Chris Wallace: Taylor testimony 'very damaging to President Trump'

[What if...?]

Thanks for the information.

I do not see this exchange as showing anything wrong and certainly not to the point where Jim Jordan ate Taylor alive.

By the way, let me take this opportunity to address this thing about "second or third hand knowledge". Trump has blocked all attempts to interview people who have "first hand" knowledge. Mulvaney, Pompeo, Bolton for example.

Jordan and the Republicans are attacking this investigation but are not allowing the people with the first hand knowledge to be interviewed. If he truly was innocent (as Jordan is suggesting), he would allow all to be interviewed. It really is as simple as that.

Everything else is smoke and mirrors.

This is the primary counter argument to their narrative.

They want to interview everybody their fantasies demand.

They want nobody to be interviewed who has firsthand information.

But plan to call "hearsay" with every other breath anyway.

This must not be allowed to go unchallenged.

 

[TomFitz]

George Kent testified that Burisma Holdings had been under Ukraine investigation for years and that US aid had always been held up for Ukraine pending assurances they were dealing with internal corruption. That is what Biden claimed to have been doing when he forced the Ukrainian president to fire the prosecutor investigating Burisma.

What has happened is that Trump asked Ukraine for info on American corruption in Ukraine which included the rumor that Hunter Biden was involved with the Burisma corruption. Joe Biden and democrats have taken Trump's legitimate request and dishonestly turned it into a political club designed to benefit Biden in the 2020 election.

As usual, your post is false.

Viktor Shokin was NOT investigating Burisma.

 

[What if...?]

Just opened thread. I already know the republican marching orders. Post youtube clips of just the republican questioners being servile to trump. It's clear that the orders have been disseminated.

Just keep hitting the "the whitehouse is suppressing all of the firsthand witnesses and documentary evidence" angle.

It is the only counter to the "it's all hearsay" angle.

This is where they're weakest with independents.

It makes the administration look like it has something to hide.

 

[What if...?]

George Kent impressed the hell out of me. He was forthright, direct, answered both sides of the aisle immediately, without elaboration or hesitation, and is smart as whip. What a memory! Every time someone asked about something that had happened over the past 10 or so years, he instantly responded with the month and year it had happened, who, what, why and when it had happened, and the result of it happening... without pausing to think or even glancing at notes!

Also, Kent had the best line of the day: "You can't promote principled anti-corruption action without pissing off corrupt people."

George Kent was a breath of fresh air, and a force of nature. I loved it!

Looking more and more like the republicans have run up against the "good man, honest and true" trope.

 

[Luckyone]

The Democrats made sure the process was corrupt from the get-go and stacked the rules in the Democrats' favor. They wouldn't even let the Republicans have the power of subpoena or right to call their own witnesses on Day one of the Schiff-show, so pocket the spiel on "truth" for another day.

What does that have anything to do with the people with first hand knowledge testifying "in a public and open forum" to defend Trump's truth from coming out. You mean to say that Trump does not want the truth to come out because he considers the process to be corrupt?

If you are saying that, it is the craziest and least believable thing ever.

He would rather be found guilty in a corrupt system than be found innocent in the same corrupt system, which in turn would prove the system is corrupt. I find such a thing to be even something that no supporter would be able to think that way. You have now even broken to the downside the low opinion about Trump supporters that everyone has. That is just plain indefensible.


Hahahahahaha!

 

[What if...?]

So that's the new democrat smoke screen narrative? The reason they cannot prove Trump committed a crime is because Trump refuses to implicate himself by going along with their show trial?

If he is innocent he cannot implicate himself.

It really is that simple.

 

[trixare4kids]

I'll always get a chuckle out of the argument that the GOP couldn't subpoena anyone while supporting those on their own side who ignored subpoenas.

There is no logic, just talking-points that often contradict one another.

Oh, I just bet you do ... but there's also something many quick to judge the president's dismissal of Democrats' demands have forgotten about the process before the impeachment basement star chamber "investigation" became an official impeachment inquiry by congressional vote.
Let me repeat, it was not an "official impeachment inquiry" until the vote was taken. The president by WH counsel advised Trump and others close to the president to ignore the investigators demands, including subpoenas.

 

[trixare4kids]

If he is innocent he cannot implicate himself.

It really is that simple.

Yeah, that's simple alright.
Trump doesn't need to prove his innocence or implicate himself to the Democrats' demands.

 

[CaughtInThe]

No wonder Schitff wanted to shut the republicans up. Their devoted cult fan base believe republicans have no honor or integrity.

Your boy cheats on his multiple wives, doesn't pay his bills, sleeps with and pays off a porn actress (while married) and is a crook. You shouldn't be talking about honor nor integrity.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Deluded democrat false idea: 'Republicans don't think for themselves so they must be getting all their stuff from right wing radio hosts.'

Republican assessment: 'Democrats blindly believe any stupidazz claim their democrat idols tell them to believe.'

Rush and Sean say something and it shows up on here every single day. Good job with a thinking for yourselves.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

either way , at least SOMETHING about DC should get sorted out from all of this with at least one of the investigations. I just don't see proof yet about where asking for an investigation into corruption is a crime, as long as there is ample evidence Biden may have committed it, which I believe there is. I am not trusting trump, but my own reasoning with the facts thus far.

Because Trump wasn't trying to root out evil-doers in the Ukraine he was trying to get dirt or the appearance of dirt on Biden, so he could use it against Biden during his rallies, and any other time he opened his mouth.
Why, if he was so worried about corruption in one of the most corrupt counties in the world, could he only come up with two things to look at, which both had ties back to him and his own narrative? Crowdstrike? 2016 election. Burisma? Biden.
That is not just an opinion, it is a fact, he spoke of no other corruption. Couldn't find any other thing, at all.
Probably still couldn't.

As I have said a bunch here at the DP, I am no fan of Biden and never though he was going to be the nominee anyway. I don't care if he is found guilty of corruption, if he is, in fact, guilty. Trump had other ways to get that accomplished though, didn't he?

It's now documented that Trump really only cared about an ANNOUNCEMENT of an investigation, not the actual investigation itself, if any. He specified that he wanted President Zelensky to "go on the news, and publicly announce an investigation into Bidens and Burisma.

This was specifically aimed at the electoral campaign, as was confirmed in numerous testimonies so far with more to come.
The bribe and political extortion centered specifically around the demand for this public announcement.
We KNOW this now, it is a fact, a well corroborated, confirmed fact.

It is ALSO well known that Viktor Shokin's removal was at the behest of NOT so much Joe Biden, but rather 83 percent of the Ukrainian people, by the entire EU legal community and by the International Monetary Fund, of which Ukraine is a partner.
The so called Viktor Shokin Burisma investigation was bogus schlock in the tradition of the pre-Orange Revolution Old Guard, and everyone knew this.
We KNOW this now, it is another fact, a well corroborated, confirmed fact.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

And by the way, that "Crowdstrike Server" thing? That is pure conspiracy theory postulated by someone who possesses not even the most rudimentary knowledge of computers. Let's see, could that possibly be Donald Trump himself?

 

[DiAnna]

who gives a crap what happened 10 years ago.

he has no knowledge of the phone call he has no evidence or anything that can support quid pro quo other than he heard it from someone who heard it from someone.
so what evidence does he actually have? none.

that is the whole point what happened 10 years ago is irrelevant to any facts bearing on this case.

If that's what you believe, you clearly didn't watch the entire hearing, and the cherry-picked clips you saw on Fox News left you woefully uninformed. :lol:

 

[DiAnna]

He was a slow-burn for me. I didn't really like him at first. Maybe it was the tie?
But seriously, the man knows his ****.

I know, right? Who wears a bow tie to testify before congress, lol? But damn; he had my full attention within the first hour of his actual testimony!

 

[DiAnna]

Looking more and more like the republicans have run up against the "good man, honest and true" trope.

Absolutely. He was totally cool, relaxed, didn't hesitate to answer every question put to him without a hint of guile. Completely open, and oozed honesty. Damn, I was impressed!

 

[DiAnna]

Just keep hitting the "the whitehouse is suppressing all of the firsthand witnesses and documentary evidence" angle.

It is the only counter to the "it's all hearsay" angle.

This is where they're weakest with independents.

It makes the administration look like it has something to hide.

The administration does have something to hide; they conspired to coerce a foreign government to aid in Trump's re-election, and those with "first-hand knowledge" can testify to that... which is why Trump is refusing to allow it.

 

[Pound4abrown]

And by the way, that "Crowdstrike Server" thing? That is pure conspiracy theory postulated by someone who possesses not even the most rudimentary knowledge of computers. Let's see, could that possibly be Donald Trump himself?

Well, based on his trip to the Apple Genius Bar it could also be Rudy.

 

[Pound4abrown]

I know, right? Who wears a bow tie to testify before congress, lol? But damn; he had my full attention within the first hour of his actual testimony!

Good luck to those trying to besmirch either of those two men.

 

[Bandit]

Yeah, that's simple alright.
Trump doesn't need to prove his innocence or implicate himself to the Democrats' demands.

Of course not, criminals take the fifth, he can do that, but he won’t. Give it up, already a second person confirming the new call where trump talked directly to Sondland about getting an investigation. One day after talking to Zelinski. Why just one day? He needed to know he was getting his quid pro quo. Called extortion. So now you can freely respond with more bull sh*t.

 

[Bullseye]

Ima say that since the reality of consumers of conservative media is so different than that of the rest of the world that yours would be the smaller, and more amusing, book.

Wow, scorching comeback. You're a master!

 

[What if...?]

Wow, scorching comeback. You're a master!

Thank you.

It's so hard to get through y'all's conditioning these days.

 

[GDViking]

Chris Wallace should have waited, Jim Jordan had Taylor for lunch.

:lamo

 

[GDViking]

I'm sure the Taylor testimony yesterday will change a lot of minds and spell the end of..., sorry, laughing too hard. I couldn't finish that sentence. This will change no one's mind. Everyone is exactly in the same place where they were yesterday.

Wallace points to the stuff that helps his side and says, "very damaging" while Hannity said on the radio last night that Nunes completely dismantled the impeachment hearings from the start and this will end up helping to reelect Trump.

Me, I found the whole Schiftshow so tedious that I tuned out after 10 minutes. Listening to him drone on and on made me lose my will to live.

Yeah you had to have a minimum of a double digit IQ to keep up with it so I don't blame you for not being able to follow...

 

[ludin]

If that's what you believe, you clearly didn't watch the entire hearing, and the cherry-picked clips you saw on Fox News left you woefully uninformed. :lol:

not at all. taylor already blew the impeachment out of the water.
so before you call other uninformed you should pay more attention.
:lol:

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Well, based on his trip to the Apple Genius Bar it could also be Rudy.

I suspect a whole LOTTA Mac people are going to be very embarrassed if America's Crooked Mayor turns out to be an Apple head. :lamo