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

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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.

Just YOUR claim...

NO PROOF...

originally posted by: Lagomorphe

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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.

Just YOUR claim...

NO PROOF...

I linked the transcript from the White House itself. WE have it. IT exists.

Folks are SOOO desperate to defend President Trump that you’re not listening anymore.

We have the transcript. We know what it says. There’s no contention about what the transcript says, but about what it MEANS, understand?

The repeated claims that no testimony is valid because they weren’t on the call is simply absurd.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Then you obviously must not have read the transcript in any way at all.

The phone call was perfect

originally posted by: dashen
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

I’m not enjoying the show. It’s a damned waste of time all round.

I don’t dispute your interpretation of events. That’s not my understanding, but, you’ve put the pieces together.

What I am saying, is simple, we have the transcript in hand. It is not a valid argument any longer to discount what someone witnesses to because they were not on the call.

It’s a repeated talking point that can be dropped.

a reply to: Gryphon66

no it does not change the answers---- But it explains the spying nature of his 'Notes' which were focused on the future 'value' of the info that was jotted down...

A one-track-mind is the obvious assessment of the 'notes'.... 'notes' for cornering Trump in a compromising position---- or 'notes' for the purpose of future attention to find out what where the 'noted item' might lead to some valuable discovery

copious note taking is a 'Tell' on that persons inner thinking,,, they are not innocents, but have nefarious intentions which need to be investigated/exposed

too bad that Trump don't have a cadre of 'whistle-blowers' to snitch on Party members like the old Soviet systems in Russia & China and starting up here in the Blue-States, vote-harvesting, cesspool sanctuary zones run by Blue-State-Deep-State

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: Gryphon66

Then you obviously must not have read the transcript in any way at all.

The phone call was perfect

I’ve read the transcript multiple times.

That’s the point: I have the TRANSCRIPT to READ. WE all DO.

The continual claim that no one who wasn’t on the call has no information relevant to the issue is ABSURD.

originally posted by: St Udio
a reply to: Gryphon66

no it does not change the answers---- But it explains the spying nature of his 'Notes' which were focused on the future 'value' of the info that was jotted down...

A one-track-mind is the obvious assessment of the 'notes'.... 'notes' for cornering Trump in a compromising position---- or 'notes' for the purpose of future attention to find out what where the 'noted item' might lead to some valuable discovery

copious note taking is a 'Tell' on that persons inner thinking,,, they are not innocents, but have nefarious intentions which need to be investigated/exposed

too bad that Trump don't have a cadre of 'whistle-blowers' to snitch on Party members like the old Soviet systems in Russia & China and starting up here in the Blue-States, vote-harvesting, cesspool sanctuary zones run by Blue-State-Deep-State

It’s your position that the particular testimony you are referring to is suspect. I understand that.

It is not uncommon, however, in business, government, industry, education, etc. any field to take notes on meetings. In my opinion that is not evidence of anti-Trump bias and EVEN IF IT IS, it doesn’t change matters of fact corroborated by other testimony.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The point is you had Ambassador Taylor up there giving testimony trying as hard as he can to sound legitimate with nothing more than hearsay and innuendo.

The extortion bribery and quid pro quo allegations don't fit into the summary of the phone call in any way.
All that was his extra little salt and pepper on the situation when he said it was his clear understanding. When Jim Jordan asked him where he got this clear understanding he could not answer him in any straight way.
What a clown show

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: Gryphon66

The point is you had Ambassador Taylor up there giving testimony trying as hard as he can to sound legitimate with nothing more than hearsay and innuendo.

The extortion bribery and quid pro quo allegations don't fit into the summary of the phone call in any way.
All that was his extra little salt and pepper on the situation when he said it was his clear understanding. When Jim Jordan asked him where he got this clear understanding he could not answer him in any straight way.
What a clown show

The man gave testimony to what was known to him. Meetings he was in, memos that he read, conversations that he participated in. That’s not hearsay.

You disagree with the conclusions and that’s fine. There is no logical basis to continually chant that “they weren’t on the call so we don’t have to listen to them.”

I’m beginning to think you guys know that and don’t care.

a reply to: dashen

There can be ZERO doubt that the Trump administration asked the Ukrainians to investigate the Bidens.

ZERO doubt that the sale of Javelins was held up.

ZERO doubt that Zelensky was offered a trip to Washington if the Ukraine investigated the Bidens.

The only thing that is in doubt is whether any of that is impeachable, and that is a matter of opinion.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

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.

I disagree that they are all criminals. I do believe there are a few leaders who have been entrenched too long and are using their official authority against their opponent in the 2020 Election. Many may be going along with this simply because 'mob mentality' and not from a deceptive angle. The 'you are either with me or against me' mindset is proving to be quite destructive.

Who are WE?

a reply to: Gryphon66

a reply to: CynConcepts

... but it was fine to use Congressional hearings repeatedly as well as the FBI to investigate Clinton in 2015-16?

How do you figure? I mean if it is wrong now it was wrong then.. Right?

originally posted by: Lagomorphe
Who are WE?

a reply to: Gryphon66

We the People of the United States.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Lagomorphe
Who are WE?

a reply to: Gryphon66

We the People of the United States.

Right...

I am sure many people wil agree with you... 👍

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.

You made a conjecture , based on anothers conjecture.
Hardly fact.
Speculation.

Denying ignorance.
Why ?
Some , although denied and refuted , just keep on like the Energizer Bunny , never knowing when to stop.

originally posted by: Gothmog

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.

You made a conjecture , based on anothers conjecture.
Hardly fact.
Speculation.

Denying ignorance.
Why ?
Some , although denied and refuted , just keep on like the Energizer Bunny , never knowing when to stop.

Go read what I said and get back to me.

PS What I said was, we all know what was on the phonecall. To continually claim that a witness cannot testify because they weren’t ON THE CALL is dumb, in my opinion.

Speaking of the call
do me a favor and can you look into are in no way crimes
you do remember the comey "i hope"...right

lol
read the transcript......

not even a nice try

pathetic partisan rancor

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Gothmog

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.

You made a conjecture , based on anothers conjecture.
Hardly fact.
Speculation.

Denying ignorance.
Why ?
Some , although denied and refuted , just keep on like the Energizer Bunny , never knowing when to stop.

Go read what I said and get back to me.

PS What I said was, we all know what was on the phonecall. To continually claim that a witness cannot testify because they weren’t ON THE CALL is dumb, in my opinion.

So, according to that train of thought, you or I could be called as effective witnesses in these hearings? Is that what you are trying to advocate for here? Because you and I have both read the transcript. Neither of us were on this call either, so we have just as much knowledge of its content as the actual witnesses currently being called?

Does that sound right to you, really?