Ambassador Bill Taylor’s opening statement is out and it’s something:
"On June 27, Ambassador Sondland told me during a phone conversation that President Zelenskyy needed to make clear to President Trump that he, President Zelenskyy, was not standing in the way of 'investigations.'"
from Taylor's full statement: https://t.co/LG6yJEG5sO pic.twitter.com/tzKwf0Hxtd
— Taniel (@Taniel) October 22, 2019
Taylor repeatedly explains Sondland's role in connecting aid to "investigations," and of Sondland effectively coaching Zelenskyy on what to say to appease Trump about this. pic.twitter.com/NQ1jW5CMAU
— Taniel (@Taniel) October 22, 2019
Then, ? in Sept.: " Sondland told me that President Trump had told him that he wants Zelenskyy to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 US election."
In fact, "everything" depends on this, incl. security assistance. pic.twitter.com/gQLAjo7tvQ
— Taniel (@Taniel) October 22, 2019
Now, the LOL part. Per Taylor, team Trump insisted this was "not a quid pro quo," but Ukrainians better behave as if it was: "if Zelenskyy did not 'clear things up' …, we'd be at a 'stalemate.'"
('Oh this is not a threat, but it'd be a pity if something happened to your aid') pic.twitter.com/Lti9IBgK9q
— Taniel (@Taniel) October 22, 2019
Sondland/Taylor rift grows on p.13: "Sondland tried to explain to me that President Trump is a businessman… [I argued] explanation made no sense: the Ukrainians did not 'owe' President Trump anything, and holding up security assistance for domestic political gain was 'crazy.'" pic.twitter.com/xplhBRxbyV
— Taniel (@Taniel) October 22, 2019
The last lines of Taylor's chronological account are explicit: "I had come to understand well before then that 'investigations' was a term that Ambassadors Volker and Sondland used to mean matters related to the 2016 elections, and to investigations of Burisma and the Bidens." pic.twitter.com/CYXHVxtlIS
— Taniel (@Taniel) October 22, 2019
The optics … aren’t great. They really aren’t.
I'm thinking US lawmakers are gonna want to talk to Sondland again. pic.twitter.com/K0UmcKsijT
— Oblivier Knox (@OKnox) October 22, 2019
Boy, they really really are: pic.twitter.com/xMottjDVtQ
— Oblivier Knox (@OKnox) October 22, 2019
Doesn’t look like this is going away anytime soon.
This is a textbook quid pro quo. https://t.co/sqAEMUmhSr
— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) October 22, 2019
Just saying "not a quid pro quo" a bunch does not, in fact, make it not a quid pro quo.
— Noah Rothman (@NoahCRothman) October 22, 2019
“This isn’t a robbery, but I am telling you to empty the cash drawer at gunpoint”
“This isn’t a bribe, but I’ll give you $50k if you drop the prosecution”
Same logic. https://t.co/Cu1kou6CnN
— David French (@DavidAFrench) October 22, 2019
They had a contract, and Trump wanted the contracted services performed before he paid up. Quid pro quo. https://t.co/A5DZRO8b7o
— Allahpundit (@allahpundit) October 22, 2019
Holy crap… this is so, so bad.
A clear abuse of power. https://t.co/wzDntEuOwJ
— Brad PolumBOO? (@brad_polumbo) October 22, 2019
I cannot overstate how damaging this Amb Taylor testimony is to Trump. pic.twitter.com/ARLewa1DCV
— Neal Katyal (@neal_katyal) October 22, 2019
Stay tuned to find out just how damaging.
* * *
Update:
White House responds to Taylor's testimony.
“President Trump has done nothing wrong — this is a coordinated smear campaign from far-left lawmakers and radical unelected bureaucrats waging war on the Constitution. There was no quid pro quo. Today was just more triple hearsay.." pic.twitter.com/q0YWy1lEmy
— Jamie Dupree (@jamiedupree) October 22, 2019
Join the Conversation
VIP members get the ability to comment on articles.