Impeachment



More on Schiff's star witness, William Taylor -- he admitted under oath, that the sole source of information for his claim that Trump wanted a quid pro quo to get Biden was the New York Times.

'A key Democratic witness against Trump admitted in congressional testimony last month that he was not part of the July 25 phone call between the U.S. and Ukrainian presidents, that he didn’t see a transcript or readout of it until late September when it was declassified and released, and that he has never even spoken to President Donald Trump.

William Taylor, the charge d’affairs of the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine, told lawmakers in secret testimony two weeks ago that his opinions about an alleged quid pro quo demanded by Trump were formed largely from conversations with anti-Trump staffers within the diplomatic bureaucracy.

“[Y]ou’ve never spoken to Mr. [Rudy] Giuliani?” Taylor was asked.

“No, no,” he replied.

“Has anyone ever asked you to speak to Mr. Giuliani?”

“No,” Taylor said.

“And if I may, have you spoken to the president of the United States?” Taylor was asked.

“I have not,” he said.

“You had no communications with the president of the United States?”

“Correct,” Taylor said.
He also admitted he had never spoken to Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s chief of staff."
* * *

ZELDIN: “So do you have any other source that the president’s goal in making this request was anything other than The New York Times?”

TAYLOR: “I have not talked to the president. I have no other information from what the president was thinking."
Transcript: Taylor Wasn't On July 25 Phone Call, Never Spoke To Trump
 
Last edited:
I wrote about the Kupperman subpoena above

I think the reason for this withdrawal (not discussed in the media) is that in order for them to be able to enforce the subpoena, the House would have to show they have judicial enforcement authority. And that authority can only be granted by a full House vote to initiate a legitimate impeachment investigation. Which they obviously do not have at this point.

It's too bad, this case was destined for the SCOTUS ultimately. It would have been an important Separation of Powers ruling.

In any event, I guess Schiff will also give up on the other witnesses who have refused to comply with his subpoenas?

 
Andrii Telizhenko was an official at the Ukrainian Embassy -- says the Obama Admin pressured Ukraine "all the time" --

Andrii Telizhenko: Most of the Ukrainian and government officials do not even understand what the fuss is about here in Washington… We’re supposed to be the victims in this whole thing but we’re not. The Ukrainian president said there was no quid pro quo, there was no pressure. And what I know is he said privately that it was the most diplomatic phone call he’s had in the last couple months with foreign leaders…

Jack Posobiec: Did you see pressure under the Obama administration?

Andrii Telizhenko: Of course, we saw pressure every time. Starting with the Ambassador from the United States in Kiev who would call the president and tell him what to do. It’s unethical to do this anywhere else in the world… And in meetings he would be told what to do, who to fire, who to hire.

 
Based on his initial witness list, it looks like Schiff might abandon the entire quid pro quo argument. It was never supported by the facts. Plus the names of the first witnesses released so far likewise do not support this contention. In addition to that, the rumor is that Schiff had the "whistleblower" in for a formal interview, and even Schiff thought he sounded over-the-top partisan. Can you imagine how bad that guy must be in person for Schiff to schiff-can him?

Trump: No quid pro quo.
Pence: No quid pro quo.
Pompeo: No quid pro quo.
Zelenky: No quid pro quo.
Volker: No quid pro quo.
Yanovitch: No quid pro quo.

If this turns out to be the case, then they will go for the more general abuse of power/obstruction of justice. If you go with the theory that he will put his strongest witnesses on first, then he thinks career diplomats will be able to sell their case that Trump should be impeached because they dont like his "America First" which they have spent decades fighting.

We will see how that goes.


This is the "Whistleblower's" atty in 2017 -- just 1 1/2 weeks after Trump’s inauguration
At least we agree on one thing -- this is an attempted coup

EIuTRQUUUAA6wyP.jpg
 
Last edited:
So given the apparent lack of first hand knowledge from Taylor, where is the first hand knowledge coming from?

By the way, I checked CNN to see if there was anything there concerning the Taylor information...

Bill Taylor: Top US diplomat says Giuliani pushed Ukraine to 'intervene' in US politics in impeachment transcript - CNNPolitics

"In what's likely a preview of next week's public hearings, Republicans pressed Taylor on whether he had direct knowledge of the President's intentions.
"I've never talked to the President," Taylor told GOP Rep. Lee Zeldin of New York."

The comment in bold almost sounds like, "Yeah, they're going to play the old, he doesn't have direct knowledge card" as if that's chicken-**** or something.
 
Another one from 2017 -- dude was all about coups, resistance, rebellion, impeachment and hate

 
Last edited:
So given the apparent lack of first hand knowledge from Taylor, where is the first hand knowledge coming from?

By the way, I checked CNN to see if there was anything there concerning the Taylor information...

Bill Taylor: Top US diplomat says Giuliani pushed Ukraine to 'intervene' in US politics in impeachment transcript - CNNPolitics

"In what's likely a preview of next week's public hearings, Republicans pressed Taylor on whether he had direct knowledge of the President's intentions.
"I've never talked to the President," Taylor told GOP Rep. Lee Zeldin of New York."

The comment in bold almost sounds like, "Yeah, they're going to play the old, he doesn't have direct knowledge card" as if that's chicken-**** or something.

Morrison perhaps?
 
Taylor had to admit Zelensky did not know aid was on hold.
Had to admit his, Taylor's knowledge of phone call came from NYTimes article .

What good was his testimony to Dems vis a vis quid pro quo.?
 
Andrii Telizhenko was an official at the Ukrainian Embassy -- says the Obama Admin pressured Ukraine "all the time" --
Andrii Telizhenko: Most of the Ukrainian and government officials do not even understand what the fuss is about here in Washington… We’re supposed to be the victims in this whole thing but we’re not. The Ukrainian president said there was no quid pro quo, there was no pressure. And what I know is he said privately that it was the most diplomatic phone call he’s had in the last couple months with foreign leaders…
Jack Posobiec: Did you see pressure under the Obama administration?
Andrii Telizhenko: Of course, we saw pressure every time. Starting with the Ambassador from the United States in Kiev who would call the president and tell him what to do. It’s unethical to do this anywhere else in the world… And in meetings he would be told what to do, who to fire, who to hire.


This interview with Telizhenko gets to the root of the whole problem for the Dems here. All US foreign aid comes with strings attached. Isnt this what you want? Do you want US taxpayer funds, tossed around to the rest of the world with nothing in return? Or should we be getting a little something for it? In fact, I suggest we should be demanding something in return, some behavior or action that we want to see, in exchange for our generosity.

Every President has done this, at least since we began giving out foreign aid in the first place. Obama conditioned foreign aid on gay rights for goodness sake. Bernie Sanders just publicly stated we should deny Israel any aid at all unless they do what he wants them to do. Was that a "high crime?" And as we see in that interview, the Obama people conditioned aid to Ukraine all the time. And there is no real second-guessing of it. Why? Because the President has plenary power over foreign affairs under the Constitution. You can disagree with what he does in this arena, you can say it was wrong even, but you cant say a high crime was committed just because you disagree. A very good Constitutional argument can be made that no President can commit a "high crime or misdemeanor" while executing his Constitutional authority. What Nixon did and what Clinton did were private actions. Neither was executing the constitutional authority of their office when they did what they did. So, what they did was subject to impeachment proceedings. What Trump did here with Ukraine was not. It's different.

And so this matter with Trump/Ukraine and this handful of emotionally upset career diplomats was always a big nothingburger. In fact, this matter was really just Trump following through with his election promises, to clean the Swamp. Is there a bigger swamp than what is at State? Naturally, not all those folks like it.

And this nothingburger is just like all the Dems' other anti-Trump nothingburgers. They are always trying to make something out of nothing. It's all so stupid. Why not just propose better policies and try to win honestly? What we could really use right now is a free press to keep all this nonsense in check. Maybe we will have that again some day when all these imposters flame out. Which they will. But that is still some time off.
 
Last edited:
He isn't in charge of policy, but he's in a position to have knowledge of policy and what was going on. After all, he was the chargé d'affaires to Ukraine.
If he can’t follow through on the president’s foreign policy he needs to resign.
 
This was posted...emphasis is mine.


Lot's of info in the Taylor opening statement. Not sure I'd call that the most important thus my response. Seriously, mchammer and his posts are ignoring that per Taylor's testimony Sondland told him directly that 'everything' was dependent on the investigations. That wasn't 2nd or 3rd hand. Taylor also discussed the meeting with the OMB on 7/18 which an unnamed woman from OMB claimed the aid was put on hold by "Trump to Chief of Staff to OMB".

Thus, this was my response. It's almost like y'all want to avoid the most damning information. One might suspect bias at best and intentional obfuscation at worst.
This turned out to be false too. Hey, let’s play the kindergarten game of telling something in someone’s head and pass it around in a circle. Maybe SH was sick that day in kindergarten.
 
Apparently he said nothing of importance.

What's your rationale for saying so?

If he can’t follow through on the president’s foreign policy he needs to resign.

That depends on why he can't follow through on it. If he can't follow through on it because he doesn't like it, then he should resign. If he can't follow through on it because it's illegal or unethical, then the policy should change, whether it's by the President changing his mind or being removed.
 
This turned out to be false too. Hey, let’s play the kindergarten game of telling something in someone’s head and pass it around in a circle. Maybe SH was sick that day in kindergarten.

You'll need to get more specific if you're going to claim it was false. What was false?
 
More on Schiff's star witness, William Taylor -- he admitted under oath, that the sole source of information for his claim that Trump wanted a quid pro quo to get Biden was the New York Times.

'A key Democratic witness against Trump admitted in congressional testimony last month that he was not part of the July 25 phone call between the U.S. and Ukrainian presidents, that he didn’t see a transcript or readout of it until late September when it was declassified and released, and that he has never even spoken to President Donald Trump.

William Taylor, the charge d’affairs of the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine, told lawmakers in secret testimony two weeks ago that his opinions about an alleged quid pro quo demanded by Trump were formed largely from conversations with anti-Trump staffers within the diplomatic bureaucracy.

“[Y]ou’ve never spoken to Mr. [Rudy] Giuliani?” Taylor was asked.

“No, no,” he replied.

“Has anyone ever asked you to speak to Mr. Giuliani?”

“No,” Taylor said.

“And if I may, have you spoken to the president of the United States?” Taylor was asked.

“I have not,” he said.

“You had no communications with the president of the United States?”

“Correct,” Taylor said.
He also admitted he had never spoken to Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s chief of staff."
* * *

ZELDIN: “So do you have any other source that the president’s goal in making this request was anything other than The New York Times?”

TAYLOR: “I have not talked to the president. I have no other information from what the president was thinking."
Transcript: Taylor Wasn't On July 25 Phone Call, Never Spoke To Trump

Who ever claimed Taylor got the impression of quid pro quo directly from Trump? It was always reported it came from Sondland/Volker.

Now you're making up a narrative to try to defame Taylor. That's deceitful and disingenuous.
 
This guy is a fully certified moron.

People are digging all through his stuff now
Looks like he might have some things in common with Jeffrey Epstein (who did not kill himself)

EIxPcBWW4AEmcio.jpg


Apparently goes to Disneyland all by himself
EIv1r0pXsAEBP2v.jpg
 
Last edited:

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-HOGS *
Sat, Nov 16 • 11:00 AM on ABC

Recent Threads

Back
Top