Newly Revealed Taylor Testimony Throws Curveball on Claims of ‘Quid Pro Quo’

We have been promised some renewed transparency in the coming weeks, thanks to a House vote on a resolution outlining just how the Democratically-held chamber will proceed with their “formal impeachment inquiry”.

This is good new for the Republicans, who have been barred by their Democratic colleagues from discussing what they have witnessed within the so-far secretive hearings.  House Intel Chair Adam Schiff and his colleagues on the left side of the aisle have been controlling the narrative purposefully, hoping to get a head start within the mainstream media.  That way, when damning tidbits do arise, they will be used to dig Republicans out of the media hole, rather than to build them up above the Dem’s argument.

It’s all a game of perception, of course, and that is why the mainstream media is having a hard time digesting what was truly said by ex-diplomat Bill Taylor after his previous closed-door testimony went public.

U.S. diplomat Bill Taylor told impeachment investigators last month that Ukraine did not know the U.S. had temporarily frozen aid at the time of the July 25 phone call, making quid pro quo impossible, transcripts released Wednesday revealed.

Taylor’s October 22 depostion behind closed doors suggests Trump did not threaten to withhold aid during the infamous July 25 call between him and his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky that ultimately triggered the impeachment inquiry.

“July 25th is a week after the hold was put on the security assistance. And [on] July 25th, they had a conversation between the two presidents, where it was not discussed,” Taylor declared under questioning from Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX).

Ratcliffe then asked, “To your knowledge, nobody in the Ukrainian Government was aware of the hold?”

“That is correct,” Taylor replied.

Without knowledge of the held-back cash, there is no possible way to create an extort-able situation on the July 25th phone call.  As only members of the US government would have been privy to the information regarding the foreign aid, there is no “quid”, so to speak.

This means that the whistleblower who referenced the July 25th call in their complaint either did not know that Ukraine did not know, or was inferring something off the wall entirely during their second and third hand accusations.