Uh, evidence?? …
WE DON’T NEED NO STEEENKING EVIDENCE!
Actually, its only his word… since Trump will never risk an appearance under oath. However, the committee will hear from the other participant in the call – Ambassador Sondland and half of Taylor’s report was on what Sondland said to Taylor’s aide.
President Trump, talking on a cell phone to a diplomat in a restaurant in Kyiv loud enough that people not on the call can hear.
Tell me again how upset you are about unsecured email servers.
1 Like
Any security issue would be on the listeners end, phone’s do have volume buttons. What? You think he should be whispering? And I find it hard to believe he could even talk loud enough to be heard by others in a restaurant setting if the listener had the phone to his ear and didn’t have speakerphone on.
So to clarify: Taylor’s ASSISTANT was not present in Trump’s end or Sondlands end of their phone conversation either? He’s just going to testify as to what Sondland told him weeks after the fact, and then in turn what he told Taylor that Sondland said?
And this is not hearsay to you? 
Somebody needs to at least watch a few more episodes of Judge Judy…
1 Like
So you have no problem with the President discussing foreign policy with someone sitting in a public place? The desire to find excuses for Trump seems inexhaustible.
Heard it from a friend who…
That would depend on the sensitivity of the information being discussed and in any case, the Chief Executive is the final arbiter of what is and isn’t classified and what level of classification it is due.
Depends on the policy.
You are making stories to fit your desired outcome rather than paying attention to the evidence. If you listen to Ambassador Taylor’s testimony there were comments between Sondland and the Taylor’s aide in the restaurant immediately after the call ended.
And you making up rules of evidence to fit you desire outcome rather than recognizing the rules of evidence… A person reporting their half of a conversation is giving direct evidence, not hearsay.
1 Like
Listen to the opening statements yesterday on the critical role of the Ukraine in US national interest and then reflect on whether a conversation about cutting off military aid to the Ukraine, and enabling the success of the Russian invasion of the Donbass Region was a matter worthy of being discussing securely.
Not mine to say. Nor yours.
So you have ruled that we are in the domain where we are not allowed to post opinions – or at least that is your opinion.
You of course can post your opinion all day long but the fact remains, what is and isn’t classified and at what level it is classified at is the responsibility of the President. And as I pointed out, if his end of the call could be overheard by others that is on the person with the phone and volume button in the unsecure location.
Do you realize that Trump doesn’t have to President the way you feel he should? He doesn’t owe you anything.
Reminds me of a question I heard reported on NPR in the impeachment proceeding where the witness was asked if withholding aid until an investigation into someone commenced was national policy, asked of Taylor, who replied no. Umm, you don’t set national policy Mr Taylor.
Let me remind you that you like to complain about condescension in posts!
He has to govern in accord with his oath of office, an oath he clearly neither understands nor takes seriously. My feelings don’t enter into that.
Ambassador Taylor implemented national policy and so was clearly in a position to see when it changed or was not being carried out.
Exactly. His oath of office that governs presidential behavior.
Presidential behavior is not on a whim.
Allan
What does Biden have to do with anything regarding impeachment?
Zero. Just muddies the waters.
Allan
