Nolte: Adam Schiff Desperate to Hide William Taylor Testimony that Would Kill Ukraine Hoax

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Meanwhile, even though we are talking about a process designed to overturn a national election, the accused — President Trump — has no rights, nor do his surrogates among House Republicans. They are not only restricted from calling their own witnesses, which is unprecedented in the history of impeachment, they cannot even publicize their side of the story without violating Schiff’s fascist rules.

Worse still, while Taylor’s opening statement is leaked to the media, this one-sided document from a career diplomat who obviously despises Trump, the transcripts and recordings of his entire testimony remain hidden, guarded, secreted away… And the so-called media are perfectly fine with this, perfectly happy to publish what Schiff wants them to publish, even though they know it does not tell the full truth.

And in the specific case of Taylor, according to three Republican Congressman who were in the room, the testimony Taylor gave that completely undercuts the narrative about his “smoking gun” opening statement remains hidden from the public, and we are now stuck with an incurious press that just doesn’t want to hear the full and inconvenient truth.

Appearing with Sean Hannity on Fox News after Taylor’s testimony, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) said, “The truth is, in two minutes, John Ratcliffe destroyed this witness. There is no quid pro quo.”


https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/23/nolte-adam-schiff-desperate-to-hide-william-taylor-testimony-that-would-kill-ukraine-hoax/
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
When one has nothing one has to do what one can to convince others that the actual nothing is actually something.

--- End of line (MCP)
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

--- End of line (MCP)
Did you read the ambassador’s opening statement or the fox article? The best Nunes or Ratcliffe can come up with is that Ukraine didn’t know the funding was being held up on the day of the infamous call and then claim that means no quid pro quo. Taylor pretty clearly describes that the funding and the whitehouse visit were contingent on Ukraine publicly stating he was investigating Biden and the 2016 allegations.
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
Did you read the ambassador’s opening statement or the fox article? The best Nunes or Ratcliffe can come up with is that Ukraine didn’t know the funding was being held up on the day of the infamous call and then claim that means no quid pro quo. Taylor pretty clearly describes that the funding and the whitehouse visit were contingent on Ukraine publicly stating he was investigating Biden and the 2016 allegations.
Yup. Read it and read about it at a number of places. Might sound "good" on the surface, but a) it's so full of qualifiers and b) having worked in an embassy (actually several embassies in various locations under multiple ambassadors and thus know what ambassadors know and how they say what they want to say) I'm not convinced at this point.

--- End of line (MCP)
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
Yup. Read it and read about it at a number of places. Might sound "good" on the surface, but a) it's so full of qualifiers and b) having worked in an embassy (actually several embassies in various locations under multiple ambassadors and thus know what ambassadors know and how they say what they want to say) I'm not convinced at this point.

--- End of line (MCP)
What he said was backed up by the texts Volker provided, the call memo, and trumps actions.
Specifically which parts of his statement do you find dubious?
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
What he said was backed up by the texts Volker provided, the call memo, and trumps actions.
Specifically which parts of his statement do you find dubious?
The entirety. In everything you've cited there is quite a bit of ambiguity attached to far too many "could be" qualifiers to persuade me.

Schiff is doing his prosecutor thing trying to control the narrative in order to paint a picture of something entirely different from what I see. Perhaps that's why prosecutors (and defense attorneys) don't want anyone on a jury who has expertise in the area upon which they wish to build their case(s). As I said, I worked in this arena (embassies) in this area (former Soviet Union (and elsewhere)). So if I'm on this jury I'm not just far from persuaded I'm not persuaded at all. In fact, my take is that this prosecutor is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of this jury and I don't appreciate his shenanigans.

Others' mileage may vary (and apparently does).

--- End of line (MCP)
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
The entirety. In everything you've cited there is quite a bit of ambiguity attached to far too many "could be" qualifiers to persuade me.

Schiff is doing his prosecutor thing trying to control the narrative in order to paint a picture of something entirely different from what I see. Perhaps that's why prosecutors (and defense attorneys) don't want anyone on a jury who has expertise in the area upon which they wish to build their case(s). As I said, I worked in this arena (embassies) in this area (former Soviet Union (and elsewhere)). So if I'm on this jury I'm not just far from persuaded I'm not persuaded at all. In fact, my take is that this prosecutor is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of this jury and I don't appreciate his shenanigans.

Others' mileage may vary (and apparently does).

--- End of line (MCP)
That’s a bit of a BS answer. The entirety of his statement is obviously not fake. He references numerous events and calls that happened. Do you think he is lying about what he was told by Sondland and others?
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
That’s a bit of a BS answer. The entirety of his statement is obviously not fake. He references numerous events and calls that happened. Do you think he is lying about what he was told by Sondland and others?
That's unfair to say that my answer is a BS answer as I don't think his testimony is fake. Yes, he references numerous events and calls. And no, I don't think he is lying. What I do think is that I won't make more of his testimony than is there (as I replied to you in another thread).

Feel free to see what you want to see. I will do the same. You see something important and damning; I don't.

At this point, what we have is nothing more than everyone (including me) doing a bit of mind reading and voicing opinion as if it's fact.

--- End of line (MCP)
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
That's unfair to say that my answer is a BS answer as I don't think his testimony is fake. Yes, he references numerous events and calls. And no, I don't think he is lying. What I do think is that I won't make more of his testimony than is there (as I replied to you in another thread).

Feel free to see what you want to see. I will do the same. You see something important and damning; I don't.

At this point, what we have is nothing more than everyone (including me) doing a bit of mind reading and voicing opinion as if it's fact.

--- End of line (MCP)
I ask for specific parts of his statement that you have a problem with and you say ‘the entirety of it’, then you go on some BS partisan crap about Shiff controlling the narrative. That’s pretty BS’y.

if Taylor is not lying we have the accusation that the president was using foreign aid and access to potus to gain leverage over the Ukraine president so he would help give trump a political advantage in the 2020 election. He went on to say that trump was using Rudy, Sondland and Volker to accomplish his goals via a Shadow state department. That’s what he said in his statement.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
What is repellent to me is that these meetings are being held in secret - that Republicans are given either restrictions as to what they can comment on or participate in - or basically locked out -

BUT part of it leaks out anyway. Hence, controlling the narrative. No one is supposed to hear about it - but somehow stuff favorable to one side is getting leaked, continually.
 

stgislander

Well-Known Member
That's unfair to say that my answer is a BS answer as I don't think his testimony is fake. Yes, he references numerous events and calls. And no, I don't think he is lying. What I do think is that I won't make more of his testimony than is there (as I replied to you in another thread).

Feel free to see what you want to see. I will do the same. You see something important and damning; I don't.

At this point, what we have is nothing more than everyone (including me) doing a bit of mind reading and voicing opinion as if it's fact.

--- End of line (MCP)
How dare you use your (what sounds like) years of professional experience to question Oz the Great and Powerful. :lmao:
 

CPUSA

Well-Known Member
Did you read the ambassador’s opening statement or the fox article? The best Nunes or Ratcliffe can come up with is that Ukraine didn’t know the funding was being held up on the day of the infamous call and then claim that means no quid pro quo. Taylor pretty clearly describes that the funding and the whitehouse visit were contingent on Ukraine publicly stating he was investigating Biden and the 2016 allegations.
Are you this stupid all the time...or only when you come here?
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
What is repellent to me is that these meetings are being held in secret - that Republicans are given either restrictions as to what they can comment on or participate in - or basically locked out -

BUT part of it leaks out anyway. Hence, controlling the narrative. No one is supposed to hear about it - but somehow stuff favorable to one side is getting leaked, continually.
Between the committees there are something like 35 republicans. They are hardly locked out. They get equal time to ask question in committee and are bound by the exact same rules on secrecy as the Dems. This is exactly the way trey gowdey handled the majority of the Benghazi hearings.

the opening statement was released to the public, not leaked.
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
I ask for specific parts of his statement that you have a problem with and you say ‘the entirety of it’, then you go on some BS partisan crap about Shiff controlling the narrative. That’s pretty BS’y.

if Taylor is not lying we have the accusation that the president was using foreign aid and access to potus to gain leverage over the Ukraine president so he would help give trump a political advantage in the 2020 election. He went on to say that trump was using Rudy, Sondland and Volker to accomplish his goals via a Shadow state department. That’s what he said in his statement.
As I said earlier, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I have a problem with the entirety of his statement because the entirety is filled with, as I said earlier, qualifiers. This comes across as weak testimony. Further, using qualifiers is a way of providing wiggle room so that he can say with a straight face either "that's what I meant" or "that's not what I meant" depending upon the circumstances. Third, qualifiers are a great way of making hearsay sound better. Finally, the statement as I read it, is couched in such a manner as to avoid charges/claims of "perjury" should that arise.

So, as I stated earlier, never said Taylor was/is lying, just saying he may not be telling the entire truth. At a minimum, much of what Taylor says (and is being portrayed as Gospel truth) is essentially a game of telephone. And so far, that's how I see the entirety of Schiff's case: trying to paint a picture of guilt via innuendo and hearsay.

Anyway, if what was in the news today about one of Schiff's staffers having met Taylor days before this story broke is true it makes his testimony problematic, perhaps discredited (as at a minimum it makes it look like his statement was coordinated with Schiff (and/or his staff) and thus, part of a coordinated, political hit job).

As far as Taylor being a West Point grad (if I recall that correctly) in the sense that his ethics are above reproach, sorry, not buying it. Could be true, but not necessarily so. Even if he is of the highest ethical behavior, high ethics doesn't provide the bearer with the ability/super power to hear 2nd or 3rd person info and deem it "truth" or "fact."

--- End of line (MCP)
 
Last edited:
Top