nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

The Taylor testimony is, by the dems and the Trump hating media, taken to be the death note for Trump, but I differ as do most republicans, especially those who were there and were able, through questioning, able to clarify and debunk what the dems and media are claiming. Of course that part of Taylor's testimony will not be made public by Schiff or Pelosi and it is easy to understand why. Showing that Taylor's testimony and claims are unfounded or based upon hearsay or incomplete information would pretty much put them back to square one. But here are a few tidbits from an article by CNN:


"The "investigations" came to be understood by Taylor and by others who have testified before Congress to mean a pursuit into two opponents of Trump: Biden and his connection with Ukrainian energy company Burisma; and the supposed collusion by Ukrainians and Democrats during the 2016 e******n."

-----I see nothing wrong with this; looking into corruption related to our 2016 e******n should be paramount. Biden was not a candidate back then and it's mainly Biden's son, H****r, no Biden himself although through Biden's own brag, he was a big part of manipulating the gov of Ukraine in removing a prosecutor who was investigating Burisma where his sone worked and as I understand it, that investigator is willing to testify about that and his findings. That's for later and should be good.

"Trump had told him that he wants President Zelenskyy to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. e******n."

-----As Sondland said, this is the "deliverable" Trump wanted before he would meet with the Ukraine president. Just as Trump want loyalty, he also wanted a pledge, if you will, from the Ukraine president, out in the public eye, that he was committed to stopping the corruption which has crippled Ukraine. Part of the corruption was interfering in the 2016 e******n and H****r B***n's involvement in Burisma. Again, all well before Biden was going to run for president. Question, did Biden get into the race to shield himself from all that?? Biden is smart enough to know that investigating this could be misconstrued as looking for dirt on himself. Yes, he would have know that when he decided to run. Maybe Schiff even suggested it? Who knows. We might, one day.

"President Trump did insist that President Zelenskyy go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 e******n i**********e, and that President Zelenskyy should want to do this himself."

----Exactly. Trump wanted an open and public pledge to fight corruption. And why not.

"the push to make President Zelenskyy publicly commit to investigations of Burisma and alleged interference in the 2016 e******n showed how the official foreign policy of the United States was undercut by the irregular efforts led by Mr. Giuliani."

-----Why is that? Official foreign policy is to aid good players, not bad players, generally. Why would we help a country who might have tried to interfere with our 2016 p**********l e******n???? And make no mistake, that outside interference MUST be investigated to its conclusion, no matter what. Will it help Trump? Certainly. Is that Trump's fault or the democrats who it appears were involved in that interference. Of course if they weren't, then there is no political help to Trump, now is there? In fact, if the investigation shows no interference from the dems working with Ukraine, I would think that would hurt Trump.

"infamous text to Sondland, "I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign."

----Which is immediately followed by Sondland pointing out that Trump wants NO quid pro quo. Funny how that is ALWAYS left out.


As Mulvaney said, other countries are pressured all the time to do things like "clean up their act." Do you think Trump is suggesting there is no consequence to Korea if they continue their shenanigans?? Nope.

But on that note, it appears the Ukraine president didn't even know there was a delay in the military aid. Hmm. But so what if he did? So what?? Once again, are we going to give aid to a country who had players in their gov who were trying to influence and American P**********l e******n? Hello!!!

It's all circus right now. But, it'll all come out in the end despite the dem's trying to hide the entirety of the testimony's or any republican help in uncovering the t***h. At this point, that is the last thing the democrats want.

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

That pathetic excuse for Trump's lawlessness is so t***sparent as to be virtually nonexistent.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

What's lawless about it? Investigating e******n i**********e and corruption is a duty. One can't hide from an investigation by running for president. And if the DNC was involved in e******n tampering via a foreign power you'd want to know, right.

Trump has been cleared of it, so time to look elsewhere. I.E. - democrats.

Trooper745 Loc: Carolina

Impeachment is just another nothingburger for the wacko democrats.

Trooper745 Loc: Carolina

Turns out that Taylor's info was hearsay, ... a BS, NOTHINGBURGER!!!!!

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Totally. Probably written by Schiff!

working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina

Taylor's testimony has to do with the 2020 e******n, not the 2016 e******n. Ukraine didn't interfere in the 2016 e******n, Russia did. Trump was trying to get Ukraine to dig up dirt on a likely opponent to influence the 2020 e******n. Trump has not been cleared of that. And let's throw the call for China to interfere into that mix also...that was to influence the 2020 e******ns

No amount of obfuscating changes that.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Trump has said over and over, interference in 2016. You wish 2020. As for Ukraine, oh yes, it'll be out soon enough. Trump hasn't even implied anything about 2020.

woodguru

You are focused on the things the right is trying to say there is nothing wrong with, and you seem to have no awareness of the things that are being testified to that show the evidence of what was being done that is wrong

There is a trump GOP dialog that simply ignores the things that factually cannot be denied. You would have to find a source that is giving full and detailed accounts of the evidence that is coming out during testimony. You simply can't make coherent or even sensible arguments with a fraction of the details that aren't even the damaging things...

Meanwhile the polls favoring impeachment went up 4 points in one day...that is people who are catching the damaging facts.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

I have the same info you do, ding dong. Actually, I have a bit more. However, I read what is and you add l*****t Trump h**er interpretation.

I know what I read and put it into other context from other sources; same ones you have if you cared to look beyond what CNN/MSLSD are talking about.

Lt. Rob Polans ret.

You really don't know what's a problem with Taylor's testimony? He was fired. Show me anyone on the planet who doesn't have a little animosity or a lot when that happens. It's almost as if he's prepackaged for Schitt.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

I am referring to content. Taken at its words, it really isn't a problem for Trump. Add to that, yes he was fired and ALSO had deep connections to Burisma and his testimony ain't worth a dime.

teabag09

Question, did Biden get into the race to shield himself from all that?? Biden is smart enough to know that investigating this could be misconstrued as looking for dirt on himself. Yes, he would have know that when he decided to run. Maybe Schiff even suggested it? Who knows. We might, one day.

If I recall correctly, Obama told plugs, Joe, you don't have to do this, ie., run for President knowing all of this would come out. Creepy Joe couldn't resist because he isn't smart enough to keep himself out of trouble and he wanted his picture on the wall in the White House. What a dumbass. Mike