"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.'"
from Taylor's full statement: washingtonpost.com/context/openin…
from Taylor's full statement: washingtonpost.com/context/openin…
Taylor repeatedly explains Sondland's role in connecting aid to "investigations," and of Sondland effectively coaching Zelenskyy on what to say to appease Trump about this.
Then, 🚨 in Sept.: " Sondland told me that President Trump had told him that he wants Zelenskyy to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 US election."
In fact, "everything" depends on this, incl. security assistance.
In fact, "everything" depends on this, incl. security assistance.
Now, the LOL part. Per Taylor, team Trump insisted this was "not a quid pro quo," but Ukrainians better behave as if it was: "if Zelenskyy did not 'clear things up' ..., we'd be at a 'stalemate.'"
('Oh this is not a threat, but it'd be a pity if something happened to your aid')
('Oh this is not a threat, but it'd be a pity if something happened to your aid')
Sondland/Taylor rift grows on p.13: "Sondland tried to explain to me that President Trump is a businessman... [I argued] explanation made no sense: the Ukrainians did not 'owe' President Trump anything, and holding up security assistance for domestic political gain was 'crazy.'"
The last lines of Taylor's chronological account are explicit: "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."
