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
Who is online
95 visitors
If this were a criminal case Trump's lawyers would be begging for a plea bargain.
Off topic comments will be subject to removal.
Here is the entire Taylor opening statement.
You're going to get a lot of this.....
and don't forget the newest...Get Over It
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?
Yes it does.
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.
Always figured it would be obstruction of justice or money laundering.
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.
Yes.
“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."
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.
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.
What taxpayer dollars went to Trump's campaign? What was the amount, or did you just make that up?
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.
Bret Stephens, a conservative columnist, has called Taylor's testimony a smoking gun.
How do you explain this sentence
Here is the link to the entire opening statement.
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.
Ya don't say. I guess if I cared, I'd ask for a ling, but I honestly don't.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes. You hate having people disagree with you. It's either your way or "stop."
Sorry, that's not how life works.
You are hear no evil (about Trump) , see no evil (about Trump), and speak no evil (about Trump). It is beyond tiresome.
With every post that is about me instead of the facts, you undermine your own ability to persuade on the issues.
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.
Why not? If it happened in another country, shouldn't he get cooperation from the leadership of that country?
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.
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.
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.
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.
That's not good enough. You have to explain why it's wrong. You cannot just expect people to "get it."
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.
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.