D
Deleted member 21794
Guest
No, I'm talking about your refusal to bring any substance to this thread and you know it.No, I'm talking about your personal attack and you know it.
No, I'm talking about your refusal to bring any substance to this thread and you know it.No, I'm talking about your personal attack and you know it.
if he wants nothing, he came to the right place when he commented to you and got a response.You've brought nothing to this thread. You'll get what you give.
He's an expert in foreign relations. He's an ambassador. If he can't come up with a reason to impeach, why shouldn't I just go along with his opinion?maybe he has read the constitution unlike most trump voters and knows the House is the only entity who can impeach the president, and since he is not a member of the House, it is kinda useless for him to try. and since the House does not need even a criminal act to impeach, that would make it much harder for him to accurately gauge what the House might consider impeachable or not.
no, it isn't!! you left off kicking trump voter ass using facts and logic and sources....of course it was. It's all he knows how to do.
of course not!! nobody would dare insult you with a personal attack or insult of some kind! that would be like sacreligious or something, or saying the king had no clothes or something wrong and against policy like that. the point is, to say a witness meandered from one conversation to the next while being interrogated is kind of silly, since he is responding to what he is being asked.
as far as his testimony goes, just like every other witness in history, he can only testify to what he has heard or seen, and this guy has seen and heard a lot of trump connected bullshit the last 6 months or so and so he has a lot of conversations and text messages to talk about when testifying. duh. i guess to some who have really short attention spans it can be confusing.
No, I'm talking about your refusal to bring any substance to this thread and you know it.
This is false, Taylor ... WOULD NOT ... name an impeachable offense.Great! So when Taylor couldn't name an impeachable offense that has occurred, you find him credible.
Thanks!
Are you still watching? What are your thoughts on our ambassador to Ukraine essentially calling president Zelensky a liar for repeatedly saying there was no pressure applied to him?if he wants nothing, he came to the right place when he commented to you and got a response.
Yes, American's believe Zelensky ... HAS ... to lie because going against Putin's Whore Donald Trump will not serve his country well.Ouch... now Ratcliffe points out Taylor is calling a Zelensky a liar. This is our ambassador to Ukraine? And liberals wonder why Trump is going around these State Department hacks? Seriously????
Good. Now add some substance or take a hike.Your surrender is noted.
I give you the same treatment you give me so take a lesson, son.Good. Now add some substance or take a hike.
For the sake of indictment he doesn't have to be present,odd. taylor just now testified he was not present. only repeating what he heard.
it is now in the record that the aid was not withheld.
I don't see how you can say that when Ukraine went without aid for eight years of Obama's reign of terror but finally got military aid from president Trump.Yes, American's believe Zelensky ... HAS ... to lie because going against Putin's Whore Donald Trump will not serve his country well.
I'm fine with that. Do you have any substance to contribute? Have you watched the hearings at all?I give you the same treatment you give me so take a lesson, son.
that is especially dumb, even for you. for one thing, i am not sure you are quoting the whole exchange correctly, in context, and you are also leaving out one important part....he is just part of the overall picture- we have Mulvaney admitting Trump ordered him to freeze the aid to use for bribery. Taylor has no first hand knowledge of that. We have much testimony of eyewitness testimony of Rudy telling these diplomats trump wants the ukraine government to know the aid is tied to the public digging up dirt on trump's political rivals. we have the phone call where trump told zelensky to work with rudy in digging up that dirt and rudy was his man when it comes to policy. what more do you trump voters want? a signed confession?He's an expert in foreign relations. He's an ambassador. If he can't come up with a reason to impeach, why shouldn't I just go along with his opinion?
So you're a fan of hearsay evidence. Noted.For the sake of indictment he doesn't have to be present,
Taylor also doesn't have puppy paws ... neither your statement are relevant in this context k?
regards
Now you're dodging. Try to focus. Should I give strong consideration to Ambassador Taylor's assertion that he knows of no impeachable crime? Yes or no?that is especially dumb, even for you. for one thing, i am not sure you are quoting the whole exchange correctly, in context, and you are also leaving out one important part....he is just part of the overall picture- we have Mulvaney admitting Trump ordered him to freeze the aid to use for bribery. Taylor has no first hand knowledge of that. We have much testimony of eyewitness testimony of Rudy telling these diplomats trump wants the ukraine government to know the aid is tied to the public digging up dirt on trump's political rivals. we have the phone call where trump told zelensky to work with rudy in digging up that dirt and rudy was his man when it comes to policy. what more do you trump voters want? a signed confession?
I'm watching them right now. The repubicans have nothing but whining.I'm fine with that. Do you have any substance to contribute? Have you watched the hearings at all?
Only if corroborated by the person who the hearsay is coming from but then it doesn't become hearsay IINMSo you're a fan of hearsay evidence. Noted.