and all i could hear in my mind last night as i was reading these texts was like my middle school cafeteria going like, ooh, busted. they re busted. because here s the thing, the texts unmask that they were up to no good, all right? they document what were essentially several quid pro quos they were lining up. the ukrainians had to deliver something tangible in exchange for trump s support. it wasn t just a favor as trump phrases it. the quote is from one of the diplomats i think the president really wants a deliverable but even more than that above the actual wrongdoing in the text the thing so damning about these texts is the consciousness of guilt that hangs over them. and this is kwee to me, this is
assistance for help with a political campaign. ambassador to the eu and million dollar trump donor gordon sondland replying, in that language, that sure has to make you wonder whether he was speaking to an audience of one, right? and that one was not bill taylor, replying, bill, i believe you are incorrect about president trump s intentions. the president has been crystal clear. no quid pro quos of any kind. the president is trying to evaluate whether ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that president zelensky promised during his campaign. i suggest we stop the back and forth by text. come on, people. it s all right there. i said ambassador sondland might have been speaking to an audience of one, and that one sure seems to have gotten the message. here it is. the text message that i saw from ambassador sondland, who is
concern from taylor, the trump donor and now eu ambassador says, bill, i believe you re incorrect about president trump s intentions. the president has been crystal clear. no quid pro quos of any kind. he then asked to take the conversation offline. odd. nothing to hide, but you want to go offline? look, showing the president s wrongful behavior is not our problem. it s clear. the problem is that some of us refuse to accept it. that is one of our two problems, and i argue you don t refuse to accept it because it s not obvious to you. it is because something else is equally obvious to you. if you switch the rs and the ds in this mix, you d be hearing the same passion to impeach from gopers, and democrats would be wailing about the miscarriage of justice in it all. you don t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic. are there possible criminal violations as well? that can be looked into.
the president has been crystal clear, no quid pro quos of any kind. and then he writes he suggests that they stop going back and forth over text and that if taylor has any issues he should reach out to a couple folks on the phone oo r so that is something that members on the hill are going to zero in on. that will be a big day and that will be interesting to see how sondland explains all of this. i want to bring in jamie reuben. the former secretary of state under secretary clinton. good to see you. in your view what are the consequences from the u.s.
deliverable. the deliverable are the investigations. taylor, trump s guy who replaced the ambassador they threw out because she didn t like that this was going on reportedly. taylor says, are we now saying security assistance and white house meeting are conditioned on investigations? sondland, call me. taylor, as i said on the phone, i think it s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign. why would he say that? this is trump s guy. what the president did was clear. the key the concern is obvious. then comes the cover. after reportedly conferring with the white house about the concern from taylor, the trump donor and now eu ambassador says, bill, i believe you re incorrect about president trump s intentions. the president has been crystal clear. no quid pro quos of any kind. he then asks, to take the conversation offline.