Originally posted by dirtfloor
View Post
Ambassador Bill Taylor hammers a few more nails into Trump’s coffin.
Originally posted by Mountain Man
View Post
You mean the testimony where Mr. Taylor said, and I quote:
Is that the testimony you're referring to?
And from the honorable Rep. John Ratcliffe:
According to Mr. Morrison, President Trump told Ambassador Sondland that he was not asking for a "quid pro quo".
Is that the testimony you're referring to?
And from the honorable Rep. John Ratcliffe:
At the end of the day, this was about quid pro quo and whether or not the Ukrainians were aware that military aid was being withheld, and on that most important issue, neither this witness nor any other witness has provided any evidence that there was a quid pro quo, or any evidence that the Ukrainians were aware that military aid was being withheld on July 25th, and unless and until they bring in a witness who is willing to say that there was knowledge by someone that speaks Ukrainian to that fact, a quid pro quo is legally impossible.
[...]
Ambassador Taylor again, today, I found him to be very forthright. He had very strong opinions on Donald Trump’s approach to foreign policy. But, again, the mainstream media reporting that he provided evidence of a quid pro quo involving military aid is false. I questioned him directly on that. And under Adam Schiff’s rules I can’t tell you what he said but I can tell you what he didn’t say. Neither he or any other witness has provided testimony that the Ukrainians were aware that military aide was being withheld. You can’t have a quid pro quo with no quo!
[...]
The prosecution is missing an essential element of their case: there is no quid pro until someone from the Ukraine says we knew that military aide was being withheld during that July 25th call, and that testimony hasn't come, and it's not coming.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com...omment-page-1/
[...]
Ambassador Taylor again, today, I found him to be very forthright. He had very strong opinions on Donald Trump’s approach to foreign policy. But, again, the mainstream media reporting that he provided evidence of a quid pro quo involving military aid is false. I questioned him directly on that. And under Adam Schiff’s rules I can’t tell you what he said but I can tell you what he didn’t say. Neither he or any other witness has provided testimony that the Ukrainians were aware that military aide was being withheld. You can’t have a quid pro quo with no quo!
[...]
The prosecution is missing an essential element of their case: there is no quid pro until someone from the Ukraine says we knew that military aide was being withheld during that July 25th call, and that testimony hasn't come, and it's not coming.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com...omment-page-1/
Comment