It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Televised Impeachment Inquiry Nov. 13th. I invite ATS members to utilize this thread

page: 8
23
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: elDooberino
oops....

wonder if he will be asked about such?




posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Taylor admits his real concern was a policy difference of trump not wanting to give aid to ukraine.

Again, this shows the entire argument is these unelected bureaucrats feel they should make policy.



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: MrRCflying
Is it just me, or does it sound like he has based his conclusions on a lot of suppositions based on second hand info?


In his closed door transcript, Taylor said content in New York Times helped him form his beliefs.



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

It was a joke, I'm sorry you didn't get that. I'll try and control making jokes in the future so that this is easier for you to follow. I also don't really believe that anyone's dog should have been consulted, that was also a joke.

For the record I also think that trying to impeach a sitting President for conducting legal foreign policies is also a joke.



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler


Again, this shows the entire argument is these unelected bureaucrats feel they should make policy.


Reservations over the legality of an action does not mean they are 'making policy'. By your logic it sounds like you and yours are just really upset that the state department doesn't kowtow to whatever demand Trump makes regardless of the morality/legality.



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Guyfriday

His body, his choice. Hmmm... Where have I heard that before?
edit on 13-11-2019 by MrRCflying because: responded to the wrong person



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer
exactly what "demand" did trump make?

I will wait........



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Was Taylor upset when aid was held up in 2017?

Or when Obama did it in 2016?
www.dailymail.co.uk...

After all, Taylor is a career dude. He's seen it all. Did he complain to Congress?



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler
This is unreal!

taylor admits the meeting with the Ukraine was conditioned on "Investigating Burisma and 2016 election interference form Ukraine"

Why is this wrong?

Kent just testified that it was a chief goal of the US since 2014 to have Burisma investigated. If it was ok for Obama and biden to withhold aid until shokin got fired because we needed a real investigation of burisma, why was it wrong for trump to do it?

Why would it be improper to investigate election interfernce? Didnt the intel community and dems say investigating foreign election interference was the most important thing we could do, and required a three year investigation into trump?


Uh, because Trump didn't withhold funding for not investigating Burisma, he held funding because they weren't investigating the Biden's and making a wackadoo public statement on Fox news about it.....


3 points.

1. thats not what taylor said, he siad it was about investigating burisma. Please tell me how you know more than Taylor.

2. Even if that was true, Taylor says just conditioning aid on investigating burisma would be improper. Therefore he would feel that way about Obama and Biden doing just that.

3. Even if that is true, Bidens qpq is perfectly legitimate to investigate if its improper for the US to withhold aid unless ukrainains investigate burisma.



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
Taylor admits his real concern was a policy difference of trump not wanting to give aid to ukraine.

Again, this shows the entire argument is these unelected bureaucrats feel they should make policy.


No, it was a concern that no policy had been announced or changes made publicly, so Taylor continued with the old policy while he tried to get confirmation of a change.



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer
exactly what "demand" did trump make?

I will wait........


C'mon dude, like how many times do we have to do this?

I'm not trying to convince you or Grambler. I'm just recognizing the fact that I doubt the wildly conspiratorial bent you both are pitching here is unlikely to fly with average voters.

What Taylor is saying is plain and obvious extortionairy actions by the President to use US funds under the employ of his personal re-election campaign prerogatives.



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

Yes it is the duty of these peopole to enact policy the president sets. They can resign if they dont like it.

They dont get to subvert trumps policy because they feel they know better.



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 10:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler
This is unreal!

taylor admits the meeting with the Ukraine was conditioned on "Investigating Burisma and 2016 election interference form Ukraine"

Why is this wrong?

Kent just testified that it was a chief goal of the US since 2014 to have Burisma investigated. If it was ok for Obama and biden to withhold aid until shokin got fired because we needed a real investigation of burisma, why was it wrong for trump to do it?

Why would it be improper to investigate election interfernce? Didnt the intel community and dems say investigating foreign election interference was the most important thing we could do, and required a three year investigation into trump?


Uh, because Trump didn't withhold funding for not investigating Burisma, he held funding because they weren't investigating the Biden's and making a wackadoo public statement on Fox news about it.....


3 points.

1. thats not what taylor said, he siad it was about investigating burisma. Please tell me how you know more than Taylor.

2. Even if that was true, Taylor says just conditioning aid on investigating burisma would be improper. Therefore he would feel that way about Obama and Biden doing just that.

3. Even if that is true, Bidens qpq is perfectly legitimate to investigate if its improper for the US to withhold aid unless ukrainains investigate burisma.


I'm recounting what Taylor is saying right now my man. The difference is Burisma is an entity not affiliated with Trump's political opponents. Focusing on Biden makes it obvious that his wishes had little to do with Burisma, and more to do with digging up dirt on Biden to hurt him in the 2020 campaign.

Your argument on legality is rather spurious and you may as well just say Trump can't commit any crime because a president can't be convicted of a crime, ergo Trump can't possible commit any crimes.....



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Wayfarer

Yes it is the duty of these peopole to enact policy the president sets. They can resign if they dont like it.

They dont get to subvert trumps policy because they feel they know better.


They do indeed. They serve the country, not the president. If the president sends a directive to the entire government that we are now a part of Russia you believe it is incumbent on all employee's of the Government to acquiesce to that request?



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

Taylor said the aid was being held up until zelensky announced they were investigating Burisma and 2016 election interference.

You are saying you know more than taylor.

I believe that would make you the one pushing a conspiracy theory.



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer
from the released memo we have potus asking for assistance
there were clearly no demands
unless you can provide otherwise

the 2 witnesses have no more than rumors so far
no conversations with potus

you are willing to undo an election on rumors?

so again what "demand" are you referring to?

also how do these rumors square with what the President of Ukraine has said?

if there were actual "evidence" I would be happy to look at such
he said she said and differences of opinion on foreign policy are not such
nor should they be treated as such



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Ambassadors and Democrats are upset because Giuliani was in Ukraine obtaining information on prior Admin election interference, and Biden-related dirt.

When the Assistant Secretary of State passed out Giuliani-obtained materials to Congress last month, they went into denial mode.

Ref: theweek.com...



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer
from the released memo we have potus asking for assistance
there were clearly no demands
unless you can provide otherwise

the 2 witnesses have no more than rumors so far
no conversations with potus

you are willing to undo an election on rumors?

so again what "demand" are you referring to?

also how do these rumors square with what the President of Ukraine has said?

if there were actual "evidence" I would be happy to look at such
he said she said and differences of opinion on foreign policy are not such
nor should they be treated as such



What do you mean undo an election? Nobody believe Trump is getting removed from office. The sum total of whats going on only has value in the court of public opinion. I believe whats being show is pretty obvious extortion that the average US citizen can understand. Your viewpoint I believe (while I'm sure is overwhelmingly shared with Trump's core of ~35%) is a far larger leap of logic.



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Wayfarer

Yes it is the duty of these peopole to enact policy the president sets. They can resign if they dont like it.

They dont get to subvert trumps policy because they feel they know better.


They do indeed. They serve the country, not the president. If the president sends a directive to the entire government that we are now a part of Russia you believe it is incumbent on all employee's of the Government to acquiesce to that request?


They can resign if they chose not to enforce the presidents foreign policy

Your example is absurd as me saying "So you are saying it would be ok for thes officals to kill trump if he tries to make us part of Russia?"

trump didnt say we are part of russia, he said he wanted an investigation into burisma (which Obama and biden said as well) and into foreign election interference, which the media and dems have been telling us for three years was paramount.

Now all of the sudden unelected officals have a duty to resist trump doing these things he has every right to do?



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Did Taylor just state that he was unaware of a phone call, but them added that he heard parts of the call? Is that correct or did I hear it wrong?




top topics



 
23
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join