How the Bombshell Taylor Testimony Changes Trump Impeachment Proceedings
William Taylor’s testimony to the House has intensified the presidential impeachment inquiry (Image)
On Oct. 22, William B. Taylor, chief of mission for U.S. diplomacy in Ukraine, testified to the House of Representatives as a part of the current impeachment investigation against President Donald J. Trump. His opening statement, the only part of his testimony currently released to the public, has left members of Congress “ashen-faced” and is a “sea change” for the investigation, according to Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA).
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi launched a formal impeachment investigation against the president on Sept. 24. Trump is accused of a laundry list of impeachable offenses, centered around accusations that he pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate former Vice President and current Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s actions regarding corruption with a Ukrainian energy company on which Joe’s son Hunter is a board member. These alleged offenses include abusing executive power, undermining election integrity, violating Biden’s civil rights by calling for foreign powers to investigate him and violating campaign finance laws by extorting foreign intelligence on his political opponent.
Trump has denied the existence of a “quid pro quo” in Ukraine, despite the slow emergence of evidence to the contrary. The president in fact withheld military assistance from Ukraine in exchange for investigations of the former vice president, and there has yet to be found any crime committed by Biden in Ukraine. Taylor’s opening statement explicitly states what this evidence shows.
In his opening statement, Taylor discusses “two channels of U.S. policymaking and implementation” at work in Ukraine: the more “regular, formal” one Taylor headed as the chief of mission, and an “irregular” channel headed by Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani. He describes the “irregular channel” as “at odds” with official U.S. foreign policy interests and goals.
Taylor further presents that the purpose of the irregular channel is to organize Trump’s pressure on Zelensky, including withholding billions of dollars in military aid promised to Ukraine, and postponing an Oval Office meeting badly desired by Zelensky, in exchange for information on the Bidens. This testimony presents clear evidence of the quid pro quo that Trump and the White House have been fervently denying over the past few weeks.
Taylor’s opening statement has significant implications for the future of the impeachment investigation. According to Susan Hennessey, executive director of the Lawfare site, Taylor’s statement reveals “well beyond what most assumed was the worst-case scenario.” The situation Taylor presents puts staunch Trump loyalists, such as perennial supporter Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), in a difficult place.
Graham recently defended Trump’s use of the word “lynching” in an October 22 tweet to describe impeachment proceedings, agreeing that investigations by House Democrats are “a lynching in every sense.” Yet even Graham admitted that clear evidence of a quid pro quo, outside of the July 25 phone call transcript between Trump and Zelensky that the White House released, would be “very disturbing.”
Taylor’s testimony also implicates the other ambassadors on the Ukraine mission, Ambassadors Gordon Sondland and Kurt Volker, and makes their later testimony more significant. Sondland testified earlier that he could not speak on the existence of a quid pro quo, but Taylor alleges that Sondland actively facilitated one.
White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham responded in a statement to the testimony that “President Trump has done nothing wrong,” calling impeachment investigations “a coordinated smear campaign from far-left lawmakers and radical unelected bureaucrats,” in reference to Taylor. However, House Democrats see this testimony as far more damning for the president. Rep. Tom Malinowski (D-NJ) said that revelations from Taylor’s testimony “resolved any remaining doubts” he had regarding impeachable offenses committed by the president. Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) described the opening statement as “devastating.” However, Republicans, following the lead of the White House, are minimizing the damage done by the testimony. Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) said that he does not “see anything that has advanced” due to Taylor’s opening statement. Giuliani, who has been significantly implicated by the testimony, has remained notably silent in the wake of the release of Taylor’s opening statement.
Taylor’s remarks, bolstered by painstaking and efficient notes continually taken throughout his tenure as chief of mission, have further legitimized the impeachment investigations and bolstered House Democrats’ confidence in proceeding. Pelosi announced on Oct. 28 that the House will vote on establishing opening hearings and the continuation of the formalized investigation this Thursday. It remains to be seen how this vote will shake out, or how the White House and Republican-controlled Senate will react if the President is ultimately impeached.