Click to expand...
*bzzt* wrong. Sondland already testified, and he spoke directly to Trump.

We should note that the Trump administration is blocking those with direct knowledge from testifying, on a legal basis so shoddy that it would be humorous if it hadn't constituted obstruction of justice.


3) The WB whom is accusing Trump of impropriety is not facing the accused.
Click to expand...
:roll:

Another bull**** canard. The identity of the whistleblower is completely irrelevant, because pretty much everything he reported has been corroborated.


You cannot accuse a crime from an anonymous source.
Click to expand...
Guess what? You can investigate a crime based on an anonymous source.


As for the "Favor" It is stated in the paragraph which highlighted ALL thoughts, crowdstrike, server etc, which is under investigation it was stated to talk to the AG.
Click to expand...
Get real. Trump had no interest in, and never pressed Zelensky, on actual corruption in Ukraine. That would be absurd anyway, because Zelensky a) was literally just elected, and b) ran on an anti-corruption platform. And again, Sondland and others made it very clear that the only thing Trump cared about was his own specific idee fixes.


The follow on sentence refers to Bidens to which again he refers him to AG Barr, NOT Guiliani.
Click to expand...
:roll:

The President: Well, she’s going to go through some things. I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it.....

Good. Well, thank you very much, and I appreciate that. I will tell Rudy and Attorney General Barr to call.


There is an on going investigation in the Origins of the 2016 election interference.
Click to expand...
There was and is no investigation into Ukraine in connection with the 2016 election. Nor was that why Trump wanted Zelensky to talk to Barr. Trump raised the issue of "Biden stopping the investigation" into Hunter (which is a lie); Zelensky agreed to look into it; then says "I will have Giuliani and Barr call you" (see above).


Extortion? The Extorted say he was not pressured.
Click to expand...
Of course he's going to say he wasn't pressured. Ukraine desperately needs American military aid. Zelensky cannot risk offending Trump -- even if it means violating his own pledge to tamp down corruption in Ukraine, by giving in to Trump's corrupt demand to use an investigation as a political weapon against his rival.


Your blue highlights do NOT prove Trump had intent for personal political gain.
Click to expand...
:roll:

The point of the quote was to show that Ukraine got the message. Try to pay attention. Yeesh.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
Can you believe that he actually said that during the phony hearing? :eek::cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo:
But that is how the democrats ride today......
Click to expand...

I was just listening to Eric Swillwell's summary of today's events. He must memorize Shifty's talking points... This dimwit Schiff clone actually believes the party line narrative :screwy
 
Common Sense 1 said:
Can you believe that he actually said that during the phony hearing? :eek::cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo:
But that is how the democrats ride today......
Click to expand...


Sorry, Common Sense 1, but both of us have just admitted that we are ignorant ... according to post #204 ... :lol:
 
Exactice said:
I respectfully disagree. Here is what the GOP can do.
Click to expand...
Here we go


$400 MILLION dollars to Ukraine. the People should ask What we as Tax payers could do with that $400 Million.
Click to expand...
Dude? That's military aid. Did you miss the bit where Russia invaded Ukraine, took over Crimea, and is threatening further attacks on Ukraine?


2) Illicit to the world and the US Tax payers. That if there is TRUE concern of corruption we should withhold aid until said countries are able to utilized the MILLIONS of dollars in a satisfactory way to which the US is generous to offer.
Click to expand...
Dude? It's a little late for that. Trump was already caught red-handed.


I find it funny. In our gratuity we are accusing the President of political gain..... Yet not admitting to the fact $400 Million dollars to a country that has a history of corruption to begin with. To me I would assume that a GREATER crime to the nation if Trump just gave money away without questioning it.
Click to expand...
He didn't question it.

The administration has provided no evidence whatsoever that the money was held up because of concerns over corruption. They never told Ukraine "we want all this accounted for." They never stipulated additional requirements or oversight. In fact, they haven't produced any evidence suggesting any other reason for the funds to be held up.

Plus. since you missed it: Zelensky just got into office on an anti-corruption platform.

Yeesh.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
When CNN turns on the democrats you know it was a very bad day for them. Especially from Toobin!
Click to expand...

Comedy, isn't it? Crap News Network appears to be abandoning ship. :sinking::sinking::sinking:
 
Barnacle said:
Sorry, Common Sense 1, but both of us have just admitted that we are ignorant ... according to post #204 ... :lol:
Click to expand...

When all else fails, some always go for the jugular.
 
Exactice said:
Yups may be crimes from accusations. But a lot is lacking in each case and a lot of "reasonable doubts" but he thats just me.

Many witnesses? Like Taylor Today that did NOT give direct first hand account (in relation to a crime) other than his Perception of what he heard from Sonland and his aids that over heard a conversation? Here is the issue at hand. A lot of them are perceptions of how they interpreted the conversations (separate conversations and interpretations of each account but no corroboration)

The whistle blower is a whistle blower. They are protect from retribution, but not from public scrutiny and anonymity....... The Whistle blower is no less then the Christopher Steel Dossier. Not a legit WB anyways in my book. He really changes nothing but shows potential bias and unsubstantiated accusations as it potentially derived from a political bias and not from factual point...... (opinion)
Click to expand...

Taylor provided expert testimony that was a large part of the backdrop, which is vital to the overall case. Taylor's testimony was indeed a first hand account, but only of certain facets of the overall story. Remember this is more than just about a single phone call. Be patient. Let's see how this develops. There are many more witnesses to hear from.

The whistleblower is irrelevant. The only role he plays is to bring the issue to authorities to investigate. They did (and are). He is literally nothing more than an informant; the guy that pulled the fire alarm. The role of accuser was passed to the investigators. You can't have situation where whistleblowers are forced to become public as it would inhibit whistle-blowing, which would not be in the public interest. (s)he would at little to no value to this inquiry at this point. There are plenty of witnesses.

What is most interesting, however, why are there no witnesses from the White House testifying on behalf of the POTUS explaining why all of this is wrong? I think I know the answer to that one.
 
What we see is the real nature of what makes up Republican Confederacy which calls itself "Conservatives" in hope to conserve Confederacy Ideals.... Raw truth is simple, these are the same type of "people' who have always been at the core of conflict, divisiveness and contentions in America for 100's of yrs.

Now, the ENTIRE World of Nations and People get to see their belligerence, and disrespect for governance and governance systems and organizations, their disregard of national governmental policy and their utter vile of trying to dishonor our systems of oversight and laws. Now, in clear view of this Nation and the Global Nation's and their people; it is overtly obvious of how and what evil is within the system that damages not only this nation but other allied nations and struggling nations around the globe.

They(Republican Confederates" rely on "a misguided mental sense of priviledge" to think in this day and time they can 'do anything they want, by their delusions of having priviledge by their white skin to repeat the conduct and acts as if they are on a Jim Crow Jury, ignoring the laws and disrespecting civil regard for our nations governing institutions and acting with a self deluded mental sense of priviledge to disregard the person-hood of individuals.
They have no concern for the attempts of intent to damage the young minds that will be the leaders of this nations future.

Many truths have escaped there Republican Confederate white people, because they never cared or thought to have interest to learn the non white washed reality, they relied on a misguided mental sense of priviledge, and in doing so ignore the rights of others, did not care to question the unjust contortions and bastardizations of law and policy.

They reveled in the bigotry of delusions of superiority, and wrapped themselves in fears that make their souls choose to live as inferior to honoring even the most basic of Gods principles.

They willfully ignore the values of this Democracy's principle that all men are created equal, and endowed with inalienable rights, and in doing so, they march in cult like groups, clinging to guns, and a contorted view of religion, all the while afraid that their chosen inferiority of soul would be discovered.

Thank goodness... there are people standing up speaking the truths the nation needs to hear and many get to see, that not all people are as vile as what has been seen and exposed of the Republican Confederates who promote aims to Conserve that madness, by calling themselves Conservatives.

By what is Exposed... No Nation's Governance nor their people will ever respect anything put forth out of the mouth of Republican Confederate minded white people. That's is among the things being presented for the world to see and know.

These Republican Confederates do exactly what the Southern Confederacy tried to do more than 150 yrs ago, which is attack and seek to undermine, damage and destroy Federal Governance of the United States of America, as they insult the dignity of our Democracy. They Represent what Evil Looks Like, How it Functions and its vile disregard for humanity and their contrived acts to damage Diplomacy and as we've seen the attacks upon and against our Allied Nations. "Among all that is being exposed, is these underlying factors"... within the vile agenda of Republican Confederates.

American people need to stop waffling and face up to what it has tried for so long to ignore and pretend it did not exist... Now, doubt should be removed as exposure is with full clarity... of the forces of Republican Confederacy, that has invoked damages upon and within this nation and its relations with the world of nations over many decades upon decades. It's time for American to stand up and proclaim their honor for American Democracy... and once and for all... declare a stand against Republican Confederacy....
 
Last edited:
Gimmesometruth said:
Ridiculous, in the call orange clearly laid out aid in exchange for the investigation of Joe:

View attachment 67268147

Further, the 3 amigos were communicating to Ukraine officials the need to announce the investigation PRIOR to orange's call.
Click to expand...

I'm familiar with what the transcript said.
That's how I know they didn't talk about the 2020 election or Trump's 2020 campaign or please help me with my campaign or anything like that.

Where's the language that says different?
I should tell you that I've asked the same question many times so if you find it you'll be the first.
 
Barnacle said:
Sorry, Common Sense 1, but both of us have just admitted that we are ignorant ... according to post #204 ... :lol:
Click to expand...

That is a good laugh.... But I actually think it's pure desperation from the left. Today did not help their cause!
Who with 2 working brain cells would impeach over what we heard today? :peace
Yes I know... Trump haters!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom