Ambassador Bill Taylor's Troubling Testimony

Powerline ^ | 10/23/2019 | Paul Mirengoff

[SeekAndFind]

Text messages released weeks ago showed that Bill Taylor believed the Trump administration was conditioning the release of military aid to Ukraine on a Ukrainian investigation of Trump’s political opponents. Yesterday, in testimony before Congress, Taylor described the events that caused him to believe this.

If Taylor is telling the truth, he had a sound basis for believing that, for a while, there was a quid pro quo relationship between the release of aid and an investigation by Ukraine of the Bidens. He testified about a conversation with a National Security Council official who informed him that Gordon Sondland, our ambassador to the EU, had told a high level Ukrainain that “security assistance money would not come until President Zelenskyy committed to pursue the Burisma investigation.” Burisma is the company on whose board Hunter Biden served.

Taylor also testified that he asked Sondland whether aid was conditioned on the investigation. Sondland responded that Trump had told him he wants President Zelenskyy to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election and that “everything” was dependent on such an announcement, including security assistance.

That’s a quid pro quo.

Is Taylor telling the truth? I think so. There’s nothing in his background that suggests he’s a partisan Democrat or sleazy “Deep Stater” who would lie to hurt the president.

Taylor is a West Point grad. He served in Vietnam. He was appointed ambassador to Ukraine by George W. Bush and asked to return to the diplomatic corps as charge d’affaires in Ukraine by Mike Pompeo.

Ask yourself which is more likely, that Trump, the “transactional” president, would scheme as Taylor describes to injure a political opponent or that Taylor would invent a story to this effect. I think it’s former.

Was Sondland telling Taylor the truth about what Trump said to him? Again, I assume so. Why would Sondland misrepresent Trump’s instructions? He had no strong reason to want an investigation of Joe Biden. Trump did.

Later Sondland told Taylor that Trump had insisted there is no quid pro quo. But this seems like a case of exalting labeling over substance (as well as a case of CYA). Indeed, Sondland informed Taylor that he had told Ukraine’s president Zelenskyy that, although this was not a quid pro quo, if Zelenskyy did not “clear things up” in public, we would be at a “stalemate.”

Taylor said he understood a “stalemate” to mean that Ukraine would not receive the military assistance. I don’t think there’s any other rational way to understand “stalemate” in this context. When military assistance is “dependent” on the public announcement of an investigation into Hunter Biden’s company, that’s a quid pro whether one uses the label or disavows it.

Fortunately, soon after Taylor complained to Sondland about the withholding of aid for domestic political purposes, the hold on aid was lifted. Ukraine received the military aid and, to my knowledge, did not agree to investigate the Bidens.

Thus, the most we can say is that aid was held up for maybe two months while the Trump administration used it as leverage to try to get Ukraine to investigate his chief (at the time) rival for the presidency. We cannot say that aid was denied.

How serious an offense is it for a president to withhold aid for a few months because the recipient hasn’t agreed to investigate his political opponent? Pretty serious, in my view.

Corruption is rampant in Ukraine and around the globe. There was no reason for Trump to fixate on one Ukrainian company, Burisma, other than the fact that Hunter Biden was associated with it. And there was no reason for Trump to fixate on Hunter Biden other than the fact that his father might well be Trump’s opponent in 2020.

Some will disagree with me as to whether there is a serious offense here. There’s not much point in arguing about it. One either sees significant impropriety or one doesn’t.

But those who don’t might ask themselves whether they would see a major problem if, under the same facts, it was President Obama who withheld the aid and Donald Trump whom Obama insisted had to be investigated before it could be released.

The offense would be more serious if Trump hadn’t ultimately released the aid. In that scenario, I think there would be a case for impeaching him. But that scenario didn’t happen so I don’t have to assess how the substantial the case for impeachment would be if it had.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: If you’re funneling money to your son then it’s ok to leverage “foreign aid” but if you’re trying to get to the bottom of corruption then ...it’s corrupt to look for corruption.

The Democrats are going to dwell on — USING FOREIGN AID TO DIG DIRT ON A POLITICAL OPPONENT.

TO which my response is this — So, in order to escape accountability for corruption, all one has to do is run for President and what you did can be ignored?

[virgil]

Whatever their “findings”, shouldn’t be admissible as evidence. Should be thrown out with the trash along with Pelosi.

[morphing libertarian]

why didn’t they impeach Obama for investigating trump when he was running for president?

[Trumpisourlastchance]

The Atlantic Council is directly funded by Big War, the US “defense” industry that gets wealth keeping us in wars with overpriced military equipment, much of which doesn’t work. Follow the money.

[DesertRhino]

“How serious an offense is it for a president to withhold aid for a few months because the recipient hasn’t agreed to investigate his political opponent? Pretty serious, in my view.”

IF it was true (it isnt) there isn’t the slightest thing unethical or illegal about it. Nearly every foreign aid package we offer comes with conditions. And the condition of investigating corruption, especially involving Americans, is very mainstream.

The hell with Powerline. The GOPe is coming after us. They better hope they don’t succeed or they might find a very very large group of angry 2nd amendment citizens in their future.

[Moorka]

The author Mirengoff touts Taylor’s West Point connection as if that means squat. Al Haig and Fred Buzhardt were classmates at West Point and both helped subvert Nixon. See Silent Coup by Len Colodny.

[aynrandfreak]

The establishment is finally flipping powerline? That’s sad if true. Taylor was compromised. His texts were trying to leave a trail for Dems. He sounded like a Narc wearing a wire. “So, this is a quid prop quo, right?”

[SeekAndFind]

EXCERPT:

https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2019/10/23/republicans-say-smoking-gun-impeachment-testimony-is-actually-fourth-hand-hearsay/

Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY), who is on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and was present for Taylor’s interview, told Breitbart News on Wednesday that Taylor had no direct knowledge of any alleged quid pro quo.

“There’s only two references in Bill Taylor’s opening statement to Joe Biden. One of those references is just a reference to the July 25 call transcript. But the other reference is this reference on page 12 — it’s the only other reference to Joe Biden. This is fourth-hand information — this isn’t first-hand, second-hand, or third-hand,” he said.

“This is [National Security Council Senior Director for European and Russian Affairs] Tim Morrison telling Taylor that [United States Ambassador to the European Union Gordon] Sondland told Morrison that the president told Sondland that the president told [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelensky that he wanted an investigation into the Bidens,” Zeldin said.

“Really that’s the best that the Democrats can do to try to make their quid pro quo charge?” he said.

[lastchance]

I thought quid pr quo was the essence of foreign relations.

[DesertRhino]

“In 2015, Taylor was appointed executive vice president of the United States Institute of Peace after serving a year in the same role in an acting capacity”

“
The United States Institute of Peace is a publicly funded national institution chartered by the U.S. government to promote international peace through nonviolent conflict resolution.

But its chairman, Stephen Hadley, is a relentless hawk whose advocacy for greater military intervention often dovetails closely with the interests of Raytheon, a major defense contractor that pays him handsomely as a member of its board of directors.

Hadley, the former national security adviser to President George W. Bush, was an advocate for the 2003 invasion of Iraq and more recently appeared in the media to call for massive airstrikes in Syria. Over the last year, he has called for escalating the conflict in Ukraine.

In a speech at Poland’s Wroclaw Global Forum in June, Hadley argued in favor of arming the Ukrainian government in part because that would “raise the cost for what Russia is doing in Ukraine.” Specifically, he said, “even President Putin is sensitive to body bags — it sounds coarse to say, but it’s true — but body bags of Russian soldiers who have been killed.”

Hadley also called for European governments to broadly boost military spending, ideally doubling it. “You know, let’s show that Europe is going to have real commitment to military forces,” he said.

The call to flood Ukraine with weapons not only contrasts sharply with the stated mission of the Institute of Peace, but many scholars believe doing so would provoke more conflict.”

Just another neocon playground. So this Taylor Bush/Obama tool is lining up with the GOPe in trying to hurt Trump. F him.

[Mr. K]

So we’re supposed to impeach a president based on what he said he believes in a text???

[Moorka]

Hmm. What a coincidence!

BUT Haig was simply trying to give them serious, tough foreign-policy advice, Hormats says. Haig felt undermined by what he perceived to be a lot of posturing and backstairs maneuvering by the White House. Those loyal to Haig suggest that the White House staff did much to fuel speculation over Haig’s behavior.

Bill Taylor, who was with Haig at West Point when Haig was a regimental commander there, thinks Haig got ``an extremely bum rap’’ while in the Reagan administration, particularly over the ``I’m in control’’ incident. Haig’s swiftness in exerting leadership in a chaotic situation reflects his military training, says Dr. Taylor, now vice-president for political and military affairs at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

``He is a guy who accepts full responsibility. The man does not have an ego. He is used to being close to the seat of command and is ready to assume responsibility. He is not out to grab power - there is a difference. He will assume responsibility.’’

Taylor adds: ``He is an extremely organized and selfless person.’’

Taylor says Haig is a first-rate tactician and a consummate strategist, and that those skills were evident when Haig was supreme commander of NATO from 1974 to 1979.

Small world.

https://www.csmonitor.com/1988/0108/zhaig.html

[Mr. K]

So we’re supposed to impeach a president based on what he said he believes in a text???

[Moorka]

Silent Coup II

[Mr. K]

So if Trump committed a crime for withholding aid did Biden also commit a crime when he did it? We have video of him admitting that he did.

[xkaydet65]

Powerline is hardly GOPe. Whether Paul is off target here is worth considering but to call the guy who along with Freeper Buckhead brought down the Rather hoax, who has been on Ilan Omar’s case since way before her election, and who has been a Trump supporter throuhgout his tenure to call him a GOPe is quite the stretch.

[Aria]

YUP! But it only works it you’re a rat.

Sheesh...we need to take the offense rather than letting the rats continually sent the agenda and then we scramble.

[Yaelle]

That Biden HAPPENED to be running for President is not relevant

---

Sadly, this whole thing depends on the fact that this above is the ONLY relevant point. Trump was stupid to go after it like this. Especially himself.

If it had been anyone in the prior admin who IS NOT A CURRENT POLITICAL OPPONENT, there is nothing for them to play with. If he’d been asking about HILLARY or Obama it would not have led to this crap.

[DesertRhino]

I judge them by today...not by Rathergate years ago. Today, October 23rd, 2019 they are trying to assist in the removal of Trump to accomplish their neocon goal.

They are trash.

If your wife is faithful 363 days a year, and only rides the milkman bareback for one day, she loses the claim of “faithful”. Some offenses are too serious.
Stabbing Trump in the back, at this moment is just such an offense. Their article today should have been about the treason at State undermining the President. It could have been a deep look at the Biden family’s corruption. It could have been about the CIA literally running spies AGAINST the President.

But they stab him in the back. They are now trash...

[SeekAndFind]

RE: I thought quid pro quo was the essence of foreign relations.

It is, but NOT if an individual or his family is PERSONALLY the benefit of the quid pro quo.

You are supposed to be serving the interest of your country, not yourself.