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.

 

Jim Jordan Asks Ambassador Taylor, a Democrat Key Witness, important Questions

page: 1
25
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+7 more 
posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 04:09 AM
link   


Here is socialist/democrat's key witness... The big kahuna they claimed would show evidence POTUS Trump bribed Ukraine... Yet the fact is Taylor didn't even listen to the call, and the three times that he saw the Ukrainian President with others in the Trump administration not once did they discussed giving the Ukrainians the money in exchange for the information. The first meeting in which ambassador-liar Taylor occurred a day after the phone call between POTUS Trump and the Ukrainian President. The other two times were also within the time frame in which the aid was being held. But yet again, nothing was discussed about "quid pro quo/giving money to the Ukrainians in exchange for the investigation." Not once was this discussed.

Taylor is caught red handed LYING, and I am sure the majority of ATS whom lean left will continue making false claims, despite the fact that Biden was the one whom did use "quid pro quo" and he bragged about it. But instead the left wants to shift the blame and put the crime on POTUS Trump, when he NEVER bribed or attempted to bribe the Ukrainians.

Socialist/democrats are a bunch of CRIMINALS, if after this failed deposition democrats in the DNC don't jump ship because of the corruption of Schiff, Pelosi and others in the "democrat party," then those democrats that remain are complicit in the corruption, and should be charged with high crimes to attempt to depose the dully elected POTUS with nothing but LIES.




edit on 14-11-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.




posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 04:17 AM
link   
I see this clip is going to be repeatedly spammed.

Here’s the most obvious counter to this nonsense.

The Trump-Zelensky call’s transcript has been out in the public for weeks.

We all know what the call said.

Several of these witnesses listened to the call DIRECTLY (VIndman, etc.)

Kent and the other Trump officials were aware of the efforts headed up by Mayor Rudy for months to get an investigation of the Bidens going. There’s really not any questions here ... Mick Mulvaney stated that quid pro quos are common.

/shrug


+14 more 
posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 04:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Naa, the nonsense comes from left-wingers like you. You did not even attempt to respond to what was said in the clip. BTW, the Ukrainian President was on the call... What did he say?... There was no pressure from President Trump...

Not to mention that Vindman's old boss also stated he was listening to the call and didn't hear President Trump say anything illegal, or wrong...

BTW, you went overboard and avoided to actually make a response about the clip... In the clip Jim Jordan proves that Ambassador Taylor LIED.

Taylor claimed in his deposition, and at the start of yesterday's impeachment sham session: "My clear understanding was security assistance money would not come until President Zelinsky committed to pursue the investigation. My clear understanding was they were not going to get the money until President Zelinski committed to pursue the investigations..."

TAYLOR LIED.



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 04:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I see this clip is going to be repeatedly spammed.

Here’s the most obvious counter to this nonsense.

The Trump-Zelensky call’s transcript has been out in the public for weeks.

We all know what the call said.

Several of these witnesses listened to the call DIRECTLY (VIndman, etc.)

Kent and the other Trump officials were aware of the efforts headed up by Mayor Rudy for months to get an investigation of the Bidens going. There’s really not any questions here ... Mick Mulvaney stated that quid pro quos are common.

/shrug


You say obvious.

Show us this obvious proof or is this JUST YOUR POINT OF VIEW?

Thank you.

Lags



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 05:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Lagomorphe

My claim: The Trump-Zelensky transcript has been in public view for weeks.

My evidence: The White House released the transcript on September 24, 2019. Source
edit on 14-11-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 05:06 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I’ve responded to the clip repeatedly.

To reiterate: we have all been aware for weeks of the nature of the Trump-Zelensky call. The continuing complaints that this or that witness didn’t listen to the call directly are meaningless.

We know what was said. We have witnesses who were directly on the call at the time. They all know that Trump wanted the Ukrainians to investigate Biden. We all know the same thing.

It’s open and commonly known fact now. To quote Mulvaney: Get over it. LOL
edit on 14-11-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Format



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 05:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I’ve responded to the clip repeatedly.

To reiterate: we have all been aware for weeks of the nature of the Trump-Zelensky call. The continuing complaints that this or that witness didn’t listen to the call directly are meaningless.

We know what was said. We have witnesses who were directly on the call at the time. They all know that Trump wanted the Ukrainians to investigate Biden. We all know the same thing.

It’s open and commonly known fact now. To quote Mulvaney: Get over it. LOL


I used to be in denial about certain things in my life, it's interesting watching others in the same situation and wondering when/if they will ever realise...


+3 more 
posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 05:51 AM
link   
Even if the the President had openly said he would withhold aid unless he got an investigation . I don’t see that as an impeachable act. Just business as usual in Washington.



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 05:51 AM
link   
a reply to: FinallyAwake

Care to be more specific since you’ve replied to me?

No need to be coy, LOL.



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 05:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nickn3
Even if the the President had openly said he would withhold aid unless he got an investigation . I don’t see that as an impeachable act. Just business as usual in Washington.


For what it’s worth, I agree with you.

This was the dumbest possible hook for impeachment.



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 06:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Lagomorphe

My claim: The Trump-Zelensky transcript has been in public view for weeks.

My evidence: The White House released the transcript on September 24, 2019. Source


No links to obvious proof?

Your link equals “PAGE NOT FOUND ...”

This is ATS...

Deny ignorance

Lags
edit on 14-11-2019 by Lagomorphe because: Yea.... Right...



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 06:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lagomorphe

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Lagomorphe

My claim: The Trump-Zelensky transcript has been in public view for weeks.

My evidence: The White House released the transcript on September 24, 2019. Source


No links to obvious proof?

This is ATS...

Deny ignorance



LOL. Right back at you.

I made a claim, and I established why I made the claim, and there’s zero way that anyone can deny my claim.

Period.



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 06:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

My claim: The Trump-Zelensky transcript has been in public view for weeks.

My evidence: The White House released the transcript on September 24, 2019. Source


And? what exactly are you implying?... How about you excerpt the part that makes you think is illegal or wrong for a POTUS to do?...

You do know what the executive branch does? Execute and enforces the laws?... Including laws of corruption by former officials whom are running for POTUS?... Unlike the claims of "Trump colluded with Russia or that he obstructed justice, what Biden did IS ILLEGAL... He admitted it himself...

Now, how about you excerpt EXACTLY what POTUS Trump said that you "claim" is illegal..."



edit on 14-11-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 06:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

LOL. Right back at you.

I made a claim, and I established why I made the claim, and there’s zero way that anyone can deny my claim.

Period.


Wrong... actually it is pretty easy to prove you wrong... But first, stop going around in circles and excerpt from the transcript exactly what POTUS Trump said that you claim is illegal or wrong...



edit on 14-11-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 06:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Lagomorphe

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Lagomorphe

My claim: The Trump-Zelensky transcript has been in public view for weeks.

My evidence: The White House released the transcript on September 24, 2019. Source


No links to obvious proof?

This is ATS...

Deny ignorance



LOL. Right back at you.

I made a claim, and I established why I made the claim, and there’s zero way that anyone can deny my claim.

Period.


No lolling...

See ELs response too.

You have NO PROOF...

Lags

Ps and just for info... this isn’t the MUDPIT if you suddenly get frustrated and upset...
edit on 14-11-2019 by Lagomorphe because: Crap I am



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 06:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Lagomorphe

My claim is that we all know what the transcript of the call is, so, to claim that witnesses who weren’t on the call don’t have any information about the circumstances, the history of the months leading up to the call, etc. are asinine claims in my opinion.



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 06:59 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I watched+listened to about 1/2 hour of the Ambassadors' answering of questions...

I got a sense that Taylor is Anti-Trump and used his diplomacy position as a Spy would use the 'Cover' to get insider info that could be used later against Trump...

Taylor took & kept 'notes' as he listened to Orders/Instructions/Memos/Briefings/telephone calls...
'Notes' not meant to be seen or even acknowledged as existing and ~For Taylors Eyes Only~

Taylor was a covert SPY, likely an Asset for Agency Intel like NSA/FBI/CIA/Mossad?

??? was there inherent Breach of Security in Taylor's behavior ? an internal State Department inquiry should decide that



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 07:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Gryphon66

LOL. Right back at you.

I made a claim, and I established why I made the claim, and there’s zero way that anyone can deny my claim.

Period.


Wrong... actually it is pretty easy to prove you wrong... But first, stop going around in circles and excerpt from the transcript exactly what POTUS Trump said that you claim is illegal or wrong...




I’m going around in circles ?

LOL.

Here’s the claim again: it is asinine to continue to claim that anyone who was not listening to the call doesn’t have any evidence to provide. We all have heard the call now. We know what’s there.

Are you saying we don’t know what the call says? It’s not my expression that’s the problem, it’s your assumption.

We all know what Trump said and what Zelensky said. Period, done, we all know.

Those who are giving evidence about other matters, like, the lead up to the call, the actions of Rudy G and his cohorts, etc. are providing background and context.



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 07:02 AM
link   
a reply to: St Udio

Let’s say Taylor is “anti-Trump” ... does that change the facts they are relating?

Cross examination acknowledges that some witnesses are hostile. They’re still called.



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 07:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

The Ukraine phone call was bait.
Eric ciaramella and Colonel vindman were included on the zelinkyy phone calls and many other staffers who should have been in on its were blocked.

They were baited into leaking to Schiff

What's the Ambassador admitted was that the alleged Aid package that was allegedly being held up was in fact a high-tech missile system arms deal that that would have put Javelin missiles and probably a lot of stuff that would have gone unaccounted for as soon as it arrived in Kiev.

Almost Checkmate good buddy I hope you are enjoying the show



new topics

top topics



 
25
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join