Bill Taylor's Testimony (impeachment)

[Boosted87]

This is probably the single most damning thing that's happened in this whole deal yet. It really puts context round the whole situation from someone very familiar with Ukraine, it's struggles with corruption, and it's war with Russia. Just a few highlights you should really read the whole thing.

Full Testimony Link

...on September 7, I had a conversation with Mr. Morrison in which he described a phone conversation earlier that day between Ambassador Sondland and President Trump. Mr. Morrison said that he had a "sinking feeling" after learning about this conversation from Ambassador Sondland. According to Mr. Morrison, President Trump told Ambassador Sondland that he was not asking for a "quid pro quo." But President Trump did insist that President Zelensky go to a microphone and say that he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference...

The following day, on September 8, Ambassador sondland and I spoke on the phone. He said he had talked to President Trump as I had suggested a week earlier, but that President Trump was adamant that President Zelensky, himself, had to "clear things up and do it in public." President Trump said it was not a "quid pro quo." Ambassador Sondland said that he had talked to President Zelensky and Mr. Yermak and told them that, although this was not a quid-pro-quo, if President Zelensky did not "clear things up" in public, we would be at a "stalemate." I understood "stalemate" to mean that Ukraine would not receive the much-needed military assistance.​

...Before these text messages, during our call on September 8, Ambassador Sondland tried to explain to me that President Trump is a businessman. When businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something, he said, the businessman asks that person to pay up before signing the check.
​

What I think is most interesting is that Trump seems less interested in investigations occurring as he does a public announcement about them. That's interesting because the announcement itself is damaging to Biden, so even if the investigation turns up nothing, Trump has already got the payout. Insisting it be public - versus a private commitment to investigate - is more evidence Trump's intent being purely political (versus actually just trying to fight corruption) in my opinion.

 

[Boosted87]

I love how there seem to be consistent statements from the President, in real time, telling people "this isn't a quid-pro-quo." I imagine someone sitting down with a bank employee, insisting they hand over a bag of cash or they'll blow up the bank, while repeating over and over that "this isn't a bank robbery."

 

[hemightbejeremy]

will-ferrell-what-an-idiot.gif

 

[Sir Galahad]

Couple of questions:

where any republicans in the room at the time?

if so, were republicans allowed to cross examine?

 

[UCFBS]

What I think is most interesting is that Trump seems less interested in investigations occurring as he does a public announcement about them. That's interesting because the announcement itself is damaging to Biden, so even if the investigation turns up nothing, Trump has already got the payout. Insisting it be public - versus a private commitment to investigate - is more evidence Trump's intent being purely political (versus actually just trying to fight corruption) in my opinion.

That's how DC works, and Trump is the anti-DC candidate doing the same thing. Just like he is the anti-lobbyist bringing in anti-DC lobbyists. Trump is a hypocrite, and so is DC, and all the politicians that came before him too. That's why I'm loving all this. Because most everything said about Trump also sticks to everyone else there.

And that's kinda what Trump has been doing since Day 1.

Understand foreign policy in the US has been particularly nasty, and political favors are big time. It's also the one thing I actually have to agree with Putin on ... we're doing the same crap as they are. We look like hypocrites.

Clinton supports EU membership and extends NATO invites to countries in violation of various agreements. Although W. reversed that policy initially, his "coalition of the willing" (more countries than his fathers in '90-91) is made up of yet more central and european countries that want EU and NATO membership.

So what does Russia do? It started interfering in its former COMECON countries, even claiming Russian citizens in Georgia, setting up the pretense for invasion. It starts hiring American lawyers to push a new COMECON (now EEU as of 2015) in everywhere from Kiev to Nur-sultan, and they pay very well.

Now we're trying to blame Trump for all this, and act like he's the first. I find it beyond a joke. Is Trump guilty of everything they say? Of course. But most of the people throwing things at them are too. I want them all gone. That's why I didn't vote Trump. I knew this would be the agenda.

In any case, Biden keeps putting his foot in his mouth, especially with the 'lynching' comment. I.e., he used it 2 decades ago himself, regarding the Clinton impeachment. That alone made me chuckle.

 

[bqknight]

Couple of questions:

where any republicans in the room at the time?

if so, were republicans allowed to cross examine?

Yes to both.

 

[hemightbejeremy]

Yes to both.

5th Avenue trumpets don’t care.

 

[Boosted87]

Couple of questions:

where any republicans in the room at the time?

if so, were republicans allowed to cross examine?

Yes. Equal time is given for questioning to both parties.

 

[firm_bizzle]

Hear is some video of the Republicans during today's testimony.

 

[UCFBS]

Storming the SCIF was a bad look for the Republicans. Yes, the US Media would have framed it differently had it been Democrats doing such, but still ... this was a stunt and served no purpose. Republicans are in the room and asking questions. That's why these things are done in a SCIF.

 

[firm_bizzle]

Storming the SCIF was a bad look for the Republicans. Yes, the US Media would have framed it differently had it been Democrats doing such, but still ... this was a stunt and served no purpose. Republicans are in the room and asking questions. That's why these things are done in a SCIF.

The defeat of the Republican Party in 2018 only left them with clowns in House.

 

[UCFBS]

The defeat of the Republican Party in 2018 only left them with clowns in House.

Although I do find it funny with AOC and Omar complaining about undermining National Security, after they basically demonized the CBP and ICE with complete fabrications.

 

[sk8knight]

This is probably the single most damning thing that's happened in this whole deal yet. It really puts context round the whole situation from someone very familiar with Ukraine, it's struggles with corruption, and it's war with Russia. Just a few highlights you should really read the whole thing.

Full Testimony Link

...on September 7, I had a conversation with Mr. Morrison in which he described a phone conversation earlier that day between Ambassador Sondland and President Trump. Mr. Morrison said that he had a "sinking feeling" after learning about this conversation from Ambassador Sondland. According to Mr. Morrison, President Trump told Ambassador Sondland that he was not asking for a "quid pro quo." But President Trump did insist that President Zelensky go to a microphone and say that he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference...

The following day, on September 8, Ambassador sondland and I spoke on the phone. He said he had talked to President Trump as I had suggested a week earlier, but that President Trump was adamant that President Zelensky, himself, had to "clear things up and do it in public." President Trump said it was not a "quid pro quo." Ambassador Sondland said that he had talked to President Zelensky and Mr. Yermak and told them that, although this was not a quid-pro-quo, if President Zelensky did not "clear things up" in public, we would be at a "stalemate." I understood "stalemate" to mean that Ukraine would not receive the much-needed military assistance.​

...Before these text messages, during our call on September 8, Ambassador Sondland tried to explain to me that President Trump is a businessman. When businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something, he said, the businessman asks that person to pay up before signing the check.
​

What I think is most interesting is that Trump seems less interested in investigations occurring as he does a public announcement about them. That's interesting because the announcement itself is damaging to Biden, so even if the investigation turns up nothing, Trump has already got the payout. Insisting it be public - versus a private commitment to investigate - is more evidence Trump's intent being purely political (versus actually just trying to fight corruption) in my opinion.

Not for nothing, but that’s a leaked opening statement. I’d like to see the full transcript to see what questions were asked and how he responded before I make a full judgement of his testimony.

 

[Poolside Knight]

what Gaetz and the other Rs pulled today was Banana Republic type stuff, this is where we are at now. Embarrassing that Floridians elected that man to office

 

[UCFBS]

what Gaetz and the other Rs pulled today was Banana Republic type stuff, this is where we are at now. Embarrassing that Floridians elected that man to office

It's not the first time, just FYI. But the US Media will make you believe.

I utterly disagree with what they did. I'm just saying, it's not the first time. And had the Democrats done this, the US Media would have framed it differently.

 

[firm_bizzle]

Although I do find it funny with AOC and Omar complaining about undermining National Security, after they basically demonized the CBP and ICE with complete fabrications.

They are clowns too but there are currently more moderate Dems than Reps. It shifts back and forth.

 

[firm_bizzle]

what Gaetz and the other Rs pulled today was Banana Republic type stuff, this is where we are at now. Embarrassing that Floridians elected that man to office

1st district is Trump country.

 

[NinjaKnight]

Pathetic.

 

[Boosted87]

That's how DC works, and Trump is the anti-DC candidate doing the same thing. Just like he is the anti-lobbyist bringing in anti-DC lobbyists. Trump is a hypocrite, and so is DC, and all the politicians that came before him too. That's why I'm loving all this. Because most everything said about Trump also sticks to everyone else there.

I used to subscribe to the "both sides are just as bad" argument, but I don't anymore. I'll try to explain why.

Authoritarian regimes don't come to power without some kind of fight. Objectively, if you prefer democratic government over authoritarian, then it's reasonable to believe that one major movement could be the bad guy and the other the good guy, even if both sides demonstrate corruption, hypocrisy, etc. This is essentially the justification any party loyalist would use. They tend to believe they are in an existential struggle for the future and it really matters who wins, and they closer ranks around the like minded.

From your perspective, you see no existential struggle. You don't see either side leading us to glorious prosperity, nor to certain doom. You're reasonable enough to know that in 2 or 4 years we get a new election and the opportunity to reset any imbalances towards doom that might be festering, and we'll continue to plod our way through the ups and downs of civilization.

That's all reasonable and true, except when it's not. What happens when one of those two broken clocks is actually right? It would be naive to think an existential threat isn't possible. So the question becomes - will you be able to see past the "both sides are bad" bias and recognize that threat in time? Or would you remain a cynic until it's too late?

 

[sk8knight]

They are clowns too but there are currently more moderate Dems than Reps. It shifts back and forth.

That all depends on how you define moderate.

 

[UCFBS]

I used to subscribe to the "both sides are just as bad" argument, but I don't anymore. I'll try to explain why.

Authoritarian regimes don't come to power without some kind of fight. Objectively, if you prefer democratic government over authoritarian, then it's reasonable to believe that one major movement could be the bad guy and the other the good guy, even if both sides demonstrate corruption, hypocrisy, etc. This is essentially the justification any party loyalist would use. They tend to believe they are in an existential struggle for the future and it really matters who wins, and they closer ranks around the like minded.

From your perspective, you see no existential struggle. You don't see either side leading us to glorious prosperity, nor to certain doom. You're reasonable enough to know that in 2 or 4 years we get a new election and the opportunity to reset any imbalances towards doom that might be festering, and we'll continue to plod our way through the ups and downs of civilization.

That's all reasonable and true, except when it's not. What happens when one of those two broken clocks is actually right? It would be naive to think an existential threat isn't possible. So the question becomes - will you be able to see past the "both sides are bad" bias and recognize that threat in time? Or would you remain a cynic until it's too late?

I'm not being a cynic. I just refuse to support any candidate or leader that is at odds with American Liberty and Freedom.

E.g., I see people barking about Trump for things that are status quo, but they believe they just because the US Media refused to care prior.

I.e., While I invite the investigations, I don't want them to stop with Trump. That's the difference.

I refuse to support any candidate put up by any party that I doesn't tackle leadership. None of them do from the 2 parties right now, short of the Pauls. I'm tired of people being in denial about our expenditure, let alone I'm scared of the calls for asset seizure to fund more pie-in-the-sky projects.

A crash is coming. People are in denial about it. It's coming. Because we're overspending and we cannot tax enough to cover it. Asset seizure is the only thing left.

 

[firm_bizzle]

That all depends on how you define moderate.

Usually former military/businessmen that don't pull stunts or spend lots of time on cable news.

The more time you spend on cable news, the higher your clown status becomes.

 

[Crazyhole]

I used to subscribe to the "both sides are just as bad" argument, but I don't anymore. I'll try to explain why.

Authoritarian regimes don't come to power without some kind of fight. Objectively, if you prefer democratic government over authoritarian, then it's reasonable to believe that one major movement could be the bad guy and the other the good guy, even if both sides demonstrate corruption, hypocrisy, etc. This is essentially the justification any party loyalist would use. They tend to believe they are in an existential struggle for the future and it really matters who wins, and they closer ranks around the like minded.

From your perspective, you see no existential struggle. You don't see either side leading us to glorious prosperity, nor to certain doom. You're reasonable enough to know that in 2 or 4 years we get a new election and the opportunity to reset any imbalances towards doom that might be festering, and we'll continue to plod our way through the ups and downs of civilization.

That's all reasonable and true, except when it's not. What happens when one of those two broken clocks is actually right? It would be naive to think an existential threat isn't possible. So the question becomes - will you be able to see past the "both sides are bad" bias and recognize that threat in time? Or would you remain a cynic until it's too late?

The fatal flaw in your argument is that the opposite of authoritarianism isn't democracy, its libertarianism. A democracy can be authoritarian just as easily as a dictator can be.

 

[Sir Galahad]

Yes to both.

If that is the case, why are the democrats doing it in such secrecy? Why the are the breaking house rules for these meetings:

Dear Chairman Schiff, Chairman Engel, and Acting Chairwoman Maloney:

We write to demand the release of the rules that are governing the depositions and transcribed interviews being conducted by the joint action of your three committees. The secrecy in which these depositions and interviews are being conducted, and the lack of clarity on the rules that govern attendance and access to records, are deeply concerning in the context of such a serious inquiry.

You have consistently denied non-committee Members their right to attend these depositions and interviews without specifying any authority to do so. House regulations clearly permit all House members to attend depositions.[1] You have consistently denied the right of non-committee members to view the transcripts of depositions and interviews without specifying any authority to do so. These transcripts are committee records. Committee records that are the property of the whole House and under House rules, no Member can be denied access to committee records.[2]

Please immediately release any rules that have been adopted in addition to existing standing committee rules by no later than October 22, 2019. We urge you to give this matter your immediate attention.


Seriously, what is he trying to hide?

 

[OregonKnight]

If that is the case, why are the democrats doing it in such secrecy? Why the are the breaking house rules for these meetings:

Dear Chairman Schiff, Chairman Engel, and Acting Chairwoman Maloney:

We write to demand the release of the rules that are governing the depositions and transcribed interviews being conducted by the joint action of your three committees. The secrecy in which these depositions and interviews are being conducted, and the lack of clarity on the rules that govern attendance and access to records, are deeply concerning in the context of such a serious inquiry.

You have consistently denied non-committee Members their right to attend these depositions and interviews without specifying any authority to do so. House regulations clearly permit all House members to attend depositions.[1] You have consistently denied the right of non-committee members to view the transcripts of depositions and interviews without specifying any authority to do so. These transcripts are committee records. Committee records that are the property of the whole House and under House rules, no Member can be denied access to committee records.[2]

Please immediately release any rules that have been adopted in addition to existing standing committee rules by no later than October 22, 2019. We urge you to give this matter your immediate attention.


Seriously, what is he trying to hide?

What secrecy? Non-committee members are not allowed into to closed-door depositions, which Republicans were happy to exploit during Benghazi hearings.

Furthermore, there are Republicans on these hearings who are granted equal time....they just happen to sit on the appropriate committees.


Keep sippin’ the Fox News koolaid.

 

[NinjaKnight]

What secrecy? Non-committee members are not allowed into to closed-door depositions, which Republicans were happy to exploit during Benghazi hearings.

Furthermore, there are Republicans on these hearings who are granted equal time....they just happen to sit on the appropriate committees.


Keep sippin’ the Fox News koolaid.

These people are utterly incapable of anything remotely resembling individual thinking. They are barely able to regurgitate the most basic fox news talking points. Just as an fyi you are attempting to debate with someone whose very first thought is to blame black people whenever anything goes wrong.

 

[Boosted87]

The fatal flaw in your argument is that the opposite of authoritarianism isn't democracy, its libertarianism. A democracy can be authoritarian just as easily as a dictator can be.

Ehhh I think your splitting hairs here. Swap out my words with whatever you want and you can still address the underlying question. If you subscribe to the idea that "both sides are just as bad", how do you recognize when one side jumps the shark? It's naive to think it can't happen.

On splitting hairs - I could argue that pure libertarianism is also an opposite of democracy. Tyranny of one or tyranny of the majority is still tyranny - right? We've seen shifting on the spectrum from democracy to authoritarian rule in a host of countries in recent years - Poland, Hungary, Brazil, Turkey and others. So in the current worldwide political climate, with regression in democratic rule and a rise in authoritarianism, I think it's the right comparison.

 

[Poolside Knight]

 

[NinjaKnight]

So...multiple members of the GOP burst into the SCIF on Capitol Hill with their phones, some even took video and made phone calls while inside. Literally violating every single national security policy out there. Some of them have posted these recordings to social media.

You cannot make up this level of stupidity. This is a MASSIVE security threat by the very same people whining about Clinton's emails.

You really can't be a bigger hypocrite than the GOP is right now. It's not possible.


https://thehill.com/homenews/house/...hone-call-he-made-from-highly-classified-scif

 

[Sir Galahad]

What secrecy? Non-committee members are not allowed into to closed-door depositions, which Republicans were happy to exploit during Benghazi hearings.

Furthermore, there are Republicans on these hearings who are granted equal time....they just happen to sit on the appropriate committees.


Keep sippin’ the Fox News koolaid.

Never, again never have transcripts not been released to the entire house. Also, if no member is allowed to talk to media, why are their daily leaks? As to republican allowed to question witnesses, you’re right. Go read what John Ratcliffe said about his cross examination of Taylor. I know you won’t accept it but typical media leak.

 

[DaShuckster]

Karma = The same party who happily used the private interview rules when they were in control of the House (helllloooo, Benghazi anyone?) are the same ones who are NOW whining about those very same rules being SO UNFAIR.

 

[OregonKnight]

Never, again never have transcripts not been released to the entire house. Also, if no member is allowed to talk to media, why are their daily leaks? As to republican allowed to question witnesses, you’re right. Go read what John Ratcliffe said about his cross examination of Taylor. I know you won’t accept it but typical media leak.

The Committees (read: bipartisan) have claimed that they are reviewing all transcripts of the depositions for sensitive material and will release them in full, minus classified redactions. Considering this has been going on for only a few weeks, I think they have some time to do that before we can be rightly upset.

(As an aside, I think a GOP fan wanting full transcripts released is pretty funny considering recent history.)

Members of committees are allowed to speak to the press, but cannot discuss specific things from the testimony. (Also LOL @ you being mad about leaks considering Nunes fed every bit of Mueller info he could get his hands on to Trump’s legal team)

BTW what flavor are you drinking currently? Grape? Fruit punch?

 

[Sir Galahad]

The Committees (read: bipartisan) have claimed that they are reviewing all transcripts of the depositions for sensitive material and will release them in full, minus classified redactions. Considering this has been going on for only a few weeks, I think they have some time to do that before we can be rightly upset.

(As an aside, I think a GOP fan wanting full transcripts released is pretty funny considering recent history.)

Members of committees are allowed to speak to the press, but cannot discuss specific things from the testimony. (Also LOL @ you being mad about leaks considering Nunes fed every bit of Mueller info he could get his hands on to Trump’s legal team)

BTW what flavor are you drinking currently? Grape? Fruit punch?

There is nothing classified in the meetings, nothing.

 

[NinjaKnight]

There is nothing classified in the meetings, nothing.

My favorite part about your posts is how confidently wrong you are.

Please tell me exactly how you, a racist dipshit with exactly zero insight into the testimony of this pentagon official, knows the classification of their entire testimony.

 

[bqknight]

My favorite part about your posts is how confidently wrong you are.

Please tell me exactly how you, a racist dipshit with exactly zero insight into the testimony of this pentagon official, knows the classification of their entire testimony.

Breitbart said so.

 

[Crazyhole]

The thing that I find problematic for the dems in that statement is the word "stalemate" and the interpretation of it. He is at his own admission making an assumption on what that meant. Additionally, it wasn't a direct conversation that he had with Trump so its impossible to judge what Trumps intent was.

 

[sk8knight]

Ehhh I think your splitting hairs here. Swap out my words with whatever you want and you can still address the underlying question. If you subscribe to the idea that "both sides are just as bad", how do you recognize when one side jumps the shark? It's naive to think it can't happen.

On splitting hairs - I could argue that pure libertarianism is also an opposite of democracy. Tyranny of one or tyranny of the majority is still tyranny - right? We've seen shifting on the spectrum from democracy to authoritarian rule in a host of countries in recent years - Poland, Hungary, Brazil, Turkey and others. So in the current worldwide political climate, with regression in democratic rule and a rise in authoritarianism, I think it's the right comparison.

No, crazyhole was right and it’s not splitting hairs. Authoritarianism is strict obedience to government at the expense of personal liberty. IOW, the government is mandating what you eat, what you do, what you say. Say the wrong thing and you’re punished. Libertarianism places personal liberty as a primary value and is about limiting the ability of government to define what you do and say to only those things necessary to ensure the civilization operates. They are on the same spectrum because they define how much power government has over its subjects.

Democracy and dictatorships are on a different spectrum that is defined by how many people are able to define the policies and actions of government. You can absolutely have an authoritarian democracy and you related it as tyranny of the mob. America’s founders understood this and created a Republic with a limited federal government for us to combat this possibility. Democracy and libertarianism are not opposites. You can have a government that is limited in its ability to affect your individual liberty but also have democratic votes on all things the government can do.

The problem with you saying that libertarianism being opposite of democracy, other than you being wrong, is that most have been taught that democracy is freedom and therefore good. So you placing them on opposite sides of a spectrum implies that libertarianism is bad. We’re seeing a huge movement around the world to give democratic governments more power over people’s personal liberties. Most think this is good because it is democracy and democracy is good. But losing personal liberties is losing your freedom and that is mostly a bad thing even if it comes about because of a democratic process.

 

[Crazyhole]

No, crazyhole was right and it’s not splitting hairs. Authoritarianism is strict obedience to government at the expense of personal liberty. IOW, the government is mandating what you eat, what you do, what you say. Say the wrong thing and you’re punished. Libertarianism places personal liberty as a primary value and is about limiting the ability of government to define what you do and say to only those things necessary to ensure the civilization operates. They are on the same spectrum because they define how much power government has over its subjects.

Democracy and dictatorships are on a different spectrum that is defined by how many people are able to define the policies and actions of government. You can absolutely have an authoritarian democracy and you related it as tyranny of the mob. America’s founders understood this and created a Republic with a limited federal government for us to combat this possibility. Democracy and libertarianism are not opposites. You can have a government that is limited in its ability to affect your individual liberty but also have democratic votes on all things the government can do.

The problem with you saying that libertarianism being opposite of democracy, other than you being wrong, is that most have been taught that democracy is freedom and therefore good. So you placing them on opposite sides of a spectrum implies that libertarianism is bad. We’re seeing a huge movement around the world to give democratic governments more power over people’s personal liberties. Most thing this is good because it is democracy and democracy is good. But losing personal liberties is losing your freedom and that is mostly a bad thing even if it comes about because of a democratic process.

Well said.

 

[Crazyhole]

This is probably the single most damning thing that's happened in this whole deal yet. It really puts context round the whole situation from someone very familiar with Ukraine, it's struggles with corruption, and it's war with Russia. Just a few highlights you should really read the whole thing.

Full Testimony Link

...on September 7, I had a conversation with Mr. Morrison in which he described a phone conversation earlier that day between Ambassador Sondland and President Trump. Mr. Morrison said that he had a "sinking feeling" after learning about this conversation from Ambassador Sondland. According to Mr. Morrison, President Trump told Ambassador Sondland that he was not asking for a "quid pro quo." But President Trump did insist that President Zelensky go to a microphone and say that he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference...

The following day, on September 8, Ambassador sondland and I spoke on the phone. He said he had talked to President Trump as I had suggested a week earlier, but that President Trump was adamant that President Zelensky, himself, had to "clear things up and do it in public." President Trump said it was not a "quid pro quo." Ambassador Sondland said that he had talked to President Zelensky and Mr. Yermak and told them that, although this was not a quid-pro-quo, if President Zelensky did not "clear things up" in public, we would be at a "stalemate." I understood "stalemate" to mean that Ukraine would not receive the much-needed military assistance.​

...Before these text messages, during our call on September 8, Ambassador Sondland tried to explain to me that President Trump is a businessman. When businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something, he said, the businessman asks that person to pay up before signing the check.
​

What I think is most interesting is that Trump seems less interested in investigations occurring as he does a public announcement about them. That's interesting because the announcement itself is damaging to Biden, so even if the investigation turns up nothing, Trump has already got the payout. Insisting it be public - versus a private commitment to investigate - is more evidence Trump's intent being purely political (versus actually just trying to fight corruption) in my opinion.

When can we expect the public announcement about the investigation into Biden?

 

[NinjaKnight]

Breitbart said so.

It is truly terrifying how stupid people are allowed to vote and choose the outcome of our country.