because president zelensky would be the target of any alleged quid pro quo scheme, his statements denying any pressure carry significant weight. he is, in fact, the supposed victim here. other senior ukrainian government officials confirmed president zelensky s statements. foreign minister said on september 21st, i know with the conversation was about and i think there was no pressure. who was then secretary of ukraine national security and defense counsel told ambassador bill taylor on the night of the call that the ukrainian government was not disturbed by anything on the call. president trump of course has also said he did not pressure president zelensky. on september 25th,
quid pro quo. because president zelensky would be the target of any alleged quid pro quo scheme, his statementsem denying any pressu carry p significant weight.gn he is, in fact, the supposed victim here. other seniorer ukrainian government officials confirmed president zelensky s statements. foreign minister said on september 21st, i know what the conversation was about and i thinkut there was no pressure. danyluk, who was then secretary of ukraine s defense council told ambassador bill taylor on the night of the call that the ukrainian government was not disturbed by anything on the call. president trump, t of course, h always said that he did not
responsible for deciding trump s fate if he is impeached by the house. joining us on the set, msnbc legal analyst danny cevallos and with us from washington, d.c., congressional reporter for the daily beast, sam brody, danny, great to have you with us, and yesterday, some people were saying on social media, gordon sondland pretty much threw everyone under the bus and everyone was in the loop, president trump, the vice president one meeting, secretary of state mike pompeo. he had the receipts, he has the emails to back up his claim, at least on that exchange. how significant is it now that he has implicated all of these individuals in what he has described, a quid pro quo scheme, run by rudy giuliani? on behalf of the president? it likely changes the trump position from there was no quid pro quo, to there was a quid pro quo but so what? so what if we were investigating corruption generally, and that big morasse included burisma, and it may have included the bidens, but why not? the
state who testified alongside valuable and and does so taylor today large ly wouldn t by because of his own engage with some republican personal agenda and not that of theories about the case. the public good or the troops, which make up the bulk of the what is that? is that actionable? president s defense at least i would say yes. i would say it s treasonous and right now. now, republicans tried to wall off the president by noting much i definitely would think that of taylor s knowledge of the that soldier would be court quid pro quo scheme came from marshalled. and i think that alone is, to ambassador gordon sondland who spoke with trump directly about me, is something that the it. american people can understand. you had said to me a couple so what i m wondering is, where d you get this clear understanding? sundays ago that you you as i testified, mr. jordan, believed in this more narrow focus of this impeachment this came from ambassador proceeding. focused on what you v
than bill taylor and ambassador yovanovit yovanovitch, george kent and others, he s a political an.tea, ally of the president who was clearly running point on executing the president s intent by directing career diplomats how to behave in this quid pro quo scheme. sondland knows what the president knew. what the president knew was he wanted the investigation to happen. he asked sondland to execute it, the president is lying when he says he didn t know who sondland was. meanwhile, glenn, the washington post is reporting house republicans lead the plan to shield president trump from impeachment is to focus on at least three deputies, u.s. ambassador to the european union gore dand sondland, trump s lawyer, rudy giuliani and possibly acting white house chief of staff mick mulvaney who they say could have acted on their own to influence ukraine policy. is that a shift in strategy that could work? it is a shift in strategy,