• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bill Taylor dropped a bombshell in his impeachment hearing opening statement

W_Heisenberg

Trade Representative of Heard and McDonald Islands
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 6, 2019
Messages
26,684
Reaction score
29,018
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
He said a member of his staff gave an account of a previously unknown Trump phone call.

This call took place on July 26, the day after Trump’s now-infamous phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Taylor’s staff member told him that Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland had called Trump on the phone from a restaurant; the staffer was present for that call. During the call, the staffer heard Trump asked Sondland about “the investigations,” and Sondland replied that the Ukrainians were ready to move forward.

“Following the call with President Trump, the member of my staff asked Ambassador Sondland what President Trump thought about Ukraine,” Taylor said. “Ambassador Sondland responded that President Trump cares more about the investigations of Biden, which Giuliani was pressing for.”

Impeachment hearing: Bill Taylor drops a bombshell in opening statement - Vox

 

So...more third person info?

"I was told by a friend of a friend that...."
 
Roadvirus said:
So...more third person info?

"I was told by a friend of a friend that...."
Click to expand...

It's possible that Taylor is lying or misunderstood what he heard. I doubt it, but I agree with you, we should not rely solely on Taylor's testimony. These kinds of tips are the starting points of tens of thousands of investigations all throughout our country, every year. Put everyone in that room under oath, so they can all give first-hand testimony. This is what investigations are for. This process would go faster if Trump stopped obstructing the investigation.

What are you going to say when they get Taylor's colleague under oath, and Sondland under oath again, and they confirm Taylor's testimony?
 
Last edited:

Sondland would be the key since it was his direct telephone conversation with Pres. Trump where those words were allegedly spoken. Get him on the stand to repeat them and Trump would need to be called to testify to either confirm or deny them. Better yet, get the other staffer who was in the room to confirm Taylor's story on top of Sondland's confirmation of what was said and Trump would have to come out to defend himself.
 
It's gonna get worse. They're laying the groundwork.
 

So...thrice removed.
 


Sounds like a good plan.
 

Exactly. Taylor's claim is verifiable. I'm more than happy to let independent witnesses verify it.
 

And Mark Meadows just spent the last ten minutes lying on C-SPAN.
And if he is not careful, he may wind up on the stand, where he will most certainly perjure himself.
And that's okay...if members of Congress wish to be named as conspirators in Trump's attempt to privatize government foreign policy for his own personal gain, then let them be named.
 
ludin said:
hearsay is not testimony and is thrown out for a reason next.
Click to expand...

Sworn testimony, under oath, is evidence.

That is the way our system works.

These people are under threat of incarceration if they lie.
 
ludin said:
hearsay is not testimony and is thrown out for a reason next.
Click to expand...

This isn't a court of law. It's the equivalent of a grand jury, where hearsay is allowed.

The Senate will have the opportunity to call the actual staffer, who overheard the conversation first hand.
 
MTAtech said:
This isn't a court of law. It's the equivalent of a grand jury, where hearsay is allowed.

The Senate will have the opportunity to call the actual staffer, who overheard the conversation first hand.
Click to expand...

the senate is going to kill it and find trump innocent.
PS taylor just blew the whole thing out of the water when he testified that Ukraine had no idea
that the money would be held up.

done overwith no quid pro quo.
 
Obscurity said:
Sworn testimony, under oath, is evidence.

That is the way our system works.

These people are under threat of incarceration if they lie.
Click to expand...

when someone goes i can tell you what other people said that is hearsay
it is thrown out of court and not allowed as evidence.

so have a nice day.
 
Barnacle said:
Taylor: “what I can do here for you today is tell you what I heard from people”



Click to expand...

yea it was pretty much over at that point and when he said that ukraine had no idea the money was being held up.
so there you go no quid pro quo. done over with.
 
ludin said:
when someone goes i can tell you what other people said that is hearsay
it is thrown out of court and not allowed as evidence.

so have a nice day.
Click to expand...

Sworn testimony is evidence.

You are flapping here.
 
ludin said:
the senate is going to kill it and find trump innocent.
PS taylor just blew the whole thing out of the water when he testified that Ukraine had no idea
that the money would be held up.

done overwith no quid pro quo.
Click to expand...

Whether the Senate allows a lawless president a free-ride to conduct impeachable behavior is on the Senate. I cannot predict the future, as you clearly can.

Taylor testified that 'Trump care more about the Biden investigations than he did for Ukraines war with Russia.' That's a damning piece of testimony that goes to the heart of this matter. Trump cares only about winning an election and not his duty to defend the interests of the United States.
ludin said:
yea it was pretty much over at that point and when he said that ukraine had no idea the money was being held up.
so there you go no quid pro quo. done over with.
Click to expand...
Taylor also testified that EVERYTHING depended upon getting an investigation against Biden -- military aid as well as a meeting with the president. That's a clear QPQ.
 
Last edited:

They'll say, "FAKE NOOOOS! Hunter Biden and Vince Foster!"

You know that.
 
MTAtech said:
Whether the Senate allows a lawless president a free-ride to conduct impeachable behavior is on the Senate. I cannot predict the future, as you clearly can.
Click to expand...
Well if he is found innocent that means he is not lawless. you do not seem to understand the difference between accusation proof of accusation and being found innocent.
see in america we have the presumption of innocence unless the accusers can prove it.


That is meaningless. it has no bearing on the case and is irrelevant. he testified that the ukrainian government didn't know the money was being held up now that matters. it means no quid pro quo.
it isn't damning at all. it is a pile of nothing. actually he didn't defund the interests of the US as the money was given and nothing was given in return IE still no quid pro quo.

Taylor also testified that EVERYTHING depended upon getting an investigation against Biden -- military aid as well as a meeting with the president. That's a clear QPQ.
Click to expand...

that is his opinion he has no actual facts to support that opinion and since the money was given and no investigation into the bidens was done in return
that means there was no quid pro quo. also unless the otherside knew that still no quid pro quo.
 
ludin said:
the senate is going to kill it and find trump innocent.
PS taylor just blew the whole thing out of the water when he testified that Ukraine had no idea
that the money would be held up.

done overwith no quid pro quo.
Click to expand...

I haven't had a chance to watch all of this... can you show video? if this is true, it's a wash. the president has every right to ask for an investigation if he believes wrongdoing of which we ALL know Biden's own talk gave the evidence of. the ONLY POSSIBLE issue is whether the President was KNOWN to have done it for political gain only.

that would be the ONLY wrongdoing and I am not sure how you get there without 1st hand testimony of him SAYING something very close to that to the Ukrainian PM.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…