Ambassador Bill Taylor Testimony On Ukraine - "very, very troubling testimony" says one congressman

  
By:  john-russell  •  4 weeks ago  •  214 comments

Ambassador Bill Taylor Testimony On Ukraine  - "very, very troubling testimony" says one congressman
Bill Taylor’s opening statement was 15 pages long and prompted “a lot of sighs and gasps.”





Mona




@Monaheart1229




·

2m






Reporting that those breaking from the Congressional Hearing where Bill Taylor is testifying are saying things like, "this is the most disturbing day I've had in Congress so far" and, "very, very troubling testimony ". Today is a good day! #TuesdayThoughts











@AndrewDesiderio







· 23m



New: Per source in the room, Bill Taylor’s opening statement was 15 pages long and prompted “a lot of sighs and gasps.”









Julia Davis




@JuliaDavisNews




·

7m





One lawmaker who sat in on the session said he found Bill Taylor ’s testimony to be alarming: “All I have to say is that in my 10 short months in Congress—it’s not even noon, right—and this is my most disturbing day in Congress so far. Very troubling.”














Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
JohnRussell
1  author  JohnRussell    4 weeks ago

Guilt is being established. What will the punishment be?

 
 
 
squiggy
1.1  squiggy  replied to  JohnRussell @1    4 weeks ago

A Zippo.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
1.2  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  JohnRussell @1    4 weeks ago
What will the punishment be?

Lynching might seem appropriate...  

Not to derail, but Christiane Amanpour is kicking Mark Esper's ass on CNN right now.  That boy has been drinking too much Trump tea...lie after lie after lie after lie...

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.2.1  MrFrost  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.2    4 weeks ago
Not to derail, but Christiane Amanpour is kicking Mark Esper's ass on CNN right now.

Saw that, fun to watch. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.2.2  MrFrost  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.2    4 weeks ago
Lynching might seem appropriate...  

512

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.2.3  r.t..b...  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.2    4 weeks ago
Lynching might seem appropriate...

The tone deafness expressed by this administration is surpassed only by the drones' blindness in averting their eyes from the obvious.

 
 
 
loki12
1.2.4  loki12  replied to  MrFrost @1.2.2    4 weeks ago

Since they are talking about lynching trump. You at least have the democrats wearing their Sunday best for their party.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.2.5  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  r.t..b... @1.2.3    4 weeks ago
The tone deafness expressed by this administration is surpassed only by the drones' blindness in averting their eyes from the obvious.

“All Republicans must remember what they are witnessing here - a lynching." - DJT Tweet

Don't worry Donald, many of your Republican supporters likely still look back fondly on the past lynching's in America so they won't be bothered at all by the irresponsible tone deaf ignorance and hate spewing forth from the cesspool you call a mouth.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.2.6  r.t..b...  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.2.5    4 weeks ago
ignorance and hate

The pillars of his initial election and the cornerstone for his reelection bid. He cannot utter a single word without it being intentionally accusatory, divisive, and self-serving.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
1.2.7  KDMichigan  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.2.5    4 weeks ago
still look back fondly on the past lynching's in America

Yeah, whatever you have to tell yourself. The Democrat History isn't that long.

“The Democratic Party defended slavery, started the Civil War, opposed Reconstruction (the post-Civil War period), founded the Ku Klux Klan, imposed segregation, perpetrated lynchings, and fought against the Civil Rights Acts of the 1950s and 1960s,” 
 
 
 
katrix
1.2.8  katrix  replied to  KDMichigan @1.2.7    4 weeks ago

And now all those Southern Democrats are Republicans, and still hate the idea of blacks, women, and gays having equal rights.

 
 
 
loki12
1.2.9  loki12  replied to  katrix @1.2.8    4 weeks ago

Can you name any? The racist POS Clintons are still democrats, we hear this constantly with no proof, name those republicans!

like Byrd, Wallace, Clinton, White.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.10  Texan1211  replied to  katrix @1.2.8    4 weeks ago
And now all those Southern Democrats are Republicans, and still hate the idea of blacks, women, and gays having equal rights.

Just another lie perpetrated by Democrats in a vain attempt to distance themselves and their party from their racist, Jim Crow days.

Intelligent people know better.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
1.2.11  KDMichigan  replied to  katrix @1.2.8    4 weeks ago
And now all those Southern Democrats are Republicans,

Bullshit. When exactly did they change?  

256

 
 
 
katrix
1.2.12  katrix  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.10    4 weeks ago
Intelligent people know better.

You're insulting yourself and your fellow Trump worshippers, then. Because you clearly do NOT know better - you think you do, but you're wrong. The GOP used to be the party of progressive values - yet now look at you and your ilk, hating progressives and everything they stand for (change, equal rights, and all that). The Democrats were the party of the South.

Anyone with half a brain knows these things. Go take a class on civics, perhaps? Or read this, it's a pretty good summary:

https://www.theroot.com/how-the-republican-party-became-the-party-of-racism-1827779221

Then something happened.

That something was racism.

After Democratic President Harry Truman’s desegregated the Army and the Democratic Party said they would support laws that ended Jim Crow, 35 delegates from the Deep South walked out of the 1948 Democratic National Convention and formed the Dixiecrat Party. They elected Strom Thurmond as their leader, who would never identify as a Democrat again.

.

.

As you can see, it wasn’t the Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act and the Republicans who favored it. Everyone supported the Civil Rights Act except the South. It was Southern politicians from both parties who voted against the legislation. The reason Republicans say they supported the bill is that there weren’t very many Southern Republicans in Congress in 1964.

 
 
 
katrix
1.2.13  katrix  replied to  KDMichigan @1.2.11    4 weeks ago
Bullshit. When exactly did they change?

Wow, your state must have really shitty schools - or perhaps you skipped class when they taught civics.

Do some fucking research and stop drinking the Fox koolaid.

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.2.14  MrFrost  replied to  KDMichigan @1.2.11    4 weeks ago
Bullshit. When exactly did they change?  

512

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.2.15  MrFrost  replied to  loki12 @1.2.4    4 weeks ago
You at least have the democrats wearing their Sunday best for their party.

Um, the KKK is a right wing group in this century. Nice try. 

 
 
 
katrix
1.2.16  katrix  replied to  loki12 @1.2.9    4 weeks ago
Can you name any?

How embarrassing it must be for Republicans to not even know what their own damn Southern Strategy is.

That must be why Trump appeals to so many of them ... ignorance seeks its own.

 
 
 
loki12
1.2.17  loki12  replied to  katrix @1.2.13    4 weeks ago

So the KKK is and always was a Democrat organization! Because you provided nothing but opinion. Not all democrats are racists POS, but all racist POS are democrats!

Democrats think African Americans are too stupid to get id’s to vote. Not republicans.

Democrats think African Americans are too stupid to get into college without help not republicans, it obvious to any intelligent person who the racists are.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
1.2.18  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  loki12 @1.2.17    4 weeks ago

Don't forget ID.....................

 
 
 
katrix
1.2.19  katrix  replied to  loki12 @1.2.17    4 weeks ago

Your inability to grasp civics is not my problem.

What I provided was not opinion; but then, I doubt you bothered reading it anyway because it didn't tell you what you want to believe. Typical behavior for Trump fans.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.20  Texan1211  replied to  katrix @1.2.12    4 weeks ago

How convenient for the Democratic Party to just look the other way all those years Southern Democrats were installing Jim Crow.

Of course, the South comfortably gave Democrats a majority for decades. Didn't hear anything from the Democratic Party denouncing Jim Crow--did you in all those decades?

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.21  Texan1211  replied to  loki12 @1.2.17    4 weeks ago

@1.2.17

Some Democrats participate in the soft bigotry of low expectations.

 
 
 
loki12
1.2.22  loki12  replied to  katrix @1.2.19    4 weeks ago

You provided nothing!

 
 
 
Krishna
1.2.23  Krishna  replied to  MrFrost @1.2.2    4 weeks ago

Related:

Republicans quit trying to rein in Trump after ‘lynching’ tweet

Some GOP lawmakers defended the president, while others simply declined to criticize him.

 
 
 
PJ
1.2.24  PJ  replied to  MrFrost @1.2.1    4 weeks ago

I saw a clip.  She's a solid journalist and reporter.  He was getting nothing by her. She clearly knows the topic as well if not better then he does.  

I will admit that out of the many cabinet members in this Administration he at least seemed measured and knowledgeable and didn't recite the standard stupid talking points.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.2.25  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  loki12 @1.2.4    4 weeks ago

"They" weren't talking about lynching Trump.  Mr Foot In Mouth used the term, no one else.

 
 
 
loki12
1.2.26  loki12  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.2.25    4 weeks ago

No one else?

Didn't Biden use that term when they impeached Clinton? Didn't Nadler? Meeks of New York? Danny Davis?

So it's okay for democrats to use that term when republicans are impeaching a Klansman like Clinton,  but not Trump?  

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.27  Texan1211  replied to  loki12 @1.2.26    4 weeks ago

Ya just gotta love the hypocrisy!

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.28  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.2.5    4 weeks ago
Don't worry Donald, many of your Republican supporters likely still look back fondly on the past lynching's in America so they won't be bothered at all by the irresponsible tone deaf ignorance and hate spewing forth from the cesspool you call a mouth.

Not a single one of the Republicans I have ever known ever supported the lynchings perpetrated in many, many cases by Democrats.

Is "lynching" a new trigger word for the left?

 
 
 
loki12
1.2.29  loki12  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.27    4 weeks ago

I just wish it was surprising.

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.3  MrFrost  replied to  JohnRussell @1    4 weeks ago
What will the punishment be?

Removal from office, then let SDNY arrest him and rip him to shreds. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.3.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  MrFrost @1.3    4 weeks ago

I kinda like the idea of him swishing a mop across the floor at Sing-Sing

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.3.2  MrFrost  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.3.1    4 weeks ago

I kinda like the idea of him swishing a mop across the floor at Sing-Sing

I like it! 

 
 
 
Krishna
1.3.3  Krishna  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.3.1    4 weeks ago

I kinda like the idea of him swishing a mop across the floor at Sing-Sing

And not only our Bone-Spur-Challenged Commander-in-Cheif, but also the entire Terump Crime Family as well!

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.3.4  1stwarrior  replied to  Krishna @1.3.3    4 weeks ago

Hey - make sure your bias doesn't come out to obviously, OK?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.4  author  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @1    4 weeks ago
Update :

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/22/william-taylor-ukraine-testimony-trump-054259

President Donald Trump’s top envoy to Ukraine told House impeachment investigators on Tuesday of intense efforts by administration officials to secure politically-motivated investigations of Trump’s rivals in exchange for a White House meeting with Ukraine’s president and critical military aid, according to sources in the room for the testimony.

William Taylor prompted sighs and gasps when he read a lengthy 15-page opening statement, two of the sources said.

Another person in the room said Taylor’s statement described “how pervasive the efforts were” among Trump's allies to convince Ukrainian officials to launch an investigation targeting former Vice President Joe Biden and another probe centering on a debunked conspiracy theory regarding the 2016 election.

Taylor also described the extent to which military assistance to Ukraine and a potential White House meeting with Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart were tied to those investigations, the source added.

“The body language of the people hearing it was ‘holy s---,’ seriously,” Rep. Harley Rouda (D-Calif.), a member of the Oversight Committee, said in reference to Taylor’s opening statement.

Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), a senior member of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, characterized the testimony as a “sea change” that “could accelerate” the impeachment inquiry. Another lawmaker, Democratic Rep. Tom Malinowski of New Jersey, said it was “the most thorough accounting we’ve had of the timeline.”

“I’ll tell you, as a former State Department political appointee, in my experience the difference between career folks and political appointees is the career folks take very good notes,” Malinowski said, hinting that Taylor provided corroboration to back up his recollections.
 
 
 
Ronin2
1.4.1  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @1.4    4 weeks ago

Yes, all Democrats present, and all Democrats talking; and not one f'ing detail of the statement to back them up.

That is the great thing about secret closed door investigations where the Dems get to ask all the questions, and the Republicans can only have a monitor- no one can blast them for their bullshit when they make unsubstantiated statements.

 
 
 
loki12
1.4.2  loki12  replied to  JohnRussell @1.4    4 weeks ago

You definitely have him this time! Not like those 50 other times, but this time for sure!

RUSSIA!

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
1.4.3  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  loki12 @1.4.2    4 weeks ago

Did anyone else notice that all the talkers coming out of the "meeting" are Dems? Yep, me too.

 
 
 
 
Dulay
1.4.5  Dulay  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.4.3    4 weeks ago
Did anyone else notice that all the talkers coming out of the "meeting" are Dems? Yep, me too.

Why yes, YES I did. It seems that the GOP doesn't want to get in front of the cameras and mics to defend Trump. Nunes hasn't posted even one comment on the minority side of the Committees website since the Impeachment inquiry started. Didn't he used to be the voice of Trump? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.4.6  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Dulay @1.4.5    4 weeks ago

There is no defense of what Trump did. That is the jaw dropping aspect of all of this. The only "defense" they can muster is that the Democrats are not being "fair" in the committee.  Not one defense on the facts. Many people have been deposed and the Republicans have not discredited a single one of them. 

This is an avalanche of evidence against Trump which the Republicans are trying to hold back with a garden rake. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.4.7  Dulay  replied to  JohnRussell @1.4.6    4 weeks ago
There is no defense of what Trump did.

You aren't giving them credit due John. They will continue to spew out defenses.

BUTT it's not impeachable. It's not a crime. 

Utter bullshit and anyone who has watched Graham's speech at Clinton's Impeachment will recognize that fact. 

Yet Graham has the balls to say ' Show me a crime."  Fucking hypocrite. 

 
 
 
Krishna
1.4.8  Krishna  replied to  Ronin2 @1.4.1    4 weeks ago

Meh.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.4.9  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.4.3    4 weeks ago

His own party prolly didn't speak up because they are still trying to digest the truth they heard.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.4.10  Dulay  replied to  JohnRussell @1.4.6    4 weeks ago

Here's the part of Taylor's statement that really stood out to me:

On August 16, I exchanged text messages with Ambassador Volker in which I learned that Mr. Yermak had asked that the United States submit an official request for an investigation into Burisma's alleged violations of Ukrainian law, if that is what the United States desired. A formal U.S. Request to the Ukrainians to conduct an investigation based on violations of their own law struck me as improper, and I recommended to Ambassador Volker that we “stay clear'. To find out the legal aspects of the question,  however, I gave him the name of a Deputy Assistant Attorney General whom I thought would be the proper point of contact for seeking a U.S. referral for a foreign investigation. 

First of all, those text messages are documented evidence. 

Secondly, Mr. Yermak, President Zelensky's assistant, was trying to STOP America's corupt actions in his country.

What Yermak is talking about is the process enumerated in the TREATY WITH UKRAINE ON MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS signed in 1999. That Treaty cites clear steps that need to be followed by both the US and Ukraine for requesting legal assistance. That Treaty is the law of the land. 

Thirdly, Volker didn't mention this all important request from the Ukrainians in his opening statement. He needs to be questioned about it. Did he follow through with the DOJ or did he just blow it off because he KNEW that Trump had no intention of following the law?

 
 
 
WallyW
1.5  WallyW  replied to  JohnRussell @1    4 weeks ago

What will the punishment be?

Reelection of  course!  jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.5.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  WallyW @1.5    4 weeks ago

HIS...not ours.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.6  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @1    4 weeks ago
Guilt is being established. What will the punishment be?

Now, that's absolutely hysterical.

JR...  you know as well as I do that the Democrat losers in the House will impeach President Trump and suck at the teat of that fiasco as they watch the last of their collective dignity be washed down the ceramic bowls in the toilets of Congress.

Purportedly, now they believe the 'inquiry' will take longer than the initial set in stone estimate of before Thanksgiving.  They're obviously still trying to find something that Adam Schiff (blind in one eye and can't see out of the other bugging out of my head eyes) can hang his hat on and say 'SEE...  I TOLD YOU I SAW EVIDENCE.'

What do you think will happen when the "witnesses" the House of Representatives is playing footsie with get in the Senate and are actually questioned and are required to provide factual supportive evidence to sustain their opinions?

Can you say....   

TRUMP 2020!!!

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.7  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @1    4 weeks ago
Guilt is being established. What will the punishment be?

Reelection!

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.8  Freedom Warrior  replied to  JohnRussell @1    4 weeks ago

 I think we’ve all been punished enough already by the Democrats

 
 
 
loki12
1.8.1  loki12  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.8    4 weeks ago

I know the other 50 times they had him may have tainted your perception. But John is really, really sure this time.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
2  Just Jim NC TttH    4 weeks ago

320

 
 
 
lady in black
2.1  lady in black  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2    4 weeks ago

Before one can have a trial, one must do their due diligence.  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  lady in black @2.1    4 weeks ago

Do you mean somebody has to do some work?????

 
 
 
Ronin2
2.1.2  Ronin2  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.1    4 weeks ago

If you call what the Democrats are doing work. Must be hard to manufacture so much manure at once. But they need to get their narrative out to the media.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.1.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1.2    4 weeks ago

I'm referring to Just Jim's meme up there in 2. Looks like he's suggesting that those folks need investigating. Well who's supposed to do the investigating? The White House? The house where nothing ever gets done?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
2.1.4  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.3    4 weeks ago

DOJ can handle it....................

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.1.5  Trout Giggles  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.1.4    4 weeks ago

sure

 
 
 
Krishna
2.1.6  Krishna  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.1.4    4 weeks ago
DOJ can handle it....................

Foxes guarding the Henhouse :-(

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2  Dulay  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2    4 weeks ago

If those pictured are who Trump would call as witnesses for his defense, he's in deeper shit than I thought.

I'll have to make more popcorn... 

 
 
 
It Is ME
3  It Is ME    4 weeks ago

"One lawmaker who sat in on the session said he found Bill Taylor ’s testimony to be alarming"

Which One ?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  It Is ME @3    4 weeks ago

google is your friend

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.1.1  It Is ME  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    4 weeks ago
google is your friend

It's not in your …… "THINGY" above ?

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.1.3  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    4 weeks ago

Just say you have no idea.

 
 
 
Krishna
3.1.4  Krishna  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    4 weeks ago
google is your friend

Based on his comments here, he probably doesn't know how to use Google.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
3.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  It Is ME @3    4 weeks ago

Troubling is a two way street. Troubling as in "we got him this time" or "shit we still got nothing".

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.2.1  It Is ME  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2    4 weeks ago
Troubling is a two way street. Troubling as in "we got him this time" or "shit we still got nothing".

I'll take "SHIT" for 1 million Alex. jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
squiggy
3.2.2  squiggy  replied to  It Is ME @3.2.1    4 weeks ago

Per source in the room

Holy shit, this isn't just some Tom, Dick or Alexandria.

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.2.4  It Is ME  replied to  squiggy @3.2.2    4 weeks ago
Per source in the room

Best "News" source like ...…... EVER ! jrSmiley_25_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
loki12
3.2.5  loki12  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2    4 weeks ago

I’m sure they have him this time! Just like that Russia thing nobody is talking about anymore.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
3.2.6  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  loki12 @3.2.5    4 weeks ago

Amazing isn't it. Have you noticed that the dem/lib/prog/dems have practically forgotten about the poor "cherdren" at the border? Yeah, me too.

 
 
 
loki12
3.2.7  loki12  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.6    4 weeks ago

That kind of blew up when they realized the kids were dying in a facility run by a democrat LaRaza national board member. Talk about abusing your own people for profit.

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.2.8  MrFrost  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2    4 weeks ago

Troubling is a two way street. Troubling as in "we got him this time" or "shit we still got nothing".

Didn't stop the nutters from saying the same thing for 25 years about Hillary...

 
 
 
Krishna
3.2.9  Krishna  replied to  loki12 @3.2.5    4 weeks ago
Just like that Russia thing nobody is talking about anymore.

Anymore?

How about yesterday?

Nobody?

How 'bout a prominent member of the Trump Crime Family--  Attny Gen'l Barr?

(10/21/2019) Bill Barr sparks anxiety within the CIA as he investigates ‘origins’ of Mueller’s Russia probe: security analysis -

Are you illiterate-- or are you still not very proficient in the English language?

(Or are you,. like our Bone-Spur-Challened Leadwer,  just making things up as you go along?)

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
3.2.10  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  It Is ME @3.2.1    4 weeks ago

That makes sense.  You have been taking Trump's shit for 3 years.  You eat his up so often, it is now considered a food group.

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.2.11  It Is ME  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @3.2.10    4 weeks ago
You have been taking Trump's shit for 3 years. 

Yes...... I have been taking in the " Shit Loads" of business cash I've been receiving, since 2017 !

Trumps "Shit" has been great for business ….. don't you think ?

There's even jobs out there, with no one left to fill them, since people that actually want to "Work", now have jobs ! jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
squiggy
4  squiggy    4 weeks ago

Who does opening statements for a deposition? Well, other than a clown show?

 
 
 
MrFrost
4.1  MrFrost  replied to  squiggy @4    4 weeks ago

Who does opening statements for a deposition? Well, other than a clown show?

I am praying that it's Rudy Giuliani.. 

512

 
 
 
PJ
5  PJ    4 weeks ago

Mr. Taylor is a career diplomat and a true patriot who has taken copious notes after each conversation.  

 
 
 
WallyW
5.1  WallyW  replied to  PJ @5    4 weeks ago

And he hates Trump.

 
 
 
MrFrost
5.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  WallyW @5.1    4 weeks ago

And he hates Trump.

He said that when? Proof? Link? 

 
 
 
PJ
5.1.2  PJ  replied to  WallyW @5.1    4 weeks ago

I find your assertion that EVERY civil servant who thinks about the country before Trump has ulterior motives other than being a patriot. 

Whether this man does or doesn't like Trump is irrelevant.  The question should be did Trump and his associates violate the Constitution.  That should be the 1st question on EVERY American's mind not whether someone is liked or not.  Think about it.......

Republicans will soon turn on Trump.  This is my prediction and its based on McConnell's recent reaction to the Syria situation and his denial today that he said Trump's phone call with Ukraine President was perfect.  Trump's "red wall" is cracking.  Republicans are starting to shift.  Not because they want to do what's right for the country but because they want to do what's right for themselves. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
5.1.3  Ozzwald  replied to  MrFrost @5.1.1    4 weeks ago
[delete]
 
 
 
r.t..b...
5.1.4  r.t..b...  replied to  PJ @5.1.2    4 weeks ago
Not because they want to do what's right for the country but because they want to do what's right for themselves. 

Exactly. As soon as the prospect of losing the Senate becomes a real possibility, the mutiny will be quick. They may be using the Syria condemnation as a last gasp shield in saying they are not always aligned with the administration, but that is a weak argument given the 'elephant' in the room...the Ukraine debacle has settled smack dab in the middle of the Senate floor. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1.5  author  JohnRussell  replied to  PJ @5.1.2    4 weeks ago

I'm beginning to think that what will happen is that the Republican leadership in Congress will persuade Trump not to run for re-election. It will go something like, either announce you are not running or you are going to be removed through impeachment. 

All sides can get a little something out of that.  Trump can take his personal grievance factory to his new cable news channel and spend the rest of his life whining that he was railroaded out of office, the Republicans can have enough time to select a replacement candidate and start to try and rebuild their party, and the Democrats can claim they achieved justice at long last. 

The time will come relatively soon when defending Trump on the specific charges will be untenable, but even moreso, contemplating 5 more years of this travesty will be too much for anyone in Congress to bear. 

 
 
 
PJ
5.1.6  PJ  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.5    4 weeks ago

I have to disagree.  The republicans cannot be so stupid to think that they can broker a deal with Trump.  Plus he would constantly attack them on his new cable show.  They can't take that chance.  They're going to have to help the dems prove to Trump's base that Trump is crooked and a traitor to this country.  That's the only way they will save themselves.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1.7  author  JohnRussell  replied to  PJ @5.1.6    4 weeks ago

If they tell him its announce you are not running or we will remove you through impeachment he will choose the former, I think. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1.8  author  JohnRussell  replied to  PJ @5.1.6    4 weeks ago

I cant believe that the Republicans will agree to five more years of this. 

 
 
 
PJ
5.1.9  PJ  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.8    4 weeks ago

I don't think they will support this President for another term.  I think they will start working behind the scenes to have more "whistle blowers" start revealing other corruption that has been going on in the WH. 

The tides are turning.  McConnell senses it and that's why he's starting to come out and openly disagree with Trump.

 
 
 
PJ
5.1.10  PJ  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.7    4 weeks ago

I'm not saying Trump wouldn't take the deal.  I'm saying that he won't honor the deal and the republicans know it.  They will need to destroy him now.  He and his cohorts will have to go to jail.

The Dems on the other hand will stretch this out as much as possible to get it closer to the election so that the republicans don't have a solid candidate to run.

 
 
 
Krishna
5.1.12  Krishna  replied to  PJ @5.1.2    4 weeks ago
I find your assertion that EVERY civil servant who thinks about the country before Trump has ulterior motives other than being a patriot.  Whether this man does or doesn't like Trump is irrelevant

Exactly!

 
 
 
Krishna
5.1.13  Krishna  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.5    4 weeks ago
I'm beginning to think that what will happen is that the Republican leadership in Congress will persuade Trump not to run for re-election. It will go something like, either announce you are not running or you are going to be removed through impeachment. 

You might be right.

It would be like what happened to Nixon. While the House Impeached him, the Senate never got to convict him. 

Rather, a few prominent Republicans (Or was it one> I forgot the # and feeling too lazy to google it) went to see him before that could happen, and finally convinced him to resign.

(Altghough Nixon's crimes weren't nearly as bad nor as extensive as trump's...he was still a crook and a total sleazebag. Just like Trump!)

 
 
 
Ozzwald
5.1.14  Ozzwald  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.5    4 weeks ago
I'm beginning to think that what will happen is that the Republican leadership in Congress will persuade Trump not to run for re-election. It will go something like, either announce you are not running or you are going to be removed through impeachment. 

No.  Republicans will convince Trump to resign, so Pence can issue him a blanket pardon.

If he just decides not to run, and a Democrat is elected, Trump is screwed for the next 4 - 8 years once charges are brought forward. 

Trump himself is stupid enough, and narcissistic enough, to believe he will be re-elected, but there are enough "intelligent" Republicans who know better and are not willing to take the chance.  Especially when the chances of Democrats taking over the Senate, while still unlikely, is less unlikely every week the facts behind the impeachment come out.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
5.1.15  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  PJ @5.1.2    4 weeks ago

The R's remind me of a story on the news the other day.  The grandsons were cooking meth and it blew up.  They left the grandmother in the house to burn, but did get out their meth and supplies.  They did what they thought was right for them.

 
 
 
Ronin2
5.2  Ronin2  replied to  PJ @5    4 weeks ago

Right, so long as he is toeing the Democratic line. Well maybe he was, who knows, this was a secret questioning after all. The Dems can make up anything they want coming out of it.

He could have written 15 pages of Steele Dossier class political bullshit and the left would worship it like it was the new bible for their anti Trump religion.

 
 
 
PJ
5.2.1  PJ  replied to  Ronin2 @5.2    4 weeks ago

Whatever.  You keep telling yourself that you're the only one qualified to determine who is a patriot.  It's pretty pathetic and sad that you have to shit on the reputation of those who have dedicated themselves to serving their country.  

Also, Trump fucked up when he put the military in a position of cowardice and weakness.  Service men and women don't take kindly to having their honor ripped from them.  

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
5.2.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  PJ @5.2.1    4 weeks ago
It's pretty pathetic and sad that you have to shit on the reputation of those who have dedicated themselves to serving their country. 

Bullshit. They have dedicated themselves to a cushy job with extreme benefits and their bank accounts first. 

"Also, Trump fucked up when he put the military in a position of cowardice and weakness."

Just how did he do that??

 
 
 
PJ
5.2.3  PJ  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.2.2    4 weeks ago
Bullshit. They have dedicated themselves to a cushy job with extreme benefits and their bank accounts first.

You have no idea what you are talking about.  Your ignorance on the subject is glaringly obvious.

"Also, Trump fucked up when he put the military in a position of cowardice and weakness." Just how did he do that??

Really?  You aren't able to look at the situation and see how this Syria retreat has affected our military?

Putting our service men and women in harms way without an exit plan.  Watching them retreat as they are shamed by allies because of our betrayal.  Even those in the military that agree with the objective of getting out of Syria are not happy with how this has happened.  Trump has made them look like they have broken their promise and that they have no honor. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
5.2.4  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  PJ @5.2.3    4 weeks ago

Were you not referring to those in Congress? If you weren't you must have been referring to the military in which case I retract my statement. But at the same time, nothing military was mentioned in Ronin's statement that you needed to respond to. If you were relating to Congress, my statement stands.

 
 
 
PJ
5.2.5  PJ  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.2.4    4 weeks ago

No, I was referring to the Ambassadors, specifically Mr. Taylor.  I was also speaking about our military and how they've been placed in a very awkward situation by the President. 

 
 
 
loki12
5.2.6  loki12  replied to  PJ @5.2.3    4 weeks ago

Right, because none of our servicemen who have been stuck in a war in Syria because Odickhead the daft fucked up wants to come home.

The best time was when Odickhead Obama allowed Russian jets to bomb the trainers he sent into harms way with no response from Putin’s cockholster.

but sending 50 troops home is really going to leave a mark.

 
 
 
PJ
5.2.7  PJ  replied to  loki12 @5.2.6    4 weeks ago

Ugh - I don't have the patience to converse with you.  Everything is a deflection with immature jabs at previous presidents. 

 
 
 
lady in black
5.2.8  lady in black  replied to  PJ @5.2.7    4 weeks ago

Circular logic, that's all the defense they have

 
 
 
PJ
5.2.9  PJ  replied to  lady in black @5.2.8    4 weeks ago

It's totally frustrating. 

 
 
 
loki12
5.2.10  loki12  replied to  PJ @5.2.7    4 weeks ago

So Obama allows Americans to be bombed and does nothing and he’s good, trump removes troops and he is bad.

TDS suffering at its finest.

 
 
 
PJ
5.2.11  PJ  replied to  loki12 @5.2.10    4 weeks ago

Did I bring up Obama or dispute what you claimed?  I'm not interested in hashing out what happened in the past.  It holds no relevance to this situation.

 
 
 
lady in black
5.2.12  lady in black  replied to  PJ @5.2.9    4 weeks ago

Same old talking points, can't see the forest through the trees and plenty of whataboutism

 
 
 
loki12
5.2.13  loki12  replied to  PJ @5.2.11    4 weeks ago

So....the history of past presidents has no effect on how you judge this president? 

Or how this president decides to end the wars of his predecessors? How long should US troops protect the Kurds from an NATO ally? 

 
 
 
PJ
5.2.14  PJ  replied to  loki12 @5.2.13    4 weeks ago

No, I judge each president individually and by weighing all of their actions and policies not just a select few.   I recommend you do the same.

 
 
 
loki12
5.2.15  loki12  replied to  PJ @5.2.14    4 weeks ago

I do! A NATO ally or a terrorist organization.  What a decision. 

 
 
 
PJ
5.2.16  PJ  replied to  loki12 @5.2.15    4 weeks ago

If you truly did then you would know that the disasters created by Obama don't hold a candle to the destruction Trump has created for generations to come for America.  There is simply no comparison when weighed by a reasonable rational person. 

 
 
 
Krishna
5.2.17  Krishna  replied to  Ronin2 @5.2    4 weeks ago

You are obviously forgetting what happened to Nixon.

 
 
 
loki12
5.2.18  loki12  replied to  PJ @5.2.16    4 weeks ago

Please list these disasters in detail.

making NATO countries pay up?

ending Wars?

giving Crimea to Russia? Sorry that was the other guy.

other than butt hurt, list these disasters with tangible evidence. 

Thanks!

 
 
 
PJ
5.2.19  PJ  replied to  loki12 @5.2.18    4 weeks ago

No

 
 
 
loki12
5.2.20  loki12  replied to  PJ @5.2.19    4 weeks ago

That happens every time, so... other than a hate for the man personally you have nothing.

like giving Russians the Crimea peninsula, allowing Putin to take leadership in Syria.

Giving health insurance companies a blank check on the American tax payers dime.

Killing Americans without due process.

but trump talks mean.

 
 
 
PJ
5.2.21  PJ  replied to  loki12 @5.2.20    4 weeks ago

Uh ......nope.  I don't hate the President. He's only doing what his base has allowed him to do.  The problem isn't Trump, it's his base.  Ignorance and idiocy at its best. 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
5.2.22  r.t..b...  replied to  loki12 @5.2.20    4 weeks ago
but trump talks mean.

In typical bully fashion, only to walk it back when his bluster is shown to be just that...never a mea culpa, but always a shameless attempt to cover his bombast by blaming anyone and everyone; the media, the Democrats, the deep state, sunspots, etc.,etc.,etc. He is the definition of a paper tiger. 

 
 
 
loki12
5.2.23  loki12  replied to  r.t..b... @5.2.22    4 weeks ago

And?  Again personality, i don't want to be his friend, and my kids don't need him to be their idol. 

 
 
 
loki12
5.2.24  loki12  replied to  PJ @5.2.21    4 weeks ago

So you have nothing. That's what i thought.

 
 
 
PJ
5.2.25  PJ  replied to  loki12 @5.2.24    4 weeks ago

I just want you to know that I believe you.  You have shown me who you are and I believe you........

 
 
 
r.t..b...
5.2.26  r.t..b...  replied to  loki12 @5.2.23    4 weeks ago
and my kids don't need him to be their idol

The President should represent more than 'talking mean.' The office demands the duly-elected should embody a sense of duty to the Constitution, should show empathy for the concerns of all the citizenry regardless of party, should honor commitments from prior administrations and if a change is required, consult the agencies in place to inform as to the ramifications, and at the very least, should establish a well thought out policy prior to implementation. It would be great if our kids could look up to our President as an individual with virtue and vision. Idolatry is left to the apologists.

 
 
 
loki12
5.2.27  loki12  replied to  r.t..b... @5.2.26    4 weeks ago

And how has he violated the constitution? Other than the delivery, he can’t speak without embellishments, greatest! First! Best! Etc..exactly how has failed to protect the constitution?

by protecting the southern border? That’s part of his duties.

by not fighting foreign wars and protecting our soldiers?

by protecting our businesses from unfair trade practices?

the previous administration violated the constitution by killing Americans without due process and changed immigration law without congress.

The democrats overwhelmingly voted to fine Americans for not buying health insurance, these same democrats want to give it to illegals for free. Trump removed the fine for not buying health insurance, that seems it would be a thing democrats would cheer about since they want it free, at least the ones who aren’t unamerican dickheads would cheer it.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.2.28  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @5.2    4 weeks ago
He could have written 15 pages of Steele Dossier class political bullshit and the left would worship it like it was the new bible for their anti Trump religion.

But he didn't. Taylor cited dates, names and documents. So how about you address what's in his opening statement rather than some fantasy you've come up with in a desperate attempt at dismissing it's actual content. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
5.2.29  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  PJ @5.2.3    4 weeks ago

Trump has made them look like they have broken their promise and that they have no honor. 

Many of the local Kurds thought so also.  They were pelting the military vehicles with rotten food as they pulled out.

 
 
 
PJ
5.2.30  PJ  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @5.2.29    4 weeks ago

Yes, it's sad.  This President does not understand what honor is because he has no honor.  He doesn't understand what it means to have someone's back because he has never shown others loyalty.  He doesn't understand what it means to keep a promise as is evident in his inability to be faithful.  He is a pathetic human being and those that put their faith in him are even more pathetic imo.

 
 
 
Tacos!
6  Tacos!    4 weeks ago
"Very, Very Troubling Testimony" Says One Congressman

That settles it then! A Congressman is troubled by something someone said about Trump. That's a game changer! No one has ever had that reaction to something about Trump. Never! Very compelling! /s

FerChrissakes! This guy could have read Trump's recipe for buttermilk biscuits (not that I think he has one) and these hacks would find it "very, very troubling." It'll be news when one of these Chicken Little's doesn't respond with a "sky is falling" declaration in response to testimony on Trump.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @6    4 weeks ago

You are flailing. Get a grip. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1    4 weeks ago

Your response is telling. It tells me you know I'm right.

 
 
 
loki12
6.1.2  loki12  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.1    4 weeks ago

Come on Tacos, this isn’t like the other 50 times! Trump is on double secret probation this time! Dean Wormer of Schitt has him for sure this time.

 
 
 
Kathleen
6.1.3  Kathleen  replied to  loki12 @6.1.2    4 weeks ago

“Double secret probation”. 😆

 
 
 
loki12
6.1.4  loki12  replied to  Kathleen @6.1.3    4 weeks ago

Toga, Toga, Toga...

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.5  author  JohnRussell  replied to  loki12 @6.1.4    4 weeks ago

Sure.

@JamilSmith
·
4h
Perhaps Trump has us all talking about his “lynching” to keep us from discussing the fact that our top diplomat in Ukraine told impeachment investigators that
blackmailed Ukraine’s leader until he agreed to investigate Trump’s political rivals.
 
 
 
loki12
6.1.6  loki12  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.5    4 weeks ago

No really John, the hundreds of articles you posted were just preparing for this one. 

You’ve definitely got him this time, just like those hundred of times you had him before!

RUSSIA!!!!!!!!

 
 
 
Krishna
6.1.7  Krishna  replied to  loki12 @6.1.6    4 weeks ago
No really John, the hundreds of articles you posted were just preparing for this one.

Correct!

Trump did nothing wrong..its all John's fault!

/sarc

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.8  author  JohnRussell  replied to  loki12 @6.1.6    4 weeks ago
But once inside, he delivered words that could end a presidency.

“In August and September of this year, I became increasingly concerned that our relationship with Ukraine was being fundamentally undermined by an irregular informal channel of U.S. policy-making and by the withholding of vital security assistance for domestic political reasons,” Taylor testified, according to a copy of his remarks obtained by The Post. Taylor said President Trump himself made the release of military aid to Ukraine contingent on a public declaration by Ukraine’s president that the country would investigate Joe and Hunter Biden and the 2016 election.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/22/impeachment-diary-words-that-could-end-presidency/
In an instant, the impeachment inquiry no longer rested on the credibility or motives of a whistleblower, nor arguments about the meaning of quid pro quo. Here, spelling out Trump’s wrongdoing in extensive detail, was the diplomat Trump’s team brought out of retirement to be the ambassador to Ukraine — replacing the woman Trump ousted from that position at the request of Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani. Taylor, an Army veteran and a respected diplomat who obviously kept detailed notes, will not be easy to discredit.

Trump, more than anybody, must have known how damaging Taylor’s testimony would be. Ninety minutes before Taylor was slated to arrive, Trump created a diversion. He tweeted to his 66 million followers: “All Republicans must remember what they are witnessing here — a lynching.”

It was a grotesque provocation, clearly aimed at fomenting racial division — and it worked, for a bit. Reporters momentarily stopped asking about Taylor and started asking about lynching. Democrats reacted with outrage. And Trump’s boosters in the House defended him. “This,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) concurred, “is a lynching in every sense.”

But ultimately no amount of distraction could counter what was happening in HVC-304, three floors beneath ground level in a secure room in the Capitol Visitor Center. As the day wore on, and reports of the deposition leaked out, there was a palpable change above ground.

When Senate Republican leaders gave their weekly news conference after lunch, Fox News’s Chad Pergram observed that Republicans “criticize the process and don’t defend the president outright.” Pergram asked Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) directly: “Are you willing to defend the president in this matter?”

“I’m willing to talk about the process,” McConnell replied.

McConnell also said Trump’s “lynching” claim “was an unfortunate choice of words.” Asked about Trump’s claim that McConnell told Trump the call with the Ukrainian president was “innocent,” McConnell contradicted Trump: “We’ve not had any conversations on that subject.”

McConnell isn’t yet where Republican Sen. Howard Baker was during Watergate when he asked: “What did the president know and when did he know it?” Republican support for Trump has not yet crumbled.

But now Trump’s handpicked ambassador, with specific and detailed allegations but no obvious anti-Trump motive, has blown up the many denials offered by the president. With growing evidence of Trump’s wrongdoing, and Trump’s aberrant behavior (“lynching”!) in response, Republicans continued to cling to the last plausible defense: Complaining about the “process.”

“It’s an unfair process,” Rep. Mark Meadows (N.C.), a Trump loyalist, said as Taylor testified.

Rep. Jim Jordan (Ohio), another Trump defender, stood nearby and said how “unfair the process is.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/22/impeachment-diary-words-that-could-end-presidency/

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.9  author  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.8    4 weeks ago
Taylor said President Trump himself made the release of military aid to Ukraine contingent on a public declaration by Ukraine’s president that the country would investigate Joe and Hunter Biden and the 2016 election.

Thats impeachable. Game set match. What will the Republicans do? 

 
 
 
loki12
6.1.10  loki12  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.8    4 weeks ago

I’m rooting for you John! This time for sure! If not.... there will be another shiny object next week. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.11  author  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.9    4 weeks ago
In by far the most damning account yet to become public in the House impeachment inquiry Mr. Taylor described a president holding up $391 million in aid for the clear purpose of forcing Ukraine to help incriminate Mr. Trump’s domestic rivals. Mr. Trump’s actions, he testified, undercut American allies desperately fighting to stave off Russian aggression.

Without the money that Mr. Trump held up, Mr. Taylor said, Ukraine would find it harder to defend itself in the face of Moscow’s attempt to redraw the boundaries of Europe through force of arms.
“If Ukraine succeeds in breaking free of Russian influence, it is possible for Europe to be whole, free, democratic and at peace,” Mr. Taylor said in his opening statement to House investigators, which was provided to reporters after he delivered it behind closed doors. “In contrast, if Russia dominates Ukraine, Russia will again become an empire, oppressing its people and threatening its neighbors and the rest of the world.”

Mr. Taylor’s vivid depiction illustrated the differences between the impeachment inquiry against Mr. Trump and the ones that consumed Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Bill Clinton. While the Watergate and Monica Lewinsky cover-ups involved the integrity of America’s democracy and system of justice, the Ukraine scandal also extends to matters of life and death, as well as geopolitics on a grand scale.

Mr. Taylor’s testimony could make it harder for Republicans to brush off Mr. Trump’s actions as unimportant or distorted by partisan foes. Defending Ukraine against Russian encroachment, much like defending the United States’ Kurdish allies against Turkey, has been a high priority for many Republicans, who complained that President Barack Obama did not stand up to Moscow aggressively enough.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/22/us/politics/trump-ukraine-william-taylor.html
 
 
 
loki12
6.1.12  loki12  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.9    4 weeks ago

Game set match? Let’s hold a vote and allow cross examination! I’m sure this fucktard will be able to stand up to scrutiny under oath!

Demand a vote John!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.13  author  JohnRussell  replied to  loki12 @6.1.10    4 weeks ago

Just trying to educate the Trumpsters here. It's an uphill fight. 

 
 
 
loki12
6.1.14  loki12  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.13    4 weeks ago

And I’m sure that all your failed lessons won’t effect the true importance of this one.....until something else shiny shows up.

You educated us on Flynn

Manafort

Cohen,

Daniels,

Avenatti,

Mueller

Russia,

Helsinki,

emmoluments,

Taxes,

but im really, really, really sure this time it will work!

Russia!!!!

 
 
 
loki12
6.1.15  loki12  replied to  Krishna @6.1.7    4 weeks ago

No obviously it’s all trumps fault, that’s why Nancy has held that impeachment vote. It is just so overwhelming! What was that vote total again? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.16  author  JohnRussell  replied to  loki12 @6.1.14    4 weeks ago
Pergram asked Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) directly:
“Are you willing to defend the president in this matter?”
“I’m willing to talk about the process,” McConnell replied.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.17  author  JohnRussell  replied to  loki12 @6.1.15    4 weeks ago

When the facts are against you , you argue about the process. 

I heard someone complain today about the whistleblower.  The whistleblower is now irrelevant.  They are way past that. 

 
 
 
loki12
6.1.18  loki12  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.17    4 weeks ago

The facts? Like Russian collusion?

what happened to obstruction?

Wasn’t it campaign finance violations with Daniels?

But this time for sure!

you do realize that Nancy can’t send it to the Senate without a vote right? Then the gloves come off. 

So what is Nancy afraid of? Let’s vote!

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
6.1.19  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  loki12 @6.1.6    4 weeks ago

You know dear, someone with your obvious charm and skilled writing technique should explore more constructive ways to contribute to our little slice of heaven here at NT.  Author or seed an article sometime.  It's infinitely more rewarding than following John around as often as you do.

 
 
 
loki12
6.1.20  loki12  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @6.1.19    4 weeks ago

Sweet Sister, we are all unique in our own special way, what you find rewarding I find tedious and boring. thats why the world is such a joyous and interesting place. 

I don’t engage with John anymore than anybody else. I find articles that I find humorous and comment there. 

But seriously, they really really have him this time. 

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
6.1.21  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  loki12 @6.1.20    4 weeks ago
I don’t engage with John anymore than anybody else. I find articles that I find humorous and comment there.

I can't argue with that bit of monkey-see, monkey-do logic.  Carry on.

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.22  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @6.1.12    4 weeks ago
Game set match? Let’s hold a vote and allow cross examination! I’m sure this fucktard will be able to stand up to scrutiny under oath!

Are you so gaslighted that you don't know that GOP Congressmen are participating in all of the depositions? 

You seem to think that a vote on a Resolution to start an Impeachment inquiry would alter how the inquiry is being conducted. What lead you to that ridiculous assumption? 

 
 
 
loki12
6.1.23  loki12  replied to  Dulay @6.1.22    4 weeks ago
Are you so gaslighted that you don't know that GOP Congressmen are participating in all of the depositions? 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..............When did the left start to call Patreaus Betrayus again?  You shouldn't ever accuse someone of being uninformed.

Anybody who reads more than 1 news source knows that.

“In 90 seconds, we had John Ratcliffe destroy Taylor’s whole argument,” House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy said Tuesday in an interview Tuesday on " The Ingraham Angle ."

But I'm, 100% sure you have him this time, Adam Schitt still has all the evidence of Russian collusion that he bleated about endlessly to use still.   This definitely won't be like the other 50 times you had him! This time it's for real!

 
 
 
katrix
6.1.24  katrix  replied to  Dulay @6.1.22    4 weeks ago
Are you so gaslighted that you don't know that GOP Congressmen are participating in all of the depositions? 

The answer to that would be yes. The Trump worshippers, like Trump himself, refuse to read actual news and only read things that support their orange god .. facts and truth are not requirements and are apparently considered bad things. Forget their actually researching how impeachment works (much less how the Republicans became the party of racism).

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
6.1.25  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.9    4 weeks ago

Okay, did the Ukraine ever find anything out on Biden or his son?  I haven't seen that covered much, if at all.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.26  Tessylo  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @6.1.25    4 weeks ago

No because there was nothing to find.  

 
 
 
loki12
6.1.27  loki12  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @6.1.25    4 weeks ago

How can you find anything if you have been threaten by the sitting Vice President to withhold a billion dollars if they don't fire the prosecutor who had the audacity to investigate Bidens worthless meth head son?

Does anybody with 3 digits in their IQ think a meth head who was tossed out of the military, who has no experience in the petro industry is worth 50 thousand a month. You have to be border line retarded to believe there was no quid pro quo there.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.28  author  JohnRussell  replied to  loki12 @6.1.23    4 weeks ago
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..............When did the left start to call Patreaus Betrayus again?  You shouldn't ever accuse someone of being uninformed.

Anybody who reads more than 1 news source knows that.

“In 90 seconds, we had John Ratcliffe destroy Taylor’s whole argument,” House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy said Tuesday in an interview Tuesday on " The Ingraham Angle ."

Are you using the drivel Kevin McCarthy passed off on Ingrahams show as a source of information? 

Let me ask you a question. Did you read the article you linked to?    The Ingraham Angle

There is not a single sentence in that article that shows how Taylor's argument was "destroyed"  by John Ratcliffe.  I read the article, and there is NOTHING. 

All the whole thing is, is McCarthy relaying to Ingraham that he was told by Nunes that Radcliffe destroyed Taylors argument.  Lot of dummies and liars in that sentence. 

Kevin McCarthy is not on the House Intelligence Committee. He has no idea if Ratcliffe "destroyed" Taylor. He wasnt there. 

The video of the segment with McCarthy on Ingrahams show is little more than a pathetic nothing. 

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. , said a fellow Republican lawmaker deconstructed a key part of the latest Trump impeachment inquiry witness testimony in Tuesday's closed-door session.

"In 90 seconds, we had John Ratcliffe destroy [acting U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bill] Taylor's whole argument," McCarthy said.

The questioning by Ratcliffe, a Texas Republican and member of both the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, was an important moment in the hearing, McCarthy claimed.

"We can't really talk about it," he said.

Thats all of it.  That is what you are basing YOUR argument on? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.29  author  JohnRussell  replied to  loki12 @6.1.27    4 weeks ago
How can you find anything if you have been threaten by the sitting Vice President to withhold a billion dollars if they don't fire the prosecutor who had the audacity to investigate Bidens worthless meth head son? Does anybody with 3 digits in their IQ think a meth head who was tossed out of the military, who has no experience in the petro industry is worth 50 thousand a month. You have to be border line retarded to believe there was no quid pro quo there.

Fox News babbling. 

 
 
 
loki12
6.1.30  loki12  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.28    4 weeks ago

Don't worry John, Adam Schitt has been proven to be a reliable source, That Russian Collusion evidence that he bleated about for months that he was devastating!  And the insider information on the Mueller reportt hat showed 100 quadrillion instances of obstruction..........Riveting info there, He is so completely trustworthy he would never release something misleading and hold back something that ruined his message!

You've got him this time!  I'm with you! this won't be like those 100 other times. Adam Schitt for President! 

 
 
 
loki12
6.1.31  loki12  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.29    4 weeks ago
 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.32  author  JohnRussell  replied to  loki12 @6.1.30    4 weeks ago

So you have nothing to back your boasting that Ratcliffe destroyed Taylor. 

I know. 

 
 
 
lady in black
6.1.33  lady in black  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.28    4 weeks ago

Details that are surely lost on deporables

 
 
 
loki12
6.1.34  loki12  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.32    4 weeks ago

Gee, Congressman who disputes a congressman, But your source Adam Schitt is much more reliable. Can you send me to the link of all that Russian Collusion evidence he had?

Don't worry John, I'm sure they didn't lie to you again.  You really, really, really have him this time. that's why the transcripts of the questioning have been released to prove McCarthy wrong. Surely Adam Schitt will set the record straight. Right? Right? Simple enough, release the questions and answers. Weird that he hasn't, I'm sure we won't get some cherry picked release.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.35  author  JohnRussell  replied to  loki12 @6.1.34    4 weeks ago
But your source Adam Schitt is much more reliable. Can you send me to the link of all that Russian Collusion evidence he had?

My source is Taylor's opening statement, and all the other testimony that has come forth, AND Trumps own words to the Ukranian president in the phone call.  And the arrest of Giulianis two henchmen who were helping him in Ukraine. 

You are a walking talking Fox News/Breitbart regurgitator.    You need to do MUCH better. 

 
 
 
loki12
6.1.36  loki12  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.35    4 weeks ago

Was his opening statement under the penalty of perjury? and how did it stand up to questioning? were there any opposing viewpoints that disputed it? 

You really, Really Really have him off an opening statement with no cross examination!   Good Luck! I'm rooting for you John, you have been disappointed Soooooooooooo..........many times, I'm sure this time is different than the last 50 times you were really sure.

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.37  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @6.1.23    4 weeks ago
You shouldn't ever accuse someone of being uninformed.

I didn't accuse you of being uninformed, I asked you if you were gaslighted. 

“In 90 seconds, we had John Ratcliffe destroy Taylor’s whole argument,” House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy said Tuesday in an interview Tuesday on " The Ingraham Angle ."

Good to see that you recognize that the GOP ARE part of the Inquiry. 

Since McCarthy wasn't in the SCIF, that's hearsay. From your link:

"The one thing that you find out in this process is all this information is just like that whistleblower... everything is second-, third-, and fourth-hand information," he said.

So McCarthy should STFU with his hearsay about events he didn't witness shouldn't he? 

BTW, Ratcliff is clueless. 

But I'm, 100% sure you have him this time, 

Good for you. Now, how sure are you that a vote on a Referendum to open an Impeachment inquiry will alter how the inquiry is conducted? 

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.38  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @6.1.34    4 weeks ago
Don't worry John, I'm sure they didn't lie to you again.  

Perhaps like me, John is relying on what he has read with his own eyes. 

You really, really, really have him this time. that's why the transcripts of the questioning have been released to prove McCarthy wrong. Surely Adam Schitt will set the record straight. Right? Right? Simple enough, release the questions and answers. Weird that he hasn't, I'm sure we won't get some cherry picked release.

That comment illustrates utter ignorance of the process and proves that the gaslighting by McCarthy et al is working. Well done. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
6.1.39  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.13    4 weeks ago
Just trying to educate the Trumpsters here. It's an uphill fight.

It's like trying to convince an FLDS member that it's not right to marry a 13 year old... they just don't want to listen and are determined to keep raping kids, and/or supporting this criminal President.

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.40  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @6.1.36    4 weeks ago
Was his opening statement under the penalty of perjury?

If he read it to the panel, yes. If he submitted it for the record yes. 

and how did it stand up to questioning?

Well gee, Ratcliff said that he found Taylor to be 'very forthright'. FYI, in English that means 'straightforward and honest.' So it looks like at least Ratcliff thinks that Taylor stood up pretty damn well to questioning. 

were there any opposing viewpoints that disputed it? 

Why yes, YES there are. They are documented in the opening statements of Volker and Sondland who tell different stories about the same events. How well will THEY stand up to questioning about that fact? 

 
 
 
loki12
6.1.41  loki12  replied to  Dulay @6.1.38    4 weeks ago

Gaslighting in your word of the day talking point?  Facts and due process win the day, not opening statements cherry picked by a worthless POS like Adam Schitt.   

You won't be able to prosecute him in the Senate in secret.   Why aren't they holding open hearings?    

But that's Okay, I'm really sure that Russian Collusion thing will work out eventually. It's not like he allowed Vlad to Annex part of a country.....Right?  Was that part of the flexibility Obama told him he would have?

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.42  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @6.1.41    4 weeks ago
Gaslighting in your word of the day talking point? 

Is there another word that better describes using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying to sow seeds of doubt? Cite it and I'll use it. 

Facts and due process win the day, not opening statements cherry picked by a worthless POS like Adam Schitt.   

Adam Schiff has NOTHING to do with the witnesses releasing their opening statements. 

You won't be able to prosecute him in the Senate in secret.   Why aren't they holding open hearings?    

They aren't holding hearings, they are taking depositions. 

But that's Okay, I'm really sure that Russian Collusion thing will work out eventually. It's not like he allowed Vlad to Annex part of a country.....Right?

Blah, blah, deflect, blah. 

 
 
 
devangelical
6.1.43  devangelical  replied to  Dulay @6.1.42    4 weeks ago
Is there another word that better describes using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying to sow seeds of doubt?

maga

 
 
 
loki12
6.1.44  loki12  replied to  Dulay @6.1.40    4 weeks ago
If he read it to the panel, yes. If he submitted it for the record yes.

And it was his opinion that others disagreed with, that is why we have due process, Why in secret? I can't get an answer to this, why won't Adam Schitt hold open hearings?  

 
 
 
loki12
6.1.45  loki12  replied to  Dulay @6.1.42    4 weeks ago
Adam Schiff has NOTHING to do with the witnesses releasing their opening statements. 

So he leaked his opening statement, to the press, for a closed hearing/deposition being held by the democrats, a legal document, by your own statement, directly on point to the latest, (it's still the latest right? there hasn't been a new shiny object I missed today has there?) impeachment push without the Chairmans okay?  That's the story you are going with?   I'm no longer surprised by the fact that daily they are able to post a new outraged that everyone suddenly believes.  

 
 
 
loki12
6.1.46  loki12  replied to  Dulay @6.1.42    4 weeks ago
Is there another word that better describes using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying to sow seeds of doubt?

Democrat controlled house?

FFS they have been lying to you for almost 3 full years and you still are sure that this time it's real.......Where is that Russian collusion evidence?  Please don't tell me you still think that is real.....

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
6.1.47  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  loki12 @6.1.31    4 weeks ago

You don't seem to have a problem with trusting the words that come out of Trump's mouth.

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.48  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @6.1.44    4 weeks ago
And it was his opinion that others disagreed with,

No, it was documentation of the events with dates, names and he cited documents that can corroborate his statement. 

that is why we have due process,

Nope. Statements during a deposition have NOTHING to do with due process. During a deposition, the witnesses attorney can object to a question but the witness STILL has to answer it unless they claim the 5th. So not even the witness has 'due process' rights during a deposition. 

Why in secret? I can't get an answer to this, why won't Adam Schitt hold open hearings?  

Again, they are NOT holding hearings, they are taking depositions. Depositions are done behind closed doors. EVERY Congress has done it this way. When Nunes was Chairman of the Intel , he did it that way. Gowdy did it that way during the Benghazi investigation. Yet all of a sudden, the GOP is whining about it.

The fact that you keep asking that question proves that they're gaslighting you and you're lapping it up. 

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.49  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @6.1.46    4 weeks ago

FFS, you have nothing but deflection. Well done. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
6.1.50  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  loki12 @6.1.46    4 weeks ago
they have been lying to you for almost 3 full years and you still are sure that this time it's real.......Where is that Russian collusion evidence?  Please don't tell me you still think that is real...

Trump and his staff and many who worked on his campaign are the only ones who have been caught lying to investigators. The facts PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt that Trump openly told a Russian spy that he would get along with Putin and didn't think sanctions for their illegal invasion of Crimea would be necessary if he were President. He openly asked them to hack American servers in an effort to hurt his political opponent and the evidence shows the Russians were listening and didn't think the request was a joke. Russia did help Trump in the 2016 campaign. They illegally hacked private American email servers, hacked 22 State voter databases, targeted specific swing States with their $1.25 million a month social media blitz, and released stolen documents and emails in an effort to embarrass and discredit Trumps political opponent. Putin has since admitted he it.

 “President Putin, did you want President Trump to win the election and did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?” - reporter Jeff Mason

“Yes, I did. Yes, I did. Because he talked about bringing the U.S.–Russia relationship back to normal.” - Vladimir Putin

Why none of that seems to bother Trump supporters, if they also believe themselves patriotic Americans, is beyond me. To claim that we must have definitive evidence of criminal conspiracy to claim Trump did anything wrong at all is beyond insane. The Mueller report makes it clear that their investigation was obstructed by the many lies told by Trumps staff, it did not prove Trump was innocent of any wrongdoing. It also laid out at least 10 clear counts of the President actively obstructing justice by telling staffers to lie and demanding staffers fire the investigators.

Not even Trump insulting his supporters and effectively calling them lawless gullible morons was able to open his supporters eyes. Perhaps many of their heads are shoved so far up Trump's ass that they don't want to get his bullshit under their eyelids so they keep them squeezed shut.

"You know what else they say about my people? The polls, they say I have the most loyal people. Did you ever see that? Where I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters, okay? It’s like incredible," - Donald "The Bully" Trump.

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.51  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @6.1.45    4 weeks ago
So he leaked his opening statement, to the press, for a closed hearing/deposition being held by the democrats, a legal document, by your own statement, directly on point to the latest, (it's still the latest right? there hasn't been a new shiny object I missed today has there?) impeachment push without the Chairmans okay? 

The problem with your babbling comment is that there is NOTHING in ANY of the opening statements that is classified so releasing them isn't 'leaking' them. 

Now with the recent practice by Trump and his minions, to retroactively classify documents, you never know WTF they'll do. 

BTFW, I didn't say the opening statements were 'legal documents', I said they were submitted under penalty of perjury. Don't misrepresent my comments. 

That's the story you are going with?   I'm no longer surprised by the fact that daily they are able to post a new outraged that everyone suddenly believes.  

It's not a 'story' loki, it's a fact.

Do you have ANY doubt that the GOP would be running around with their hair on fire if one of the witnesses HAD disclosed classified information? Nunes et al would RUN to the mic so fast that our heads would spin. 

Seriously, fabricating bullshit about the witnesses gets you nowhere with me. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.52  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.1.50    4 weeks ago
Why none of that seems to bother Trump supporters, if they also believe themselves patriotic Americans, is beyond me. To claim that we must have definitive evidence of criminal conspiracy to claim Trump did anything wrong at all is beyond insane.

They think Trump makes liberals cry.  Most of that theme is based on a couple photos or videos of Hillary supporters crying on election night. 

Like that was unique.

article-2230329-15EF2961000005DC-878_306

article-2230329-15EEAB95000005DC-390_634

Disaster strikes: Living in the land of the free has never felt so bad for these Romney fans

article-2230329-15EEA22C000005DC-976_634

article-2230329-15EEA23C000005DC-530_634

article-2230329-15EF2970000005DC-147_634

These Republicans react to a bad result coming in with cries of disbelief and anguish

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2230329/White-people-mourning-Mitt-Romney--blog-depicting-Americas-sadness-Barack-Obama-wins-US-Election.html

 
 
 
loki12
6.1.53  loki12  replied to  Dulay @6.1.48    4 weeks ago

Good for you!!! I'm sure you have him this time.......until the next time that is.   Documentation of events that others have already said were different. Weird huh?

 
 
 
loki12
6.1.54  loki12  replied to  Dulay @6.1.51    4 weeks ago
It's not a 'story' loki, it's a fact.

Or course it is!

Russia!!!!

Obstruction!

Campaign Violations!

Shiny object to mislead the easily fooled!

But this time for sure!

 
 
 
loki12
6.1.55  loki12  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.1.50    4 weeks ago

The homeless guy on the corner thinks Lizard people are real too. You can't have a rational discussion with him either.

Russia!!!!

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.56  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @6.1.53    4 weeks ago
Documentation of events that others have already said were different. Weird huh?

All of it can be easily corroborated. Text messages to and from Volker and Sondland, a memo to file from June 30, an August 29 cable to Pompeo and testimony from DAP  Morrison will all help connect the dots. 

Will Trump allow witnesses to testify? 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
6.1.57  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  loki12 @6.1.55    4 weeks ago
The homeless guy on the corner thinks Lizard people are real too.

Perhaps he does. How does that in any way change the facts I presented?

"(Russian Spy Maria) Butina asked Trump about his plan for working with her country – particularly if he would continue America’s “damaging” sanctions against it."

“I believe I would get along very nicely with Putin. I don’t think you would need the sanctions , I think we would get along really well. I really believe that.” - Donald Trump

https://nypost.com/2018/07/19/alleged-spy-once-asked-trump-about-russia-was-a-regular-at-gop-events/

Russia, if you’re listening , I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” - Donald Trump

"on or about July 27, 2016, the conspirators attempted after-hours to spearphish for the first time email accounts at a domain hosted by a third-party provider and used by Clinton’s personal office,” according to the indictment, referring to spearphishing, a common tactic used to target email accounts.

The indictment said that on the same day, Russians began an effort to target 76 Clinton campaign email accounts ."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/13/us/politics/trump-russia-clinton-emails.html

Robert Mueller's report revealed a years-long plot by the Russian government to interfere in the U.S. that investigators called "sweeping and systemic."

As to the amount of money expended on Facebook ads, the company said Russian operatives did spend less than $200,000 on advertising on the platform — but that doesn't account for the organic content the operatives created and shared. Not only were influence specialists within Russia's Internet Research Agency purchasing normal advertisements, they were authoring their own posts, memes and other content as they posed as American users. They also reached out to politically active Americans, posing as like-minded supporters, and helped organize rallies and other events in the real world. Facebook says the Internet Research Agency may have reached as many as 126 million people.

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/24/716374421/fact-check-russian-interference-went-far-beyond-facebook-ads-kushner-described

"One month before the 2016 election, the IRA was reportedly operating on a monthly budget of at least $1.25 million . The organization's primary source of funding came from Yevgeny Prigozhin, a Russian oligarch and ally of President Vladimir Putin, who controlled Concord Management, Consulting LLC and Concord Catering. Prigozhin and his two Concord entities were among the individuals and organizations included in Mueller's indictment."

https://www.businessinsider.com/russian-troll-farm-spent-millions-on-election-interference-2018-2

https://time.com/5565991/russia-influence-2016-election/

 “President Putin, did you want President Trump to win the election and did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?” - reporter Jeff Mason

Yes, I did. Yes, I did . Because he talked about bringing the U.S.–Russia relationship back to normal.” - Vladimir Putin

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.58  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @6.1.54    4 weeks ago
Or course it is!

Then prove it loki.

Post proof that the witnesses are somehow precluded by law from releasing their own fucking opening statements. I'll wait. 

 
 
 
loki12
6.1.59  loki12  replied to  Dulay @6.1.56    4 weeks ago

I’m sure once the actual trial starts, there will be witnesses! Any idea when that will be?

 
 
 
loki12
6.1.60  loki12  replied to  Dulay @6.1.58    4 weeks ago

I never said they couldn’t release their statement, I said their “facts” are dependent upon ideology, you have convicted without any evidence by the defense, I will simply wait till all the facts come out. 

This may turn out like the whistle blower, what happened to him again?

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.61  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @6.1.60    4 weeks ago
I never said they couldn’t release their statement, 

No, you just implied that doing so would be 'leaking' and that they conspired with the Chairman to do so. 

So he leaked his opening statement, to the press, for a closed hearing/deposition being held by the democrats, a legal document, by your own statement, directly on point to the latest, (it's still the latest right? there hasn't been a new shiny object I missed today has there?) impeachment push without the Chairmans okay? 

That was you right? 

 I said their “facts” are dependent upon ideology,

Bullshit, you haven't said a fucking word about 'ideology' until now. 

you have convicted without any evidence by the defense, I will simply wait till all the facts come out. 

You are acquitting while ignoring all of the evidence already available. There is NO defense for what Trump did. PERIOD, full stop. 

This may turn out like the whistle blower,

You mean the person that exposed the abuse of power by Trump that is leading to his impeachment? 

what happened to him again?

Hopefully nothing. 

 
 
 
loki12
6.1.62  loki12  replied to  Dulay @6.1.61    4 weeks ago

Well there you go! I’m 100 % sure you got him this time! I’m sure once they are exposed to open cross examination his story will hold up. Or not...

 
 
 
PJ
6.2  PJ  replied to  Tacos! @6    4 weeks ago

Did you read Mr. Taylor's opening remarks?  Did you take the time to educate yourself before making your broad statement and assumption about Mr. Taylor? 

I read all 15 pages of which Mr. Taylor relayed a heartbreaking situation in which the US held up funding to a desperate country trying to protect itself against Russia.  Where the Russians were weighing whether the US would fulfill a commitment and remain supportive of Ukraine's goal for independence or abandon them so Russia could invade.  

It's sickening to read time after time the dismissive comments from trump supporters when the US acts dishonorably towards our allies. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.2.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  PJ @6.2    4 weeks ago

What did you think of Taylor's assertion that Trump had demanded that the Ukranian president announce IN PUBLIC that his government was investigating Joe Biden?

 
 
 
PJ
6.2.2  PJ  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.1    4 weeks ago

This was corruption at all levels from the President, throughout the State Dept, and OMB.  It's sickening. 

What impacted me most was the confusion and desperation from the Ukrainians after they realized what was going on.  

I just keep thinking how would I feel if the US required another country's assistant and we had soldiers dying each day while the other country held up aid to us. 

Ukrainian soldiers died waiting for this aid.  

This is not making America great and I don't understand how anyone could think it is.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
6.2.3  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.1    4 weeks ago

What would have been perfect is if that schmuck actually did that, he would have added.....under demand from Trump.

 
 
 
sixpick
6.3  sixpick  replied to  Tacos! @6    4 weeks ago
"Very, Very Troubling Testimony" Says One Congressman

I didn't hear that testimony, Tacos!, did you?  Think back just a short time ago and remember this.

And then remember this same person has told everyone for 3 years he had evidence and has never once produced any, so what does he do?  He stands before the whole country and anyone who can see a TV around the world and makes up a bunch of lies.  I wonder why this fellow isn't in jail for all the leaking he has done and do you really think his leaking is not twisted into another bunch of lies as it has been ever since Trump was elected.

Just think how you would feel if you were charged with a crime and couldn't even be in the court room when your trial was being held.  Of course I know they say this isn't a trial, but when you subpoena people who testify behind closed doors and neither you nor your attorneys can be present, not to mention the judge and jury have already determined you fate, isn't it a little like being in Iran, North Korea, the old Soviet Union or Nazi Germany?  Then the judge tells the government press what the witnesses said with his special little twist to produce the outcome he desires.  I mean, the man has proven he is a liar and evil, what more can we say.

 
 
 
PJ
6.3.1  PJ  replied to  sixpick @6.3    4 weeks ago

Deflection doesn't look good on you.  Try thinking like a patriot first.  It's eye opening. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
6.3.2  MrFrost  replied to  sixpick @6.3    4 weeks ago

Given the ridiculous shit trump has said daily for the last 4 years you seriously have no room to complain about Schiff. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
6.3.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  sixpick @6.3    4 weeks ago
He stands before the whole country and anyone who can see a TV around the world and makes up a bunch of lies.  I wonder why this fellow isn't in jail

Yes, Trump stands before us daily making up a bunch of lies and the majority of Americans disapprove of him and many do wonder why he isn't already in jail. But don't worry, this currently unindicted coconspirator will be getting his orange jumpsuit when he leaves office January 2021 if not sooner.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7  author  JohnRussell    4 weeks ago
@AshaRangappa _ Fmr FBI Special Agent, lawyer, faculty . Tiger(ish) mom. analyst. Editor .
·
4h
Bill Taylor confirmed today that the release of aid to Ukraine was contingent on a *public announcement* that Ukraine was investigating the Bidens. As I wrote here, this was an attempt to push a covert propaganda op on the American public, which is ILLEGAL
 
 
 
cjcold
7.1  cjcold  replied to  JohnRussell @7    4 weeks ago

The moment Trump is out of office is when his real legal problems start.

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  cjcold @7.1    4 weeks ago

Which is why he'll never resign, and will not drop out of the race for 2020.  The day he's not 'president' is when the real fun will start.  

 
 
 
WallyW
7.1.2  WallyW  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.1    4 weeks ago

The day he's not 'president' is when the real fun will start.  

So you concede he will be reelected

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  WallyW @7.1.2    4 weeks ago

The day the fun starts for those who knew he was never 'president' in the first place.  

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
7.1.4  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  WallyW @7.1.2    4 weeks ago

"Not president" can be the result of two things...not reelected or term limit.  I am betting the first choice.

 
 
 
WallyW
7.2  WallyW  replied to  JohnRussell @7    4 weeks ago

Unsupported hearsay testimony.

Most subjects not cooperating.

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  WallyW @7.2    4 weeks ago

Is that what you call the whole Mueller investigation 'unsupported hearsay testimony' as again, 'most subjects not cooperating.'

Boy they must be guilty as sin.  What have you all got to hide?

 
 
 
MrFrost
7.2.2  MrFrost  replied to  WallyW @7.2    4 weeks ago
Unsupported hearsay testimony.

Since when is first hand knowledge "hearsay"? 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
7.2.3  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  MrFrost @7.2.2    4 weeks ago

Since he never heard it directly from Mr. Trump...........Period so it's at least second hand if not third or more.....................

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
7.2.4  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @7.2.3    4 weeks ago

If it had been heard from just one person, I might agree.  But when eight different people tell someone the same thing, it is more than a little credible.

 
 
 
freepress
8  freepress    4 weeks ago

His family should have packed him up and had him resign for health reasons a long time ago. After he had issues with his gait in walking, his balance, his word finding issues and his frequent slurring of words, the man is not fit regardless of how horrible he is. He is not a mentally or physically fit person to even attempt the job. The fact he spends taxpayer dollars every weekend golfing is just a slap in the face and his family knows it. They figure it is better than a nursing home, he is out of their hair and all on the taxpayer dime so they don't have to deal with him. Name any decent family man who spends every weekend golfing and never once a family outing or a dad/son outing with his young son? He is not fit because I think the children avoid having him around on purpose. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
8.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  freepress @8    4 weeks ago

His family are little more than his "YES PEOPLE".  Do you really think they would derail their gravy train?  Baron is getting off lucky with little to no contact.  Look what contact with his other sons and daughters did to them.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
9  al Jizzerror    4 weeks ago

800

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


MUVA
Dulay
Tacos!
SteevieGee
Dean Moriarty
Jack_TX
Sean Treacy
finkenre
Ender
Dismayed Patriot


39 visitors