Toggle sidebar

Taylor Testimony

C

countryroads89_rivals

Sophomore
Sep 6, 2013
27,594
120
0
However, in August and September of this year, I became increasingly concerned that our relationship with Ukraine was being fundamentally undermined by an irregular, informal channel of U. S. policy making and by the withholding of vital security assistance for domestic political reasons. I hope my remarks today will help the committees understand why I believed that to be the case. At the outset, I would like to convey several key points: First, Ukraine is a strategic partner of the United States, important for the security of our country as well as Europe; second, Ukraine is, right at this moment, while we sit in this room, and for the last 5 years, under armed attack from Russia; third, the security assistance we provide is crucial to Ukraine's defense against Russian aggression, and, more importantly, sends a signal to Ukrainians and Russians that we are Ukraine's reliable strategic partner; and, finally, as the committees are now aware, I said on September 9th, in a message to Ambassador Gordon Sondland, that withholding security assistance in exchange for help with a domestic political campaign in the United States would be crazy. I believed that then, and I still believe that.


And guess what, the American public gets to see all the testimony on television next week.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

full testimony

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/CPRT-116-IG00-D008.pdf

 
Last edited:
rog1187

rog1187

All-American
May 29, 2001
70,026
5,614
113
countryroads89 said:
However, in August and September of this year, I became increasingly concerned that our relationship with Ukraine was being fundamentally undermined by an irregular, informal channel of U. S. policy making and by the withholding of vital security assistance for domestic political reasons. I hope my remarks today will help the committees understand why I believed that to be the case. At the outset, I would like to convey several key points: First, Ukraine is a strategic partner of the United States, important for the security of our country as well as Europe; second, Ukraine is, right at this moment, while we sit in this room, and for the last 5 years, under armed attack from Russia; third, the security assistance we provide is crucial to Ukraine's defense against Russian aggression, and, more importantly, sends a signal to Ukrainians and Russians that we are Ukraine's reliable strategic partner; and, finally, as the committees are now aware, I said on September 9th, in a message to Ambassador Gordon Sondland, that withholding security assistance in exchange for help with a domestic political campaign in the United States would be crazy. I believed that then, and I still believe that.


And guess what, the American public get to see all the testimony on television next week.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

full testimony

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/CPRT-116-IG00-D008.pdf

Click to expand...
so that's what he believes - "I believed that then, and I still believe that."
 
T

tjebarr

Senior
Feb 3, 2007
25,122
917
0
countryroads89 said:
However, in August and September of this year, I became increasingly concerned that our relationship with Ukraine was being fundamentally undermined by an irregular, informal channel of U. S. policy making and by the withholding of vital security assistance for domestic political reasons. I hope my remarks today will help the committees understand why I believed that to be the case. At the outset, I would like to convey several key points: First, Ukraine is a strategic partner of the United States, important for the security of our country as well as Europe; second, Ukraine is, right at this moment, while we sit in this room, and for the last 5 years, under armed attack from Russia; third, the security assistance we provide is crucial to Ukraine's defense against Russian aggression, and, more importantly, sends a signal to Ukrainians and Russians that we are Ukraine's reliable strategic partner; and, finally, as the committees are now aware, I said on September 9th, in a message to Ambassador Gordon Sondland, that withholding security assistance in exchange for help with a domestic political campaign in the United States would be crazy. I believed that then, and I still believe that.


And guess what, the American public get to see all the testimony on television next week.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

full testimony

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/CPRT-116-IG00-D008.pdf

Click to expand...

Smoking hot Michelle
 
rog1187

rog1187

All-American
May 29, 2001
70,026
5,614
113
yes...interesting stuff for sure

MR. RATCLIFFE: So you're not a lawyer, are you, Ambassador Taylor?

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR: I am not .

MR. RATCLIFFE: Okay. So the idea of a quid pro quo is it's a concept where there is a demand for action or an attempt to influence action in exchange for Something else. And in this case, when people are talking about a quid pro quo, that something else is military aid. So, if nobody in the Ukrainian Government is aware of a military hold at the time of the Trump-Zelensky call, then, as a matter of law and as a matter of fact, there can be no quid pro quo, based on military aid. I just want to be real clear that, again, as of July 25th, you have no knowledge of a quid pro quo involving military aid .

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR: July 25th is a week after the hold was put on the security assistance. And July 25th, they had a conversation between the two Presidents, where it was not discussed.

MR. RATCLIFFE: And to your knowledge, nobody in the Ukrainian Government was aware of the hold?

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR: That is correct.

MR. RATCLIFFE: Great. Thank you for clarifying.
 
T

TarHeelEer

Freshman
Dec 15, 2002
89,338
59
48
rog1187 said:
yes...interesting stuff for sure

MR. RATCLIFFE: So you're not a lawyer, are you, Ambassador Taylor?

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR: I am not .

MR. RATCLIFFE: Okay. So the idea of a quid pro quo is it's a concept where there is a demand for action or an attempt to influence action in exchange for Something else. And in this case, when people are talking about a quid pro quo, that something else is military aid. So, if nobody in the Ukrainian Government is aware of a military hold at the time of the Trump-Zelensky call, then, as a matter of law and as a matter of fact, there can be no quid pro quo, based on military aid. I just want to be real clear that, again, as of July 25th, you have no knowledge of a quid pro quo involving military aid .

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR: July 25th is a week after the hold was put on the security assistance. And July 25th, they had a conversation between the two Presidents, where it was not discussed.

MR. RATCLIFFE: And to your knowledge, nobody in the Ukrainian Government was aware of the hold?

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR: That is correct.

MR. RATCLIFFE: Great. Thank you for clarifying.
Click to expand...

They've got him now!
 
DvlDog4WVU

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
47,243
3,306
113
rog1187 said:
yes...interesting stuff for sure

MR. RATCLIFFE: So you're not a lawyer, are you, Ambassador Taylor?

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR: I am not .

MR. RATCLIFFE: Okay. So the idea of a quid pro quo is it's a concept where there is a demand for action or an attempt to influence action in exchange for Something else. And in this case, when people are talking about a quid pro quo, that something else is military aid. So, if nobody in the Ukrainian Government is aware of a military hold at the time of the Trump-Zelensky call, then, as a matter of law and as a matter of fact, there can be no quid pro quo, based on military aid. I just want to be real clear that, again, as of July 25th, you have no knowledge of a quid pro quo involving military aid .

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR: July 25th is a week after the hold was put on the security assistance. And July 25th, they had a conversation between the two Presidents, where it was not discussed.

MR. RATCLIFFE: And to your knowledge, nobody in the Ukrainian Government was aware of the hold?

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR: That is correct.

MR. RATCLIFFE: Great. Thank you for clarifying.
Click to expand...
Oh no, not Bill Taylor!!!! The guy who completely exonerated President Trump and implicates 2 Dem Senators of an actual quid pro quo.
 
G

Gunny46

All-Conference
Jul 2, 2018
61,262
4,088
113
countryroads89 said:
I thought it was


You trumpers need to have a meeting to get your story straight.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Click to expand...

You ate a lot of paint chips as a kid didn't you ?

Politico reported on a Ukrainian-American woman who consulted for the Democratic National Committee, and “met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia.” The woman, Alexandra Chalupa, was paid $412,000 from 2004 to June 2016 by the DNC.

Ciaramella invited Chalupa to meetings and events at the White House, RealClear reported, documentsconfirming one occasion in November 2015. She also visited the White House with Ukrainian lobbyists seeking aid from Obama.

Chalupa said she shared her findings with both the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Politico reports that “Chalupa told a senior DNC official that, when it came to Trump’s campaign, ‘I felt there was a Russia connection.'” Chalupa also said that the Ukrainian embassy worked directly with reporters digging for Trump-Russia ties.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom