One of Taylors aids got deposed today, the guy that told Taylor he overheard a phone call between Trump and Sonland at a restaurant in Ukraine. They talked about how Trump "doesn't give a shit about Ukraine", cares a lot about the Biden investigation, president of Ukraine "loves your ass" (Trumps), Sweden should've let A$AP Rocky out because Trump told them to but at least Kim Kardashian will be happy he tried...lol
Here's his
opening statementI feel like the guy is likely telling the truth, and there were 2 other people at the lunch that might be deposed also, but the whole "I over heard him on the phone thing" is just such an easy target for the GOP I suspect they will probably pass on grilling him publicly.
Sonland is one of the witnesses the Republicans requested and scheduled to testifies next week. He's already had to change his testimony from "there was no quid pro quo" to "oh, now I remember, there
was some quid pro quo" after every other witness' testimony was in direct conflict with his.
On break for Day 2 of hearings. I wasn't able to watch it from the beginning, but Trump is having a bit of a melt down on Twitter, attacking Marie Yovanovitch mid testimony.
It was Obama that media suggested was looking and acting King-like, not Trump. It's only that Trump is not the King they'd wished for, right?
So there you have it. A bunch of sore losers who did get a Congressional majority advocating impeachment, for, whatever. And now they are scraping around in impeachment hearings looking for some plausible impeachable offense.
It really is that simple. And people see this and know it.
Meanwhile, exactly what real, useful work has the Democratic Congress done?
I don't think "Party A is better than Party B" is a valid argument, or even relevant, when it comes to whether or not a president should be impeached.
Please don't mis represent my comments. "SORE LOSERS" is not synonymous to "BETTER"
Didn't mean to mis-represent. I don't think the fact that the Democrats are sore losers is
a valid defense either. Or the fact that the media suggested Obama was looking and acting king-like. Neither of these things have anything to do with whether or not Trump did what he is being accused, and if he did, whether or not they are impeachable offenses. I feel like saying bad things about Democrats, past or presently in office is a bit of a cop out when it comes to discussing the impeachment hearings. ...
"A valid defense"?
Nowhere did I argue that this was a defense.
Descriptive phrases of the political environment are not "defenses". I can't even offer "defenses" because I'm still trying to figure out what impeachable offenses defenses might be required for.
There's zero need for the double talk, but one more time, don't misrepresent my comments. It's unnecessary. Everyone knows that a certain contingent wants Trump out, by any means necessary, including impeachment, for any plausible charge. And everyone knows that another contingent does not. It is what it is.
I hear you, but "sore losers" is descriptive, not "bad things."
Ok. I won't assume you are defending Trump anymore unless you say so explicitly, sorry. There wasn't any sort of bad faith argument on my part though, the "descriptive phrases" you used are also being used to argue why Trump shouldn't be impeached, and this is a thread about the Impeachment hearings, so I think my assumption that you were presenting a defense was reasonable.