Amb Bill Taylor's testimony - a "sea change"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1186694218988904449

New - Bill Taylor testified that he was told by Ambassador Gordon Sondland that security aid to Ukraine could have been held up in part because of a push for Ukraine to publicly announce an investigation that could help Trump politically, per sources in both parties.

https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1186694376988315648

Asked about Taylor’s comments, a source familiar with Sondland’s testimony said that Sondland cited, in addition to the investigations, that the aid may have been frozen because the Europeans weren’t giving Ukraine enough and corruption generally.

Actual dollars (or Euros) given by EU states to Ukraine undercuts part of the argument.

Also, if that were the reason, they would have been making the case for others to pay more, not refusing to tell Congress, DOD, State, and Ukraine why the funds were on hold.

[Anonymous]

Opening statement of Taylor

https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/opening-statement-of-ambassador-william-b-taylor/6b3a6edf-f976-4081-ba7f-bce45468a3ff/

[Anonymous]

"Yeah, we said we wanted them to do this one thing and in return we would do this thing for them. But it wasn't a quid pro quo!"

Rs - SEE THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1186694218988904449

New - Bill Taylor testified that he was told by Ambassador Gordon Sondland that security aid to Ukraine could have been held up in part because of a push for Ukraine to publicly announce an investigation that could help Trump politically, per sources in both parties.

https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1186694376988315648

Asked about Taylor’s comments, a source familiar with Sondland’s testimony said that Sondland cited, in addition to the investigations, that the aid may have been frozen because the Europeans weren’t giving Ukraine enough and corruption generally.

Actual dollars (or Euros) given by EU states to Ukraine undercuts part of the argument.

Also, if that were the reason, they would have been making the case for others to pay more, not refusing to tell Congress, DOD, State, and Ukraine why the funds were on hold.

Yup. Same goes for the “Ukraine is too corrupt for us to give money to” attempt at an argument. “Withholding the Ukrainian aid, for *whatever reason* wasn't lawful. The aid was passed by both houses and signed into law by the president. The president doesn't get to just withhold it.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think former ambassador Taylor’s testimony could only be described as “perfect.”

Nicely done.

[Anonymous]

I love that the GOP keep raising doubt around processes (without proof) and yet NO ONE is defending substance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love that the GOP keep raising doubt around processes (without proof) and yet NO ONE is defending substance.

You haven't been listening if you think no one is defending substance.
They are criticizing the process (the secrecy and lack of a fair process) BECAUSE the substance is not there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love that the GOP keep raising doubt around processes (without proof) and yet NO ONE is defending substance.

You haven't been listening if you think no one is defending substance.
They are criticizing the process (the secrecy and lack of a fair process) BECAUSE the substance is not there.

Really? You really don't see it? Even after TODAY?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love that the GOP keep raising doubt around processes (without proof) and yet NO ONE is defending substance.

You haven't been listening if you think no one is defending substance.
They are criticizing the process (the secrecy and lack of a fair process) BECAUSE the substance is not there.

Mark Meadows said that Taylor's testimony is that there was no quid pro quo.

So you are correct that some are saying that there's no substance. Meadows needs to read page 13 of Taylor's opening statement. Taylor clearly said there was a quid pro quo.

[Anonymous]

^^^ page 12

[Anonymous]

The argument seems to be that if Trump SAID there's no quid pro quo, then there's no quid pro quo.

There's just the requirement that Zelensky get on TV and promise to investigate Burisma before aid will be released.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love that the GOP keep raising doubt around processes (without proof) and yet NO ONE is defending substance.

You haven't been listening if you think no one is defending substance.
They are criticizing the process (the secrecy and lack of a fair process) BECAUSE the substance is not there.

There is no hope for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The argument seems to be that if Trump SAID there's no quid pro quo, then there's no quid pro quo.

There's just the requirement that Zelensky get on TV and promise to investigate Burisma before aid will be released.

Exactly.

“I didn’t eat them chickens.” Mr Fox, with feathers in his mouth.

[Anonymous]

Taylor is an eye freakin witness to this! Its solid and airtight. Czechmate

[Anonymous]

Back channel communications?! Does Trump understand he represents the US and needs to use the existing channels and protocols? He isn’t king.