Quote (IceMage @ Oct 4 2019 03:32pm)
Goom's right... if the Trump donor turned ambassador rules it out, case closed. Even though the actual expert and diplomat to Ukraine is the one suggesting it, multiple times. And earlier in the texts a different quid pro quo is basically established, Zelensky statement on investigations = Trump meeting.
He was "suggesting it" on the same day the media was widely reporting it.
In a state department as absurdly opaque as Trump's, are we going to be surprised when diplomatic staff get confused on messaging when they read the new york times and CNBC publishing articles like this;
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/09/house-will-probe-trump-giuliani-pressure-on-ukraine-to-hurt-biden.htmlhttps://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/09/us/politics/trump-ukraine-house-investigation.htmlAs you said, the earlier discussion was about something different.
Whatever Trump's preferred message was, Bill Taylor was clearly not looped into it like Gordon Sondland was. If Trump was telling them to lie about it and cover their asses, and he was willing to put his objection to Trump's 'quid pro quo' on the record already, then why would he be complaining about that aspect and not the lying? If it as a lie, then why is Bill Taylor not doing laps around the house as their star witness to impeach Trump?
Again and again and again and again, you're all too willing to believe in conspiracy theories about Trump and look for nefarious motives and elaborate coverups when the mundane explanation of individual incompetence, confusion and miscommunication is what's left after Occam's Razor.