Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Who could charge him?Who, Shokin?LOLOLNo need to explain how they got 1.5 billion form China, that's for the investigators to find out. Same for the interference form Ukraine, hell even a Ukraine court said they interfered on behalf of the bitch.
.
.
There was nothing to interfere, there was no active investigation into Burisma when Shokin got sacked.
Not what he said in a sworn statement. But that's not the interference the Ukriane court was referring to. Several Ukrainians fabricated some shit and publicized it on the Trump campaign.
.
That's what he says now. And of course, he was forced out because he was a corrupt prosecutor and now has an axe to grind against Biden, the guy who helped get him out.
Has he been charged with giving false testimony?
.
funny trump is open business and Biden is all stop. if one can't see the hypocrisy, that one is leftist.Hubris! Bill Taylor said he BELIEVED the Trump ADMINISTRATION was involved in a quid pro quo. In other words, he believed it but DID NOT KNOW FOR SURE President Trump is authorized to seek justice for BIDEN AND SON'S quid pro quo that stated a personal gain.I recommend everyone read Bill Taylor's opening statement today.
Top US diplomat to Ukraine testifies there was a quid pro quo
I suggest reading the entire thing because there is great perspective in his statement.
While it confirms the quid pro quo that had been suspected- what is perhaps even more disturbing is his description of a shadow diplomacy being led by Rudy Giuliani- the President's private attorney- in leading America's diplomatic conversation with Ukraine.
I know that the Trump supporters will reflexively attack Bill Taylor.....but for anyone who thinks that they are objective- read his statement.
Read it.
What was the personal gain for President Trump? He's got his best men checking out a criminal investigation of former Vice President Biden who admitted on televised cameras that he was proud of his extortion from the Ukraine regime and he'd do it again, I betcha, if only the onus weren't on him now that he's implicated himself in a high crime and his son, too.
Please tell the Democrats working under the cover of secrecy that President Trump doing his job to make sure no other government officials use their office to wangle gifts of cash for personal use from other governments is not only legal, but as well, the President is fulfilling his oath of office to serve the American people. Biden, on the other hand, only serves himself. It's on video.
Vote for Trump!!!!
You now have a coke head rapist con artist that faked bone spurs to avoid the military as a president who hates corruption.In 2014, Cyprus-registered Burisma Holdings, one of the largest private natural gas companies in Ukraine, announced that Hunter Biden was among several prominent foreigners who were joining its board. The company said that Hunter Biden would advise on “transparency, corporate governance and responsibility, international expansion and other priorities.”so explain how he got the position? go for it. tell me how his lack of qualifications lit a light on him as the guy to have? At 50k a month in fact? hahahahahahaha again, you think we're all stupid. you're mistaken by a thousand miles.
LMAO, a coke head that had just been thrown out of the Navy for drug use, yeah, that's the kind of guy I'd want to advise me on responsibility. NOT!
.
hearsay. HEARSAY, HEARSAY, HEARSAY, HEARSAYwe love his opinion, but when asked about if they knew the treasury was holding back funds to guarantee no more corruption, he said they had no idea. They didn’t even know about it lolWhat Taylor expressed was merely his opinion....and he tried to get someone to agree with him....and they said "take a walk"
IIRC, Bill Taylor was only in the Trump administration since sometime in June of 2019.
P.S. I think he's whistle blower No. 1.
Bill Taylor did express his opinion- he also recounted specific conversations describing the quid pro quo- glad to repeat them here again:
During this same phone call I had with Mr. Morrison, he went on to describe a
conversation Ambassador Sondland had with Mr. Yermak at Warsaw. Ambassador
Sondland told Mr. Yermak that the security assistance money would not come until
President Zelenskyy committed to pursue the Burisma investigation. I was alarmed by
what Mr. Morrison told me about the Sondland-Yermak conversation. This was the first
time I had heard that the security assistance—not just the White House meeting—was
conditioned on the investigations.
Ambassador Sondland also told me that he now recognized that he had made a mistake
by earlier telling the Ukrainian officials to whom he spoke that a White House meeting
with President Zelenskyy was dependent on a public announcement of investigations-in
fact, Ambassador Sondland said, “everything” was dependent on such an
announcement, including security assistance. He said that President Trump wanted
President Zelenskyy “in a public box” by making a public statement about ordering such
investigations.
on September 8, Ambassador Sondland and I spoke on the phone.
He said he had talked to President Trump as I had suggested a week earlier, but that
President Trump was adamant that President Zelenskyy, himself, had to “clear things up
and do it in public.” President Trump said it was not a “quid pro quo.” 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.” I
Stop spreading fake news
Sorry- I wasn't repeating any of Trump or Hannity's talking points so- no I am not spreading fake news.
Despite what you Trumpettes keep saying- repeating a person's actual statement is not "Fake News"- now repeating Trump's lies- that would be Fake News.
Glad to post Taylor's testimony again:
During this same phone call I had with Mr. Morrison, he went on to describe a
conversation Ambassador Sondland had with Mr. Yermak at Warsaw. Ambassador
Sondland told Mr. Yermak that the security assistance money would not come until
President Zelenskyy committed to pursue the Burisma investigation. I was alarmed by
what Mr. Morrison told me about the Sondland-Yermak conversation. This was the first
time I had heard that the security assistance—not just the White House meeting—was
conditioned on the investigations.
Ambassador Sondland also told me that he now recognized that he had made a mistake
by earlier telling the Ukrainian officials to whom he spoke that a White House meeting
with President Zelenskyy was dependent on a public announcement of investigations-in
fact, Ambassador Sondland said, “everything” was dependent on such an
announcement, including security assistance. He said that President Trump wanted
President Zelenskyy “in a public box” by making a public statement about ordering such
investigations.
on September 8, Ambassador Sondland and I spoke on the phone.
He said he had talked to President Trump as I had suggested a week earlier, but that
President Trump was adamant that President Zelenskyy, himself, had to “clear things up
and do it in public.” President Trump said it was not a “quid pro quo.” 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.” I
Testimony, or unchallenged opening statement?
Both.
Glad to post Taylor's testimony again:
During this same phone call I had with Mr. Morrison, he went on to describe a
conversation Ambassador Sondland had with Mr. Yermak at Warsaw. Ambassador
Sondland told Mr. Yermak that the security assistance money would not come until
President Zelenskyy committed to pursue the Burisma investigation. I was alarmed by
what Mr. Morrison told me about the Sondland-Yermak conversation. This was the first
time I had heard that the security assistance—not just the White House meeting—was
conditioned on the investigations.
Ambassador Sondland also told me that he now recognized that he had made a mistake
by earlier telling the Ukrainian officials to whom he spoke that a White House meeting
with President Zelenskyy was dependent on a public announcement of investigations-in
fact, Ambassador Sondland said, “everything” was dependent on such an
announcement, including security assistance. He said that President Trump wanted
President Zelenskyy “in a public box” by making a public statement about ordering such
investigations.
on September 8, Ambassador Sondland and I spoke on the phone.
He said he had talked to President Trump as I had suggested a week earlier, but that
President Trump was adamant that President Zelenskyy, himself, had to “clear things up
and do it in public.” President Trump said it was not a “quid pro quo.” 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.”
You're comparing apples and oranges. No President was being impeached in 2015. The trouble with using a matchstick iq is that when you strike, it burns what's left of the stick. And furthermore, you're playing around with fire like a kid in a dry grass field.LOLOLI recommend everyone read Bill Taylor's opening statement today.
Top US diplomat to Ukraine testifies there was a quid pro quo
I suggest reading the entire thing because there is great perspective in his statement.
While it confirms the quid pro quo that had been suspected- what is perhaps even more disturbing is his description of a shadow diplomacy being led by Rudy Giuliani- the President's private attorney- in leading America's diplomatic conversation with Ukraine.
I know that the Trump supporters will reflexively attack Bill Taylor.....but for anyone who thinks that they are objective- read his statement.
Read it.
Anyone notice that we have the opening statement and no results of a cross examination?
IOW, we're supposed to accept this carefully selected leak as gospel truth with no challenge.
I find it fascinating that you believe that the role of the GOP in the House is to defend the President rather than conduct an investigation.
You don't have to believe what Taylor said- I certainly don't believe anything Trump says.
But Taylor's statement is very specific and very concise, with details that the House can follow up with in additional interviews. And that is what the House will do.
It's not a real investigation if only one side picks the witnesses. That's call a kangaroo court.
.
You dumbfuck...
Republicans made these rules in 2015.
Dems' closed hearings follow rules 'Republican majority' put in place: Fox News legal analyst
The powerful weapon House Republicans handed Democrats
Vox...….the infowars of the left.I recommend everyone read Bill Taylor's opening statement today.
Top US diplomat to Ukraine testifies there was a quid pro quo
I suggest reading the entire thing because there is great perspective in his statement.
While it confirms the quid pro quo that had been suspected- what is perhaps even more disturbing is his description of a shadow diplomacy being led by Rudy Giuliani- the President's private attorney- in leading America's diplomatic conversation with Ukraine.
I know that the Trump supporters will reflexively attack Bill Taylor.....but for anyone who thinks that they are objective- read his statement.
Read it.
Maybe, maybe not, but in the words of mills lane (cdm version) "let's get it on!" [emoji16]I'm not a trump supporter, but I do lean to the right. I wont attack him, rather, I say, lets get this thing started. The dems.have the evidence, let's get the articles drawn up and sent to the house for a full vote so we can get this thing moving.I recommend everyone read Bill Taylor's opening statement today.
Top US diplomat to Ukraine testifies there was a quid pro quo
I suggest reading the entire thing because there is great perspective in his statement.
While it confirms the quid pro quo that had been suspected- what is perhaps even more disturbing is his description of a shadow diplomacy being led by Rudy Giuliani- the President's private attorney- in leading America's diplomatic conversation with Ukraine.
I know that the Trump supporters will reflexively attack Bill Taylor.....but for anyone who thinks that they are objective- read his statement.
Read it.
That's the last thing they want.
LOLOLI recommend everyone read Bill Taylor's opening statement today.
Top US diplomat to Ukraine testifies there was a quid pro quo
I suggest reading the entire thing because there is great perspective in his statement.
While it confirms the quid pro quo that had been suspected- what is perhaps even more disturbing is his description of a shadow diplomacy being led by Rudy Giuliani- the President's private attorney- in leading America's diplomatic conversation with Ukraine.
I know that the Trump supporters will reflexively attack Bill Taylor.....but for anyone who thinks that they are objective- read his statement.
Read it.
Anyone notice that we have the opening statement and no results of a cross examination?
IOW, we're supposed to accept this carefully selected leak as gospel truth with no challenge.
I find it fascinating that you believe that the role of the GOP in the House is to defend the President rather than conduct an investigation.
You don't have to believe what Taylor said- I certainly don't believe anything Trump says.
But Taylor's statement is very specific and very concise, with details that the House can follow up with in additional interviews. And that is what the House will do.
It's not a real investigation if only one side picks the witnesses. That's call a kangaroo court.
.
You dumbfuck...
Republicans made these rules in 2015.
Dems' closed hearings follow rules 'Republican majority' put in place: Fox News legal analyst
The powerful weapon House Republicans handed Democrats
LOLOLOLOLOLOLWho could charge him?Who, Shokin?LOLOL
There was nothing to interfere, there was no active investigation into Burisma when Shokin got sacked.
Not what he said in a sworn statement. But that's not the interference the Ukriane court was referring to. Several Ukrainians fabricated some shit and publicized it on the Trump campaign.
.
That's what he says now. And of course, he was forced out because he was a corrupt prosecutor and now has an axe to grind against Biden, the guy who helped get him out.
Has he been charged with giving false testimony?
.
He gave a sworn deposition in a British court, they would have jurisdiction. To my knowledge the only ones accusing him of lying are you commies.
.
LOLYou're comparing apples and oranges. No President was being impeached in 2015. The trouble with using a matchstick iq is that when you strike, it burns what's left of the stick. And furthermore, you're playing around with fire like a kid in a dry grass field.LOLOLI recommend everyone read Bill Taylor's opening statement today.
Top US diplomat to Ukraine testifies there was a quid pro quo
I suggest reading the entire thing because there is great perspective in his statement.
While it confirms the quid pro quo that had been suspected- what is perhaps even more disturbing is his description of a shadow diplomacy being led by Rudy Giuliani- the President's private attorney- in leading America's diplomatic conversation with Ukraine.
I know that the Trump supporters will reflexively attack Bill Taylor.....but for anyone who thinks that they are objective- read his statement.
Read it.
Anyone notice that we have the opening statement and no results of a cross examination?
IOW, we're supposed to accept this carefully selected leak as gospel truth with no challenge.
I find it fascinating that you believe that the role of the GOP in the House is to defend the President rather than conduct an investigation.
You don't have to believe what Taylor said- I certainly don't believe anything Trump says.
But Taylor's statement is very specific and very concise, with details that the House can follow up with in additional interviews. And that is what the House will do.
It's not a real investigation if only one side picks the witnesses. That's call a kangaroo court.
.
You dumbfuck...
Republicans made these rules in 2015.
Dems' closed hearings follow rules 'Republican majority' put in place: Fox News legal analyst
The powerful weapon House Republicans handed Democrats
Vox...….the infowars of the left.I recommend everyone read Bill Taylor's opening statement today.
Top US diplomat to Ukraine testifies there was a quid pro quo
I suggest reading the entire thing because there is great perspective in his statement.
While it confirms the quid pro quo that had been suspected- what is perhaps even more disturbing is his description of a shadow diplomacy being led by Rudy Giuliani- the President's private attorney- in leading America's diplomatic conversation with Ukraine.
I know that the Trump supporters will reflexively attack Bill Taylor.....but for anyone who thinks that they are objective- read his statement.
Read it.
Man oh, man ThisisMe, you been had. The Democrats not only never had any evidence, they've been proven liars on 5 different expensive explorations into the possibilities they postulate.Maybe, maybe not, but in the words of mills lane (cdm version) "let's get it on!" [emoji16]I'm not a trump supporter, but I do lean to the right. I wont attack him, rather, I say, lets get this thing started. The dems.have the evidence, let's get the articles drawn up and sent to the house for a full vote so we can get this thing moving.I recommend everyone read Bill Taylor's opening statement today.
Top US diplomat to Ukraine testifies there was a quid pro quo
I suggest reading the entire thing because there is great perspective in his statement.
While it confirms the quid pro quo that had been suspected- what is perhaps even more disturbing is his description of a shadow diplomacy being led by Rudy Giuliani- the President's private attorney- in leading America's diplomatic conversation with Ukraine.
I know that the Trump supporters will reflexively attack Bill Taylor.....but for anyone who thinks that they are objective- read his statement.
Read it.
That's the last thing they want.
hearsay. HEARSAY, HEARSAY, HEARSAY, HEARSAYwe love his opinion, but when asked about if they knew the treasury was holding back funds to guarantee no more corruption, he said they had no idea. They didn’t even know about it lolBill Taylor did express his opinion- he also recounted specific conversations describing the quid pro quo- glad to repeat them here again:
During this same phone call I had with Mr. Morrison, he went on to describe a
conversation Ambassador Sondland had with Mr. Yermak at Warsaw. Ambassador
Sondland told Mr. Yermak that the security assistance money would not come until
President Zelenskyy committed to pursue the Burisma investigation. I was alarmed by
what Mr. Morrison told me about the Sondland-Yermak conversation. This was the first
time I had heard that the security assistance—not just the White House meeting—was
conditioned on the investigations.
Ambassador Sondland also told me that he now recognized that he had made a mistake
by earlier telling the Ukrainian officials to whom he spoke that a White House meeting
with President Zelenskyy was dependent on a public announcement of investigations-in
fact, Ambassador Sondland said, “everything” was dependent on such an
announcement, including security assistance. He said that President Trump wanted
President Zelenskyy “in a public box” by making a public statement about ordering such
investigations.
on September 8, Ambassador Sondland and I spoke on the phone.
He said he had talked to President Trump as I had suggested a week earlier, but that
President Trump was adamant that President Zelenskyy, himself, had to “clear things up
and do it in public.” President Trump said it was not a “quid pro quo.” 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.” I
Stop spreading fake news
Sorry- I wasn't repeating any of Trump or Hannity's talking points so- no I am not spreading fake news.
Despite what you Trumpettes keep saying- repeating a person's actual statement is not "Fake News"- now repeating Trump's lies- that would be Fake News.
Glad to post Taylor's testimony again:
During this same phone call I had with Mr. Morrison, he went on to describe a
conversation Ambassador Sondland had with Mr. Yermak at Warsaw. Ambassador
Sondland told Mr. Yermak that the security assistance money would not come until
President Zelenskyy committed to pursue the Burisma investigation. I was alarmed by
what Mr. Morrison told me about the Sondland-Yermak conversation. This was the first
time I had heard that the security assistance—not just the White House meeting—was
conditioned on the investigations.
Ambassador Sondland also told me that he now recognized that he had made a mistake
by earlier telling the Ukrainian officials to whom he spoke that a White House meeting
with President Zelenskyy was dependent on a public announcement of investigations-in
fact, Ambassador Sondland said, “everything” was dependent on such an
announcement, including security assistance. He said that President Trump wanted
President Zelenskyy “in a public box” by making a public statement about ordering such
investigations.
on September 8, Ambassador Sondland and I spoke on the phone.
He said he had talked to President Trump as I had suggested a week earlier, but that
President Trump was adamant that President Zelenskyy, himself, had to “clear things up
and do it in public.” President Trump said it was not a “quid pro quo.” 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.” I
Testimony, or unchallenged opening statement?
Both.
Glad to post Taylor's testimony again:
During this same phone call I had with Mr. Morrison, he went on to describe a
conversation Ambassador Sondland had with Mr. Yermak at Warsaw. Ambassador
Sondland told Mr. Yermak that the security assistance money would not come until
President Zelenskyy committed to pursue the Burisma investigation. I was alarmed by
what Mr. Morrison told me about the Sondland-Yermak conversation. This was the first
time I had heard that the security assistance—not just the White House meeting—was
conditioned on the investigations.
Ambassador Sondland also told me that he now recognized that he had made a mistake
by earlier telling the Ukrainian officials to whom he spoke that a White House meeting
with President Zelenskyy was dependent on a public announcement of investigations-in
fact, Ambassador Sondland said, “everything” was dependent on such an
announcement, including security assistance. He said that President Trump wanted
President Zelenskyy “in a public box” by making a public statement about ordering such
investigations.
on September 8, Ambassador Sondland and I spoke on the phone.
He said he had talked to President Trump as I had suggested a week earlier, but that
President Trump was adamant that President Zelenskyy, himself, had to “clear things up
and do it in public.” President Trump said it was not a “quid pro quo.” 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.”
Man oh, man ThisisMe, you been had. The Democrats not only never had any evidence, they've been proven liars on 5 different expensive explorations into the possibilities they postulate.Maybe, maybe not, but in the words of mills lane (cdm version) "let's get it on!" [emoji16]I'm not a trump supporter, but I do lean to the right. I wont attack him, rather, I say, lets get this thing started. The dems.have the evidence, let's get the articles drawn up and sent to the house for a full vote so we can get this thing moving.I recommend everyone read Bill Taylor's opening statement today.
Top US diplomat to Ukraine testifies there was a quid pro quo
I suggest reading the entire thing because there is great perspective in his statement.
While it confirms the quid pro quo that had been suspected- what is perhaps even more disturbing is his description of a shadow diplomacy being led by Rudy Giuliani- the President's private attorney- in leading America's diplomatic conversation with Ukraine.
I know that the Trump supporters will reflexively attack Bill Taylor.....but for anyone who thinks that they are objective- read his statement.
Read it.
That's the last thing they want.
This feely-good closed door crapshoot also has no evidence. At best, it's a wannabe quid pro quo that isn't and never was a quid pro quo, and it never will be. Bring it on again? Pass the melatonin, please.
I couldn't find where leaking selective excerpts were in those rules. Schiff reading a made up transcript was okay in those rules, Faun?LOLYou're comparing apples and oranges. No President was being impeached in 2015. The trouble with using a matchstick iq is that when you strike, it burns what's left of the stick. And furthermore, you're playing around with fire like a kid in a dry grass field.LOLOLAnyone notice that we have the opening statement and no results of a cross examination?
IOW, we're supposed to accept this carefully selected leak as gospel truth with no challenge.
I find it fascinating that you believe that the role of the GOP in the House is to defend the President rather than conduct an investigation.
You don't have to believe what Taylor said- I certainly don't believe anything Trump says.
But Taylor's statement is very specific and very concise, with details that the House can follow up with in additional interviews. And that is what the House will do.
It's not a real investigation if only one side picks the witnesses. That's call a kangaroo court.
.
You dumbfuck...
Republicans made these rules in 2015.
Dems' closed hearings follow rules 'Republican majority' put in place: Fox News legal analyst
The powerful weapon House Republicans handed Democrats
So what? They changed the rules that they're now pissing about. Democrats are now using the Republicans' rules which is why the minority party, now Republicans, have no subpoena power and can't call witnesses. It matters not what the hearing is about -- it applies to all hearings in the House.
Bitch away, bitch.
There's a difference which you well know, Mr. Faun. This fiction is not really all that original, but it's like the other 5 false narratives. It's fiction. All of it is fiction down to the final letter. And you're not owning the fiction, but even in spite of yourself it's--yep--fiction.LOLYou're comparing apples and oranges. No President was being impeached in 2015. The trouble with using a matchstick iq is that when you strike, it burns what's left of the stick. And furthermore, you're playing around with fire like a kid in a dry grass field.LOLOLAnyone notice that we have the opening statement and no results of a cross examination?
IOW, we're supposed to accept this carefully selected leak as gospel truth with no challenge.
I find it fascinating that you believe that the role of the GOP in the House is to defend the President rather than conduct an investigation.
You don't have to believe what Taylor said- I certainly don't believe anything Trump says.
But Taylor's statement is very specific and very concise, with details that the House can follow up with in additional interviews. And that is what the House will do.
It's not a real investigation if only one side picks the witnesses. That's call a kangaroo court.
.
You dumbfuck...
Republicans made these rules in 2015.
Dems' closed hearings follow rules 'Republican majority' put in place: Fox News legal analyst
The powerful weapon House Republicans handed Democrats
So what? They changed the rules that they're now pissing about. Democrats are now using the Republicans' rules which is why the minority party, now Republicans, have no subpoena power and can't call witnesses. It matters not what the hearing is about -- it applies to all hearings in the House.
Bitch away, bitch.
can't get to it.who is Devin Archer? doesn't sound Ukrainian to me.so one question I'd like to see asked, is how did hunter Biden apply for the board position in Ukraine? How does that happen.Well if you're going to lie, I guess they may as well be whoppers. Giuliani said the Ukrainians bought up the Bidens up to him. And Trump asked them to cooperate with the AG.
.
.
It was reported, Devin Archer visited Joe at the white house, a few days later, baby biden had a nice, well paying, no show job.
.
Here's everything you need to know about baby biden.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/07/08/will-hunter-biden-je
.
Especially when you need the truth movedhearsay. HEARSAY, HEARSAY, HEARSAY, HEARSAYwe love his opinion, but when asked about if they knew the treasury was holding back funds to guarantee no more corruption, he said they had no idea. They didn’t even know about it lol
Stop spreading fake news
Sorry- I wasn't repeating any of Trump or Hannity's talking points so- no I am not spreading fake news.
Despite what you Trumpettes keep saying- repeating a person's actual statement is not "Fake News"- now repeating Trump's lies- that would be Fake News.
Glad to post Taylor's testimony again:
During this same phone call I had with Mr. Morrison, he went on to describe a
conversation Ambassador Sondland had with Mr. Yermak at Warsaw. Ambassador
Sondland told Mr. Yermak that the security assistance money would not come until
President Zelenskyy committed to pursue the Burisma investigation. I was alarmed by
what Mr. Morrison told me about the Sondland-Yermak conversation. This was the first
time I had heard that the security assistance—not just the White House meeting—was
conditioned on the investigations.
Ambassador Sondland also told me that he now recognized that he had made a mistake
by earlier telling the Ukrainian officials to whom he spoke that a White House meeting
with President Zelenskyy was dependent on a public announcement of investigations-in
fact, Ambassador Sondland said, “everything” was dependent on such an
announcement, including security assistance. He said that President Trump wanted
President Zelenskyy “in a public box” by making a public statement about ordering such
investigations.
on September 8, Ambassador Sondland and I spoke on the phone.
He said he had talked to President Trump as I had suggested a week earlier, but that
President Trump was adamant that President Zelenskyy, himself, had to “clear things up
and do it in public.” President Trump said it was not a “quid pro quo.” 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.” I
Testimony, or unchallenged opening statement?
Both.
Glad to post Taylor's testimony again:
During this same phone call I had with Mr. Morrison, he went on to describe a
conversation Ambassador Sondland had with Mr. Yermak at Warsaw. Ambassador
Sondland told Mr. Yermak that the security assistance money would not come until
President Zelenskyy committed to pursue the Burisma investigation. I was alarmed by
what Mr. Morrison told me about the Sondland-Yermak conversation. This was the first
time I had heard that the security assistance—not just the White House meeting—was
conditioned on the investigations.
Ambassador Sondland also told me that he now recognized that he had made a mistake
by earlier telling the Ukrainian officials to whom he spoke that a White House meeting
with President Zelenskyy was dependent on a public announcement of investigations-in
fact, Ambassador Sondland said, “everything” was dependent on such an
announcement, including security assistance. He said that President Trump wanted
President Zelenskyy “in a public box” by making a public statement about ordering such
investigations.
on September 8, Ambassador Sondland and I spoke on the phone.
He said he had talked to President Trump as I had suggested a week earlier, but that
President Trump was adamant that President Zelenskyy, himself, had to “clear things up
and do it in public.” President Trump said it was not a “quid pro quo.” 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.”
And? Shouting it over and over doesn't change the facts.
Now the House can pull on the threads Taylor has provided. Getting Sondland back under oath. Interviewing the others.
FYI- nothing against using hearsay in an impeachment.
