Opening statement of Ambassador William B. Taylor

This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
"But, from what I understood..." (bottom of page 4, no reason given for this "understanding")

"...it was becoming clear to me...driven by what I had come to understand...." (top of page 6, conjecture about inference)

"...they gave me an account of the July 10 meeting...Sondland had connected 'investigations' with an Oval Office meeting for President Zelenskyy…" (middle of page 7, second-hand information, superseded by the actual transcript of the call that shows no such connection)

"...I began to sense...." (middle of page 7, more opinionated conjecture)

"[on August 29th] it had still not occurred to me that the hold on security assistance could be related to the 'investigations'..." (middle of page 10 - seems odd this person had seen and read all that occurred, and as a diplomat he didn't see the connection at this point. Odd, if there was a connection, but perfectly reasonable if there was not, since he was in what he called the regular AND "irregular" communication paths. I put irregular in quote marks because having "back door" channels is not even close to being irregular.)

"The Vice President did say that President Trump wanted the Europeans to do more to support Ukraine, and that he wanted the Ukrainians to do more to fight corruption." (bottom of page 10: So, now we're getting somewhere. As is the consistent line from the Trump administration ((see, NATO funding discussions)), Trump wanted the right people to fund vice the US to fund.)

Bottom of page 10 to top of page 11, a narrative is provided that says one guy told another guy in front of a third guy that the first guy thinks money is being conditioned on investigations. No corroboration, just fourteenth-hand discussions and interpretations.

Third full paragraph in on page 11, the speaker is explaining how he, himself, recommended conditional support of Ukraine aid funds, the condition being on who it is that announces the investigations. Interesting that he thinks this is wrong and bad, but, "here's how we can do it."

It's amazing how this is coming across. Literally, on page 12, the speaker says that Mr. Morrison says that Ambassador Sondland says that Trump says..... Is this game of telephone really Congressional testimony??? :roflmao:

Numerous times in this narrative, Trump says he does not want to see anything as a quid pro quo. There's nothing here that appears to be a quid pro quo.

The speaker says that he thinks "it's crazy to whithhold security assistance for help with a political campaign" - a conclusion he apparently reached based on a media article. His boss says back to him that he is "incorrect about President Trump's intentions. The president has been crystal clear no quid pro quos of any kind." Seems pretty clear to me this is strongly saying the speaker has it wrong, and just disagrees with the obvious facts.

On the bottom of page 13, the speaker provides that the money was released with no interview provided to CNN. He explained earlier that his impression (not fact, impression) was that the interview was a requirement for funds to be given, the interview never happened, the funds WERE given, and Zelenskyy's office confirms they're not going to do that. I other words, the speaker is describing the facts dispute his (and the media report's) thought that the money was contingent upon a CNN interview. He's admitting the facts show he got it wrong.





This man's statement, without question, supports the president's narrative. Thank you for providing it, @transporter.
 
Midnightrider

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
Yeah, any reasonable person is going to have trouble dismissing that testimony. He names names, gives specifics, and describes plenty of QPQ.
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Midnightrider said:
Yeah, any reasonable person is going to have trouble dismissing that testimony. He names names, gives specifics, and describes plenty of QPQ.
Click to expand...
I hope it's true that the left will have trouble dismissing this testimony. He gave innuendo, and specifically told us that he didn't think about there being any tie between investigations and government action until he read it on-line in a news article - several weeks after getting briefed on all relevant conversations and being a part of both communication channels.
 
vraiblonde

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Our financial aid always comes with strings attached - always has, always will. Trump was asking them to look into Ukraine involvement in our 2016 election, and that's a reasonable request.

I'd ask the bots to specify exactly what Amb. Taylor said that they think indicates a criminal act, but I know they either won't answer or they'll cherrypick an innocuous statement and pretend it's some bombshell. it's pretty clear the Transporters don't understand the situation and are just doing as their masters tell them to do.
 
Midnightrider

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
vraiblonde said:
Our financial aid always comes with strings attached - always has, always will. Trump was asking them to look into Ukraine involvement in our 2016 election, and that's a reasonable request.

I'd ask the bots to specify exactly what Amb. Taylor said that they think indicates a criminal act, but I know they either won't answer or they'll cherrypick an innocuous statement and pretend it's some bombshell. it's pretty clear the Transporters don't understand the situation and are just doing as their masters tell them to do.
Click to expand...
And If those ‘strings’ were for the benefit of the American people there is no problem. Trumps strings were for his personal polictical benefit. Amb Taylor clearly describes that fact. It is a crime to solicit political help from a foreign country and it is illegal to use government funds to trade for personal benefits.
Then there is the issue of Rudy running a covert state department with respect to Ukraine. Like I said, a reasonable person would have a hard time dismissing his testimony. Luckily you are burdened in that way.
 
T

transporter

Well-Known Member
So TP...how removed is English from your first language??? Let's dissect your stupidity shall we?

QUOTE="This_person, post: 6058023, member: 11303"
"But, from what I understood..." (bottom of page 4, no reason given for this "understanding")
Click to expand...

He explains 3 paragraphs later when he describes communications with Ambs. Volker and Sondland.

"...it was becoming clear to me...driven by what I had come to understand...." (top of page 6, conjecture about inference)
Click to expand...

Not good at following the flow of English either are ya? So he stated the finding, "what he had come to understand" first and the proceeds over the following pages to explain why he came to the conclusion. It's really not as difficult to follow the flow as you had with it.

"...they gave me an account of the July 10 meeting...Sondland had connected 'investigations' with an Oval Office meeting for President Zelenskyy…" (middle of page 7, second-hand information, superseded by the actual transcript of the call that shows no such connection)

So you consider the NSC' Senior Director for European/Russian Affairs and the NSCs Director for European Affairs as impeachable, unbelievable sources who have no credibility? Note that the NSC Director Hill had testified before Mr. Taylor.

And you are wrong about the call transcript...the WH visit is clearly tied to the "investigations".

"...I began to sense...." (middle of page 7, more opinionated conjecture)
Click to expand...

Opinions based on 50 years of govt service from a man who spent a good portion of his career in Ukraine are just conjecture to you??? I'd buy your point if this was some data entry clerk. But it wasn't. You are REALLY reaching.

"[on August 29th] it had still not occurred to me that the hold on security assistance could be related to the 'investigations'..." (middle of page 10 - seems odd this person had seen and read all that occurred, and as a diplomat he didn't see the connection at this point. Odd, if there was a connection, but perfectly reasonable if there was not, since he was in what he called the regular AND "irregular" communication paths. I put irregular in quote marks because having "back door" channels is not even close to being irregular.)
Click to expand...

Um...to this point he has been talking about WH visit being tied to the "investigations". Missed that too?? I went back up and bolded the point for you. BTW...you neglected to include the sentence that follows the one you quoted. Why don't you go back and read it?

"The Vice President did say that President Trump wanted the Europeans to do more to support Ukraine, and that he wanted the Ukrainians to do more to fight corruption." (bottom of page 10: So, now we're getting somewhere. As is the consistent line from the Trump administration ((see, NATO funding discussions)), Trump wanted the right people to fund vice the US to fund.)
Click to expand...

Um...just to point out the stunningly obvious...the money had been appropriated by Congress. So your point is irrelevant.

Bottom of page 10 to top of page 11, a narrative is provided that says one guy told another guy in front of a third guy that the first guy thinks money is being conditioned on investigations. No corroboration, just fourteenth-hand discussions and interpretations.
Click to expand...

Um again you don't seem to be able to follow along...the "First Guy" is the new NSC Senior Director of European/Russian Affairs. These aren't drug dealers caught in a sting operation ratting on another. This is one highly educated, highly experienced, highly qualified professional speaking to another highly educated, highly experienced, highly qualified professional about a conversation the first person was a direct part of. BTW...it is rather safe to assume that both of these men have exceedingly high levels of security clearances.

So, again, your point is rather irrelevant.

Third full paragraph in on page 11, the speaker is explaining how he, himself, recommended conditional support of Ukraine aid funds, the condition being on who it is that announces the investigations. Interesting that he thinks this is wrong and bad, but, "here's how we can do it."
Click to expand...

Wow...ok..so he simply says "we discussed"....he doesn't say as you infer, the he (Mr. Taylor) brought it up or that he (Mr. Taylor) suggested someone other than Zelensky make an announcement.

It's amazing how this is coming across. Literally, on page 12, the speaker says that Mr. Morrison says that Ambassador Sondland says that Trump says..... Is this game of telephone really Congressional testimony??? :roflmao:
Click to expand...

So...again you don't seem to grasp the people who are in the conversation. Second, it is stated that Trump said he doesn't want a quid pro quo

Numerous times in this narrative, Trump says he does not want to see anything as a quid pro quo. There's nothing here that appears to be a quid pro quo.
Click to expand...

Trump is not directly involved at any point anywhere. Mr. Taylor at no point says he spoke to the President. And the very next sentence describes a quid pro quo. Mr Morrison also is said to have described the conversation with Sondland to Amb Bolton and NSC lawyers. You don't suppose the House will call Ambassador Bolton to testify do you? Or the NSC lawyers?
The speaker says that he thinks "it's crazy to whithhold security assistance for help with a political campaign" - a conclusion he apparently reached based on a media article. His boss says back to him that he is "incorrect about President Trump's intentions. The president has been crystal clear no quid pro quos of any kind." Seems pretty clear to me this is strongly saying the speaker has it wrong, and just disagrees with the obvious facts.
Click to expand...

Um...your not really paying attention to this are you? Go look to see why it took Sondland 5 hours to reply. If you were actually paying attention you wouldn't have made such a blatantly stupid stupid as I italicized. Here try this:


On the bottom of page 13, the speaker provides that the money was released with no interview provided to CNN. He explained earlier that his impression (not fact, impression) was that the interview was a requirement for funds to be given, the interview never happened, the funds WERE given, and Zelenskyy's office confirms they're not going to do that. I other words, the speaker is describing the facts dispute his (and the media report's) thought that the money was contingent upon a CNN interview. He's admitting the facts show he got it wrong.
Click to expand...

The money was released 2 days after the House announced its investigation int Gulliani's efforts in Ukraine and 1 day after Bolton quit/was fired.

This man's statement, without question, supports the president's narrative. Thank you for providing it, @transporter.
Click to expand...

Mmm...yeah....maybe try removing your head from your ass and looking around.
 
Yooper

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
Midnightrider said:
Like I said, a reasonable person would have a hard time dismissing his testimony. Luckily you are burdened in that way.
Click to expand...
I don't dismiss his testimony. I just choose not to make more of it than is there.

transporter said:
Mmm...yeah....maybe try removing your head from your ass and looking around.
Click to expand...
So we move on to the next set of talking points, eh Tóngzhì? Because your numerous previous attempts gained no traction? And try to back up a ridiculously ambiguous statement as something incriminating with massive posts? Because volume = it must be true?

--- End of line (MCP)
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
transporter said:
So TP...how removed is English from your first language??? Let's dissect your stupidity shall we?



He explains 3 paragraphs later when he describes communications with Ambs. Volker and Sondland.



Not good at following the flow of English either are ya? So he stated the finding, "what he had come to understand" first and the proceeds over the following pages to explain why he came to the conclusion. It's really not as difficult to follow the flow as you had with it.

"...they gave me an account of the July 10 meeting...Sondland had connected 'investigations' with an Oval Office meeting for President Zelenskyy…" (middle of page 7, second-hand information, superseded by the actual transcript of the call that shows no such connection)

So you consider the NSC' Senior Director for European/Russian Affairs and the NSCs Director for European Affairs as impeachable, unbelievable sources who have no credibility? Note that the NSC Director Hill had testified before Mr. Taylor.

And you are wrong about the call transcript...the WH visit is clearly tied to the "investigations".



Opinions based on 50 years of govt service from a man who spent a good portion of his career in Ukraine are just conjecture to you??? I'd buy your point if this was some data entry clerk. But it wasn't. You are REALLY reaching.



Um...to this point he has been talking about WH visit being tied to the "investigations". Missed that too?? I went back up and bolded the point for you. BTW...you neglected to include the sentence that follows the one you quoted. Why don't you go back and read it?



Um...just to point out the stunningly obvious...the money had been appropriated by Congress. So your point is irrelevant.



Um again you don't seem to be able to follow along...the "First Guy" is the new NSC Senior Director of European/Russian Affairs. These aren't drug dealers caught in a sting operation ratting on another. This is one highly educated, highly experienced, highly qualified professional speaking to another highly educated, highly experienced, highly qualified professional about a conversation the first person was a direct part of. BTW...it is rather safe to assume that both of these men have exceedingly high levels of security clearances.

So, again, your point is rather irrelevant.



Wow...ok..so he simply says "we discussed"....he doesn't say as you infer, the he (Mr. Taylor) brought it up or that he (Mr. Taylor) suggested someone other than Zelensky make an announcement.



So...again you don't seem to grasp the people who are in the conversation. Second, it is stated that Trump said he doesn't want a quid pro quo



Trump is not directly involved at any point anywhere. Mr. Taylor at no point says he spoke to the President. And the very next sentence describes a quid pro quo. Mr Morrison also is said to have described the conversation with Sondland to Amb Bolton and NSC lawyers. You don't suppose the House will call Ambassador Bolton to testify do you? Or the NSC lawyers?


Um...your not really paying attention to this are you? Go look to see why it took Sondland 5 hours to reply. If you were actually paying attention you wouldn't have made such a blatantly stupid stupid as I italicized. Here try this:




The money was released 2 days after the House announced its investigation int Gulliani's efforts in Ukraine and 1 day after Bolton quit/was fired.



Mmm...yeah....maybe try removing your head from your ass and looking around.
Click to expand...
Did I hit a nerve with truth?

The man was in all communication chains, didn't think there was quid pro quo until Politico told him to think that, and was assured by an unbiased boss Politico was wrong.

Love to read the transcript of the rest after this carefully-worded opening statement. Since Schiff saw fit to release this, surely he'll see fit to release it all, right?
 
CPUSA

CPUSA

Well-Known Member
Midnightrider said:
And If those ‘strings’ were for the benefit of the American people there is no problem. Trumps strings were for his personal polictical benefit. Amb Taylor clearly describes that fact. It is a crime to solicit political help from a foreign country and it is illegal to use government funds to trade for personal benefits.
Then there is the issue of Rudy running a covert state department with respect to Ukraine. Like I said, a reasonable person would have a hard time dismissing his testimony. Luckily you are burdened in that way.
Click to expand...
Are you this stupid all day, every day or just when you come here?

Inquiring minds really don't care what your dumbass answer is...
 
CPUSA

CPUSA

Well-Known Member
Midnightrider said:
Says the lady who hasn’t read the mueller report but is certain what it says, and who hasn’t read Taylor’s opening statement. Do you shake your fist at the sky when you shout out ‘fake news’?
Click to expand...
Are you always this stupid, or do you just step up your game here?
 
S

somdwatch

Well-Known Member
transporter said:
So TP...how removed is English from your first language??? Let's dissect your stupidity shall we?



He explains 3 paragraphs later when he describes communications with Ambs. Volker and Sondland.



Not good at following the flow of English either are ya? So he stated the finding, "what he had come to understand" first and the proceeds over the following pages to explain why he came to the conclusion. It's really not as difficult to follow the flow as you had with it.

"...they gave me an account of the July 10 meeting...Sondland had connected 'investigations' with an Oval Office meeting for President Zelenskyy…" (middle of page 7, second-hand information, superseded by the actual transcript of the call that shows no such connection)

So you consider the NSC' Senior Director for European/Russian Affairs and the NSCs Director for European Affairs as impeachable, unbelievable sources who have no credibility? Note that the NSC Director Hill had testified before Mr. Taylor.

And you are wrong about the call transcript...the WH visit is clearly tied to the "investigations".



Opinions based on 50 years of govt service from a man who spent a good portion of his career in Ukraine are just conjecture to you??? I'd buy your point if this was some data entry clerk. But it wasn't. You are REALLY reaching.



Um...to this point he has been talking about WH visit being tied to the "investigations". Missed that too?? I went back up and bolded the point for you. BTW...you neglected to include the sentence that follows the one you quoted. Why don't you go back and read it?



Um...just to point out the stunningly obvious...the money had been appropriated by Congress. So your point is irrelevant.



Um again you don't seem to be able to follow along...the "First Guy" is the new NSC Senior Director of European/Russian Affairs. These aren't drug dealers caught in a sting operation ratting on another. This is one highly educated, highly experienced, highly qualified professional speaking to another highly educated, highly experienced, highly qualified professional about a conversation the first person was a direct part of. BTW...it is rather safe to assume that both of these men have exceedingly high levels of security clearances.

So, again, your point is rather irrelevant.



Wow...ok..so he simply says "we discussed"....he doesn't say as you infer, the he (Mr. Taylor) brought it up or that he (Mr. Taylor) suggested someone other than Zelensky make an announcement.



So...again you don't seem to grasp the people who are in the conversation. Second, it is stated that Trump said he doesn't want a quid pro quo



Trump is not directly involved at any point anywhere. Mr. Taylor at no point says he spoke to the President. And the very next sentence describes a quid pro quo. Mr Morrison also is said to have described the conversation with Sondland to Amb Bolton and NSC lawyers. You don't suppose the House will call Ambassador Bolton to testify do you? Or the NSC lawyers?


Um...your not really paying attention to this are you? Go look to see why it took Sondland 5 hours to reply. If you were actually paying attention you wouldn't have made such a blatantly stupid stupid as I italicized. Here try this:




The money was released 2 days after the House announced its investigation int Gulliani's efforts in Ukraine and 1 day after Bolton quit/was fired.



Mmm...yeah....maybe try removing your head from your ass and looking around.
Click to expand...
What QUALIFIES you to DISSECT STUPIDITY? STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top