Below are some takeaways from Taylor’s full testimony.
1. A second quid pro quo?
The quid pro quo that we knew Taylor had explicitly outlined was one involving military aid; he said he had been told that Sondland told the Ukrainian official that the investigations Trump wanted would need to be announced for the aid to go through.
But in his further testimony, he also indicates he was told in some slightly less-certain terms that there was a quid pro quo involving a meeting with Trump. Taylor hinted at this in his opening statement, but he clarified it in his testimony:
Q: On page 5 of your testimony, in the third paragraph, you say: “But during my subsequent communications with Ambassador [Kurt] Volker and Sondland, they relayed to me that the President, quote, “wanted to hear from Zelensky,” unquote, “before scheduling the meeting in the Oval Office. It was not clear to me what this meant.” Now, I take it, ambassador, you used that word “before” deliberately – that is, they wanted to hear from Zelensky before they would schedule this meeting. Is that right?
A: That is correct.
Taylor says elsewhere in his testimony that he didn’t know the full details at the time, but that he came to understand that the condition was that Ukraine would announced certain investigations, including one involving the company that employed Joe Biden’s son Hunter.
“By mid-July, it was becoming clear to me that the meeting President Zelensky wanted was conditioned on investigations of Burisma and alleged Ukrainian influence in the 2016 elections,” Taylor said in his opening statement. “It was also clear that this condition was driven by the irregular policy channel I had come to understand was guided by Mr. Giuliani.”
2. He points the finger at Giuliani, not at Trump personally
I wrote earlier Wednesday about how the testimonies of Volker and Sondland appears to be pointing in the direction of Republicans laying all this at the feet of Trump’s lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani. The two of them suggested they never had an explicit quid pro quo conveyed to them, and Sondland said he instead just “presumed” one was in place. What’s more, they both indicated Giuliani’s actions were problematic, if not illegal.
And Taylor’s testimony also stops short of directly implicating Trump. Taylor indicates the quid pro quo was coming from Giuliani and said he didn’t know if Trump was behind it.
REP. LEE ZELDIN (R-N.Y.): So where was this condition coming from if you’re not sure if it was coming from the President?
TAYLOR: I think it was coming from Mr. Giuliani.
ZELDIN: But not from the president?
TAYLOR: I don’t know.
That doesn’t mean Trump wasn’t involved; indeed, someone like Taylor would have a difficult time knowing that, given he wasn’t central to this effort. (He didn’t even get read in on Trump’s July 25 call with Ukraine’s president, for instance.) But it’s significant that he stops short of saying he could trace this to Trump.
3. Taylor is going to be a very important witness next week
Taylor is one of two witnesses slated for the first public hearing of the impeachment inquiry next week, along with George Kent. And his testimony on Nov. 13 is looming larger than ever.
Volker and Sondland have shown that they aren’t terribly interested in blowing the lid off the Ukraine scandal, with Volker denying knowledge of a quid pro quo and Sondland only disclosing his after others implicated him (he issued a clarification to his testimony on Monday).
Taylor, by contrast, seemed to come into the job wary of the Giuliani set-up, and he describes a process of gradually having his worst fears confirmed. He also says he has “always kept careful notes, and I keep a little notebook where I take notes on conversations, in particular when I’m not in the office.”
Those notes could prove crucial, as could Taylor’s willingness to say things that other political appointees are warier of.
