information about what the vice president, who we ve seen out campaigning for his boss knew about the effort to withhold money from ukraine during all this. it s another avenue that democrats want to explore as they start to button up this private deposition part of things. garrett, the house continues to slowly release this testimony from key witnesses. what are we learning? expecting another transcript today? no official word on whether we ll see another transcript today. as we look ahead to next wednesday when ambassador bill taylor and state department official george kent will testify side by side, we haven t seen kent s testimony released yet. i would not be surprised if that happens today. we re still chewing over the testimony of bill taylor which did come out yesterday and was explosive. it explains why democrats want him to be the first witness. there s one really key part of it i want to put up on your screen in which taylor is discussing the back and forth with adam sch
fourth impeachment investigation of a president in american history. a transcript of ambassador taylor s deposition to the impeachment inquiry was released today. it shows that ambassador taylor testified that he threatened to quit if president trump te continued to withhold military aid to ukraine. ambassador taylor said that the trump position was that the to president of ukraine would be um granted a white house meeting with the president of the united states, and ukraine would receive military assistance d mandated by congress only if ukraine helped the trump re-election campaign by investigating joe biden. chairman adam schiff pointed out that the trump administration fit the literal definition of quid pro quo. chairman schiff said if they didn t do this, the investigations, they weren t going to get that, the meeting and the military assistance. ambassador taylor, that was my clear understanding. security assistance money would not come until the president committed to pursue the
aid to ukraine. ambassador taylor said that the trump position was that the president of ukraine would be granted a white house meeting with the president of the united states, and ukraine would receive military assistance mandated by congress only if ukraine helped the trump re-election campaign by investigating joe biden. chairman adam schiff pointed out that the trump administration fit the literal definition of quid pro quo. chairman schiff said if they didn t do this, the investigations, they weren t going to get that, the meeting and the military assistance. ambassador taylor, that was my clear understanding. security assistance money would not come until the president committed to pursue the investigation. schiff, so if they don t do this, they are not going to get it, that was your understanding? taylor, yes, sir. schiff, are you aware quid pro quo literally means this for that?
released by president trump unless investigations into the bidens and the 2016 election were launched by ukraine. joining me now to discuss is democratic senator mazie hirono of hawaii serving on the senate judiciary and armed services committee. thanks for joining me. i want to read this one section of the taylor testimony. quote, that was my clear understanding taylor said. security assistance money would not come until the president of ukraine committed to pursue the investigation. question, so if they don t do this, they are not going to get that, was your understanding? taylor, yes, sir. question, are you aware quid pro quo literally means this for that. taylor, i am. and republicans are noting that taylor never spoke to president trump about or even rudy giuliani about this. how do you respond? the complaint which first brought to light that the president engaged in this kind of what it turns out to be quid
zelensky to investigate burisma and interference in the 2016 election. burisma is the ukrainian company on which joe biden s son hunter served on the board. he testified, that is my understanding. security assistance money would not come until the president of ukraine committed to pursue the investigation question. so if they don t do this, they won t get that. was your understanding? taylor, yes, sir. question. are you aware that quid pro quo means this for that. i am. and he describes an odd shi a odd situation by stating that something is not a quid pro quo, this for that, that that negates it being one. president trump was adam ant that president zelensky has h to clear things up and in public and president trump said it was not a quid and sondland said if