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)
