Showing posts with label quid pro quo. Show all posts
Showing posts with label quid pro quo. Show all posts

Friday, April 29, 2022

October 3, 2019: Trump Will Take Help from China or Ukraine to Win Next Election

 

10/3/19: Today we consider some of the fast-breaking developments in the investigation of President Trump.  

 

____________________ 

“I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.” 

Ambassador Taylor

____________________

 

 

That is, the latest investigation, the one involving his shakedown call to Ukraine. Not the one involving the meeting with Russians and top campaign guys in Trump Tower in June 2016. Or the one where he paid off a porn star and a Playboy Bunny. And not the one about his taxes. Or the one where two dozen women accused him of sexual harassment and Summer Zervos is suing his ass. 

At this point it seems safe to say someone needs to explain the rule of law to Donald J. Trump.

 

We learn that awful truth again this morning when the president strides across the White House lawn and stops to inform reporters that he wants China to investigate a political opponent and his son. 

Yes, Trump fans. Your fat, orange boy just said he’d like a commie government to get the goods on American citizens. 

The president, of course, has been in meltdown mode for more than a week, ever since it dawned on him that his blunders were likely to lead to impeachment. So the rule of law looms larger in import with each passing day. 



Trump would really like this guy to help him win the next election:

President Xi Jinping.


 

A few examples: 

In his latest fury, Trump has suggested that the whistleblower may be guilty of treason. 

He wants to go back to the way it used to be – when the punishment for such a crime was hanging. 

The president has said he wants to know who gave the whistleblower information and says those people are like “spies.” 

Okay, we’ll need more rope. 

The president has called the whistleblower’s complaint a “total fiction” and insists it has no resemblance to the “perfect” call he made to the president of Ukraine. And he has, naturally, squirreled the transcripts of that call away, where only his aides and maybe FLOTUS can see them. 

Unfortunately, if we’re trying to explain reality to the American people, it doesn’t help that only 40% of Republicans think Trump mentioned Joe Biden and his son during the Ukrainian call. Here, we can definitively say, that if Republicans would read the call memorandum released by the White House, that number would shoot up to 92%, assuming the rest had crippling comprehension problems.




Six out of ten Republicans are woefully ill-informed.


 

* 

Mike Pompeo “forgets” he was on the July 25 call. 

IN THE MEANTIME, our tangerine-tinted leader has been on a roll. He fumed that Chairman Adam Schiff of the House Intelligence Committee (now nicknamed “Shifty Schiff”) should also be booked for “treason” because he misquoted Trump’s words in the call to President Zelensky. 

Again, the penalty for treason would be death. Or as Trump might call it, “Bringing jobs back to the rope factory.” 

He also told reporters “a whistleblower should be protected, if the whistleblower is legitimate.” But the whistleblower who lodged a complaint against him is “a so-called whistleblower,” “biased” and “a political hack.” 

So: No protection for him or her! 

(Death by hanging again?)

 

In a snippet of positive news, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) pushed back on that idea – that only a whistleblower with the seal of approval from Trump should expect protection and anonymity. In a statement he released on his U.S. Senate website, Sen. Grassley explained: 

This person appears to have followed the whistleblower protection laws and ought to be heard out and protected [emphasis added]. We should always work to respect whistleblowers’ requests for confidentiality. Any further media reports on the whistleblower’s identity don’t serve the public interest even if the conflict sells more papers or attracts clicks….

 

When it comes to whether someone qualifies as a whistleblower, the distinctions being drawn between first- and second-hand knowledge aren’t legal ones. It’s just not part of whistleblower protection law or any agency policy. Complaints based on second-hand information should not be rejected out of hand, but they do require additional leg work to get at the facts and evaluate the claim’s credibility.

 

In not-so-good “rule of law” news, President Trump clearly missed what Sen. Grassley said. Today, he stated publicly, without there having been a trial, that a U.S. citizen, Hunter Biden, received “a payoff” from the Chinese. He said that former Vice President Biden and his son were guilty of corruption in Ukraine. “Nobody has any doubt,” he added. He said – again without evidence – that the whistleblower complaint was no good, because Chairman Schiff “helped him write it.” Ukraine, he told reporters – all but begging a foreign nation to help him out in the 2020 election – should “launch a major investigation” into Joe and his son.

 

Fresh revelations continued to dent the president’s defenses. On September 22, we know Martha Raddatz asked Secretary of State Pompeo what he might know about the July 25 call. Pompeo acted like she had hit him on the head with a croquet mallet and said the call was news to him. 

Apparently, it was quite a whack to the noggin.’ Ten days passed before Pompeo admitted yesterday, Oh, yeah. That call. 

He was listening on that call.

 

At the same time, Rudy Giuliani’s name popped up all over the news. First, he admitted that he had compiled a dossier of material, garnered from Ukrainian sources, “proving” that VP Biden and his son had been up to no good. One impeccable source was Paul Manafort, currently lodged in federal prison. Rudy and Paul communicated through Paul’s lawyer. 

Let’s pause a moment and allow that to sink in. 

We should also throw in some old news to spice up our story. Don’t forget, President Trump said he could pardon himself! And don’t forget, Trump always admitted a pardon remained on the table for Manafort, assuming that Manafort kept his mouth shut about Trump. 

(He did.)

 

* 

Volker cautioned the Ukrainians not to get involved. 

ON THURSDAY, the former U.S. special envoy to the Ukraine testified for hours behind closed doors. Not much information has leaked; but it has been reported that Ambassador Kurt Volker had specifically warned Giuliani that his sources in Ukraine were no good. 

Volker also told lawmakers he cautioned the Ukrainians not to get involved with meddling in the next U.S. election. That supports the whistleblower’s allegation that Volker had “provided advice to the Ukrainian leadership about how to ‘navigate’ the demands that the President made.” 

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), clearly in need of hearing aids, emerged after several hours of testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. He informed reporters that he had not heard a syllable to support the idea that Trump withheld military aid to an allied nation to leverage help in the 2020 election. This, despite the fact Volker supplied text messages involving communications with Bill Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat in the Ukraine, and Gordon Sondland, U.S. ambassador to the European Union. Sondland, who made a fortune in the hotel business, but had never been a diplomat, got the job by donating $1 million to Trump’s 2016 inaugural committee. 

(That’s fairly standard practice when it comes to awarding ambassadorships to plumb positions: like France or England. Career diplomats get to be ambassadors to countries like Mali or Tuvalu. Or Iraq.)

 

The context of the emails is not entirely clear. But if what ABC is reporting is correct, what Taylor was worried about is obvious: 

(Volker comes in late on the three-way talk.) 

TAYLOR: The nightmare is they give the interview [Team Trump is pressuring Zelensky to go on CNN and mention an investigation into the Bidens] and don’t get the security assistance. The Russians love it. (And I quit.)

 

(A bit of cross talk takes place.)

 

TAYLOR: The message to the Ukrainians (and Russians) we send with the decision on security assistance is key. With the hold, we have already shaken their faith in us. Thus my nightmare scenario.

 

 

TAYLOR (three minutes later): Counting on you to be right about this interview, Gordon.

 

SONDLAND: Bill, I never said I was “right”. I said we are where we are and believe we have identified the best pathway forward. Let’s hope it works.

 

TAYLOR: As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.

 

SONDLAND: Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo’s of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign. I suggest we stop this back and forth by text. If you still have concerns, I recommend you give Lisa Kenna or S a call to discuss them directly. Thanks.

 

TAYLOR: I agree.

 

In other words, Taylor, the professional, thinks it’s clear military aid is being withheld in return for Ukrainian help in a U.S. political campaign. That’s what the whistleblower alleged.

 

Taylor was serving as charge d’affaires to the Ukraine, having taken over that post in June. The previous U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, had been recalled in May, several months early. Giuliani admitted on Thursday, that Yovanovitch was dumped after he told the president she was blocking his attempts to investigate Democrats like former Vice President Joe Biden and his son. 

BIDEN!

Is this difficult to grasp????

 

* 

FINALLY, we learn that a second whistleblower complaint is in the works. This one involves a person working for the I.R.S., who alleges political appointees have interfered with the normal auditing process of Trump’s tax returns.

 

BLOGGER’S NOTE: In the email exchanged noted above, Ambassador Sondland states quite clearly that he believes there is “no quid pro quo” involved in the hold on military aid to Ukraine. Republicans will latch onto this statement like barnacles. 

Later, Sondland will say, having heard other witness accounts, that he realizes there was a quid pro quo.

Wednesday, April 27, 2022

November 7, 2019: Trump Wanted Zelensky in a Box - The Quid and the Quo

 

11/7/19: The President of the United States rises from bed, already in a black mood. He’s so depressed he doesn’t even feel like eating his Cocoa Puffs for breakfast. The fact he is about to be impeached has finally penetrated his thick skull. 

Well, then, what to do? 

Why not attack the free press!

The Washington Post has just reported that Trump asked Attorney General Bill Barr to announce that his call with the Ukrainians was perfect, the stuff of legend, and no one should bother to run against Trump in 2020. Because Trump is at the tippy-top of the best of the best. 

According to sources at the Department of Justice, reporters for the Post say this was a bridge too far for Barr.

 

____________________ 

“I and the others on the call sat in astonishment. The Ukrainians were fighting the Russians and counted on not only the training and weapons but also the assurance of U.S. support.” 

Ambassador Bill Taylor

____________________

 

Clearly feeling the pressure, Trump explodes in a series of fiery tweets. Sounding like Vladimir Putin, but not in such good shape, the orange doughball refers to the free press as “the Enemy of the People.” 

Then he insists, “Bill Barr did not decline my request to talk about Ukraine. The story was a Fake Washington Post con job with an ‘anonymous’ source that doesn’t exist. Just read the Transcript,” he says. “The Justice Department already ruled that the [July 25] call was good. We don’t have freedom of the press!” 

Actually, we do. But we might not for much longer, if the crazy man in the White House keeps this up. 

If he wins reelection, we’re screwed.

 

The next tweet is worse, with Trump using a word to describe the free press he normally reserves for the leaders of ISIS: “The degenerate Washington Post MADE UP the story about me asking Bill Barr to hold a news conference,” he says. “Never happened, and there were no sources!” 

Finally, he names names. 

The Amazon Washington Post and three lowlife reporters, Matt Zapotosky, Josh Dawsey, and Carol Leonnig, wrote another Fake News story, without any sources (pure fiction), about Bill Barr & myself. We both deny this story, which they knew before they wrote it. A garbage newspaper!

 

That’s dictator talk.




 

* 

ABC ALMOST immediately reports that several sources have confirmed the report. Trump did ask Barr. 

CBS confirms the story next. “There is no evidence of Barr denying the story,” CBS points out. 

Even Fox News admits that the Wall Street Journal has verified the Post story. Or, to put it plainly, even Fox reporters suspect Trump is lying. They just don’t want to say it and upset their viewers.

 

* 

“Thank you to Tim Morrison for your honesty.” 

YOU CAN SEE why Trump might be losing his grip if you’ve been following the release of witness testimonies. As of Thursday morning, the transcripts of Tim Morrison’s testimony are unavailable. But his full opening statement is out. Morrison was one of the National Security Council officials who sat in on the July 25 call at the center of the impeachment inquiry. 

He did say during testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, “I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed.” 

The president heard that sentence, which Republicans leaked as soon as Morrison spoke it, and leaped on it like a lion dragging a baby zebra down by its neck. “Thank you to Tim Morrison for your honesty,” he tweeted on October 31.

 

Now we know Morrison went on to admit he had a “sinking feeling” when he learned that Trump was asking the Ukrainians to publicly announce an investigation of Biden and the Democrats. And, what about the testimony of Ambassador Taylor? Taylor was clear in saying that the fix – the quid pro quo – was in. “I can confirm,” Morrison said, that the substance of Taylor’s testimony “is accurate.” “It is easy to forget here in Washington,” he continued, “but impossible in Kyiv [Kiev], that Ukraine is still under armed assault by Russia….United States security sector assistance (from the Department of Defense and State) is therefore, essential to Ukraine.” 

He also testified that soon after joining the National Security Council, Dr. Fiona Hill warned him that Ambassador Gordon Sondland “and President Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, were trying to get President Zelensky to reopen Ukrainian investigations into Burisma.” Morrison says he had to Google “Burisma,” and learned that “it was a Ukrainian energy company and that Hunter Biden was on its board. I also did not understand,” he said, “why Ambassador [to the European Union] Sondland would be involved in Ukraine policy, often without the involvement of our duly-appointed Chief of Mission, Ambassador Bill Taylor.” 

In other words (and “thank you for your honesty”), even Mr. Morrison smelled something noxious was brewing.

 

Morrison, like Taylor, made this fundamental point. No military aid was coming until the Ukrainians committed to one special investigation, involving Burisma, a company Hunter Biden used to advise. 

Still, Morrison did say he did not think the president’s comments during the July 25 call were illegal. 

Republican lawmakers probably wish they could have hit Morrison with a tranquilizer dart at that moment. Morrison kept talking. “I was not aware that the White House was holding up the security sector assistance passed by Congress until my superior, Dr. Charles Kupperman, told me soon after I succeeded Dr. Hill [who stepped down in mid-July].” In other words, he wouldn’t have known about the second quid pro quo till August, himself. He also said he wasn’t as worried about the call as others who listened in, because (at the time) he was confident the Secretaries of State and Defense, the Director of the C.I.A. and the head of the NSC, would step up. They would be able to “convince President Trump to release the aid because President Zelensky and the reform-oriented Rada [parliament] were genuinely invested in their anti-corruption agenda.” 

Morrison said that he had “no reason to believe the Ukrainians had any knowledge” of the holdup of military aide until August 28.

 

He and Ambassador Taylor, he said, “had no reason to believe that that release of military aid might be conditioned on a public statement [emphasis added throughout, unless otherwise noted] reopening the Burisma investigation” until he talked with Sondland on September 1. He relayed word to Taylor. Republicans, including Trump, fixated on that comment – insisting there could be no quid pro quo, unless the Ukrainians knew what the quid and the quo were. But Morrison added, “Even then I hoped that Ambassador Sondland’s strategy was exclusively his own and would not be considered by leaders in the Administration and Congress, who understood the strategic importance of Ukraine to our national security.” 

There’s the main point: Holding up military assistance to our Ukrainian allies endangered U.S. national security.

 

* 

“Full of lies and incorrect information.” 

PRESIDENT TRUMP’S defenses suffer a pair of devastating hits later the same day when transcripts of Ambassador Bill Taylor’s and top State Department official George Kent’s testimonies, 324 pages and 355 pages in length, are released. Kent lambasts Rudy Giuliani for mucking around in Ukraine. Starting in March, Trump’s personal lawyer was “unmissable” in Ukrainian affairs. Rudy was working with Yuriy Lutsenko, a former top Ukrainian official, who wanted “revenge” for U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch’s anti-corruption efforts.  

Kent was telling lawmakers that Rudy wanted to ditch a diplomat who was fighting corruption. He wasn’t working to fight corruption, as Trump and his lackeys insist. “Mr. Giuliani, at that point, had been carrying on a campaign for several months full of lies and incorrect information about Ambassador Yovanovitch,” Kent explained, “so this was a continuation of his campaign of lies.” 

As USA Today explained, Kent told lawmakers that Giuliani and his shady friends were pushing four story lines. First, they were trying to sell the idea that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election, not Russia. Second, was the line that Ukrainians and people at the U.S. embassy had an “animus” toward Paul Manafort, Trump’s campaign chair. (That’s right, the guy currently ensconced in a federal prison.) A third line held that it was Vice President Biden’s pressure to fire Ukraine’s top prosecutor in 2015 that saved his son, Hunter, and Burisma, from investigation. Finally, George Soros was mixed up in the mess and working against Mr. Trump. 

(Cue the anti-Semitism, where Mr. Soros is concerned.)

 

Kent, however, made it clear he had no faith in the sources Rudy was using, describing them as “if not entirely made up in full cloth, it was primarily non-truths and non-sequiturs.” 

As USA Today describes it, Kent, 

…told Catherine Croft, a special adviser for Ukraine who has also testified, that “if you’re asking me, have we ever gone to the Ukrainians and asked them to investigate or prosecute individuals for political reasons, the answer is, I hope we haven’t, and we shouldn’t because that goes against everything that we are trying to promote in post-Soviet states for the last 28 years, which is the promotion of the rule of law.”

 

Kent reiterated that he thought the idea of using the desired investigations as leverage was “injurious to the rule of law.”

 

Kent did say he was concerned about the optics of Hunter Biden and his work in Ukraine in 2015 – apparently the only sentence in more than 300 pages of testimony that any Republican lawmakers heard. 

Kent was perfectly clear. 

He testified that Trump wanted “nothing less than President Zelensky to go to microphone and say investigations, Biden, and Clinton.” 

Quid fucking pro quo.

 

* 

THE PRESIDENT, as all his loyal fans know, has been swearing that there was no quid pro quo. He never asked the Ukrainians to investigate the Biden family if they wanted a meeting at the White House. 

Nor did he ever make it clear, nor Rudy, either, that if Ukraine expected military aid, they would have to agree to investigate Hunter and Joe. Who could imagine President Trump would stoop so low! 

When we read the transcript of the testimony of Ambassador Taylor, we know who would imagine. 

Ambassador Taylor, for sure.

 

Assuming you’re retired and have hours of free time (as this blogger is and does), it’s interesting to dive into the records. One notices, first, that GOP lawmakers involved in the questioning, only want to complain. Chairman Schiff is mean to be holding the hearings behind closed doors. How will the public ever learn what witnesses have to say? At one point, Rep. Chip Roy of Texas declares, “This whole hearing is out of order.” 

Rep. Val Demings, a Maryland Democrat retorts, “You really don’t want to hear from this witness, do you?” 

Roy insists he does. He says he wants every member of Congress to hear the witness and that he wants the American people to hear too. Now he should be content, since all one needs do is go to the link provided here, and plow through all 324 pages of Taylor’s testimony. And since few people are going to do that plowing including Sen. Lindsey Graham here’s a summary. 

First, Taylor lays out his background: West Point graduate, infantry officer in Vietnam. Bronze Star for valor. He tells lawmakers he has had a “non-partisan,” fifty-year career in government. As a diplomat he did stints in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, and a previous tour in Ukraine. He had, he explains, an abiding interest in Ukrainian affairs. “However, in August and September of this year,” he testified, “I became increasingly concerned that our relationship with Ukraine was being fundamentally undermined by an irregular, informal channel of U.S. policymaking and by the withholding of vital security assistance for domestic political reasons.”

 

For slow readers, like Rep. Devin Nunes, this was Taylor making clear the Ukrainians were being asked to interfere in a U.S. political campaign. 

That would be a future campaign. 

As in 2020.

 

That is, a QUID PRO QUO.

 

Soon after arriving in Ukraine, Taylor began sniffing out trouble. On June 27, Sondland told him that “President Zelensky needed to make clear to President Trump that he, President Zelensky, was not standing in the way of investigations.” The next day, Taylor said he “sensed something odd” when Sondland said he wanted to limit participation in a phone call to Zelensky. 

Ambassador Sondland, Ambassador [Kurt] Volker, Secretary [of Energy Rick] Perry, and I were on this call dialing in from different locations. However, Ambassador Sondland said that he wanted to make sure no one was transcribing or monitoring as they added President Zelensky to the call. Also, before President Zelensky joined the call, Ambassador Volker separately told the U.S. participants that he, Ambassador Volker, planned to be explicit with President Zelensky in a one-on-one meeting in Toronto on July 2nd about what President Zelensky should do to get the meeting in the White House.

 

Again, it was not clear to me on that call what this meant, but Ambassador Volker noted that he would relay that President Trump wanted to see rule of law, transparency, but also, specifically, cooperation on investigations to get to the bottom of things…

 

By mid-July, it was becoming clear to me that the meeting President Zelensky wanted was conditioned on investigations of Burisma and alleged Ukrainian influence in the 2016 elections. It was also clear that this condition was driven by the irregular policy channel I had come to understand was guided by Mr. Giuliani.

 

(BLOGGER’S NOTE: Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee will later stress that Taylor had no direct knowledge of what was said on several calls, including the July 25 conversation that touched off the inquiry. Testimony by Vindman and Hill, however, will validate every statement Taylor has made.)

 

On Fox News, presidential ass smoocher Gregg Jarrett will label those who gave testimony  “opinion witnesses” and “notorious gossipers.” In the real world, where Taylor testified, he had already said: 

On July 10, in Kyiv [Kiev], I met with President Zelensky’s Chief of Staff, Andrei Bohdan, and then-foreign policy adviser to the President and now Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko, who told me that they had heard from Mr. Giuliani that the phone call between the two Presidents was unlikely to happen and that they were alarmed and disappointed.

 

That’s direct knowledge there, and the Ukrainians are already aware that something is amiss. 

During a conference call on July 18, Taylor added, a “voice” from a woman at Office of Management and Budget announced that all military aid to Ukraine was on hold “until further notice.” The reaction of the people listening, he says, was pronounced. “I and the others on the call sat in astonishment. The Ukrainians were fighting the Russians and counted on not only the training and weapons but also the assurance of U.S. support.” 

Unbeknownst to our top diplomat in Ukraine, someone was screwing with military aid to an ally.

 

According to that OMB voice, the directive to hold up aid had come directly from President Trump, via Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney. “In an instant,” Taylor told lawmakers, “I realized that one of the key pillars of our strong support for Ukraine was threatened.” 

Was the delay in aid wise? 

“At one point the Defense Department was asked to perform an analysis of the effectiveness of the assistance,” Taylor explained. “Within a day, the Defense Department came back with the determination that the assistance was effective and should be resumed.”

 

On July 19, Taylor spoke with Dr. Hill and Lt. Col. Vindman. Both told him that the hold on military aid came from Mulvaney. 

In the same July 19th phone call, they gave me an account of the July 10th meeting with the Ukrainian officials at the White House. Specifically, they told me that Ambassador Sondland had connected investigations with an Oval Office meeting for President Zelensky, which so irritated Ambassador Bolton that he abruptly ended the meeting, telling Dr . Hill and Mr. Vindman that they should have nothing to do with domestic politics.

 

“Needless to say, the two Ukrainians in the meetings,” Taylor says, “were confused.”

 

Did the Ukrainians realize that they were being required to help President Trump in the next election? Taylor is clear: 

Also, on July 20th, I had a phone conversation with Mr. Danyliuk, during which he conveyed to me that President Zelensky did not want to be used as a pawn in a U.S. reelection campaign. The next day, I texted both Ambassadors Volker and Sondland about President Zelensky’s concern.

 

National Security Advisor Bolton flew to Kiev on August 27. Taylor spoke with him about his concerns, and the “folly I saw in withholding military aid to Ukraine at a time when hostilities were still active in the east and when Russia was watching closely to gauge the level of American support for the Ukrainian Government.” 

Bolton suggested he send a cable directly to Secretary of State Pompeo. This was something Taylor had never done in his career. Taylor did so, making it clear he might resign. By this time, we can safely assume, Trump also knew diplomats and intelligence experts were on to his game. 

On September 1, Pence met with Zelensky in Poland. According to the official readout, the Ukrainian leader “opened the meeting by asking the Vice President about security cooperation.” In other words, our allies were clearly worried about the inexplicable delay in military assistance. 

In his sworn testimony, Taylor also said he spoke with Tim Morrison, a member of the National Security Council. Morrison “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 Zelensky committed to pursue the Burisma investigation. 

 

“President Trump wanted President Zelensky in a box.” 

Here, then, we come to Taylor’s most definitive statement. Was there a quid pro quo? 

I was alarmed by what Mr. Morrison told me about the Sondland-Yermak conversation. This was the first time I had heard that security assistance, not just the White House meeting, was conditioned on the investigations.

 

Very concerned, on that same day, I sent Ambassador Sondland a text message asking if we are now saying that security assistance and a White House meeting are conditioned on investigations. Ambassador Sondland responded asking me to call him, which I did.

 

During that phone call, Ambassador Sondland told me that President Trump had told him that he wants President Zelensky to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election.

 

Ambassador Sondland also told me that he now recognized that he had made a mistake by earlier telling Ukrainian officials to whom he spoke that a White House meeting with President Zelensky 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 Zelensky in a box by making public statement about ordering such investigations. 

 

“The Russians love it. And I quit.” 

On September 5, Taylor hosted two U.S. senators on a visit to Kiev (alternate spelling of the Ukrainian capital city name). During this trip Sen. Ron Johnson and Sen. Chris Murphy met with Zelensky. “His first question to the Senators was about the withheld security assistance.” Both lawmakers, “stressed that bipartisan support for Ukraine in Washington was Ukraine’s most important strategic asset and that President Zelensky should not jeopardize that bipartisan support by getting drawn into U.S. domestic politics.” 

On September 7, Taylor spoke with Morrison by phone. The story of the delayed military aid had leaked and spread in the news. Morrison described to Taylor a call between Trump and Sondland: 

According to Mr. Morrison, President Trump told Ambassador Sondland that he was not asking for a quid pro quo. But President Trump did insist that President Zelensky go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2015 election interference, and that President Zelensky should want to do this himself.

 

Taylor continued: 

The following day, on September 8th, 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 Zelensky himself had to clear things up and do it in public. President Trump said it was not a quid pro quo.

 

Okay. Got it. Except, if Zelensky didn’t go public, there’d be no aid. (And remember, by now, the story of the aid delay was all over the news. Even an orange buffoon would know enough to start covering his noticeable tracks.) 

Ambassador Sondland said that he had talked to President Zelensky and Mr. Yermak and told them that, although this was not a quid pro quo, if President Zelensky did not clear things up in public, we would be at a stalemate. I understood a stalemate to mean that Ukraine would not receive the much-needed military assistance. Ambassador Sondland said that this conversation concluded with President Zelensky agreeing to make a public statement in an “interview with CNN.” 

 

The quid and the quo had been discovered. 

As we have mentioned before, Taylor followed up with a text message, expressing his reservations. “My nightmare is that the Ukrainians give the interview and don’t get the security assistance. The Russians love it. And I quit.” 

Ah…the Russians would love it! 

(Where have we heard that before?) 


Was there a quid pro quo, then? Taylor had no doubts. “I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign,” he told Sondland and Volker the next day.

 

Soon after, as the story spread in the free press, the Trump administration relented. The military aid was unfrozen. The quid and the quo had been discovered. The plan to get the Ukrainians to interfere in the coming election was aborted.



Ukraine will finally get the military assistance.

Friday, April 22, 2022

December 2, 2019: Trump Says President Zelensky Cleared His Name - Trump is a Bonehead

 

12/2/19: President Zelensky talks to reporters from several European news outlets, as well as Time magazine. Once again, he does his best to thread the impeachment needle. “Look, I never talked to the president from the position of a quid pro quo. That’s not my thing,” he says. 

If he admitted he had, it would be a tremendous sign of weakness to his own people.

 

____________________ 

“If you’re our strategic partner, then you can’t go blocking anything for us.” 

President Zelensky

____________________

 

 

At the White House, wild partying results, as the president throws official papers in the air and dances round the Oval Office with lovely Kellyanne Conway in his embrace. Trump finally settles and tweets the good news. He has been totally exonerated, just like he was by the Mueller Report! The President of Ukraine, he taps on his iPhone, “just again announced that President Trump has done nothing wrong with respect to Ukraine and our interactions or calls.” 

Shortly after, he waddles out to the White House lawn to inform reporters it’s “case over” for impeachment! 

Zelensky, he insists, has just told the world that Donald J. Trump “did absolutely nothing wrong.”

 

Of course, that’s not what the Ukrainian leader said. What he did say was this: “I don’t want us to look like beggars. But you have to understand. We’re at war. If you’re our strategic partner, then you can’t go blocking anything for us. I think that’s just about fairness. It’s not about a quid pro quo. It just goes without saying.” 

It “goes without saying.” You can’t block military aid until you get the investigation you want. 

Yet, that’s why the aid was blocked. 

“I would never want Ukraine to be a piece on the map, on the chess board of big global players, so that someone could toss us around, use us as cover, as part of some bargain,” Zelensky continued. He remains thankful for the aid Kyiv has received from the United States. “I would really want – and we feel this, it’s true – for them to help us, to understand us, to see that we are a player in our own right, that they cannot make deals about us with anyone behind our backs.”



President Zelensky gives President Trump the side eye.