Top diplomat in Ukraine gave "damning" testimony

originally posted by: Wayfarer

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?

If they actually had that, don't you think they'd be crowing about it and have it splashed across the front pages of every major newspaper in the country? You know they would. That they don't is pretty strong evidence that Taylor didn't give them anything to counter the actual call transcript we've all seen.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Wayfarer

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?

If they actually had that, don't you think they'd be crowing about it and have it splashed across the front pages of every major newspaper in the country? You know they would. That they don't is pretty strong evidence that Taylor didn't give them anything to counter the actual call transcript we've all seen.

No, in fact I don't think if they had that they'd be inclined to plaster it all over.

Rather, I would surmise they wait and get all the details so that we they bring up articles of impeachment, it will be overwhelmingly obvious to many folks whats going on especially after the Republican controlled senate votes not to do anything about it.

To release it early only lets Republican's play damage control and spin it as much their way as possible.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

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.

I dunno, I find it hard to believe blabbermouths like Jordan or Nunez (both in the hearings) aren't crowing to the high heavens to the media about the unfairness of it all (as you suggest above) if it really were as unfair as you think.

Trump did nothing wrong. Dems don't like the investigations but it is not illegal and there is no evidence at all of Quid Pro Quo. It is over except for the Dems trying to spin a little political points out of their effort.

Just another Pelosi circus event.

originally posted by: Xeven
...no evidence at all of Quid Pro Quo....

Sworn testimony is evidence. Further actions corroborating that testimony can also be admissible as evidence in proof of a crime.

a reply to: Wayfarer

There is a reason though why our justice system works off of proof and not simply testimony. After all, it all depends on what your definition of "Is" is.

a reply to: Wayfarer

Sworn testimony still needs to be proven true in order to be effectively usable 😃

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Wayfarer

There is a reason though why our justice system works off of proof and not simply testimony. After all, it all depends on what your definition of "Is" is.

Testimony is proof. The value of testimony as proof is of course greater the more correlating evidence is discovered. What these closed hearings are doing is collecting enough evidence to corroborate the testimony so as you suggest said testimony isn't leveraged spuriously or unsupported by a weight of other corroborating evidence.

yep
joe told jim who told me that fred commited a crime......................


wow

originally posted by: shooterbrody
yep
joe told jim who told me that fred commited a crime......................


wow

And then I verified it with Maggie at the watercooler yesterday. Then I came here like the good little Whistleblower I am!

a reply to: Xeven

Except that the whistleblower complaint, the memorandum of the phone call and all these witnesses corroborate each other.
So in the open or in the dark wont matter at the end of the day.

There are republicans in those hearings. What keeps them so mum? The others are talking about it. I am sure there are not separate rules from one party to the other about who can talk and who cant. I think these guys are mum because they cannot defend what they are learning.
That the president extorted another country for political gain.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
yep
joe told jim who told me that fred commited a crime......................


wow

which sounds bad because you forgot to mention the videotape they made and kept in that safe showing them committing the crime........

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Wayfarer

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?

If they actually had that, don't you think they'd be crowing about it and have it splashed across the front pages of every major newspaper in the country? You know they would. That they don't is pretty strong evidence that Taylor didn't give them anything to counter the actual call transcript we've all seen.

No, in fact I don't think if they had that they'd be inclined to plaster it all over.

Rather, I would surmise they wait and get all the details so that we they bring up articles of impeachment, it will be overwhelmingly obvious to many folks whats going on especially after the Republican controlled senate votes not to do anything about it.

To release it early only lets Republican's play damage control and spin it as much their way as possible.

this was the exact same argument in the Mueller investigation/report, and a matter of Fact you can look through
sillyolme's posting history and find it easly.

it didn't hold water then either......

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: shooterbrody
yep
joe told jim who told me that fred commited a crime......................


wow

which sounds bad because you forgot to mention the videotape they made and kept in that safe showing them committing the crime........

deepfakes are a bear these days...
at least thats what joe told jim fred said

a reply to: Sillyolme

The Whistleblower didn't hear the call first hand.

And there's lots of conflicts between the actual call transcript and what the WB wrote in the complaint 😎 🐸

originally posted by: thedigirati
it didn't hold water then either......

I disagree, and I'm failing to see how Sillolme's posting on the subject of the Mueller report relates directly in this circumstance (other than as a tangential reference).

a reply to: Wayfarer
oh come on man
really
because rushia

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: shooterbrody
yep
joe told jim who told me that fred commited a crime......................


wow

which sounds bad because you forgot to mention the videotape they made and kept in that safe showing them committing the crime........

deepfakes are a bear these days...
at least thats what joe told jim fred said

Sure are. And the best part, even if there is incontrovertible evidence of Trump committing a crime you don't ever have to worry yourself over it because with Deepfakes we can protect any of our hero's simply through doubt.

I'm glad you mention it because its the crux of the issue.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT WOULD CONVINCE TRUMP VOTERS THAT HE IS A CRIMINAL.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: thedigirati
it didn't hold water then either......

I disagree, and I'm failing to see how Sillolme's posting on the subject of the Mueller report relates directly in this circumstance (other than as a tangential reference).

of course you don't

most folks giving excuses call them "reasons"

a reply to: xuenchen

So when five or six people all testify to the same thing it's pretty much a given that the testimony is true.
IF that testimony matches the memorandum that the white house provided, that is further proof that the testimony is true.
IF that testimony and the memorandum from the white house AND the whistleblower complaint ALL match then I'd say we can call it true.

So far the testimony and the memorandum and the complaint all say the say things.
Then one person has this tidbit that they witnessed and another says that and testified to those details about what Giuliani was up to and what Barr was up to until we have a complete picture of what happened.