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

a reply to: panoz77

I am saying that it is unreasonable to continue to claim that the witnesses who are testifying should be discounted because they were not part of the Trump-Zelensky phone call.

We all know the content of the phone call. The witnesses can FACTUALLY TESTIFY to the setting, history, meetings, memos, conversations they had in the several months’ lead-in to the call.

They can also express their opinion of the phone call.

I’m suggesting that it’s a fallacious argument to keep up the “har har they asked their brother’s mamma’s wife’s dog.”

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Iscool

The difference is they look for conditions that benefit the USA or the world.

Not their personal endeavors and goals.

What were the conditions that congress put on Ukraine before they got the aid that was allocated for them for this year?
If this is common you must know what conditions congress pressed for when they agreed to this money for weapons to use against the Russians.

I would assume the conditions were the same as always: actively seek out and remove Ukrainian corruption.

They did approve the aid release early this year with the previous President. Then, a new President was elected afterwards. I believe even Obama would have placed the aid into a pending further investigation to ensure the newly elected President was sincere and not simply a corrupt puppet too. Don't you? That would be the wise decision, would it not?

a reply to: Gryphon66

To be fair, the Dems brought this upon themselves. They made such a hoopla over the hearsay of a whistleblower that when Trump released the call transcript, it did not say what they thought it would say.

Now they are scrambling to find something and anything to save face, thus why even the whistle blower cannot give testimony. The call in and of itself, was quickly proven to be non-sequitur.

It is difficult to take these testimonies seriously due to that initial accusation being so inaccurate.

a reply to: CynConcepts

He did not release a call transcript. It even says so right on it.
It is a summary a ten minute summary of a thirty minute call.
So this is something else the right needs to stop claiming.

And the call shows bribery and extortion.

Plus the next day with the call with Sondeland where he has trumps private number ( bet security loves that bit of info) and calls to tell him that the plans they talked about were being implemented.
If the call was so perfect why did it need a confirmation follow up call?
THAT NO ONE KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT BECAUSE IT DIDNT GO THROUGH REGULAR CHANNELS.
Yeah everything about this guy just screams honest as a preacher.

a reply to: CynConcepts

So you saw the agreement with congress and Ukraine? The one where it said they had to seek out corruption in order to get this aid to keep Russia off their back porch? Is that what you are claiming?

Lets see what we can find.

OK this is for next years aid to Ukraine.
hmmm this one says

Of the expanded U.S. military assistance to strengthen Ukraine's defense capabilities, only $100 million is designated for lethal weapons such as anti-aircraft missiles and anti-ship weapons for coastal defense.


Senator Rob Portman, a Republican from Ohio, inside the U.S. Capitol, Nov. 16, 2016. Portman originally launched the effort to combat Russian propaganda in eastern European countries.
FILE - Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, is pictured inside the U.S. Capitol, Nov. 16, 2016.
Republican Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio, who authored the Ukraine aid amendment, said the bill contains language that aims to limit U.S.-Russian cooperation until Russia frees 24 Ukrainian sailors captured in international waters of the Kerch Strait off Crimea last November.

"The legislation ... demonstrates our commitment to stand with the people of Ukraine and the international community in calling for the release of the illegally detained sailors who were fired on and captured by Russian forces in international waters on November 25, 2018," Portman, who co-chairs the Senate Ukraine Caucus, said Thursday on the chamber floor.

Portman said the language of his amendment makes the sailors' release "a condition for the U.S. military cooperation with Russia."

'Firm stance'

"We need to take the firm stance against Russia's blatant disregard for the international law," he said, referring to the Kerch attack and Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea, the first forcible seizure of territory in Europe since World War II. The annexation triggered war in Ukraine's east and multiple rounds of U.S.- and EU-led sanctions that have since wreaked havoc on Russia's economy.

It looks like the language is about Russia. And not a thing about investigating the Bidens. Oh no.

www.voanews.com...

a reply to: Sillyolme

Silly, it appears from testimony that the transcribed memo was pretty accurate. Not a single person has stated nor even suggested ( except you) that a 20 minutes of conversation is omitted!

That would be extremely obvious. It is the most accurate record of the whole call. Some may have stated a word or two may be omitted or incorrect, but that is it! That is exactly why the House Intelligence Committee is fishing into other testimony because they have not narrowed down anything impeachable to hold a vote and pass this process onto the Senate for Trial.

I have given speeches that were 15 minute scripted allotments. I practiced them to speak naturally and with emphasis and pauses for effect. The words in written form only covered 2 pages. This memo was 5 pages. It seems accurate enough to me.

originally posted by: CynConcepts
a reply to: Gryphon66

To be fair, the Dems brought this upon themselves. They made such a hoopla over the hearsay of a whistleblower that when Trump released the call transcript, it did not say what they thought it would say.

Now they are scrambling to find something and anything to save face, thus why even the whistle blower cannot give testimony. The call in and of itself, was quickly proven to be non-sequitur.

It is difficult to take these testimonies seriously due to that initial accusation being so inaccurate.

LOL ... the actions of the Democrats according to their Constitutional powers justifies the irrational, illogical, fallacious BS where every witness is discounted with nonsense?

I disagree.

a reply to: CynConcepts

Yeah it was pretty accurate.
But it did not talk about all the prep and planning and people going and making deals through what was it?
Irregular channels? Yeah that was it. Irregular channels.
So this testimony showing the shakdown that occurred. No visit from the vice pres on your inauguration unless you announce an investigation. and it didn't happen so Pence didnt go.
no visit to the white house unless you announce an investigation, and it didn't happen, they met in NY instead.
And then the aid was only released when the whistleblower story was about to break conveniently enough. Yeah there was no pressure and no arm twisting at all.
There's no way you're gonna spin this to make me think differently.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: CynConcepts

Yeah there was no pressure and no arm twisting at all.

Your exactly right and Zelensky said exactly that on multiple occasions, you finally got something correct.

a reply to: Gryphon66

They cannot defend trumps actions so they discount and slander the witnesses.
The GOP house members didnt have much more to add yesterday other than ancient conspiracy theories that have been proven wrong over and over again.
That was only day one.

a reply to: Sillyolme

And the call shows bribery and extortion.

no it doesn't
lol
do me a favor and look into are in no way bribery and extortion
lol
what turnip truck did you fall off of?

THAT NO ONE KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT BECAUSE IT DIDNT GO THROUGH REGULAR CHANNELS.

nothing illegal about that
potus can use whatever channels he likes
it is part of the power of potus

the two storytellers yesterday simply had bruised egos from being left out.......
that in no way makes what happened any sort of crime

step away from trms

Nice clip.

This “impeachment” is the biggest joke of the year. Even a lot of anti Trumpers think it’s lame.

It’s already going down the tubes. “Bombshell “ my ass.

peach mints for all by thanksgiving some said......
caw caw
crow its what for thanksgiving dinner for some.....

a reply to: Sillyolme

It seems that back in January 2019, Zelensky was considered to be a Putin Puppet and not favorably viewed on by the Atlantic Council. So, it would be natural for our country to step back and reconsider when he won the Ukranian election.

The world did not know what to expect since the leadership changed. Previous President secured the aid but he was no longer in power when the aid was to be released.

A Poroshenko victory would mean a continuation of Ukraine’s ongoing positive trends. A Tymoshenko victory could be destabilizing, especially if she decides to attack the “establishment” and seek a quick deal with Russia. A Zelenskiy victory could change “everything,” especially if he adopts incompetent policies that enable the oligarchs to retake control of the economy, fuels inflation by raising wages and pensions, and invites Russian invasion by neglecting security and defense.

Not surprisingly, Russian President Vladimir Putin is hoping for, and may be committed to doing everything possible to bring about, a Poroshenko defeat—which may be the best reason for reelecting the incumbent president. Tymoshenko would be preferable to Poroshenko for Putin, but, being unpredictable, could be cause for concern. A Zelenskiy victory would be Putin’s dream scenario.

The Atlantic Council January 16 2019 Article

a reply to: Sillyolme

There's no way you're gonna spin this to make me think differently.

I don't respond to you to change your mind. I am not that Silly. I respond to your inane posts to ensure our ATS membership reading can use their own logic to deny ignorance and not become Silly.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: panoz77

I am saying that it is unreasonable to continue to claim that the witnesses who are testifying should be discounted because they were not part of the Trump-Zelensky phone call.

We all know the content of the phone call. The witnesses can FACTUALLY TESTIFY to the setting, history, meetings, memos, conversations they had in the several months’ lead-in to the call.

They can also express their opinion of the phone call.

I’m suggesting that it’s a fallacious argument to keep up the “har har they asked their brother’s mamma’s wife’s dog.”

These witnesses are being discounted because they have no relevant facts, only second and third hand information that they are basing their emotional response on. The information they are so "concerned" about may or may not be true (i.e. that the Trump demands for investigation into Biden is SOLEY dependent on releasing the military aid and meeting with Trump, NOT TRUE).

a reply to: panoz77

okay so these guys risk jail for perjury because?
They have been in these jobs for decades and now they are going bad?
Come on dude.
Taylor was appointed first by George W Bush.
Kent has been with the state department since George HW Bush, in 1992 through every president since that time.

a reply to: panoz77

He said it in Sept. He doesn't say that now when asked. He walks away saying he cannot get involved with US politics.
Thats what he says now...
Why won't he say it now?
Oh I know... testimony of witnesses that would show his country he is a liar and a puppet of Donald J Trump. Thereby ruining any chance of reelection since he swore to go after corruption and not lie to support it.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Not gonna play the yes it does no it doesn't game.

The testimony tells a completely different story.

So its down to if these guys are telling the truth or lying and who believes them and who does not.

a reply to: Sillyolme
do me a favor is not illegal no matter how much you want it to be
nor is look into it

we have a treaty with that nation specifically to investigate corruption, of which the gentlemen testified about yesterday

"these guys" have no first hand knowledge to evaluate
their 2nd hand rumors are not even enough to begin to make a case with

the president of ukraine has first hand knowledge and the gentlemen yesterday testified to his honesty
he said there was no pressure or blackmail

game
set
match