Donald Trump impeachment investigation over Ukranian phone call...

[morvoran]

Hell, watch the Godfather

Are you basing your judgement on the "do me a favor" line from the trascript with the "I'm gonna make him an offer he can't refuse" line from the movie? You must have believed Shifty Schiff's made up version of the call transcript he read.

Edit: since you are bringing up movies, you should watch "A Few Good Men" (the movie, not the pron). There's a line in that movie that fits for most liberals that goes "You can't handle the truth!!!" The truth of what is really going on in the democrat party would blow your liberal minds.

Diplomacy means working together.

Exactly my point. It's not right that the US has to cover the expenses of the "do-nothing" EU. They need to work with the US to make the worlds a better place, not just sit on their asses and wait for the US to do all the work.

Trumps actions and constant international gaffes are causing those things to be destabilized, which can seriously damage the US and the West on a larger scale.

Only way he is destabilizing things is changing the status quo for the EU by refusing to cover the check on everything going on. That's why Trump got us out of the Paris ordeal that had the US destroying its economy while China and India flourished.

Trump isn't draining the swamp. Trump is the swamp. He fucking brought the swamp in the White House. Half his administration is grifters from corporations and the other half has no real opinion of their own but just likes the attention, which makes them just as much a part of "the swamp" (Trump manages to go in both of those categories).

Wow, you must know nothing or very little about our political system here. Funny that you have a lot of opinions to share about it, though. Trump is draining the swamp by bringing in top executive types that have run big business in the past and know how to lower spending while making profits. The old style politicians that are against Trump don't like that he is putting a lock on their old piggy back called the American people's tax dollars.

You don't need to have the majority of Republicans supporting him to keep him in office.

Sure you do, that's how he gets re-elected. Also, since the Demonrats aren't playing fair with how Trump has not committed any impeachable offenses, yet, they are trying to impeach him anyways, the republican majority in the Senate will keep him in office.

I must imagine seeing that flag below my name that says I'm fucking DUTCH must be hard to see and you can also be forgiven since I think this is the second time I pointed this out to you so I can be sure information must get to your brain a bit slowly.

Yeah, and everybody on this site uses the flag of the country they're from. How do I know you aren't a Mexican with a Dutch flag or an US citizen with a dutch family history honoring their heritage?

You constantly rely on a series of Gish Gallops and quite frankly it's tiring to keep disproving them.

No, I'm bashing people with truths that tear down the lies that they have been fed by their democratic leaders. None of what I say is untrue.

nor do I appreciate the assumption that I'm American.

Again, I don't trust everything I see on the internet. I can't confirm your dutch flag represents your location or that is even the dutch flag.

You accuse me of parroting others, but can you examine yourself for a moment? Your entire arguments rely on easily disproven points, often simply by using Google or actually reading and going through to the original sources for the claims yourself.

I use Google and read through articles and other informative sites before responding to most people on here to make sure my claims are true/proven/accurate. I don't go with the first biased opinion news site that fits my narrative.

Sure leaks of testimony from Taylor and Morrison have alluded to this information

Don't forget about Yovanovitch whose testimony also supported Trump.

Sondland's released testimony corroborated it.

Sondland will get his due when he is charged with perjury. I don't see how that testimony could be against Trump when Sondland admitted that he was then one who instigated a "quid pro quo". Sounds like he should be the one being "impeached".

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I just thought that would help others who weren't sure what you were alluding when providing that snippet. If it is cheaper to rehab someone or provide adequate mental health resources rather than continuing to jail them for a non-violent drug offense then I'd like to do what is cheaper for my wallet as I do pay enough in taxes and, while I think it's my civic duty to pay for taxation since I get representation, would prefer my tax dollars to be used productively with evidence-based approaches when given the opportunity.

Wow, I would like to see a valid and peer reviewed study on this "full of nonsense" thesis. To put this back on topic, this is another issue that the Demonrats in the House could be working on instead of trying to impeach an innocent president. I guess working against your constituents is all the left thinks about these days.

 

[Hanafuda]

Just me maybe* but when a witness gives sworn testimony once, then comes back to give sworn testimony a second time and changes their story ... I stop paying attention to that witness and don’t consider anything they say to be credible.


* not really. “Prior inconsistent statements” is a cornerstone of witness impeachment.

 

[Taleweaver]

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/05/imp...-testimony-by-two-of-trumps-three-amigos.html

"Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, revised his original testimony in the House impeachment probe into President Donald Trump to add that he conveyed to a Ukrainian counterpart that Trump would not release nearly $400 million in foreign aid until the country agreed to launch specific investigations sought by Trump."

"Sondland says he recalls telling the Ukrainian that the country’s newly elected president, Volodymyr Zelensky, would need to deliver a public statement in person announcing the launch of the investigations intended to benefit Trump politically."

I'm going to start reading through the transcript of Sondland's testimony to see if those revisions are present in the released document and, if they are present, how they were framed.

Under oath testimony saying the president desired a public statement of an investigation into a political adversary is really a kick in the teeth to the Trump defense team and a nail in the coffin of the President's beloved 'no quid pro quo' defense.

Goal post on the Republican side, please prepare to move once again. Our game must endure. Fall back to Mulvaney's defense "We do it all the time, get over it" or "It might be an abuse of power, but does not rise to the standard of impeachment". Ready, Set, Match!

Rats... I've been ninja'd. I just read it and wanted to add this.

Yovanovic's testimony is also interesting to read. Certainly not as explosive as this, but it clearly shows the inner workings of the government as portrayed by Lewis in the book 'the fifth risk' (basically : a general confusion, cluelessness and a kafkaian style of bureaucracy (1)). Not a crime in and of itself in the short term, but it basically spells out sabotage in terms of diplomacy.




(1) even more off-topic, but still... Lewis' book basically laid the groundwork for a reality where the president tries to correct the weather service (which was a couple months in the future when this book came out)

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

Wow, I would like to see a valid and peer reviewed study on this "full of nonsense" thesis. To put this back on topic, this is another issue that the Demonrats in the House could be working on instead of trying to impeach an innocent president. I guess working against your constituents is all the left thinks about these days.

The 'full of nonsense thesis isn't mine', I may have not presented the information well enough, but that was a direct quote from AOC. I was just presenting that since you felt the need to lob an outlandish claim to further detract the conversation. I felt it would serve others who desired to know the context of what you were referencing.I'd encourage you to actually search for it before concluding that one side is inherently right. I'm sure if you were interested you would be able to discover peer-reviewed medical journal articles on the situation.

Sondland will get his due when he is charged with perjury. I don't see how that testimony could be against Trump when Sondland admitted that he was then one who instigated a "quid pro quo". Sounds like he should be the one being "impeached".

Sondland went from Trump supporter, donated a million dollars to Trump, to non-credible witness pretty quickly in the eyes of other Trump supporters.

Did anyone even read his admissions? Please take a moment and come back when you do so. He didn't outright lie, just omitted facts by saying he doesn't recall. When multiple testimonies started to detail his involvement he clarified that involvement with his revisions and corroborated their testimony.

I find it hard to believe he completely acted on his own accord as you have claimed. He relayed information he claimed he received from Volker and Rudy Giuliani. All three work for the President and implement foreign policy he wants.

What's more plausible, Occam's Razor if you will, that Trump had no involvement whatsoever, or that Trump directed that decision requiring the public statement would need to come directly from President of Ukraine himself?

 

[morvoran]

I'm sure if you were interested you would be able to discover peer-reviewed medical journal articles on the situation.

I'm not a democrat, so I have no desire to look up unscrupulous matters based on nonsense.

Sondland went from Trump supporter, donated a million dollars to Trump, to non-credible witness pretty quickly in the eyes of other Trump supporters.

Sounds like an unsatisfied customer to me who wasn't happy with the results of his "purchase". He thought he was paying for a corrupt business man and got a great and honorable president.

I find it hard to believe he completely acted on his own accord as you have claimed. He relayed information he claimed he received from Volker and Rudy Giuliani. All three work for the President and implement foreign policy he wants.

The president is supposed to implement foreign policies he wants. I don't see the problem here.

that Trump directed that decision requiring the public statement would need to come directly from President of Ukraine himself?

What public statement? That Trump didn't threaten or force anything from Zelensky?

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

I'm not a democrat, so I have no desire to look up unscrupulous matters based on nonsense.

I'm going to quote you to answer you.

Wow, I would like to see a valid and peer reviewed study on this "full of nonsense" thesis.

It appears you would have a desire if such a valid and peer reviewed study existed. To the scientific community of medicine it does. Do you have anything to disprove their results, are they in favor or against? In order to make such a determination, you would need to educate yourself in what the current literature states. That's just reality.

Sounds like an unsatisfied customer to me who wasn't happy with the results of his "purchase". He thought he was paying for a corrupt business man and got a great and honorable president.

Awe, that's so cute. Any evidence to back up that he's held this dissatisfaction?

The president is supposed to implement foreign policies he wants. I don't see the problem here.

Another weak deflect, the problem is when foreign policy involves the context of soliciting foreign nationals to conduct politically motivated investigations to benefit a sitting president under the guise of anti-corruption. Unfortunately, we only have those two examples from Trump and his administration and nothing else being discussed. We've discussed this point at length, numerous times, no new defense that holds here.

What public statement? That Trump didn't threaten or force anything from Zelensky?

That would have been lovely for you if in fact that was true, but if you read his corrections you would already know the answer to that to be a resounding no.

I'll provide this last bit of assistance. The resumption of US aid would not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we have been discussing for many weeks.
That anti-corruption statement Sondland alludes to is the pronouncement of the reopening of an investigation into Burisma. If we include other testimonies with Trump's memorandum and Trump's public statements (with reporters on live televised statement), it's quite clear we have an issue here worth further investigation whether or not you want to acknowledge it.

The rest of our discussion will contain goal post moves that I'd love to continue, but I encourage you to actually read the testimonies thus far. I've provided enough without having to spoon feed you news just to keep you informed enough to carry any semblance of a discussion. I myself have some reading on my plate now that two more testimonies have been released. I'll entertain some discussion later.

 

[seany1990]

Sondland - The thin thread holding back the no quid-pro-quo argument has on-record reversed that position

 

[morvoran]

I'm going to quote you to answer you.

I had an idea that you weren't a dem since you actually provide some substance to your responses other than just say that I'm a lying twat, you're going to block me, I need to be banned from the site, and then never respond to me.

Any evidence to back up that he's held this dissatisfaction?

The fact that he "supported" Trump and is now stabbing him in the back. Why else would he do that?

Another weak deflect, the problem is when foreign policy involves the context of soliciting foreign nationals to conduct politically motivated investigations to benefit a sitting president under the guise of anti-corruption. Unfortunately, we only have those two examples from Trump and his administration and nothing else being discussed. We've discussed this point at length, numerous times, no new defense that holds here.

Not a deflection. President's set the foreign policies that they want and feel would be in the best interest of their country. How is this deflecting from "All three work for the President and implement foreign policy he wants."?
You must not be aware of the agreement the US made with Ukraine about how we can ask them to investigate corruption if our leaders deem it as warranted. I don't know where you get that asking Ukraine to investigate the corruption of Biden and his son is "politically motivated". Is it because quid pro Joe decided to run for president after the call was made? Funny how these coincidences happen.

The resumption of US aid would not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we have been discussing for many weeks.

You are assuming guilt before (and, seemingly, without) presuming innocence. You assume that Trump must be guilty of something that has been proven to be false as well as most people that hate just Trump for winning the election.
Ukraine was not made aware of the aid being withheld until months after the call. This means Trump did not commit a quid pro quo or any impeachable offense before, during, or after that call. The transcript proves this as well as Zelensky backing up this claim. The call is what the House dems are basing the recent closed door impeachment on meaning they are wasting their time, our tax dollars, and not helping anybody with this impeachment nonsense.

Trump has been proven innocent beyond a shadow of doubt. This whole impeachment matter is complete bovine fecal matter. Case closed.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

Not a deflection. President's set the foreign policies that they want and feel would be in the best interest of their country. How is this deflecting from "All three work for the President and implement foreign policy he wants."?
You must not be aware of the agreement the US made with Ukraine about how we can ask them to investigate corruption if our leaders deem it as warranted. I don't know where you get that asking Ukraine to investigate the corruption of Biden and his son is "politically motivated". Is it because quid pro Joe decided to run for president after the call was made? Funny how these coincidences happen.

I am aware of it. I wasn't at first until I started posting in this thread back on page 6-7. But the document you refer to is really specific to how our two countries are supposed to conduct such an exchange. Our respective attorney generals are supposed to mediate any investigation. No mention of personal lawyers to the President. I am aware Barr was mentioned in the memorandum as well. It's because of questioning his involvement that the agreement you refer to was brought into the discussion, granted that was about 30 pages ago.

You are assuming guilt before (and, seemingly, without) presuming innocence. You assume that Trump must be guilty of something that has been proven to be false as well as most people that hate just Trump for winning the election.
Ukraine was not made aware of the aid being withheld until months after the call. This means Trump did not commit a quid pro quo or any impeachable offense before, during, or after that call. The transcript proves this as well as Zelensky backing up this claim. The call is what the House dems are basing the recent closed door impeachment on meaning they are wasting their time, our tax dollars, and not helping anybody with this impeachment nonsense.

Trump has been proven innocent beyond a shadow of doubt. This whole impeachment matter is complete bovine fecal matter. Case closed.

I actually don't presume guilt. Trump should have a fair process where he can object to evidence and have legal counsel present at the time of the political trial in the senate if impeachment is passed in the house. If he's acquitted then he's our President for the remainder of his term until we decide who America wants for 2020. However, I have enough suspicion based on the evidence collected thus far that we need to investigate further before having an impeachment vote because I have plenty of unanswered questions. I don't think Democrats will wait for the courts to force people to answer subpoenas before they try to serve articles of impeachment because they want to have a clear case for obstruction and because of a restricted timeline.

Off topic:
Most are ready to make a decision one way or another but I want to actually see the real transcript. If I was a senator, I wouldn't desire to vote without seeing the full document. My reason is allegedly it's not complete. This assertion is from Vindman's leaked testimony, and it's not something that has corroboration to my knowledge. I'm on a hypothetical, I'm aware we need to see the full testimony of Vindman before drawing such a conclusion, but the thought has festered over the past week within me.

Trump has been a very... unconventional president, there is alot of division over his methods but Vindman's assertion would be beyond for what I would conceive as realistic. This isn't me disparaging Vindman, just that I find it hard to digest that Trump would be that bold in directly asking for tapes on Biden on a call. It makes me doubt some of his leaked testimony but at the same time it's a political car crash that you stare at and wonder is that even possible to be real? Ok, I drifted off, I'm needing sleep as I've begun to rant.

Back on topic: You talk about months after the call... Just to reiterate the time-line:
Trump told his acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, to freeze the aid back in mid-July.
The decision had reportedly been communicated by the US Office of Management and Budget to State and Defense department officials on July 18 — a week before the phone call with Zelensky, and around a month before the Ukrainians eventually found out. So you are partially correct that during the July 25th call Zelensky had no idea aid was actively being withheld (at least with all the facts presented thus far).

Ultimately, it was bipartisan pressure in Washington that forced Trump to unlock the aid in mid-September, September 11th to be exact.

The issue is there is a gap when Sondland made a specific point of contact with Mr. Yermak in Warsaw on September 1st. Sondland states the withholding of the aid was leaked days before and that during the Warsaw meeting is when he relayed his message that was provided to him by Volker and Giuliani. Pence was also in Warsaw at that time but I'm not going to make many assertions regarding his involvement without some hard facts.

Finally, I mean this in no disrespect to Ukrainians but Zelensky's denial is akin to a worker telling their HR that their boss is fair in order to ensure employment and continue to receive a paycheck without fear of retaliation. The power dynamic between the two is so imbalanced that anything Zelensky says or does, I will take as something he does for the good of his people. Not because it necessarily is true. That might be unfair but I don't see any other country willing to hand over 400million in foreign aid. I expect he will do whatever is requested by any american administration.

On October 4th, Ukraine's top prosecutor said Friday his office is reviewing several cases related to the owner of a gas company where the son of former Vice President Joe Biden sat on the board, but he added that he wasn't aware of any evidence of wrongdoing by either Biden. I don't know what the conclusion of this review stated. I can't say if this decision was made due to the promise for the aid or due to the overwhelming political pressure Zelensky was under to project the appearance his country is not corrupt and they are moving in the right direction under his administration.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

The fact that he "supported" Trump and is now stabbing him in the back. Why else would he do that?

To avoid a potential perjury charge. I'm not sure if it would be pursued but he was likely advised to clarify his statement by his legal team.

 

[notimp]

• Neo-nazis, KKKers and the ilk read it as "this guy will stand for my ideals, he'll make it so that I can shoot a man in the streets"

• Non-Trump supporters have legitimate reason to be concerned over those kinds of comments because it's a classic dogwhistle (although a bad one, given how obvious it is).

Maybe. Still, you are talking about maybe 15% of the population. If at all, because shooting someone in the mainstreet isnt something that would register positively with even 15% of people I have to imagine. (So its not a classic dogwhistle.)

But yes, Trump also caters to one demographic no other mainstream politician catered to in the past.

 

[Taleweaver]

Just me maybe* but when a witness gives sworn testimony once, then comes back to give sworn testimony a second time and changes their story ... I stop paying attention to that witness and don’t consider anything they say to be credible.


* not really. “Prior inconsistent statements” is a cornerstone of witness impeachment.

From what I understand, Sondland didn't exactly lie, but claimed he completely forgot about some very important conversations until his memory was refreshed by later testifications. I would also remind you that the summary of what Sondland testified the first time came from Donald Trump. And we both know that Trump likes to pretend to speak on behalf of others and claim they say things these persons never said or implied (Mueller never exonerated Trump, but Trump never even apologized from misreading drawing made conclusions).

... But I can see why Sondland 's testification isn't going to win you over, and I don't blame you. However... That first testification was about the only thing in Trump' s favor. Now that that is gone, all that remains is a "yeah, we broke the law. So what?"

So my question to you is : do you think the president is above the law? Because that's where the current goal post has moved to in the last couple days.

 

[Hanafuda]

From what I understand, Sondland didn't exactly lie, but claimed he completely forgot about some very important conversations until his memory was refreshed ...

Yeah. Sure.

... But I can see why Sondland 's testification isn't going to win you over, and I don't blame you. However... That first testification was about the only thing in Trump' s favor. Now that that is gone, all that remains is a "yeah, we broke the law. So what?"

So my question to you is : do you think the president is above the law? Because that's where the current goal post has moved to in the last couple days.

First cite the law you think was broken, then ask that question. I'm not aware of what law is supposed to have been broken. The most I've heard alleged is maybe some ethically questionable insinuation which was never acted upon, or perhaps a vague 'violation of public trust' thing which hasn't been shown anywhere near 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' I have seen enough to be pretty satisfied that the Clinton campaign engaged in corrupt efforts to bring down the Trump campaign in 2016, with the help of foreign agents and friends in the Obama administration.

And there's no way in hell I would weigh the credibility of witness testimony based on cherry-picked excerpts that have been leaked by a partisan source. When/if they testify in public, with cross-examination, then it will be worth listening to what is said.

As things are, if they prove that Trump actually withheld the funding from Ukraine only because it was conditioned upon an investigation of Biden, and Ukraine knew this was the condition and it was Trump's order (not staff, not Sondland who AFAIK only testified that he told a Ukrainian that) it's something to consider for the next election but I still don't think it rises to "high crimes and misdemeanors." We're three months into this boondoggle and I still haven't heard a Democrat yet say what law is supposed to have been broken.


Finally, here's the purported "smoking gun" quote from Sondland's revised testimony. Does this prove there was a 'quid pro quo' for the funding?

He "presumed"

And Yovanovitch's purported testimony, which is also being sold as bad for the President. It made her wonder.

 

[seany1990]

Just me maybe* but when a witness gives sworn testimony once, then comes back to give sworn testimony a second time and changes their story ... I stop paying attention to that witness and don’t consider anything they say to be credible.


* not really. “Prior inconsistent statements” is a cornerstone of witness impeachment.

So what's your excuse for burying your head in the sand for the other 3 corroborating witnesses?
ThEy ArE dEeP StAtErS

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

Yeah. Sure.





First cite the law you think was broken, then ask that question. I'm not aware of what law is supposed to have been broken. The most I've heard alleged is maybe some ethically questionable insinuation which was never acted upon, or perhaps a vague 'violation of public trust' thing which hasn't been shown anywhere near 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' I have seen enough to be pretty satisfied that the Clinton campaign engaged in corrupt efforts to bring down the Trump campaign in 2016, with the help of foreign agents and friends in the Obama administration.

And there's no way in hell I would weigh the credibility of witness testimony based on cherry-picked excerpts that have been leaked by a partisan source. When/if they testify in public, with cross-examination, then it will be worth listening to what is said.

As things are, if they prove that Trump actually withheld the funding from Ukraine only because it was conditioned upon an investigation of Biden, and Ukraine knew this was the condition and it was Trump's order (not staff, not Sondland who AFAIK only testified that he told a Ukrainian that) it's something to consider for the next election but I still don't think it rises to "high crimes and misdemeanors." We're three months into this boondoggle and I still haven't heard a Democrat yet say what law is supposed to have been broken.


Finally, here's the purported "smoking gun" quote from Sondland's revised testimony. Does this prove there was a 'quid pro quo' for the funding?

He "presumed"

I'd direct to testimony of text messages provided by Volker that have been released thus far to answer that question.

https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2019/11/Volkertextmessages.pdf

First, Despite Sondland's attempt to claim he doesn't recall when or by whom the aid was suspended, Taylor informed Sondland of Mick Mulvaney via Trump's direction was blocking the aid.

[7/18/19 10:19:54AM] Bill Taylor: OMB on a SVTS just said that all security assistance to Ukraine is frozen, per a conversation with Mulvaney and POTUS. Over to you.

[7/18/19 11:07:08AM] Gordon Sondland: All over it.

Second, There was another condition for the White House meeting for public statement of investigation into Burisma and 2016 election interference.

Page 20 - 8/12/19, 8:31:25PM - Translated Russian from Andrey Yermak - "Special attention should be paid to the problem of interference in the political processes of the United States, especially with the alleged involvement of some Ukrainian politicians. I want to declare that this is unacceptable. We intend to initiate and complete a transparent and unbiased investigation of all available facts and episodes, which in turn will prevent the recurrence of this problem in the future."

The following day with Andrey/Gordon/Kurt
Page 23 - 8/13/19
10:11:50AM - Kurt Volker - Hi Andrey - we spoke with Rudy. When is good to call you?

-snip conversation- feel free to read page 23 -

Something that stood out from Volker's testimony page 119:

"Rudy says: 'Well, if it doesn't say Burisma and if it doesn't say 2016, what does it mean? You know, it's not credible. You know, they're hiding something,'" Volker said.

This is only to affirm that Volker was in discussion with Rudy who he claims laid the requirement that was presented in the text above.
-ok continuing on-

12:11:15PM - Kurt - "Hi Andrey - good talking - following is text with insert at the end for the 2 key items. We will work on official request."

Context from reading this entire document: This official request is the White House meeting Zelensky is desiring with Trump. It would be easier to just read page 19 in it's entirety rather than me type out entire conversation. It's texts so it's fairly brief.

12:11:19PM - Kurt - "Special attention should be paid to the problem of interference in the political processes of the United States, especially with the alleged involvement of some Ukrainian politicians. I want to declare that this is unacceptable. We intend to initiate and complete a transparent and unbiased investigation of all available facts and episodes, including those involving Burisma and the 2016 U.S. elections, which in turn will prevent the recurrence of this problem in the future."

They formally requested a public statement from the president to say specifically he was launching an investigation into those 2 key items. These are items that would specifically benefit Trump politically. This clarified request seems to come from Giuliani as noted above. It is completely obnoxious to type out this information as the pdf formats don't allow me to copy paste without me downloading and modifying the pdf.

I'd request you separate all texts chronologically and then follow it for full comprehension. I'm sure someone will eventually create and publish such a thing in due time. I ended up reading it in a straight pass-through and then ear-marked 10-12 pages that I then reread to solidify chronological order of events.

Ok moving on - Page 42-43 has conversation over investigation request to Ukraine between Sondland and Volker that coincides discussion at the time between Volker and Andrey.

The main takeaway is that Sondland was fully aware what was going on and has obscured as much as possible due to 'memory loss' without subjecting himself to perjury. Anyone who thinks he's an enemy of Trump is sadly mistaken. Whether or not he's obscuring to protect himself or the President? I feel like his correction says he values clearing himself from perjury higher than Trump's presidency. I guess it's subjective whether or not that makes him a 'traitor'.

Wow... Apparently Taylor's testimony is now released. I sincerely enjoy this but a fun hobby is starting to go a bit overboard. I'm not promising myself to review that tonight. Although he's supposedly a meticulous note-taker and a 50yr Public servant who was called out of retirement by Pompeo. I also read that public testimonies are next week starting Wednesday.