Democrats "Star" Witness William Taylor sat on the Board of Ukranian NGO with Deep Ties to George Soros

Twitter feed

Web Site

Pathetic…Absolutely pathetic. Reach for any straw you can so you can rationalize what’s happening.

What’s pathetic is your efforts to rationalize and excuse the corruption endemic in the Democrat Party these days.

Trivial to what Trump and Republicans are doing right now.

Every night the fake news media runs the same lead story. “We got it! We got! We got the smoking gun!” (Trump is toast) Witness “junior whistle blower #5” said “junior whistle blower #4” told him he had heard from a reliable source that Trump did something wrong. We got ‘em, boy we got ‘em!”

And of course this is “secret testimony,” held deep in the bowels of the Capitol, where no communications devices are allowed. It’s supposed to be secret unless Adam Schiff says it isn’t.

Does anyone, except the Democrats, wonder why Trump didn’t tell this Bozo about the Baghdadi raid? Schiff would have called Baghdadi to warn him just to make Trump look bad. That’s not far from truth with that guy. He is among the worst of the deep state swamp creatures.

Last night we had some lieutenant colonel, dressed up like he was playing a role in a Sigmond Romberg musical, claim that HE had actually heard something and that HE THOUGHT was improper. So, on HIS WORD we are now obligated to impeach the President of the United State. We know he’s credible because he was wearing hat just like Douglas McArther did with gold braids on it.

The Democrats scripting is so bad that it would not cut it for a daytime soap opera, and yet we are supported to believe it.

1 Like

I’m no Trump fan, but if I were a betting man, I’d take that bet.

Magna-HaHa

1 Like

It doesn’t MATTER what this lieutenant colonel THOUGHT about the call. WE HAVE THE TRANSCRIPT. This guy’s “feelings” are immaterial. Anyone on the planet who is curious about that phone call can SEE what was said and there simply WAS no “quid pro quo

That, apparently, has been edited.

But he is wounded war veteran, and that makes his “feelings” more important than anyone else’s views. That what the fake news is telling us.

We need to honor our veterans, but that does not give them a license to attack the President for political purposes.

First it was “the whistle blowers account is hearsay because he didn’t hear what the President said”, now that you have someone that was on the call and heard it first hand, the goal post moves again.

I mean, you have a guy who gave Trump $1 million dollars corroborating parts of the account. But I guess he is just a clever liberal who gave the money to buy credibility?

What in the HELL are you babbling about here, CSB? There is no proof that the call transcript was “edited,” and who is it that “gave Trump (sic) $1 million dollars?” “Editing” that transcript would be extraordinarily difficult to do in just a couple of days after the charge was made since there were 6 PEOPLE listening in and the transcript is their CONSENSUS of what was said and copied at the time of the call.

1 Like

Really?

LOL, sorry, gave his campaign $1 million. Do you really not know? You know, they guy who said that the President told him to send a text to Bill Taylor saying there was no Quid Pro Quo, then testified under oath that he thought there was a Quid Pro Quo.

Yes, it would be, but not imppossible.

Are you REALLY this obtuse? Vindman isn’t a “Ukraine expert.” He is a CLERK who apparently speaks some Ukrainian…not because he’s actually BEEN in Ukraine, but because he went to school at the Defense Language Institute at some point. (BTW, the conversation between President Trump and the Ukrainian president was entirely in ENGLISH so there’s no need for an “interpreter.”). On the contrary, it would be virtually IMPOSSIBLE to “edit” that transcript and get 6 other people to agree to the editing.

Who cares. He heard the call.

The transcript was edited.

Adam Schiff and the Democrats have wasted our time for weeks with “witnesses” who had nothing but hearsay evidence. Hearsay evidence is rarely admissible in court, except for cases where the original witness is dead.

If Schiff had this lieutenant colonel’s testimony available all along, why didn’t he call him FIRST and not waste our time with gossip mongers?

The answer is simple. The Democrats have no case, and Schiff has orchestrated this circus in order to have a lead story for the fake news to report every night. I covered that in an earlier post.

Of course, the “whistle blower” might not be alive because he or she probably does not exist. It’s the chief strawman for Schiff to use to build a faux body of “witnesses” that keep his narrative going.

This case stinks as bad as the Russian collusion story. If it gets knocked down, Schiff probably has a couple of others that he has created to keep the foolishness going.

In the old days, the news media was largely Democratic. I think it changed from a Republican bias in the 1960s. Back then, despite the fact that they were Democrats, if there was no story, they knocked it down pretty fast. They were concerned about their reputations and integrity.

Now the news media doesn’t care about its integrity because they are serving a liberal audience, like MacDonalds serves hamburgers. That’s part of the reason why the NY Times and the Washington change their headlines to fit their customers’ desires.

Now that the news media is nothing but an arm of the Democrat Party, Schiff can write as much fiction as he needs to do to stay in the headlines. The fake news will back him.

At the risk of offending some people here, Adam Schiff is the new Joe McCarthy. Like Joe with his “list of 200 Communists in the State Department,” Schiff breeds on shadow figures, hearsay witnesses and lies. He is one of the most evil, dishonest people in government. Perhaps one day he will be censured by the Congress just as McCarthy was.

Simple. Why start with one of your best witnesses first? As Fiona Hill, Bill Taylor and others give testimony, Republicans and right-wing media rationalize and make excuses and then Lt. Cornel Vindman testifies and credibly contradicts the rationalizations exposing them for what they are, excuses.

I’m sorry, you must have this case confused with the likes of Bengazi or the email “scandle”, neither of which produced anything actionable.

Are you wearing a tin-foil hat right now? Just curious.

And your “proof” that it was edited is what?

There is no “proof”, just evidence.

Read any one of the links I sent you.

There is no “evidence” either. Put up or shut up.

You can lead a horse to water…