Top diplomat in Ukraine gave "damning" testimony

a reply to: xuenchen

games-cdn.washingtonpost.com... i THINK this is the transcript pdf of 15 pages yeah its the transcripts so i guess we get to read it our selves im skimming it now but only on page 3

en.wikipedia.org... and here is the wiki for the guy making the statements

After Taylor graduated from West Point, he served in the Infantry for six years, including tours of duty in the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, the 101st Airborne Division in Vietnam and as aero-rifle commander in the 2nd Cavalry Regiment (United States) in Germany.[6] As a civilian he directed the Department of Energy’s Office of Emergency Preparedness before serving for five years on the staff of U.S. Senator Bill Bradley (D-N.J.). He then directed a Defense Department think tank at Fort Lesley J. McNair. Following that assignment, he transferred to Brussels for a five year assignment as the Special Deputy Defense Advisor to the U.S. Ambassador to NATO, William Howard Taft IV. From 1992 until 2002 Taylor served with the rank of ambassador coordinating assistance to Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, followed by an assignment in Kabul coordinating U.S. and international assistance to Afghanistan. In 2004 he was transferred to Baghdad as Director of the Iraq Reconstruction Management Office. [7] Until 2006 he was then was the U.S. Government's representative to the Quartet's effort to facilitate the Israeli disengagement from Gaza and parts of the West Bank, led by Special Envoy James Wolfensohn in Jerusalem. The Quartet Special Envoy was responsible for the economic aspects of this disengagement. Taylor was confirmed as United States ambassador to Ukraine by the U.S. Senate on May 26, 2006 and was sworn in on June 5, 2006; he held the post till May 2009.[2] On September 30, 2009 U.S. President Barack Obama nominated John Tefft as U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.[8] Taylor was appointed Special Coordinator for Middle East Transitions in September 2011.[9] In 2015 Taylor was appointed executive vice president of the United States Institute of Peace after serving a year in the same role in an acting capacity.[10][11] Taylor become chargé d'affaires ad interim for Ukraine in June 2019, taking over the role from the deputy chief of mission, Kristina Kvien, after Marie Yovanovitch departed Ukraine.[12]

originally posted by: shooterbrody

If Americans respond to unending Trump ads then he deserves re-election.

I thought that it was why the news spent so much time covering how much money hillary had and how much trump didn't spend last time?

Reporting fundraising numbers makes for horse-race gossip and the News Media covered it in 2016 as they always do, but apart from a minimum balance to compete, who has the most money doesn't consistently correlate to who wins. Mostly because Americans hate political advertising.

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
a reply to: Extorris

Scream all you want....the majority of Americans are SICK of it.

Correct. And that is why public sentiment has very clearly swung to support impeaching Trump for his unending corruption.

No it hasn't. The polls that report this are intentionally over-sampling Democrats, by up to a 14-point margin, to get this result.

Not at all.

Here are dozens of polls, many with GOP over-sampled.

projects.fivethirtyeight.com...

I actually took a look. Not one single poll they included over-sampled Republicans, while many over-sampled Democrats by a substantial amount.

And frankly, I have a hard time giving much credence to any website that gives SurveyMonkey equal footing with someone like Reuters.

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Haven't read through it yet, but that looks legit.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Thanks for looking.

Ipsos and Gallup had polls that over-sampled GOP, but over-all you are correct on sampling.

GOP is a smaller party affiliation than Dem right now, with much of Trumps support coming from right leaning "independents".

It would be false to weight a poll 50-50 Dems and GOP.

a reply to: Extorris

Meanwhile we're on Year Three of Congress getting absolutely no work done.

We should garnish their wages. 🤬

a reply to: Extorris

Somebody had better tell CNN about this testimony. They are now talking about how most Americans do not favor impeachment.

You guys are right, there's no point in discussion, analysis, research, etc.

Blue People Bad, Orange Man Gud.

Keep talking up the coup/civil war nonsense. Give it life. Imagine what your utopia will be like after the half of the country you don't like is gone. Chaos is smiling.

a reply to: xuenchen

Oh wouldn't the defense love that. No they have not and they will not until they draw up and submit articles of impeachment.
Trump has not been charged yet. He is not entitled to any kind of discovery until he is. The senate will have access to everything and everyone on the witness list when the time comes.
The people who are testifying now will be on that list. If we're lucky trump will call the ones who have refused to show up and the house will get to ask them questions after all.

a reply to: xuenchen

Where does The Constitution give the House authority to bypass The Constitution and declare themselves a Judicial Branch ?

Impeachment isn't a judicial process, it's a political process. You don't even have to have committed a crime to get impeached.

a reply to: Fools

You have not read a transcript of the phone call. You have read a summary of the phone call.
The testimony of those who were privy to it or privy to the people who were are laying out what has been described as "troubling" testimony. These are law makers and the adjective "troubling" is polite speak.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: xuenchen

Where does The Constitution give the House authority to bypass The Constitution and declare themselves a Judicial Branch ?

Impeachment isn't a judicial process, it's a political process. You don't even have to have committed a crime to get impeached.

Just remember all this when this kangaroo process is used to remove the next Democrat to take office with a Republican House.

a reply to: ketsuko

In 1998 Jerry Nadler said that Republicans were a mob trying to Lynch Bill Clinton.

I don't think Republicans today are tough like that.

a reply to: Extorris

If it's pro-Trump then it is not a lie. If it's anti-Trump then it is a lie.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Impeachment isn't a judicial process, it's a political process. You don't even have to have committed a crime to get impeached.

First it would be almost impossible to impeach him, so yes anything the house does is only political posturing for 2020. The big questions is why now after Pelosi has stated many times it is better to run his 4 years out, and she is right. The answer is the left is getting desperate, they see Warren as their front runner now and she will not beat Trump with her socialism lies about not taxing the middle class, having a plan for everything while never actually showing one of them and Pocahontas as icing on the cake.

Trump will eat her lunch, you and I both know it... During the recent debate she has shown she looks smart if she stays on her talking points, but she can not get an inch off without crashing and burning...Trump is extremely happy outside of his talking points and will take her there every time...

Desperate times call for desperate actions...

a reply to: Xtrozero

You are presuming the Republicans in the Senate actually like Trump. I'm not so sure.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Xtrozero

You are presuming the Republicans in the Senate actually like Trump. I'm not so sure.

Remember, it's not about liking so much as it is about getting the job done. If Trump can do that, then you don't have to like him.

thank you ATS moderators for removing my legitimate replay to the OP

censoring is a habit these days, why dont you ban me in the process

it will sadden me but what can i do

originally posted by: joemoe
At which point do we call a coup a coup? At which point will Traitors will be held accountable?

Traitors to whom? That would imply treason.

What you speak of would be sedition, a still very serious crime.