Top diplomat in Ukraine gave "damning" testimony

a reply to: carewemust

?

Or Bill Taylor told the truth and Sondland Conveniently left out some critical parts of his testimony?

I am going with Taylor over Sondland on any disagreement on testimony

Sondland

Sondland’s company, Provenance Hotels, owns and manages hotels throughout the United States, including the Hotel Max and Hotel Theodore in Seattle, Washington

Sondland donated $1 million to the inaugural committee of Donald Trump.[11] On March 12, 2018, the Wall Street Journal reported that President Trump selected Sondland to be the next United States ambassador to the European Union.

A Hotel guy who bought an ambassadoriship from Trump for 1M
en.wikipedia.org...
vs.

Bill Taylor

director of research and development for the United States Army Corps of Engineers

United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, graduating in 1969, in the top 1% of his class

graduate studies at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government,

tours of duty in the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, and the 101st Airborne Division in Vietnam during the War.

He commanded a company in the 101st Division, and received a Bronze Star and Air Medal V for heroism. Later, he was an aero-rifle commander in the 2nd United States Cavalry Regiment,[6] defending NATO in Germany, just across the border of Czechoslovakia which was controlled by the Warsaw Pact and the Eastern Bloc including several countries that had been invaded and occupied by USSR during and after World War II. [6]

Special Deputy Defense Advisor to the U.S. Ambassador to NATO, William Howard Taft IV.

United States ambassador to Ukraine by the U.S. Senate on May 26, 2006, and was sworn in on June 5, 2006; he held the post till May 2009

appointed executive vice president of the United States Institute of Peace

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Extorris
lol

I am going with Taylor over Sondland on any disagreement on testimony

that is funny
we have a released opening statement and that is it

lol
you go right ahead and make a determination on who is telling the truth
I will again ask you what color is the sun?
orange
yellow
is either a lie?

lol

hear·say /ˈhirˌsā/
noun
information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Extorris
lol

I am going with Taylor over Sondland on any disagreement on testimony

that is funny
we have a released opening statement and that is it

lol
you go right ahead and make a determination on who is telling the truth
I will again ask you what color is the sun?
orange
yellow
is either a lie?

lol

?

I was responding to a poster that claimed Taylor lied. You obviously have issue with Carewemust.

I didn't accuse anyone of lying, only said in a He-said He-said scenario I find Taylor much more reliable.

It is certainly possible that no one is lying and there are just different recollections or perspectives of the same set of facts.

That is what investigations are for.

Sondland should clear up anything that differs in his testimony from Taylors and vice-versa.

And other people were present who can shed further light.

a reply to: Extorris

It is certainly possible that no one is lying and there are just different recollections or perspectives of the same set of facts.

thanks for that

"a debunked conspiracy theory regarding the 2016 election"

The dems fake dossier.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Extorris

It is certainly possible that no one is lying and there are just different recollections or perspectives of the same set of facts.

thanks for that

You need to examine evidence from multiple perspectives to get to the facts.

There were other participants in the conversations Taylor testified to.

The WH should let them testify and clear things up.

originally posted by: Extorris
a reply to: tanstaafl
You still seem very confused about impeachment proceedings vs. trial.

Oh, I understand it fully.

There is no formal impeachment proceeding currently underway though, that would require a vote of approval by the HoR. There have been 3 votes so far, and none of them have passed, so what is going on now is a sham proceeding masquerading as a formal impeachment process.

So, meybe you are the one confused?

originally posted by: Extorris
There were other participants in the conversations Taylor testified to.

The WH should let them testify and clear things up.

Until these hearings are open and there is full transparency, we, the people, will never see the truth.

originally posted by: Extorris
Or Bill Taylor told the truth and Sondland Conveniently left out some critical parts of his testimony?

I am going with Taylor over Sondland on any disagreement on testimony

Sondland -snip- interesting factoids on his history, but nothing criminal, and shows he is not a career politician

vs.

Bill Taylor -snip- admittedly impressive resume, but also obviously a deep state career government employee.

The main problem, is we don't have Taylors full testimony, we only have a carefully crafted opening statement.

That said, we do also have direct testimony from people in the hearing that heard his testimony, saying that he crumbled under cross-examination, and admitted that he had ZERO knowledge of any quid-pro-quo or wrongdoing.

So, I'll take this testimony from reliable first hand witnesses over the well known lying Shifty any day of the week.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Extorris
There were other participants in the conversations Taylor testified to.

The WH should let them testify and clear things up.

Until these hearings are open and there is full transparency, we, the people, will never see the truth.

And if/when they're opened and transcripts made available to the public with damning evidence against Trump, what will be the excuse then?

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Extorris
a reply to: tanstaafl
You still seem very confused about impeachment proceedings vs. trial.

Oh, I understand it fully.

There is no formal impeachment proceeding currently underway though, that would require a vote of approval by the HoR.

Even the most ardent mouthpieces tasked with attacking the process to defelect from the evidence admit it is "Precedent" but not required.

You seem to be going for extra-bs-bonus points.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Extorris
There were other participants in the conversations Taylor testified to.

The WH should let them testify and clear things up.

Until these hearings are open and there is full transparency, we, the people, will never see the truth.

Open hearings follow investigations.

You seem to be cheering the obstruction of investigations in order to avoid open hearings.

originally posted by: Wayfarer
"Until these hearings are open and there is full transparency, we, the people, will never see the truth."

And if/when they're opened and transcripts made available to the public with damning evidence against Trump, what will be the excuse then?

Depends on what the 'damning evidence; actually is. The dems tend to call a lot of things 'damning' that turn out to be false, or not damning in any way.

But if it is truly damning? Then pursue it and let the chips fall where they may.

originally posted by: Extorris
Open hearings follow investigations.

Not in the only other three times in our history this has happened. In all 3 cases, all of the hearings of the investigation were open - at least to all Members of the HoR (I'd have to research to see if they were all open to the public or not).

You seem to be cheering the obstruction of investigations in order to avoid open hearings.

No, you are the one cheering... secret, closed door one-party-sided 'hearings'.

I am not cheering, I'm crying foul.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Thats the rub though isn't it.

I think using national funds/power to hurt political rivals is beyond blatantly damning.


I'm certain if a Democrat was doing it there would unanimous agreement from Trump supporters that they should be impeached/removed from office/disgraced.

However, because its Trump and folks are on his 'team', he wasn't really hurting political rivals, he was just going after crime, and it was a SUPER double-plus good-good coincidence that it just so happen to be his political rivals and not anybody else...........

originally posted by: tanstaafl
one-party-sided 'hearings'....

Are you aware there are Republicans in these one-party-sided 'hearings' who are allowed equal time to ask whatever questions they want?

originally posted by: Extorris
"There is no formal impeachment proceeding currently underway though, that would require a vote of approval by the HoR."

Even the most ardent mouthpieces tasked with attacking the process to defelect from the evidence admit it is "Precedent" but not required.

That is funny, I was just attacked for speaking for 'everyone'... I now see what they mean, and will attempt to be more precise in the future.

The fact is, a plain and simple reading of the relevant clause in the Constitution makes it clear as day - but you have to be capable of reading with comprehension, and logical thought.

I'll try again...

First, no one can dispute the initial premise: The HofR has the sole Power of Impeachment.

Now, understanding the following requires the engagement of rational, logical thought:

1. HoR means the whole House, not the Speaker, or some Committee chair,

2. Initiation of an Impeachment Inquiry/Investigation falls under the purview of the 'Power of Impeachment', and so requires participation of the whole HofR, and

3. The whole HofR makes its will known by the act of voting on submitted Resolutions/Bills that are sent to the floor of the HofR for a vote - by the whole HofR.

That is it. PERIOD.

They need to unSCIF the classified setting 😃

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: tanstaafl

Thats the rub though isn't it.

I think using national funds/power to hurt political rivals is beyond blatantly damning.

I agree. Good thing that isn't what happened/is happening.

You have to be able/willing to admit that, if, in the investigation of corruption, a political rival gets hurt, that isn't 'using national funds/power to hurt a political rival.

What t he DNC/Hillary did (the Steele Dossier and fake Russia Hoax investigation), however, most certainly is.

I'm certain if a Democrat was doing it there would unanimous agreement from Trump supporters that they should be impeached/removed from office/disgraced.

Yes, and I firmly believe that Schiff, Pelosi, and all of the others pushing this fake crap all deserve to be impeached.

However, because its Trump and folks are on his 'team', he wasn't really hurting political rivals, he was just going after crime, and it was a SUPER double-plus good-good coincidence that it just so happen to be his political rivals and not anybody else...........

Exactly. Now you are getting it.

originally posted by: Wayfarer
" one-party-sided 'hearings'...."

Are you aware there are Republicans in these one-party-sided 'hearings' who are allowed equal time to ask whatever questions they want?

Yes, and they are also forbidden from discussing it even within fellow R members (much less the press/people), and are forbidden transcripts, and are forbidden to call their own witnesses. I wouldn't be surprised if they are given extremely limited time to cross-examine, and/or limited by what they can ask.

But we don't know, do we?

Because it is all being done in secret, isn't it?

Yep... pretty one-sided, all right.