Today was Bill Taylor's last day as US ambassador to Ukraine

No one has been nominated to replace him.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Bill Taylor is leaving Kyiv

Tomorrow is his last day.  And Pompeo will be there the very next day.

UPDATE 1/3/20:  Pompeo's trip was cancelled, as the US assassinated Irani general Qasem Soleimani.

The Trump purges

An entire roster of public servants has been disparaged, bullied and in some cases banished for standing in Trump’s path as he sought to pressure Ukraine for political favors, or for testifying about his conduct afterward.

Many who came forward were convinced that Trump’s actions were a violation of American principles, if not the law, and they clung to a misplaced faith that matters of national security would transcend partisan politics. Instead, the impeachment saga has hardened political divisions and cast doubt on the United States’ commitment to ideals it has long professed.

[...]

But the fallout of the impeachment battle extends far beyond Trump’s political survival in a Senate trial. Tensions, exposed by impeachment, have fed Trump’s belief that he is surrounded by disloyal subordinates and have fueled animosity among congressional Republicans toward the supposed “deep state.” Today, the idea that a cadre of nonpartisan civil servants can loyally serve presidents of either party in pursuit of shared national interests — a bedrock principle of the country’s approach to foreign policy since World War II — is under attack.

[...]

Their actions have fed the view among some Republicans that impeachment is not just an isolated fight about Trump’s actions toward Ukraine but also is an extension of a broader, unfinished conflict.

[...]

The impeachment-related damage is extensive. The acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, William B. Taylor Jr., returned to Kyiv after his Nov. 14 testimony only to watch Trump’s lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, arrive weeks later to resume his quest for dirt on Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Giuliani’s sojourn while filming a documentary for a right-wing television network made clear to officials in Ukraine that Taylor and the U.S. Embassy had no standing with the U.S. president.

Taylor has since announced that he will step down by Jan. 2, clearing out of the Ukrainian capital on an accelerated schedule in part to spare Secretary of State Mike Pompeo — scheduled to visit Kyiv next month — from having to appear in pictures alongside a diplomat Trump branded as disloyal.

  WaPo

This is really sad. Pompeo himself is stepping down soon to run for the Senate from Kansas.

The ambassador had taken the job only after Pompeo promised him that U.S. policy would remain firmly grounded in fighting Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine, an assurance that now seems uncertain at best.

[...]

"I’ve not seen anything like this since I joined the Foreign Service,” said John Heffern, a former senior State Department official who entered the department when Ronald Reagan was president. “Our work is promoting international universal values — freedom of the press and rule of law. Considering what’s happened in the United States, it undermines our ability to project that message to our foreign counterparts.”

It seems obvious that's no longer what our country stands for - hasn't been for decades. Career diplomats are laboring under an old narrative.

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the top adviser on Ukraine at the National Security Council, has continued to work at the White House since testifying that he was so disturbed by Trump’s July 25 call with Zelensky that he reported his concerns to White House lawyers.

But Vindman — who was born in Ukraine, moved to the United States with his family at age 3 and earned a Purple Heart in the war in Iraq — has been taunted by Trump, cast as disloyal by the president’s allies and falsely accused of plotting with the whistleblower to undermine the president.

When Trump gets beyond the Senate "trial", Vindman will be given the boot.

Fiona Hill, the former top Russia adviser at the White House, has endured obscene phone calls to her home phone, according to people familiar with the matter, and vicious assaults from far-right media. Alex Jones, the conspiracy monger who operates the Infowars website, devoted much of his Nov. 22 broadcast to smears against Hill. “I want her ass indicted,” Jones said. “I want her indicted for perjury. Today. Indict that whore.”

For Hill, the attacks were a continuation of an astonishing level of hostility she witnessed during the two years she served in the White House. Trump loyalists drafted internal “enemies” lists, co-workers were purged, and NSC security teams logged hundreds of external threats against Hill and other officials.

[...]

Within weeks of joining the administration, [Hill] faced a wave of internal and external efforts to discredit or neutralize her.

[...]

For Hill, ever the Russia analyst, the ruthless nature of the harassment harked back to the Bolshevik purges of revolutionary Russia. Bannon has all but touted this connection, comparing his destructive agenda to that of Vladi­mir Lenin’s.

In 2017, Bannon and his allies compiled a list of about 50 people they wanted exiled from the National Security Council. Most of their targets drew suspicion because they had worked as civil servants in the Obama White House. Bannon’s team also scoured the targets’ social media profiles for signs of disloyalty to the Trump administration.

[...]

Key players in those 2017 purges, and several of their targets, have resurfaced in the impeachment fight.

Among the first to confront Hill when she joined the White House that year was Derek Harvey, who went to the NSC after working for Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) on the House Intelligence Committee. On one of Hill’s first days on the job, Harvey told her he could not understand why Trump had allowed her into the fold.

[...]

Harvey, who was active in generating the enemies list, returned to Nunes’s staff after being ousted by then-national security adviser H.R. McMaster in July 2017. When Hill testified behind closed doors before the committee, Harvey could be seen passing notes to members, officials said.He also approached Hill at one point, telling her that the “trolls are out again.” The gesture, intended to communicate sympathy, ignored the fact that Hill and others viewed him as contributing to the poisonous climate.

[...]

Bannon said the whistleblower was at the top of the list he and his allies created in 2017. Former White House officials said it also included a State Department official now serving as a top aide to Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

Another early target of Trump loyalists was Stephanie Holmes, a career State Department employee assigned to the NSC who was falsely accused of leaking details of Trump’s Oval Office conversation with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

[...]

She subsequently left her NSC job to take a post that seemingly should have shielded her from the bloodletting, moving with her husband, David, also a diplomat, to the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine.

It was [there in Kyiv] that David Holmes was in position to witness Trump’s phone call with U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland at an outdoor cafe.

[...]

Trump has intentionally fostered internal friction, sowing tension among subordinates as a management tactic, current and former White House officials said. But he also inadvertently hired advisers who are repelled by his crude behavior and isolationist instincts.

McMaster, former chief of staff John F. Kelly, former secretary of state Rex Tillerson and others all fought Trump on major aspects of his foreign policy — his disdain for the NATO alliance, his desire on a moment’s notice to pull U.S. troops out of war zones, andhis aversion to imposing sanctions on Russia. They, in turn, often hired subordinates who were similarly scornful of Trump’s positions.

And they'll all have to eventually be rooted out.

The most senior officials, such as Pompeo, and John Bolton when he was national security adviser, often relied on underlings to sound alarms or subvert Trump’s efforts to pressure Zelensky, without putting their own standing with the president at risk.

Such leadership!

Taylor, Hill and Vindman repeatedly raised objections to aspects of the shadow policy they perceived but had no meaningful power to stop it.

I had just such a boss in my last position, and I can tell you that type of boss is not respected by his subordinates. Nor deserves to be.

Former U.S. special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker walked a treacherous tightrope,working to secure a commitment from Ukraine to pursue the investigations to clear impediments to what he regarded as the real policy: bolstering Ukraine in its war with Russian-backed separatists.

He hid his alarm at Trump’s baseless conspiracy theories about the 2016 election and the president’s loathing for the Ukrainians. Volker saw himself as facing a choice: He could accept Trump’s view of Ukraine or try to fix it.

“I tried to fix it,” he testified. Volker’s career was derailed as a result. He resigned from his diplomatic post after his role in the Ukraine episode was exposed. He was also forced to step down as executive director of the McCain Institute, a think tank whose stated mission is to advance “character-driven leadership.”

Good to know the McCain Institute doesn't suffer hypocrites. (Or at least not ones who get caught.)

Career diplomats and civil servants routinely suppress private views to execute policies set by presidents. The impeachment hearings forced a parade of witnesses to reveal their feelings about Trump on a stage with an international audience.

[...]

The stark airing of these differences “caused the president to think they are biased against him,” the official said.

[...]

In reality, none of those who testified had ever publicly opposed Trump, and many had made conscious decisions — despite misgivings — to return to government to work for him.

As several people have warned: eventually, Trump will turn on everyone.

Hill was cautioned by friends and colleagues in the close-knit foreign policy community to reject the NSC job. One long-standing peer has refused to speak with her since learning she had gone to work for Trump.

That's rough.

Three years into Trump’s presidency, the list of perceived enemies continues to expand, and now is composed of officials whom Trump or his own subordinates hired. The hostility they face comes not only from Trump loyalists — whether inside the administration or launching attacks from right-wing media sites — but also from a substantial swath of the Republican Party.

For decades, the GOP cast itself as the champion of the FBI, CIA, Pentagon and other national security institutions. But over the past three years, Republicans have repeatedly turned on those agencies when necessary to protect Trump’s presidency.

In their final report on the impeachment hearings, Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee focused on “unelected bureaucrats” as the true villains of the impeachment scandal.

[...]

Ultimately, they were to blame.

An aside: I wonder when we began spelling it Kyiv instead of Kiev. I've always pronounced it as Kee-ev, but I notice that the diplomats who work there pronounce it Keev.

"Here we say 'Kyiv' not 'Kiev,'" Taras Ilkiv, a Ukrainian journalist who recently wrote an article for Business Insider on the protests, explained in an email, "because 'Kiev' is the Russian word." It's simple: in Ukrainian, the word for the city is Київ, while in Russian, it reads as Киев.

So, Kee-ev is the Russian pronunciation. I suppose we've been using that term for at least as long as there was a Soviet Union. The first mention I see of changing the way we pronounce the name is in that 2014 Business Insider article. (The Russian language does not have the letter "ї".) And I'm going to speculate that some - if not most - of us older folks are going to keep on calling it Kee-ev. Personally, I'm trying to remember to use the Ukrainian word, since, after all, it's a Ukrainian city.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

The long day - Part 2

Here's the Republicans' professional legal questioner...See if you can understand why they chose him.

Don't feel bad, Bill.  Everybody is scratching their heads at this line of questioning.  Sometimes at the very structuring of the questions.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:  Castor always had some version of this look on his face, keeping his head down, and at times his hand covering a portion of his face.  Does he lack confidence?  Or does he just know he's working a case that has no defense?

Great picture.  Sandwiched between two demons, Castor feels cornered.

The long day

In case you missed the impeachment hearing today with George Kent and Ambassador Bill Taylor, I'm sure you can find it on YouTube.

Here are the three things I think are of note:

1) Ambassador Taylor testified that since his last testimony, a member of his staff told him about a phone call the staff member overheard between Trump and Sondland.  According to the testimony, Trump could be overheard on Sondland's cell asking Sondland about "the investigations" to which Sondland replied the Ukrainians were "ready to move forward."  After the call ended, the staff member reportedly asked Sondland what Trump thought about Ukraine, and Sondland's response was that Trump cares more about the investigations (ie, into Biden and the DNC) than he does about Ukraine.  I assume that staffer will be called to testify.

2) Even if Bill Taylor has a voice reminiscent of Walter Cronkite, George Kent is a far better witness: precise, clear, direct, and having a memory for detail about State Department regulations and affairs as well as for dates and events.  But both witnesses, to their credit, rebuffed any efforts to make them seem partisan, or as Jim Jordan accused them, of being the Democrats' "star witnesses".  Many times Taylor said, "I'm just here to tell you what I know and what I heard."

3) Democratic Representative Peter Welch is a quick wit.  Here's his comeback to Jim Jordan who claimed the hearings are unfair because Republicans don't get to hear from the whistleblower "who started it all":

That was the only light moment and the only one with any reaction from the room in the whole thing, and after five hours of repeats of what we already know, and the totally expected Republican lies and misdirections, it was greatly appreciated. By me at least.

Coming Friday: Marie Yovanovitch.

P.S.  I think George Kent must know what dogs are thinking when you talk to them, because his eyebrows do the same thing.

UPDATE:

Honestly, they don't seem to think anything through any more.

UPDATE:

There was so much of that kind of thing happening all day with the Republicans.  I can only surmise they haven't got a clue how to defend Trump.  Probably because there is no defense.  And Castor was their professional legal interrogator.  Here's a glimpse of him asking questions of Taylor that have nothing to do with Taylor's knowledge or anyone's ability to understand WTF Castor is doing.

UPDATE:  Representative Maloney has a point about the supporting documents that Taylor and Kent say are in the hands of the State Department, as a matter of procedure, and which Pompeo will not turn over to the committee.

UPDATE 11/21:  Ambassador's staff member is David Hale.  He was called to testify in private, and then in public on 11/21.  And, unsurprisingly treated to a barrage of insults from Jim Jordan.

Taylor testimony transcript released

Taylor transcript

As expected, Trump cabal is smearing Ukraine deal witnesses

UPDATE:  And Ambassador Vindman:

“If you look at this lieutenant colonel’s background, he’s got a Purple Heart, he got hit by an IED in Iraq,” Brian Kilmeade said on “Fox & Friends.” “We also know he was born in the Soviet Union, immigrated with his family, young. He tends to feel simpatico with the Ukraine."

On CNN, former congressman Sean P. Duffy (R-Wis.) suggested that Vindman’s birthplace was important.

“It seems very clear that he is incredibly concerned about Ukrainian defense,” Duffy said. “I don’t know that he’s concerned about American policy, but his main mission was to make sure that Ukraine got those weapons.” (Of course, Ukraine’s defense is still U.S. policy.)

[...]

What Trump prioritizes in migrants who come to the United States is self-sufficiency and assimilation. He prefers migrants from Europe over Africa or the Middle East. What he wants is Alexander Vindmans — until Alexander Vindman points out where the loyalties of Trump himself might be questionable.

[...]

“My family fled the Soviet Union when I was three and a half years old,” Vindman’s opening remarks read. “Upon arriving in New York City in 1979, my father worked multiple jobs to support us, all the while learning English at night. He stressed to us the importance of fully integrating into our adopted country. For many years, life was quite difficult. In spite of our challenging beginnings, my family worked to build its own American Dream."

The statement continues: “I have a deep appreciation for American values and ideals and the power of freedom. I am a patriot, and it is my sacred duty and honor to advance and defend OUR country, irrespective of party or politics."

  WaPo

More American than the Trump cabal.

Lt. Col. Alexander Vinindman

I think Trump and the GOP, having already destroyed themselves with US intelligence agencies, are inexorably destroying themselves in the eyes of the US military.

UPDATE:

UPDATE:

No.  They're not looking away.  They're going after him like rabid animals.

UPDATE:

Left: Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman,

Right: Sebastian Gorka

The GOP malicious clown show

I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that the temporary closed-door nature of the hearings actually works in favor of Republicans, not against them. It’s the only thing they have left to cast doubt, however absurdly, on the damning information that’s already right there on the record.

And it allows them to convey to the Audience of One — and his followers — that they are fighting the good fight on his behalf, without their self-ascribed effectiveness actually being subject to outside scrutiny.

[...]

As the Ukraine scandal grows exponentially more dangerous for President Trump, his public loyalists are adopting a clever little strategy that has two purposes.

The first is to create a sense of chaos to discredit the whole impeachment process and to misdirect the public away from the damning fact-record that’s being established right now for all to see.

The second and less obvious purpose is to demonstrate to Trump, who is in a rage over Republicans’ failure to adequately defend him, and to his supporters, who will demand that Republicans defend him to the death, that they are actually being fearsomely, mercilessly effective on his behalf.

  WaPo

Trump's bitches.

Republicans have argued, variously, that they are being excluded, that Trump is being denied fair treatment, and that the whole process is being concealed from the American people. But journalists have effectively demonstrated that many Republicans who stormed the hearing actually have the right to enter the proceedings, and that many others have actually availed themselves of the opportunity to participate and question witnesses.

[...]

[A new Wall Street Journal editorial] quotes Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.) claiming this about [ambassador Willian] Taylor: “Much of his leaked opening statement collapsed, but Schiff keeps the public in the dark on that!”

The “leaked” opening statement, of course, was the full opening statement, but put that aside. The Journal editorial then notes that “What we don’t know is how Mr. Taylor responded to questions” about what he knew firsthand, adding: “If the evidence against Mr. Trump is so damning, then why not make it all public now so the American people can judge for themselves?”

You see, Zeldin wants you to know that the withering cross-examination skills of Republicans like himself debunked what you think you learned from Taylor in his already-revealed opening statement. The point here isn’t just that the already-known and deeply damning details in Taylor’s testimony should be seen as suspect, simply because House Republicans say so. It’s also that the effectiveness of House Republicans unmasked this, and Democrats are trying to conceal it.

[...]

Yes, of course the transcripts should be released, and of course the American people should have all the facts. But that will happen; that the initial investigative phase is private is eminently defensible.

[...]

Indeed, the very same witnesses Republicans claim they have reduced to a puddle of incoherence will likely undergo open questioning once the inquiry moves into its public phase. The Post reports that Democrats hope to do this by mid-November, and that it will likely include open questioning of Taylor and other key witnesses.

[...]

But for Trump’s most ardent loyalists, this simply won’t matter. If and when publicly revealed testimony does not exonerate Trump, they’ll simply lie to the contrary, and treat the fact of public release as the hook to claim that the Democratic coverup has been exposed, counting on their massive propaganda apparatus to amplify that story line. This is exactly what happened with the Nunes memo — it was a total fiasco, yet Republicans widely pretended it was deeply revelatory.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:

Ambassador Taylor's "leaked" opening statement

Ambassador Taylor will be leaving his post soon, won't he?

The diplomat, William Taylor, painted a damaging portrait of events that directly tied Trump to a quid pro quo with Ukraine, according to his prepared remarks obtained by POLITICO and his responses to questions as described by sources in the room for the closed-door testimony.

[...]

The timeline Taylor laid out during his nearly 10 hours testifying before investigators is at the heart of Democrats’ impeachment inquiry into the president. The 50-year veteran of government service systematically dismantled Trump’s repeated denials that he sought to leverage American military and diplomatic might to coerce an ally into a coordinated campaign to damage his potential 2020 rival. Trump himself and his congressional allies did not attempt on Tuesday to dispute the substance of Taylor’s claims, which were based on copious notes. Instead, the White House attacked Taylor personally, saying he was part of a band of “radical unelected bureaucrats waging war on the Constitution.”

  Politico

Sad!

“It is a rancorous story about whistle-blowers, Mr. Giuliani, side channels, quid pro quos, corruption and interference in elections,” Taylor said, referring to Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who was deeply involved in the shadow effort.

[...]

Taylor also testified that Sondland said Trump personally told him that he wanted Ukraine to “state publicly” that it would open such probes, before the U.S. would release the aid, which is viewed as critical for combating Russia’s aggression in the region. Taylor repeatedly underscored the damage that even a temporary hold on the aid had done to the U.S.-Ukraine relationship, at a time when the budding democracy was resisting an advance by Russian forces and fighting corruption at the highest levels of the government.

[...]

“The body language of the people hearing it was, ‘holy s---’ — seriously,” Rep. Harley Rouda (D-Calif.), a member of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, said in reference to Taylor’s opening statement.

[...]

“I’ll tell you, as a former State Department political appointee, in my experience the difference between career folks and political appointees is the career folks take very good notes,” Malinowski said, hinting that Taylor provided corroboration to back up his recollections. Lawmakers roundly criticized Sondland, a political appointee and a donor to the 2016 Trump campaign, for failing to recall certain events and conversations during his deposition last week.

You don't usually keep notes if you know what you're doing is unethical and/or illegal.

Sondland’s lawyer did not respond to a request for comment. Sondland has emphasized that he wants to provide notes and documents to the committee but has been blocked by the State Department.

Possibly untrue. But, if true, it means Sondland knows there are notes that are damning to the President.

Congressional Republicans were more muted, but they showed no immediate signs of breaking with Trump despite the latest bombshells.

He could shoot someone on 5th Avenue in broad daylight.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the president's lead defender in the room, was tight-lipped as he emerged from the closed-door deposition for a lunch break. He praised what he described as GOP lawyers’ effective questioning of Taylor but declined to say whether it yielded exculpatory information.

And we all know that Jim Jordan would have been shouting it coming out the door if that were the case.

A source who attended the deposition said a phone call between Taylor and Sondland was a key episode about which Taylor provided new information. That conversation came at Sondland’s request after Taylor, in one of the text messages released earlier this month, questioned whether the military assistance and possible White House meeting are “conditioned on investigations.”

“After today, Mr. Sondland is going to have some explaining to do,” Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) said.

The acting US ambassador to Kyiv has provided congressional committees conducting impeachment hearings a detailed account of how Donald Trump repeatedly sought to make a summit meeting and military aid to Ukraine conditional on its government launching investigations into the president’s political opponents.

Bill Taylor’s testimony was the latest in a series of depositions by serving and former administration officials, as part of the impeachment inquiry, [and] it was the most detailed and damning to date.

Taylor, who took over as acting ambassador in June, presented his testimony behind closed doors on Capitol Hill but copies of his opening statement soon leaked.

The veteran diplomat said that soon after arriving in Kyiv, he became concerned “our relationship with Ukraine was being fundamentally undermined by an irregular informal channel of US policymaking, and by the withholding of vital security assistance for domestic political reasons”.

Taylor said this irregular channel was run by Trump through several emissaries: the president’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, the departing energy secretary, Rick Perry, the ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, and the special Ukraine envoy, Kurt Volker.

They became focused solely on persuading the new Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, to announce investigations that would damage Democrats and especially Joe Biden [...] .

[...]

According to Taylor’s statement [...] Sondland, made clear in a phone call that both military aid and a White House meeting with Trump were dependent on the launch of two investigations.

  Guardian

Ambassador Taylor may be "resigning" soon.

Bill Taylor's statement at Time.

Exerpts:

For 50 years, I have served the country, starting as a cadet at West Point, then as an infantry officer for six years, including with the 101st Airborne Division in Vietnam; then at the Department of Energy; then as a member of a Senate staff; then at NATO; then with the State Department here and abroad in Afghanistan, Iraq, Jerusalem, and Ukraine; and more recently, as Executive Vice President of the nonpartisan United States Institute of Peace.

[...]

My background and experience are nonpartisan and I have been honored to serve under every administration, Republican and Democratic, since 1985.

[...]

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 five 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 9 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 cared about Ukraine’s future and the important U.S. interests there. So, when Secretary Pompeo asked me to go back to Kyiv [to replace ambassador Yovanovitch], I wanted to say “yes.”

But it was not an easy decision. The former Ambassador, Masha Yovanovitch, had been treated poorly, caught in a web of political machinations both in Kyiv and in Washington. I feared that those problems were still present. When I talked to her about accepting the offer, however, she urged me to go, both for policy reasons and for the morale of the embassy.

[...]

I could be effective only if the U.S. policy of strong support for Ukraine—strong diplomatic support along with robust security, economic, and technical assistance—were to continue and if I had the backing of the Secretary of State to implement that policy. [...] So during my meeting with Secretary Pompeo on May 28, I made clear to him and the others present that if U.S. policy toward Ukraine changed, he would not want me posted there and I could not stay. He assured me that the policy of strong support for Ukraine would continue and that he would support me in defending that policy.

[...]

I returned to Kyiv on June 17, carrying the original copy of a letter President Trump signed the day after I met with the Secretary. In that letter, President Trump congratulated President Zelenskyy on his election victory and invited him to a meeting in the Oval Office. I also brought with me a framed copy of the Secretary’s declaration that the United States would never recognize the illegal Russian annexation of Crimea.

[...]

On June 27, Ambassador Sondland told me during a phone conversation that President Zelenskyy needed to make clear to President Trump that he, President Zelenskyy, was not standing, in the way of “investigations.”

[...]

I sensed something odd when Ambassador Sondland told me on June 28 that he did not wish to include most of the regular interagency participants in a call planned with President Zelenskyy later that day. Ambassador Sondland, Ambassador Volker, Secretary 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 Zelenskyy to the call. Also, before President Zelenskyy joined the call, Ambassador Volker separately told the U.S. participants that he, Ambassador Volker, planned to be explicit with President Zelenskyy in a one-on-one meeting in Toronto on July 2 about what President Zelenskyy should do to get the White House meeting. [...] 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.” Once President Zelenskyy joined the call, the conversation was focused on energy policy and the Stanytsia-Luhanska bridge. President Zelenskyy also said he looked forward to the White House visit President Trump had offered in his May 29 letter.

[...]

By mid-July it was becoming clear to me that the meeting President Zelenskyy wanted was conditioned on the investigations of Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. 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.

[...]

In a regular NSC secure video-conference call on July 18, I heard a staff person from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) say that there was a hold on security assistance to Ukraine but could not say why. Toward the end of an otherwise normal meeting, a voice on the call—the person was off-screen—said that she was from OMB and that her boss had instructed her not to approve any additional spending of security assistance for Ukraine until further notice. I and others 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. All that the OMB staff person said was that the directive had come from the President to the Chief of Staff to OMB. In an instant, I realized that one of the key pillars of our strong support for Ukraine was threatened. The irregular policy channel was running contrary to the goals of longstanding U.S. policy.

[...]

My understanding, was that the Secretaries of Defense and State, the CIA Director, and the National Security Advisor sought a joint meeting with the President to convince him to release the hold, but such a meeting was hard to schedule and the hold lasted well into September.

Hard to schedule because His Lardship's "executive time" couldn't be interrupted?

The next day on the phone, Dr. Hill and Mr. Vindman tried to reassure me that they were not aware of any official change in U.S. policy toward Ukraine, OMB’s announcement notwithstanding. They did confirm that the hold on security assistance for Ukraine came from Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and that the Chief of Staff maintained a skeptical view of Ukraine.

In the same July 19 phone call, they gave me an account of the July 10 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 Zelenskyy, 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. He also directed Dr. Hill to “brief the lawyers.” Dr. Hill said that Ambassador Bolton referred to this as a “drug deal” after the July 10 meeting. Ambassador Bolton opposed a call between President Zelenskyy and President Trump out of concern that it “would be a disaster.”

Needless to say, the Ukrainians in the meetings were confused. Ambassador Bolton, in the regular Ukraine policy decision-making channel, wanted to talk about security, energy, and reform; Ambassador Sondland, a participant in the irregular channel, wanted to talk about the connection between a White House meeting and Ukrainian investigations.

Also during our July 19 call, Dr. Hill informed me that Ambassador Volker had met with Mr. Giuliani to discuss Ukraine. This caught me by surprise. The next day I asked Ambassador Volker about that meeting, but received no response.

[...]

Later on July 19 and in the early morning of July 20 (Kyiv time), I received text messages on a three-way WhatsApp text conversation with Ambassadors Volker and Sondland, a record of which l understand has already been provided to the Committees by Ambassador Volker. Ambassador Sondland said that a call between President Trump and President Zelenskyy would take place soon. Ambassador Volker said that what was “[m]ost impt is for Zelensky to say that he will help investigation—and address any specific personnel issues—if there are any.”

[...]

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

On July 25, President Trump and President Zelenskyy had the long-awaited phone conversation. Strangely, even though I was Chief of Mission and was scheduled to meet with President Zelenskyy along with Ambassador Volker the following day, I received no readout of the call from the White House. The Ukrainian government issued a short, cryptic summary.

[...]

Although I spent the morning of July 26 with President Zelenskyy and other Ukrainian officials, the first summary of the Trump-Zelenskyy call that I heard from anybody inside the U.S. government was during a phone call I had with Tim Morrison, Dr. Hill’s recent replacement at the NSC, on July 28. Mr. Morrison told me that the call “could have been better” and that President Trump had suggested that President Zelenskyy or his staff meet with Mr. Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr. I did not see any official readout of the call until it was publicly released on September 25.

[...]

On August 16, I exchanged text messages with Ambassador Volker in which I learned that Mr. Yermak had asked that the United States submit an official request for an investigation into Burisma’s alleged violations of Ukrainian law, if that is what the United States desired. A formal U.S. request to the Ukrainians to conduct an investigation based on violations of their own law struck me as improper, and I recommended to Ambassador Volker that we “stay clear.” To find out the legal aspects of the question, however, I gave him the name of a Deputy Assistant Attorney General whom I thought would be the proper point of contact for seeking a U.S. referral for a foreign investigation.

By mid-August, because the security assistance had been held for over a month for no reason that I could discern, I was beginning to fear that the longstanding U.S. policy of strong support for Ukraine was shifting. [...] My concerns deepened the next day, on August 22, during a phone conversation with Mr. Morrison. I asked him if there had been a change in policy of strong support for Ukraine, to which he responded, “it remains to be seen.” He also told me during this call that the “President doesn’t want to provide any assistance at all.” That was extremely troubling to me.

[...]

Just days later, on August 27, Ambassador Bolton arrived in Kyiv and met with President Zelenskyy. [...] Near the end of Ambassador Bolton’s visit, I asked to meet him privately, during which I expressed to him my serious concern about the withholding of military assistance to Ukraine while the Ukrainians were defending their country from Russian aggression. Ambassador Bolton recommended that I send a first-person cable to Secretary Pompeo directly, relaying my concerns. I wrote and transmitted such a cable on August 29, describing 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. I told the Secretary that I could not and would not defend such a policy. Although I received no specific response, I heard that soon thereafter, the Secretary carried the cable with him to a meeting at the White House focused on security assistance for Ukraine.

The same day that I sent my cable to the Secretary, August 29, Mr. Yermak contacted me and was very concerned, asking about the withheld security assistance. The hold that the White House had placed on the assistance had just been made public that day in a Politico story. At that point, I was embarrassed that I could give him no explanation for why it was withheld.

It had still not occurred to me that the hold on security assistance could be related to the “investigations.” That, however, would soon change.

On September 1, just three days after my cable to Secretary Pompeo, President Zelenskyy met Vice President Pence at a bilateral meeting in Warsaw. [...] I contacted Mr. Danyliuk to let him know that the delay of U.S. security assistance was an “all or nothing” proposition, in the sense that if the White House did not lift the hold prior to the end of the fiscal year (September 30), the funds would expire and Ukraine would receive nothing. I was hopeful that at the bilateral meeting or shortly thereafter, the White House would lift the hold, but this was not to be. Indeed, I received a readout of the Pence-Zelenskyy meeting over the phone from Mr. Morrison, during which he told me President Zelenskyy had opened the meeting by asking the Vice President about security cooperation. The Vice President did not respond substantively, but said that he would talk to President Trump that night.

[...]

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.

[...]

This was the first time I had heard that the 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] WH 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 Zelenskyy 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 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.

And there it is.

I told Ambassador Sondland that President Trump should have more respect for another head of state and [...] asked Ambassador Sondland to push back on President Trump’s demand. Ambassador Sondland pledged to try. We also discussed the possibility that the Ukrainian Prosecutor General, rather than President Zelenskyy, would make a statement about investigations, potentially in coordination with Attorney General Barr’s probe into the investigation of interference in the 2016 elections.

[...]

On September 5, I hosted Senators Johnson and Murphy for a visit to Kyiv. During their visit, we met with President Zelenskyy. His first question to the senators was about the withheld security assistance. My recollection of the meeting is that both senators stressed that bipartisan support for Ukraine in Washington was Ukraine’s most important strategic asset and that President Zelenskyy should not jeopardize that bipartisan support by getting drawn into U.S. domestic politics.

[...]

But the push to make President Zelenskyy publicly commit to investigations of Burisma and alleged interference in the 2016 election showed how the official foreign policy of the United States was undercut by the irregular efforts led by Mr. Giuliani.

[...]

Two days later, on September 7, I had a conversation with Mr. Morrison in which he described a phone conversation earlier that day between Ambassador Sondland and President Trump. Mr. Morrison said that he had a “sinking feeling” after learning about this conversation from Ambassador 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 Zelenskyy go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference, and that President Zelenskyy should want to do this himself.

[...]

The following day, 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 understood a “stalemate” to mean that Ukraine would not receive the much-needed military assistance. Ambassador Sondland said that this conversation concluded with President Zelenskyy agreeing to make a public statement in an interview with CNN.

Blackmail, in essence.

Ambassador Sondland tried to explain to me that President Trump is a businessman. When a businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something, he said, the businessman asks that person to pay up before signing the check. Ambassador Volker used the same terms several days later while we were together at the Yalta European Strategy Conference. I argued to both that the explanation made no sense: the Ukrainians did not “owe” President Trump anything, and holding up security assistance for domestic political gain was “crazy,” as I had said in my text message to Ambassadors Sondland and Volker on September 9.

Finally, I learned on September 11 that the hold had been lifted and that the security assistance would be provided.

The news of the quid pro quo had by then been leaked and published by the Washington Post on September 5.

My fear at the time was that since Ambassador Sondland had told me President Zelenskyy already agreed to do a CNN interview, President Zelenskyy would make a statement regarding “investigations” that would have played into domestic U.S. politics. I sought to confirm through Mr. Danyliuk that President Zelenskyy was not planning to give such an interview to the media. While Mr. Danyliuk initially confirmed that on September 12, I noticed during a meeting on the morning of September 13 at President Zelenskyy’s office that Mr. Yermak looked uncomfortable in response to the question. Again, I asked Mr. Danyliuk to confirm that there would be no CNN interview, which he did.

On September 25 at the UN General Assembly session in New York City, President Trump met President Zelenskyy face-to-face. He also released the transcript of the July 25 call. The United States gave the Ukrainians virtually no notice of the release, and they were livid. Although this was the first time I had seen the details of President Trump’s July 25 call with President Zelenskyy, in which he mentioned Vice President Biden, I had come to understand well before then that “investigations” was a term that Ambassadors Volker and Sondland used to mean matters related to the 2016 elections, and to investigations of Burisma and the Bidens.

Complete statement.

UPDATE:

Ambassador Taylor is testifying today

William B. Taylor Jr., the top diplomat in Ukraine, gave “damning” testimony Tuesday about President Trump and the effort to pressure Ukraine’s government for political gain, according to [Representative Ted Lieu, Democrat of California] and another person familiar with the opening statement Mr. Taylor delivered behind closed doors in the ongoing impeachment inquiry.

[...]

In an extensive opening statement, Mr. Taylor laid out a detailed timeline of events during his time in the administration, according to the person familiar with his testimony.

[...]

Mr. Taylor’s testimony was based in part on detailed notes that he took throughout his tenure, according to another person familiar with what he has told lawmakers. Mr. Taylor has shared his notes with the State Department but has not produced copies of them for lawmakers conducting the impeachment inquiry, the person said.

  NYT

Because he couldn't. They belong to the State Department.

The State Department tried to block Mr. Taylor from appearing for Tuesday’s deposition, or to limit his testimony if he did, according to an official working on the impeachment inquiry who insisted on anonymity to describe the negotiations. So early Tuesday morning, in keeping with a pattern that has allowed investigators to extract crucial information from numerous administration witnesses, the House Intelligence Committee quietly issued a subpoena to compel Mr. Taylor to testify, and he complied.

But they say that about everything.


We were allowed to seee Ambassador Yovanovitch's written statement. I'm guessing - and hoping - we'll get to see Taylor's. Recall that Taylor is the one who pointedly texted to Ambassador Sondland that "it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

...to be continued.

A panic in the White House

The nature and timing of the previously undisclosed discussions with National Security Council legal adviser John Eisenberg indicate that officials were delivering warnings through official White House channels earlier than previously understood — including before the call that precipitated a whistleblower complaint and the impeachment inquiry of the president.

At the time, the officials were unnerved by the removal in May of the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, by subsequent efforts by Trump’s lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani to promote Ukraine-related conspiracies, as well as by signals in meetings at the White House that Trump wanted the new government in Kiev to deliver material that might be politically damaging to Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.

  WaPo

But nobody said anything outside the fortress.

Those concerns soared in the call’s aftermath, officials said. Within minutes, senior officials including national security adviser John Bolton were being pinged by subordinates about problems with what the president had said to his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky. Bolton and others scrambled to obtain a rough transcript that was already being “locked down” on a highly classified computer network.

May be a factor in why Bolton got canned.

It is unclear whether some or all of the officials who complained to Eisenberg are also the ones who later spoke to the whistleblower.

The accounts are sharply at odds with Trump’s depiction of the call as a “perfect” exchange in which he “did nothing wrong.”

[...]

But new details about the sequence inside the White House suggest that concerns about the call and events leading up to it were profound even among Trump’s top advisers, including Bolton and then-acting deputy national security adviser Charles Kupperman. Bolton and Kupperman did not respond to requests for comment.

Bolton is saving it for his book. (Yes, he's writing a book.)

Officials said that within hours of the 9 a.m. conversation, a rough transcript compiled by aides had been moved from a widely shared White House computer network to one normally reserved for highly classified intelligence operations. According to the whistleblower’s complaint, White House lawyers “directed” officials to move the transcript to the classified system. At the same time, officials were seeking ways to report what they had witnessed, an undertaking complicated by the lack of a White House equivalent to the inspector general positions found at other agencies.

As a result, one official who had listened on the call went “immediately” to Eisenberg. By the end of the next day, at least two others who had either heard the call or seen the rough transcript had also done so.

[...]

It is not clear whether Eisenberg took any action either after the warnings he received earlier in July or after the Trump-Zelensky conversation. One official said Eisenberg vowed he would “follow up,” [...]

Now go on about your business.

[...] a message interpreted to mean that he intended to investigate the matter and perhaps relay the dismay up the ranks to White House counsel Pat Cipollone.

If that occurred, it would help explain how the White House was already aware of concerns about the July 25 call when contacted by the CIA general counsel weeks before a whistleblower complaint submitted by an agency employee had become public.

[...]

A former Justice Department official, Eisenberg has served as the top legal adviser to the National Security Council since the start of the administration.

[...]

Eisenberg probably would also have played a leading role in White House efforts to prevent the nation’s intelligence director from turning over a whistleblower complaint about Trump’s Ukraine call to lawmakers.

Officials who have worked with Eisenberg described him as conscientious and cautious, but said he has an expansive view of executive-branch authority. One former Justice Department colleague said he is an “honest broker” but has a “disdain” for Congress.

[...]

The absence of any clear action by Eisenberg or others may have contributed to decisions by White House insiders to relay their concerns to a CIA employee who assembled the information they supplied into a whistleblower complaint that he submitted Aug. 12 to the U.S. intelligence community’s inspector general.

It no doubt contributed. Perhaps was the deciding cause.

Those involved in sounding alarms “were not a swamp, not a deep state,” said a former senior official. Rather, they were White House officials “who got concerned about this because this is not the way they want to see the government run.”

They've been there for three years while it's been run this way.

Officials traced the origins of their initial concerns about Trump and Ukraine to the abrupt and unexplained removal of the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, after she became the target of a right-wing smear campaign that accused her — with no apparent evidence — of undermining Trump and his policies.

[...]

In his frequent meetings and conversations with Giuliani, Trump also became increasingly focused on Kiev-centered conspiracies, including a bizarre claim that the Democratic National Committee had not actually been hacked by Russian intelligence in 2016, and that the evidence — the infected machines — had been smuggled to Ukraine and kept there in hiding.

Concerns about the administration’s interactions with Ukraine ticked up further when the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, asserted that he had been put in charge of relations with Kiev by the president. Sondland, who had operated a hotel company, got the Brussels-based ambassadorship after donating $1 million to Trump’s inauguration.

[...]

[During a meeting at the White House in early July with Bolton, then-U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Kurt Volker and a pair of advisers to Ukraine’s new president], amid a broader discussion in which White House officials were encouraging Ukraine to continue its work to eliminate corruption in the country’s energy sector, Sondland blurted out that there were also “investigations that were dropped that need to be started up again,” according to a U.S. official familiar with the matter.

Senior officials understood Sondland’s statement to be a reference to Burisma and Biden. “Bolton went ballistic” after the meeting, the official said. In the ensuing days, senior NSC officials including Bolton and Kupperman huddled over their concerns about Ukraine.

Those worries were also shared with Bill Taylor, who had been dispatched to Ukraine to serve as acting ambassador after Yovanovitch’s removal. Taylor pressed Sondland in a series of text messages before and after Trump’s call.

Which we have already seen.

Taylor has been asked to testify but not yet scheduled. They should dispense with the asking and start sending out subpoenas. Otherwise they're eating up precious time.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

A little more lying, please

He would love to send him.  Ha.  Turns out Sondland called Trump right before he texted (not tweeted) that statement to Ambassador Taylor, who was freaking out about Trump's call to Zelensky.  And everybody who's talking about it has reported that text.

Sondland remains in his post [as EU ambassador] and has turned over the documents that lawmakers want to the State Department instead, setting up a fight between the legislative and executive branches over access to the information.

  WaPo

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:

How does it fee, Bill?

Leaving aside the fact that Bill Taylor, as evidenced by the released texts regarding the Ukraine deal, felt uncomfortable about doing it, and threatened to quit if Trump didn't keep up his end of the quid pro quo offer to Zelensky (see the texts), I have to wonder how he feels about being chosen to replace an ambassador who was judged too honest for the job.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Well, well, well

Oh, really?

US diplomats told Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, that a prestigious White House visit to meet Donald Trump was dependent on him making a public statement vowing to investigate Hunter Biden’s company, and a Ukrainian role in the 2016 elections, according to texts released on Thursday night.

The texts, released by three congressional committees holding impeachment hearings, show that the diplomats made clear that any improvement in Kyiv’s relations with Washington would be dependent on Zelenskiy’s cooperation in Trump’s quest to find damaging material about son of his leading political opponent, and on the Democrats in general.

[...]

The texts are exchanges from July to early September between three US diplomats - Gordon Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union, Kurt Volker, the then special envoy on Ukraine, and Bill Taylor, the acting ambassador to Kyiv. Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani and a Zelenskiy aide, Andrey Yermak, also make brief appearances in the correspondence.

The conversations leave no doubt that the state department was deeply involved in the effort to use the office of the presidency to pressure a foreign government to investigate Trump’s political enemies. At one point the diplomats even draft a statement for Zelenskiy to read out.

[...]

For their part, the Ukrainians were quite aware about what was happening and were deeply uneasy about what they were being asked to do. They made their concerns clear to Bill Taylor, who had taken on the acting ambassador’s job in May.

“Gordon, one thing Kurt and I talked about yesterday was [Ukranian finance minister] Sasha Danyliuk’s point that President Zelensky is sensitive about Ukraine being taken seriously, not merely as an instrument in Washington domestic , reelection politics,” Taylor wrote to Sondland on 21 July.

Sondland, the Trump donor and ambassador to the EU, brushes aside the concerns, arguing they had to move forward “irrespective of the pretext.” “I am worried about the alternative,” he added [...] "

[...]

After the 25 July presidential call, Yermak confirmed it “went well” and Trump told Zelenskiy to pick a date for his White House visit. However, a final agreement was clearly delayed. By 9 August Sondland told Volker the White House was ready to confirm the visit “as soon as Yermak confirms”. He added: “I think potus [Trump] really wants the deliverable.”

Sondland suggests asking Yermak to forward a draft of what Zelenskiy is going to say. On the same day, Volker checked in with Giuliani and told him about the statement the Ukrainian president is going to make.

“Can we all get on the phone to make sure I advise Z correctly as to what he should be saying? Want to make sure we get this done right,” Volker said. Giuliani agreed.

  Guardian

Nothing wrong with that, eh?

The next day, it was clear the Ukrainians were nervous about trusting Trump and ask for the date of the White House visit to be announced before Zelenskiy made his statement.

A little quid pro quo of his own. No wodner Zelesky didn't like Trump releasing the text of that phone call.



Oh, really?

On the same day, Volker presented a US draft of what Zelenskiy should say to Sondland.

“Special attention should be paid to the problem of interference in the political processes of the United States, especially with the alleged involvement of some Ukrainian politicians. I want to declare that this is unacceptable,” the draft statement said. “We intend to initiate and complete a transparent and unbiased investigation of all available facts and episodes, including those involving Burisma and the 2016 US elections, which in turn will prevent the recurrence of this problem in the future.”

“Perfect. Let’s send to Andrey after our call,” Sondland replied.

Nothing wrong with scripting a foreign leader's role in an illegal operation.

However, the plan to exchange Zelenskiy’s statement for a White House visit was torpedoed when the Ukrainians read a report on the Politico news site, that Trump had blocked $250 million in military aid to Ukraine, as well as state department funding.

Ooops.

The news made the Ukrainians even more skittish. Taylor, increasingly uneasy himself, asked Sondland directly: “Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations.”

In reply, Sondland told him to call to get a reply, instead of texting.

Nothing suspicious there.

Taylor wrote to both Sondland and Volker to express his shared misgivings with the Kyiv government, that Zelenskiy would make his statement this time in the form of an interview, but that Ukraine would still not receive the military aid.

“The nightmare is they give the interview and don’t get the security assistance. The Russians love it. (and I quit.)” Taylor warned.

Should have quit before all this, dude.

The last published text is dated 9 September and is between a distressed Taylor and Sondland. “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 said, adding: “As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

So much for hiding shit in a phone call.

Sondland’s reply was startling. Throughout the text dialogue he had taken the lead in arranging the original quid pro quo, Ukrainian help in investigating Biden’s company and the 2016 election, in return for a White House visit.

But on 9 September , as if he had become newly aware of the high stakes of leaving a digital trail of the conversation, Sondland adopted a suddenly formal tone and reverted to the official line. By that time, the White House had become aware that a complaint about the 25 July presidential phone call was in the pipeline, and that it was likely to cause a scandal.

“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,” he told Taylor.

Nice try. A little late.

The texts.

The  attempted clean-up:



...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:



They always say on the cop shows that the first one to fess up gets the lightest treatment.



Because there's nothing wrong with that, right?  It's the "in your face" form of governing favored by Trump.