Amb Bill Taylor's testimony - a "sea change"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ratcliffe crushes him. This is fake news.

Wait, what? I thought there were no Republicans allowed in the hearings at all!

They were allowed in the hearings. Ratcliffe questioned Taylor himself.

Oh really. Do tell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ratcliffe crushes him. This is fake news.

Wait, what? I thought there were no Republicans allowed in the hearings at all!

They were allowed in the hearings. Ratcliffe questioned Taylor himself.

Exactly. All of the outrage from the right regarding "process" is total BS, as usual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ratcliffe crushes him. This is fake news.

Wait, what? I thought there were no Republicans allowed in the hearings at all!

They were allowed in the hearings. Ratcliffe questioned Taylor himself.

And Ratcliffe demolished Taylor, destroyed Taylor's entire argument. But according to McCarthy, they aren't allowed to talk about it. Because.... Schiff?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ratcliffe crushes him. This is fake news.

Wait, what? I thought there were no Republicans allowed in the hearings at all!

They were allowed in the hearings. Ratcliffe questioned Taylor himself.

And Ratcliffe demolished Taylor, destroyed Taylor's entire argument. But according to McCarthy, they aren't allowed to talk about it. Because.... Schiff?

Oh, that Schiff. He cast a spell of silence over McCarthy. Schiff is a witch!

[Anonymous]

They were allowed in the hearings. Ratcliffe questioned Taylor himself.

And Ratcliffe demolished Taylor, destroyed Taylor's entire argument. But according to McCarthy, they aren't allowed to talk about it. Because.... Schiff?

Oh, that Schiff. He cast a spell of silence over McCarthy. Schiff is a witch!
She's a witch! BUUUURN Her!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am quite impressed at how much credible information Bill Taylor was able to give.

His opening statement is extremely compelling and constitutes a nearly day by day account of the quid pro quo.

While I agree with you I still question his integrity. So, if the whistle blower hadn’t come forward he (and others) would have just taken this crap to the grave? I’m tired of calling folks like this guy patriots, when what happened was he saw/participated in corruption & then just tried to whistle past the graveyard. Thank you, next.

He probably IS the whistleblower.

I had this thought reading it as well.

Taylor is definitely not the whistleblower. He had no knowledge of what was discussed in the Trump Zelensky call until it was released to the public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ratcliffe crushes him. This is fake news.

Wait, what? I thought there were no Republicans allowed in the hearings at all!

They were allowed in the hearings. Ratcliffe questioned Taylor himself.

And Ratcliffe demolished Taylor, destroyed Taylor's entire argument. But according to McCarthy, they aren't allowed to talk about it. Because.... Schiff?

Ratcliffe is actually a genius. He got Trump to agree that he (Trump) illegally withheld the funds to extort the Ukrainians.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1186968579125792768

Ratcliffe is just trying to hurry things along, finish up this impeachment process quickly so that the Republicans can put forward a real presidential candidate in time for the upcoming election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I know why Taylor took the job when asked, but what I’m not clear on is why the Trump Administration asked him to do the job. Wouldn’t all of this <waves hands> have been easier to do with no one in charge in Kyiv?

They probably assumed he would go along with the plans.

They also probably thought that having no one in charge in Kyiv would make things look more suspicious.

All of these people who are testifying in defiance of the WH's attempts at obstruction will go down in history as true patriots.

Somebody had to manage the legitimate official functions of the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine. Taylor was the one talking to Zelensky's staff and other government officials on behalf of the United States, not the Trump campaign. He was not part of the Sondland-Volker-Giuliani extortion plot, but he knew about it because he kept asking why the military assistance and Zelensky's meeting with Trump were being held up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ratcliffe?! Who says, the excuse is that maybe the Ukrainians didn't know there was quid pro quo? Hence, there was not "evidence" that Zelensky knew Trump was doing quid pro quo, so it is then not quid pro quo even if all the Trump and all the Trumps's men did it exactly for quod pro quo? Grasping at straws!

And the Ukrainians knew in early August that the military aid had been withheld. Breaking from the NY Times:

But in fact, word of the aid freeze had gotten to high-level Ukrainian officials by the first week in August, according to interviews and documents obtained by The New York Times.

The problem was not a bureaucratic glitch, the Ukrainians were told then. To address it, they were advised, they should reach out to Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, according to the interviews and records.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/23/us/politics/ukraine-aid-freeze-impeachment.html

[Anonymous]

Trump just ousted himself again on twitter. Is that usable as evidence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump just ousted himself again on twitter. Is that usable as evidence?

To use John Oliver's words, Trump's scandals really are Stupid Watergate.

[Anonymous]

“As someone who spent five years working alongside Republicans on the Oversight Committee, I can tell you that we never found a “smoking gun” like the testimony that was provided yesterday from the senior U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, William B. Taylor.

As I read through Taylor’s statement, which was given under oath, I couldn’t help but think to myself how my former Republican colleagues would have reacted if similar testimony had been given by a career diplomat during the Obama administration, especially during the Benghazi investigation, which produced 33 hearings in two years.

In June 2016, Representatives Jim Jordan and Mike Pompeo—yes, the same Jim Jordan who is now the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee and the same Mike Pompeo who is now the secretary of state—declared that “it is our belief that many of [the Benghazi] failures were the result of the administration’s obsession with preserving a political narrative.”

The reality is that if Pompeo, Jordan, and House Republicans had received the kind of bombshell testimony we heard from Taylor yesterday, they would have immediately moved to impeach the president.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/how-trumps-defenders-now-approached-benghazi-back-then/600556/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“As someone who spent five years working alongside Republicans on the Oversight Committee, I can tell you that we never found a “smoking gun” like the testimony that was provided yesterday from the senior U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, William B. Taylor.

As I read through Taylor’s statement, which was given under oath, I couldn’t help but think to myself how my former Republican colleagues would have reacted if similar testimony had been given by a career diplomat during the Obama administration, especially during the Benghazi investigation, which produced 33 hearings in two years.

In June 2016, Representatives Jim Jordan and Mike Pompeo—yes, the same Jim Jordan who is now the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee and the same Mike Pompeo who is now the secretary of state—declared that “it is our belief that many of [the Benghazi] failures were the result of the administration’s obsession with preserving a political narrative.”

The reality is that if Pompeo, Jordan, and House Republicans had received the kind of bombshell testimony we heard from Taylor yesterday, they would have immediately moved to impeach the president.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/how-trumps-defenders-now-approached-benghazi-back-then/600556/

Of course they would have, and they would've been justified. Because what Trump did to Ukraine is precisely what the Framers were thinking of when they put impeachment in the Constitution.

[Anonymous]

This seems to undermine Trump's argument:

https://apnews.com/b048901b635f423db49a10046daaf8a8

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump says no quid pro quo but his ACTIONS say absolute quid pro quo.

e.g.

version on lawfare.blog is MUCH more readable