Takeaways from Bill Taylor’s crucial opening statement

  
Via:  john-russell  •  4 weeks ago  •  41 comments

Takeaways from Bill Taylor’s crucial opening statement

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Taylor provides perhaps the most compelling evidence yet that this quid pro quo didn’t just exist, but that it was explicitly communicated to Ukraine. He says he was told by National Security Council aide Tim Morrison that Sondland, the European Union Ambassador, directly communicated that quid pro quo to a top Zelenky aide, Andriy Yermak.

“During this same phone call I had with Mr. Morrison, he went on to describe a conversation Ambassador Sondland had with Mr. Yermak at [a meeting in] Warsaw,” Taylor says. “Ambassador Sondland told Mr. Yermak that the security assistance money would not come until President Zelenskyy committed to pursue the Burisma investigation.”

=============================

One of the big questions here was whether Trump might have gotten leverage from a) withholding hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid, or b) from withholding  an Oval Office meeting  that new Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky badly wanted.

“By mid-July it was becoming clear to me that the meeting President Zelenskyy wanted was conditioned on the investigations of Burisma,” which employed Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden, “and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections,” Taylor says.

The military aid was held up the next month — in August — and Taylor says he soon came to believe the same about it.

“It still had not occurred to me that the hold on security assistance could be related to the ‘investigation.’ “ he says. “That, however, would soon change.




Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
JohnRussell
1  seeder  JohnRussell    4 weeks ago

If this were a criminal case Trump's lawyers would be begging for a plea bargain. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2  seeder  JohnRussell    4 weeks ago

Off topic comments will be subject to removal. 

 
 
 
 
lady in black
3  lady in black    4 weeks ago

You're going to get a lot of this.....

1k5rzy.jpg

and don't forget the newest...Get Over It

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  lady in black @3    4 weeks ago

When the Mueller Report came out without a smoking gun against Trump he was probably home free.  Mueller could not prove conspiracy or collusion between Trump and the Russians.

Since then Trump has SAID that he would accept help from a foreign government in the 2020 election (Stephanopolous interview), and now in recent weeks we learn of Trump asking a foreign government to participate in interfering in our election season. 

It kind of makes you think that there really WAS collusion between Trump and the Russians ,( but Mueller just couldnt pin it down legally), doesn't it? 

 
 
 
lady in black
3.1.1  lady in black  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    4 weeks ago

Yes it does.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  lady in black @3.1.1    4 weeks ago

We have people here and elsewhere that claim the Mueller investigation and the intelligence community investigations were a "hoax. "

But what we now see, quite clearly, is that Trump is not innocent in the realm of seeking or accepting foreign help in US elections.  So it is likely there was no "hoax" when the 2016 Trump campaign was investigated. More likely is that Mueller didnt go far enough and never got to the point where the collusion would have been uncovered. 

 
 
 
cjcold
3.1.3  cjcold  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.2    4 weeks ago

Always figured it would be obstruction of justice or money laundering.

 
 
 
WallyW
4  WallyW    4 weeks ago

Mueller didnt go far enough and never got to the point where the collusion would have been uncovered. 

Nothing to uncover, it's too late now, still no smoking gun, and all the shoes have dropped

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
4.1  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  WallyW @4    4 weeks ago

Brennan and Clapper just lawyered up but Trump.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5  seeder  JohnRussell    4 weeks ago
The top U.S. envoy to Ukraine testified that a senior diplomat told him in early September that President Donald Trump made U.S. security aid to Ukraine entirely dependent on a public promise to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and the 2016 election.

Acting Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor also quoted senior diplomat Gordon Sondland as saying Trump wanted Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskiy “in a public box,” according to  a prepared statement  to congressional committees Tuesday that was obtained by the Washington Post and confirmed by an official familiar with the matter.

The account directly contradicts Trump’s assertions that there was no “quid pro quo” behind his July 25 phone conversation with Zelenskiy.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-22/trump-tied-ukraine-aid-directly-to-probing-biden-envoy-says
 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
5.1  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  JohnRussell @5    4 weeks ago

Oh gosh we all remember when you dove into the shallow end of the Russian conspiracy for three years. I'd wear a helmet this time. It's going to leave a mark!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @5.1    4 weeks ago

The more Trump talks, the more we can reach the conclusion that collusion has been happening all along.  How do we know Don Jr didnt co-ordinate with Wikileaks? We dont. Mueller was unable to obtain the phone information that could have shown that. The Trump campaign destroyed evidence. 

If Trump blatantly sought foreign help for 2020, I find it likely he sought it in 2016 as well. 

What hoax? There was no hoax and we are now learning that Trump is the deep state. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
5.1.2  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.1    4 weeks ago

No one gives a shit except the moonbats in the media and some deranged TDS sufferers.

I wouldn't watch tv on election night. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1.3  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @5.1.2    4 weeks ago

A majority of Americans give a shit. The deplorables dont. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
5.1.4  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.3    4 weeks ago
A majority of Americans give a shit.

You think you are part of the majority? Really? The majority of Americans are even more fed up with Congress than Trump.

Since you like polls so much 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/267491/congress-approval-support-impeaching-trump.aspx

As Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives work through an impeachment inquiry regarding alleged abuses of office by President Donald Trump, approval of Congress is now at 25%. That is up from 18% in September, prior to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announcing the impeachment inquiry following news of possible wrongdoing by the president in communications with Ukraine.

The increase in approval of Congress over the past month is the result of a 15-percentage-point jump among Democrats (from 19% to 34%) as well as a smaller increase among independents (from 19% to 25%). Republicans' rating of Congress is stable, at 17%.

This update, from an Oct. 1-13 Gallup poll, also finds that Trump's approval rating remains flat, at 39% , compared with 40% in the late September update. It is on the low end of the 37% to 46% range recorded in 2019 so far, with the 37% readings coming in January during the government shutdown . Currently, 87% of Republicans, 34% of independents and 5% of Democrats approve of the job Trump is doing.

Even with the jump in popularity Congress still lags well behind Trump.

The deplorables dont.

Please, keep that line of thinking going. Anyone that doesn't agree with you is a deplorable. I will congratulate you again on turning me into a deplorable. For the first time since Bill Clinton second term I am voting for an Establishment candidate for President. It isn't a vote for Trump; it is a vote to keep the insane power hungry Democrats out of the White House. They and their sheeple should never be rewarded for the past 3.6 years of sheer and utter bullshit they have put this country through. So mission accomplished. Great job. You proved me wrong, this time around the lesser of two evils is the best choice.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
6  Just Jim NC TttH    4 weeks ago

So is it still quid pro quo if the other party didn't know it supposedly was? THAT is the real question. Does it matter that Mr. Trump or anyone else in the administration supposedly thought  if that "message" was never made available to the Ukraine? Honest question.

 
 
 
MrFrost
6.1  MrFrost  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6    4 weeks ago
So is it still quid pro quo if the other party didn't know it supposedly was

Yes. 

Does it matter that Mr. Trump or anyone else in the administration supposedly thought  if that "message" was never made available to the Ukraine? Honest question.

“Ambassador Sondland told Mr. Yermak that the security assistance money would not come until President Zelenskyy committed to pursue the Burisma investigation.”

That is a quid pro quo. "We will give you the funding if you investigate, (and publically state that you are), the Bidens."

quid pro quo
/ˌkwid ˌprō ˈkwō/
noun
  1. a favor or advantage granted or expected in return for something.
 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
6.1.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  MrFrost @6.1    4 weeks ago
That is a quid pro quo. "We will give you the funding if you investigate, (and publically state that you are), the Bidens."

But there was no mention of "Bidens" in his "testimony" today. It was Burisma only according to Taylor.

"“Ambassador Sondland said that he had talked to President Zelenskyy and Mr. Yermak and told them that, although this was not a quid pro quo, if President Zelenskyy did not ‘clear things up’ in public, we would be at a ‘stalemate,' " Taylor says of his Sept. 8 phone call with Sondland. “I understood a ‘stalemate’ to mean that Ukraine would not receive the much-needed military assistance.”

“During this same phone call I had with Mr. Morrison, he went on to describe a conversation Ambassador Sondland had with Mr. Yermak at [a meeting in] Warsaw,” Taylor says. “Ambassador Sondland told Mr. Yermak that the security assistance money would not come until President Zelenskyy committed to pursue the Burisma investigation.”

There are several articles written, 4 takeaways, 5 takeaways etc., out there that give his thoughts. Not once is a Biden mentioned. And you have to remember the Biden "and six hours later he was out" statement about the Ukraine investigation. Trump, or his staff, heard about it and put 2 and 2 together and came up with 4.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
6.2  r.t..b...  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6    4 weeks ago
Honest question.

Thanks for that and honestly, I don't think you could call it anything but a quid pro quo. The whole inquiry will hinge on each individuals' interpretation, but the political winds are as persuasive as any testimony. This has reached a point that to not have the proceedings go forward would taint everyone involved and potentially the electoral process itself. The citizenry, at the very least, deserves an election with all the facts regarding the candidates out and on the table.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
6.2.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  r.t..b... @6.2    4 weeks ago
The whole inquiry will hinge on each individuals' interpretation,

Agreed. But what we have so far, see my post above, seems a bit TOO much interpretation......as in all things never Trump

Good to see you my friend.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
6.2.2  r.t..b...  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.2.1    4 weeks ago
seems a bit TOO much interpretation......

Perhaps at this hour and in this day of instant punditry and spin. A thorough investigation is certainly warranted given the testimony already presented. At this point both sides should be demanding one, for without the formal declaration from the House and/or Senate, the divide between those sides will only widen. Let the system do its job and then let the chips fall where they may.

...and always good to hear from you, JJ.

 
 
 
Ronin2
6.2.3  Ronin2  replied to  r.t..b... @6.2.2    4 weeks ago
A thorough investigation is certainly warranted given the testimony already presented. At this point both sides should be demanding one,

According to Pelosi and the Dems their secret closed door impeachment inquiry where they get to ask all of the questions and only hand picked Republicans can observe is impartial.

Let the system do its job and then let the chips fall where they may.

If the Dems were interested in letting the system do it's job they would be following the rules laid out for impeachment. Instead of trying to control the narrative with their members releasing only what information they find desirable.

I have long past given up on the Democrats holding any ethics. I didn't care for the Republicans endless investigations of Obama (The IRS scandal and spying on the media- which was ignored- should have had a special prosecutor); nor the Obama cover ups- but at least the Congressional investigations were out in the open. Democrats had a chance to have their own line of questioning every time.

What Pelosi and the Dems are doing isn't about justice. It is about creating enough manure to cover their members that are in swing states. This is about politics only. I am sure they will be crying when the same tactics are turned on them. They seem to forget that our Establishment two party system is very cyclical. Sooner or later the Dems will control the WH again; and the Republicans will control the House and Senate. Impeachment will be demanded and given. Since it is no longer about the law; but a purely political exercise.

 
 
 
MrFrost
7  MrFrost    4 weeks ago

Trump withheld funding to the Ukraine in order to leverage political points for his PERSONAL campaign. 

It is illegal to use taxpayer dollars to fund a political campaign, which is exactly what trump was doing.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @7    4 weeks ago
It is illegal to use taxpayer dollars to fund a political campaign, which is exactly what trump was doing.

What taxpayer dollars went to Trump's campaign? What was the amount, or did you just make that up?

 
 
 
Tacos!
8  Tacos!    4 weeks ago

Even if we accept everything alleged here as true (for the sake of argument), labeling it quid pro quo doesn't make it wrong or inappropriate, much less something we should remove a president over.

All the way back into the campaign, the media and many Democrats have clutched their pearls and claimed the sky was falling over all sorts of things Trump said or did. Very often, these things are blown way out of proportion. They are characterized as "unprecedented" when they're not. They are assigned meanings that are entirely invented.

Every time the man opens his mouth or does the most ordinary thing, there is someone out there comparing him to Hitler and declaring he should be impeached. And also every time, there is someone to say, "This time it's different! This time he really has done something everyone should be outraged about." It's "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" writ large.

So, it's going to take a little more than calling it "quid pro quo" and collectively gasping for the millionth time to make me and many others agree that we should remove the president over it.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @8    4 weeks ago

Bret Stephens, a conservative columnist, has called Taylor's testimony a smoking gun.  

How do you explain this sentence

512

Here is the link to the entire opening statement. 

https://games-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/documents/542ee36f-eafc-4f2b-a075-b3b492d981a5/note/75965f57-6561-42f8-af40-a9e984a85660.pdf

The interesting thing about this testimony is that it removes all doubt as to whether or not investigations of the Bidens were part of what Trump was demanding in return for the aid. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
8.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1    4 weeks ago
Bret Stephens, a conservative columnist, has called Taylor's testimony a smoking gun.  

Ya don't say. I guess if I cared, I'd ask for a ling, but I honestly don't.

How do you explain this sentence

Why do I have to explain random sentences you find? I'm not the guy being investigated. I swear John, you ask me stuff like this and it just becomes clear to me that you didn't read my comment before you hit "reply."

I'll give you the TL;DR takeaway from my comment: Identifying a "quid pro quo" does not - by itself - demonstrate wrongdoing, nor does it mean we should remove the president.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.1.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @8.1.1    4 weeks ago

You have nothing to say about this, only that you like Trump.  That is no longer good enough. 

And what I showed is not a "random sentence". It is evidence that Trump abused his office. 

Keep hiding your head in the sand. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
8.1.3  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.2    4 weeks ago
You have nothing to say about this, only that you like Trump.

We have been over this and you can't even do me the courtesy of respecting my right to speak to my own feelings. I have told you repeatedly that I actually don't like Trump. You can't keep claiming this untrue thing and using it as an excuse to dismiss my point of view. The bias that you claim simply isn't there.

It is evidence that Trump abused his office. 

No it isn't. You would have to demonstrate that that standard exists and then show how the alleged behavior would violate that standard. Even then, you should be prepared to entertain the offering of mitigating circumstances or context. 

You have been calling for his impeachment since Day 1. It's pretty hard to accept that now - finally - your opinion is just all about the evidence. You decided Trump should go a long time ago. You didn't need evidence. That's your bias.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.1.4  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @8.1.3    4 weeks ago
We have been over this and you can't even do me the courtesy of respecting my right to speak to my own feelings. I have told you repeatedly that I actually don't like Trump. You can't keep claiming this untrue thing and using it as an excuse to dismiss my point of view. The bias that you claim simply isn't there.

Just fricking stop. Everyone on this site knows you shine Trumps shoes on here very stinking day. 

By now , your excuses for Trump are up to the ceiling. 

Go down with the ship with him, it's fine. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
8.1.5  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.4    4 weeks ago
Just fricking stop.

Yes. You hate having people disagree with you. It's either your way or "stop."

Sorry, that's not how life works.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.1.6  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @8.1.5    4 weeks ago

You are hear no evil (about Trump) , see no evil (about Trump), and speak no evil (about Trump).   It is beyond tiresome. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
8.1.7  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.6    4 weeks ago

With every post that is about me instead of the facts, you undermine your own ability to persuade on the issues.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @8    4 weeks ago
Even if we accept everything alleged here as true (for the sake of argument), labeling it quid pro quo doesn't make it wrong or inappropriate, much less something we should remove a president over.

Trump cannot even ask another country to investigate his opponent, let alone do it as a quid pro quo. You dont seem to understand that.  Trump specifically included the Bidens in his demands. 

I read almost all of the Taylor opening statement. It is devastating to Trump.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
8.2.1  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @8.2    4 weeks ago
Trump cannot even ask another country to investigate his opponent

Why not? If it happened in another country, shouldn't he get cooperation from the leadership of that country?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.2.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @8.2.1    4 weeks ago

Trump cannot accept election assistance from any foreign government, period. 

Joe Biden is running for TRUMP'S job. The same position Trump is running for.  His opponent. 

What is the "corruption" Trump was so concerned with? 

1. Joe Biden

2. The Democratic National Committee

Trump didnt demand that corruption in general in Ukraine be cleared up, he demanded only that his election opponents be investigated AND he demanded that the president of Ukraine announce these investigations PUBLICLY. 

You are hiding from the reality about this.  You really should stop. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
8.2.3  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @8.2.2    4 weeks ago
Trump cannot accept election assistance from any foreign government, period.  Joe Biden is running for TRUMP'S job. The same position Trump is running for.  His opponent.

So if Joe Biden did something inappropriate, unethical, or contrary to the rules of law and justice, while he was Vice President, we shouldn't investigate him because he's running for president? Like Hell!

Now, I'm not saying that Trump was unmotivated by the election. I think he had to be. Still, that doesn't mean Biden's record as a public servant is beyond scrutiny. And if that scrutiny can only be achieved with the cooperation of the Ukrainian government, then we should acquire that cooperation.

You really should stop.

Every time I trigger someone around here with my contrary opinion, they want me to stop. If your point of view can't stand up to an argument in opposition, maybe your point of view isn't as valid as you think it is.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.2.4  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @8.2.3    4 weeks ago

You dont get it, you dont understand why this is not acceptable, and is very likely a crime, and you probably never will.  I will remind myself not to waste time commenting back and forth with you any more. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
8.2.5  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @8.2.4    4 weeks ago
You dont get it, you dont understand why this is not acceptable, and is very likely a crime, and you probably never will.

That's not good enough. You have to explain why it's wrong. You cannot just expect people to "get it."

I will remind myself not to waste time commenting back and forth with you any more.

If you can't explain to me - or America - why we should support undoing an election to remove the president, then you have no right to expect support for the idea. So, yeah, if you think you can just rant in anger and demand that people "get it" you are wasting your time.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.2.6  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @8.2.5    4 weeks ago

Did you read the pdf of Taylors testimony yet? I posted the link on this thread over an hour ago. 

Read it and maybe the explanations you seek will come to you.  Im not going to spend my time encapsulating something for someone who is not interested. 

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Sean Treacy
MUVA
Dulay
Tacos!
SteevieGee
Dean Moriarty
Jack_TX
finkenre
Ender


39 visitors