Maybe we’re finally past “no quid pro quo” & this is moot, but one obvious question looking at Taylor’s testimony is: What conditions are we supposed to think Trump wanted Ukraine to satisfy (by the end of the fiscal year!) if NOT announcing CrowdStrike/Burisma investigations?
It can’t be that he was waiting on the regional policy experts to weigh in. They consistently agreed the aid should be released. It wasn’t the Pentagon—they had already issued a review concluding the funds were likely to be spent properly.
Anticorruption measures? Taylor says everyone seemed favorably impressed with the steps Zelensky had taken in a relatively short time. And there doesn’t seem to be anything else the administration was asking for. Just the investigation announcement, again and again.
If you want to claim that the aid wasn’t being conditioned on the one thing they kept demanding from Ukraine—announcing investigations—then what WAS it contingent on? What else would have triggered release, if it hadn’t blown up publicly & forced the administration’s hand?
As far as I can tell, there’s nothing. There’s no report or analysis they were waiting for, no other major asks. Just the investigations. And surely the message would have been clear as day to the Ukrainians even if Sondland hadn’t made it explicit.
“We won't call it a quid pro quo, but we’re going to keep harping on this one thing we want you to do, and we’re not going to suggest ANY other condition that might trigger the release of the delayed aid you desperately need.” How would you interpret that in their shoes?
The striking thing is that the White House and its allies haven’t even TRIED to credibly fill in the blank here. “It wasn’t about leverage for investigations; the aid was being held up pending _______.” There just isn’t another remotely credible answer.
The “no quid pro quo” starts sounding like children doing the “I’m not touching yooooou” bit. “Why is the aid delayed?” I couldn’t say. By the way, we really want these investigations. “So you’ll release the aid if we announce investigations?” No quid pro quo! But please do.
It simplifies matters that Sondland ultimately made it explicit, but it’s sort of redundant when there’s no other rational conclusion the Ukrainians could have drawn under the circumstances.
It's telling that Republican legislators, many of whom were very committed to getting the aid released, don’t seem at all curious for an alternative explanation of the delay—and conditions for disbursal—which would make it a whole lot easier to defend Trump if they existed.
I guess the one other story is “Trump wanted other countries to pay more.” But if that were the reason… wouldn’t you tell the State Department? The delay can’t be leverage to get other countries to pony up if you don’t actually communicate that to the other countries.
TL;DR: Congress may have given up on the “no quid pro quo!” line, but as long as the White House keeps clinging to it, the question reporters ought to be hammering is: “if not that, then what?” What concrete event or information did you want before releasing the aid?
“Oh, I just wanted to make sure they were serious about fighting corruption.” Great. What specific evidence of that seriousness were you looking for, in the span of a few months? How did you attempt to establish whether they were serious? “Err. By demanding investigations."
I feel like we’ve been one follow-up question away from a confession this whole time, because I guarantee Trump can’t come up with any other “evidence of seriousness” he’d displayed the slightest interest in.
