I just finished the entire PDF - I think Trump may actually be fucked. The whole “there is no quid pro quo” defense hangs on the fact that Trump kept repeating “this isn’t a quid pro quo” and then saying, basically, “but if you don’t do what I want, we’re at a stalemate” - meaning no money for Ukraine. But it’s not a quid pro quo because Trump kept chanting it.
Give me all your money or I’ll shoot you in the face! But don’t worry, this isn’t an armed robbery.
Max seems to have missed this.
Also to add - it was a very well written, clear narrative that puts the whole series of events in perspective. You can tell this guy’s passion for Ukraine; there was no way he was just going to roll over and say, “what color?” when Trump tells him to shit. I’m thinking the name Bill Taylor may become extremely prominent in the coming years.
So at what point is Trump subpoenaed to testify? What happens then?
I don’t see why he hasn’t been already. (In fact, I still can’t believe his team outmaneuvered the Mueller investigation to keep him from testifying then.) But I know exactly what will happen – his team and Barr’s will fight tooth nail and claw against the subpeona, employing every motion and appeal available, to keep their man from swearing an oath.
And then, when the House impeaches him anyway, he’ll tweet that it’s unfair because they never even talked to him!
What happens now?
How is Bill Taylor going to be attacked by the Whitehouse?
That testimony is particularly clear and damning, and I don’t imagine how it can be discredited, but I know that they are going to try.
Will there be some sort of paper trail that documents the delay in the security assistance? And who was issuing those orders?
It also appears, that although Pence was only mentioned once in that testimony, he was in this up to his eyebrows. With this in mind, is further evidence of Pence’s complicity going to emerge (or alternatively, some contemporaneous documents that he was fighting it but ultimately followed orders?)
If he ever voted for a Democrat and failed to keep it a secret, you can bet your ass that Trump will be shouting it from the mountaintops. Unless he’s feeling particularly, you know, low energy that day. Then, he’ll just be tweeting it from his phone.
:eek:
Even just the ‘you must announce an investigation’ part would have worked like gangbusters for Trump, because the media would have been reporting it as though it were real—in large font, front page, Breaking News on CNN, etc. etc. etc. far into the night.
Reporters would have included a half-sentence in each ten-minute segment to the effect that ‘no actual evidence against Biden has been made public’…but the story, day after day, night after night, would have been “Biden Under Investigation.”
It worked beautifully against Hillary in 2016. And it would have worked for 2020 against Biden.
…if not for that meddling whistle-blower. (One month* since that news broke. Hard to believe, but true.)
*Timeline: Tracking the whistleblower, Trump and Ukraine | AP News
This may be the biggest sign that Trump’s certainty of protection by the Senate is less sure than we thought.
When the rattiest of rats is trying to put some distance from the ship concluding that it may actually be really sinking begins to seem most reasonable.
“Radical unelected bureaucrat waging war on the Constitution.” - White House Press Secretary
Trump hasn’t tweeted much today, so I expect he’s working on a nickname for Taylor.
Tattle Taylor?
He’s not that clever. He’ll come up with a gem like “Liddle’ Bill Taylor”.
While that answers the literal question you raised (emphasis added):
That’s sort of like responding to question of whether it’s okay for a doctor to accept money and saying “Yes!” even though the discussion is about a doctor who took money off-the-books to give someone heavy narcotics, way beyond any valid medical need or dosage. It’s the answer to the literal question but completely irrelevant to the actual question being asked.
The actual question being asked is, “Did the President have corrupt purpose in trying to bypass investigative procedural norms of separation between politics and non-partisan law enforcement and in attempting to directly apply pressure against foreign governments to investigate or produce (honestly or not) evidence against his political rival?”
I think you are right. Moscow Mitch has made a number of surprising moves lately that demonstrate in subtle ways that he could break with Trump. He understands polling about as well as anyone, and preserving his Senate majority is top of his list.
Trump has a low cunning understanding that McConnell’s support is only reliable to the extent Trump can deliver the election to that majority. I’d say that becomes a less forgone outcome every day. People are just sick of this.
Support for Impeaching Trump Soars Among Independents. (Reuters)
Responding out of order, but I don’t think that’s a strong question. The presumption is of innocence and the burden for corrupt purpose is beyond a reasonable doubt - these are my opinions of course, but I believe they are shared by most if not all Republican Senators who constitute the jury majority. I’m speculating, but something as simple as “We didn’t have an ambassador at the time and I thought I/Rudy/Bill Barr could do a better job than Mr. Taylor” would prevent me from finding corrupt purpose without as-of-yet-unseen evidence to the contrary.
~Max
A West Point graduate, Vietnam Veteran (101st Airborne) with nearly 50 years of public service… Since his high school graduation, only his two year masters program at Harvard have not been in service to our nation.
Yet the True Believers will attempt to dishonor him. 
Increasing by 3 percentage points constitutes “surging” and “soaring”?
It jumped from 33% to 45% among independents, as the headline says. Pretty big surge (about a 33% improvement) to me.
The evidence is still coming in, of course, but I would note that this isn’t a criminal conviction.
If you are prosecuted of a crime, you are separated from your family, put behind bars, and your career future wrecked. There’s some reason to be careful about your verdict. If you are not found guilty of the crime, even though you did it, it’s likely that you’ll never offend again anyways (or improve at getting away with it even more). The risk of NOT jailing is not amazingly huge in nearly all cases.
For the President, if fired, he goes on to a money making lecture series career and lives a wealthy and comfortable existence. But if he’s guilty, and is allowed to stay in his position, then he is building corruption into the system, he is exposed to those who may hold evidence of his transgressions, etc.
Just the fact that Trump has 20+ close criminal acquaintances regardless of Ukraine or anything is already sufficient basis for impeachment and removal. We are not convicting a crime, we are asking whether Donald Trump performs in “a manner becoming of a gentleman”. Despite statements to the contrary, impeachable conduct is not criminal conduct as suitably provable to take it to court, it’s whether a reasonable person would take the sense that Trump is a trustworthy person who can be trusted to faithfully execute his Oath of Office in, at all times, an honorable fashion.