Transcript of diplomat Bill Taylor’s testimony to impeachment panel released

You took an impeachment poll and presented YOUR prediction that there is a high probability of impeachment.

Just tap out. It's not in the cards for you.

 

You are not explaining anything. Try again please.

 

I did not base my prediction of impeachment on those polls in any way, shape, or form.

Trump will be impeached because the evidence that he abused his power and obstructed justice is damning and overwhelming.

 

And I've clarified that for you before.

Remember when you wanted to try to school me when I said "illegal quid pro quo" and I had to embarrass you again.

It is the height of downright complete stupidity to say that requesting a government to make an announcement against corruption is an impeachable offense.

If it is, all POTUS' must be impeached.

 

Really.

Why did you stick the little poll result up there then? What point were you trying to make with it?

Go ahead.

 

Schiff: 'There doesn't need to be a quid pro quo'
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/schiff-there-doesnt-need-to-be-a-quid-pro-quo
Oct 13, 2019 · Margaret Brennan responded, "So, you see that as the quid quo pro, not just the military aid." "Well, first of all, there doesn't need to be a quid pro quo.

Schiff: We Don't Need a Quid Pro Quo to Impeach Trump
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2019/...
Oct 14, 2019 · House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said on Sunday that there does not need to be a quid pro quo to impeach President Trump. “We’re keeping our focus right now on the president ...

 

I used that poll to demonstrate that support for the impeachment inquiry is above a majority and support for Trump's removal is a plurality.

 

Coup attempt by partisan Democrats.

 

My god...

 

You do know that he kept talking, right? That he immediately followed up that portion by saying that they have evidence of a QPQ? How is that "giving up?"

"Well, first of all, there doesn't need to be a quid pro quo. But it is clear already, I think, from the text messages that this meeting that the Ukrainian president sought was being conditioned on their willingness to intervene in the U.S. election to help the president," the California congressman responded. "That is a terrible abuse of the president’s power. Now whether that abuse goes further, that is the withholding of military aid also as leverage, there's certainly strong indication that’s true as well."

 

So you did come to a conclusion based on the poll huh.

Good job!

Just like support for Clinton's election was a plurality. OH wait.

 

‘Coup has started’: Whistleblower’s Attorney said in 2017

Then, in July 2017, Zaid remarked, “I predict @CNN will play a key role in @realDonaldTrump not finishing out his full term as president.” Also that month, Zaid tweeted, “We will get rid of him, and this country is strong enough to survive even him and his supporters.”

https://saraacarter.com/coup-has-sta...-said-in-2017/

 

So what?

Who cares what Zaid said?

 

There are crimes for which a quid pro quo is a required element. For example, Bribery and Extortion are crimes that include a quid pro quo as an element to the charge. Trump arguably is guilty of extortion in this case, but he is also arguably guilty of a crime that does not require a quid pro quo - specifically the campaign law that prevents individuals from seeking a foreign influence in a domestic election.

Trump sought a personal campaign benefit when he demanded that announced investigation because the announcement included two specific targets (three when you include his phone call) and all of those specific targets provide a personal political benefit to his election campaign.

 

Wrong!

 

LMAO.....yeah and Schiff thought he had evidence of Russian Collusion too.

 

The conclusion being that a majority support the inquiry and a plurality support his removal? Yea.

The conclusion that you inferred from my statement that impeachment would happen or that removal will happen? No. To that end, I point to the damning evidence and sworn testimony.

 

No, he's not. You are connecting dots that do not exist. Trump sought information in an ongoing investigation into the Russia Hoax and into Biden's corruption.

Did Biden break the law? Can the President of the United States ask for information regrading Americans who break the law?

Yes, yes he can.

 

As you are clearly trying to avoid the issue here, let me make it clear.

Democrats have not given up on proving QPQ and, indeed, have gotten multiple people to testify under oath that a QPQ existed.

Hell, the person that Trump cited as proof positive that a quid pro quo did not exist amended his testimony to say that a qpq existed.

 

Yea, he outright lied about that on National TV. He should have been removed from office.

Kent transcript is out. No Quid Pro Quo. No Ukraine aid was held up, "I have no direct knowledge."

Another dud by the traitors attempting the coup.

 

Of which you have none... You have innuendo and third hand knowledge from the NYT.

 

LMAO.....Right now Eric Ciaramella and Vindman.


Vindman, Whistleblower Still Work Together on U.S.-Ukraine Policy

 

Would an announcement of an investigation into the 2016 election or an announcement of an investigation into Burisma oil provide a personal political benefit to Donald Trump?

And no, I have not seen any evidence that either Biden broke the law. But hell, let's ask the Ukrainian Prosecutor who investigated the issue - again.

Ukraine Prosecutor Says No Evidence of Wrongdoing by Bidens

 

I think a poll and the New York Times.

lol

 

Sure. Other than using it to conclude you have the goods on Trump.

You should try to remember what you said that leads to you trying to defend it.

Probably got lost in the weeds, it's ok.