Ukraine ambassador says in 'damning' testimony that he was told Trump wanted quid pro quo deal

Bill Taylor tells Congress it was made clear to him that military aid and Zelensky visit to White House were ‘conditioned’ on Kiev announcing corruption probe into Bidens

Clark Mindock
New York
Tuesday 22 October 2019 16:47 BST
Bill Taylor, the acting ambassador to Ukraine arives to testify in impeachment inquiry

The US ambassador to Ukraine has told impeachment investigators that military aid to the former Soviet state was made dependent upon a declaration of an investigation into the Bidens, and that the order came from Donald Trump, contradicting the president‘s claim that no “quid pro quo” deal was arranged.

Ambassador Bill Taylor said during closed-door hearings on Tuesday that he stood by calling it “crazy” to make the military assistance contingent on an investigation into Mr Trump’s political rival Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

Mr Taylor said that after his appointment as ambassador this year he had become alarmed by the existence of a secondary, “irregular” diplomatic channel, and that other US officials had said they were working to convince Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate the Bidens. Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, was guiding the plan, he claimed.

During a conversation with EU ambassador Gordon Sondland, Mr Taylor said, according to prepared remarks, he was told the president had said aid was dependent on a public announcement that Ukraine was opening an investment into Hunter Biden‘s business dealings with Ukrainian oil company Burisma.

“During that phone call, Ambassador Sondland told me that President Trump had told him that he wants President Zelensky to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election,” Mr Taylor said in his prepared remarks.

“Ambassador Sondland also told me that he now recognised that he had made a mistake by earlier telling the Ukranian officials to whom he spoke that a White House meeting with President Zelensky was dependent on a public announcement of investigations.

“In fact, Ambassador Sondland said, ‘everything’ was dependent on such an announcement, including security assistance. He said that President Trump wanted President Zelensky ‘in a public box’ by making a public statement about ordering such investigations.”

Mr Taylor the latest official to defy State Department orders not to comply with House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry subpoenas.

“It was just the most damning testimony I’ve heard,” representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz told The Washington Post.

The testimony appeared to confirm claims that Mr Trump had used US money as leverage in order to force the investigation into Hunter Biden, who is the son of former vice president Joe Biden, a key figure who pushed for the removal of a Ukrainian prosecutor. Mr Trump has claimed, contrary to evidence, that Mr Biden had acted on behalf of his son’s interest to get the prosecutor fired, even though the effort was indicative of the Obama administration’s foreign policy and had international consensus.

Mr Trump has denied any clear quid pro quo had occurred during a 25 July phone call with Mr Zelensky, even though a rough transcript released by the White House appears to show Mr Trump pushing for the investigation as a favour to him.

“He drew a very specific direct line from President Trump to the withholding of foreign aid and the refusal of a meeting,” Ms Wasserman Schultz said of Mr Taylor’s evidence. It “directly related to both insisting on Zelensky publicly say that he’ll have an investigation, that they will investigate”.

Support free-thinking journalism and attend Independent events

Mr Trump has cast the impeachment investigation as an witch hunt, mirroring language he used to describe the special counsel investigation into Russian meddling, which included potential wrongdoing by the president as well. On the same day as Mr Taylor’s testimony, Mr Trump has received criticism for comparing the impeachment inquiry to a “lynching”.

Democrats have indicated they want to move quickly on impeachment, and have said they could introduce formal charges before the end of the year. That would allow Democrats to put as much distance as possible between the highly polarising measure and the 2020 election campaign.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies


Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in