- This episode of Legal Eagle
was made possible by Skillshare.
Learn to think like a lawyer for free for two months
by clicking on the link in the description.
In the last few weeks, we've seen defenders
of this administration go from
there was absolutely no quid pro quo.
- There was no conditionality there,
there was no quid pro quo there.
- To it would only be a quid pro quo
if President Trump were really thuggish about it.
- Graham was asked what he thought
would constitute inappropriate quid pro quo,
saying "uh, hey pal, you know,
"you need to like, go after the Bidens
"or I ain't gonna give you any money.
"He'd be really like thuggish about it."
- To quid pro quos happen all the time and in fact,
they're actually really good.
- What you just described is a quid pro quo,
it is funding will not flow unless the investigation
into the democratic server happened as well.
- We do that all the time with foreign policy.
- So what's the deal with quid pro quos?
Impeachable offense or routine diplomacy tool?
(dramatic music)
Hey Legal Eagles, it's time to think like a lawyer.
You all took Latin in high school, right?
Everyone knows the legal definition of quid pro quo
and we can just all go home, right?
(buzzer buzzes)
No, you want me to talk about why this is all relevant?
Okay fine, on October 22nd, Bill Taylor,
the top diplomat or charge d'affaires to Ukraine
testified behind closed doors before the House committees
that are leading the impeachment inquiry of Donald Trump.
Taylor's full testimony is currently unknown,
but news agencies got ahold of Taylor's opening statement.
Now this was just Taylor's opening statement,
but what he revealed,
and it basically stunned everyone that's paying attention.
Taylor, you might recall, was one of the diplomats
who was a party to a WhatsApp conversation
with US Special Envoy Kurt Volker
and US Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland.
Volker turned over the transcripts of those texts
to the House committees.
Taylor famously texted on September 9th,
"As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold
"security assistance for help with a political campaign,"
to when Gordon Sondland replied five hours later,
"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 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.
"If you still have concerns, I recommend you give
"Lisa Kenna or S a call to discuss them directly, thanks."
Taylor was asked to testify as a witness
to the investigation into the Trump administration's
efforts to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky
into opening an investigation into repudiated allegations
of Ukraine's interference in the 2016
US presidential elections,
as well into the company Burisma
for the purpose of eliciting or fabricating
dirt on Hunter Biden, and by proxy, Joe Biden,
political candidate president of the United States.
Taylor began his opening statement by emphasizing
the importance of the United States's relationship
with Ukraine, saying "our national security demands
"that this relationship remain strong."
Taylor went on to say more about this,
noting that Ukraine now and for the last five years
has been under attack from Russia,
and that the United States security assistance
is crucial to Ukraine's defense against Russia,
and that withholding security assistance
would be, quote, crazy.
And crazy is exactly what Taylor would soon discover
on the part of the Trump administration.
In June, Taylor delivered a letter from President Trump
to President Zelensky congratulating him
on his election victory and inviting him
to a meeting at the Oval Office.
This meeting was an apparent goal for Zelensky,
but in order to obtain this goal,
Zelensky had to do some things for Trump first.
For example, in a planned June 28th call
with Ukrainian president, Ambassador Sondland,
quote, "did not wish to include most of the
"regular inter agency participants,"
and, quote, "said that he wanted to make sure
"no one was transcribing or monitoring
"as they added President Zelensky to the call."
Taylor noted that a short time later,
it became abundantly clear to him that, quote,
"the meeting President Zelensky wanted was conditioned
"on the investigations of Burisma and the alleged
"Ukrainian interference in the 2016 US elections,"
and that this, quote, irregular policy channel
was guided by Rudy Giuliani.
On July 18th, Taylor learned from an individual
at the Office of Management and Budget, the OMB,
that there was a hold on security assistance to Ukraine.
This individual could not explain why
there was a hold, but Taylor had a pretty good idea.
When Taylor inquired further, the individual told him that
her boss had, quote, "instructed her not to approve
"any additional spending of security assistance
"for Ukraine until further notice."
This unidentified individual also relayed
that the directive for the hold had come
directly from President Trump through Mick Mulvaney
to the OMB's chief of staff.
This is very, very bad, and we'll talk about in a moment
this is strong evidence for a quid pro quo.
In his statement, Taylor went on to emphasize
how important US aid to Ukraine was
and how many more lives could be lost if the hold remained.
He also noted that the Secretary of Defense,
Secretary of State, the CIA Director,
and the National Security Advisor all tried to sit down
with President Trump and convince him to release the hold.
This sit-down, however, was quote,
"hard to schedule." (buzzer buzzes)
What President Trump wanted, Taylor discovered,
was for Zelensky to, quote, "say that he will help
"the investigation and address any specific
"personnel issues if there are any."
Trump's administration wanted Zelensky to publicly announce
his participation in this investigation,
and they even tried to give Zelensky a script
of what to say to Trump, suggesting that he announce
that, quote, "I will leave no stone unturned"
with regard to, quote "investigations,"
all the while making it look like the US was uninvolved.
Zelensky's response, according to Taylor, to all of this
was that he did not want to, quote,
"be used as a pawn in a US reelection scheme."
This testimony paints a picture
of the Trump administration's motivations.
By withholding US aid, they hope to get Zelensky
to announce his investigation into Joe Biden's son
in the hopes that it would bolster
Trump's reelection campaign.
At this point, the clock was ticking
with regard to security assistance to Ukraine.
Because of the way the US budget works,
if the funds weren't released by the end of September,
they would essentially expire and disappear,
not to mention the actual Ukrainians
whose lives were at stake.
In the last five years, 13,000 Ukrainians have been killed
by Russian soldiers, and potentially dozens
of Ukrainian civilians had been killed by Russia
during this time period.
Taylor was worried especially because, quote,
"if the White House did not lift the hold
"prior to the end of the fiscal year, September 30th,
"the funds would expire and Ukraine would receive nothing."
As the wait went on, Ambassador Sondland explicitly stated
that, quote, "the security assistance money
"would not come until President Zelensky committed
"to pursue the Burisma investigation."
Taylor's fears were confirmed.
This was the first time that he had heard
that security assistance, not just a White House
Oval Office meeting was conditioned
on Zelensky committing to investigating Burisma.
The bottom line is that Taylor testified
that one, there was in fact a quid pro quo.
The White House conditioned the release
of $400 million of military aid on Ukraine's statement
that they were opening investigation into Burisma.
Number two, the order to withhold aid
came from the president himself.
Number three, this was never about corruption,
it was about getting dirt on Joe Biden and his son,
and number four, the White House tried to hide
their involvement by scripting Ukraine's announcement
and pretending that the investigations
had been Ukraine's idea all along.
It's of course always important to take a step back
and look at the various players.
Everyone has bias, and it's important to recognize
when you have two conflicting accounts.
Taylor is a career diplomat who served in both
republican and democratic administrations,
so could he be too close to Ukraine?
Of course, interestingly, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
specifically asked Taylor to essentially
come out of retirement to help with the situation.
Taylor was essentially President Trump's pick
to run diplomacy with the Ukraine.
Taylor acknowledged his own bias and stated that
he wanted the US to support Ukraine, and conditioned
his coming out of retirement on that very fact.
On the other side of the coin,
there is Gordon Sondland who is a hotelier
who donated a million dollars to Trump's inauguration.
Allegedly when Gordon Sondland testified
behind closed doors, he did not recall most
of what Bill Taylor testified to,
although he doesn't appear to outright contradict
anything that Bill Taylor actually said.
Taylor allegedly took contemporaneous notes
throughout the affair.
In addition to Bill Taylor's testimony,
Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman,
an army officer assigned to the National Security Council,
also testified recently.
He was one of the members of the NSC
that listened to the infamous July 25th call
from the situation room.
According to his opening statement,
Vindman largely confirmed the account of the whistleblower
and the readout that has already been made public,
and which I covered in an earlier video.
Vindman testified in his opening statement
that he was, quote, "concerned by the call,"
stating "I did not think it was proper to demand
"that a foreign government investigate a US citizen,
"and I was worried about the implications
"for the US government's support of Ukraine.
"I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation
"into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be
"interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly
"result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support
"it had thus fair maintained.
"This would all undermine US national security.
"Following the call, I again reported
"my concerns to NSC's lead counsel."
The New York Times is also reporting that
Vindman stated in his deposition,
which lasted 10 and a half hours,
and that's quite a long time,
that he requested several changes to the wording
of the read-out of the call,
but that those changes were rejected
by the White House for unknown reasons.
Vindman also testified about an earlier July 10th call
with Oleksandr Danylyuk, the Secretary of the National
Security and Defense Council for Ukraine,
and National Security Advisor Bolton,
Ambassadors Volker and Sondland
and Energy Secretary Rick Perry.
Vindman testified that during this July 10th call,
the meeting proceeded well until the Ukrainians broached
the subject of a meeting between the two presidents.
Ambassador Sondland started to speak about
delivering specific investigations in order to
secure the meeting with the president,
at which time, Ambassador Bolton cut the meeting short.
Following this meeting, there was a scheduled debriefing
during which Ambassador Sondland emphasized
the importance that Ukraine deliver the investigations
into the 2016 election, the Bidens, and Burisma.
I stated to Ambassador Sondland that his statements
were inappropriate, that the request to investigate Biden
and his son had nothing to do with national security,
and that such investigations were not something
the NSC was going to get involved in or push.
Dr. Hill then entered the room and asserted
to Ambassador Sondland that
his statements were inappropriate.
Following the debriefing meeting, I reported my concerns
to the NSC's lead counsel.
Dr. Hill also reported the incident
to the NSC's lead counsel.
So in general, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman's testimony
backs up Bill Taylor's and refutes the testimony
of Ambassador Gordon Sondland.
Additionally, there have been attacks from the right
against Lieutenant Colonel Vindman
for his status as a Ukrainian immigrant
and allegations of dual loyalty,
despite the fact that he's a US citizen
and long-time member of the Army.
It's the clear that these attacks or criticisms
are based on anything more than speculation.
So that brings us to the quid pro quo.
Now of course, in the famous Sondland text,
Sondland relayed that the president has been crystal clear
that no quid pro quos of any kind,
but just because they claim that doesn't necessarily
mean that it not a quid pro quo arrangement.
As Taylor himself said in response to this contention,
quote "President Trump did insist that President Zelensky
"go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations
"of Burisma and 2016 election interference,
"and that President Zelensky would want to do this himself."
Quid pro quo translates literally to this for that.
It is a type of exchange where someone on one side
gives a thing of value to someone else
and expects something in return from that person.
Whether a quid pro quo is illegal and illicit
depends on the context.
If I give you five dollars and you give me a book,
that's a quid pro quo, and there's nothing wrong with that,
but things take a turn when you're talking about
government officials using power of their office
to extract a personal benefit.
Oftentimes, a quid pro quo emerges in a governmental
setting when a government official receives something
of personal value and then abuses his or her
official power to give something in return
to that specific constituent who gave
some personal benefit to that government official.
You can imagine a government contractor who gives
a fancy new sports car to a government official
who then steers a valuable governmental contract
to that contractor, that is a classic quid pro quo.
Illegal quid pro quo arrangements also tend to pop up
in the workplace setting.
A quid pro quo would exist where an employer
demands sexual favors in return for
an employee keeping their job.
So it depends on the context.
Mick Mulvaney has recently been emphasizing
that especially in foreign policy settings,
quid pro quo arrangements happen all the time,
that's just the nature of foreign policy.
- We do that all the time with foreign policy.
- I'll help you do this if you help me do that.
Everyone is happy and secure.
For example, throughout the history of the United States,
we have used our own aid or assistance as leverage
for achieving things such as democracy abroad,
an end to corruption, and even physical access
to important geographical areas.
For example, President Jimmy Carter provided Egypt with aid
in exchange for Egypt making peace with Israel.
President Bush even demanded that countries provide
free speech and freedom of assembly
before receiving certain US aid.
However, while this may be true,
quid pro quos that involve a concerted self-interest
for a particular politician do not happen all the time
in foreign policy, and quite frankly,
they really don't happen at all.
In fact, it was such a stunning admission
by mick Mulvaney to admit that this was a quid pro quo
on behalf of the Trump administration,
ostensibly for President Trump,
that it elicited an almost immediate walk-back
from Mulvaney and the rest of the administration.
This arrangement between the Trump administration
and President Zelensky of Ukraine falls into the problematic
category of quid pro quos for a couple of reasons.
First of all, such an arrangement is probably
highly illegal and may be sufficient
to prove the crimes of bribery and election interference.
While it was would admittedly difficult to indict
and convict a president of these crimes
for reasons that we've already talked about on this channel,
in order to establish a prima facie case for bribery
under 18 USC 201, one would have to prove that
a public official, in this case President Trump,
directly or indirectly corruptly demanded
anything of value personally,
in this case bolstering his reelection campaign,
in return for being influenced in the performance
of any official act, in this case,
releasing money that Congress and the Pentagon
had already appropriated for Ukraine.
Or you can take, for example, 51 USC 30121,
which states that "it shall be unlawful for a foreign
"national, directly or indirectly, to make a contribution
"or donation of money or other thing of value
"or to make an express or implied promise
"to make a contribution or donation in connection
"with a federal, state, or local election."
In this case, one would argue that the thing of value
is investigating a political rival,
which obviously the Trump administration
would try to lord over the head of Joe Biden
as he tries to secure the democratic nomination
for potentially running for
President of the United States in 2020.
Additionally and apart from whether any of these acts
fit the neat statutory definitions of these crimes,
and overcome the constitutional issues
in terms of indicting a sitting president,
this arrangement is problematic because
it essentially means that the President of the United States
is subverting the national interest
for his own personal interest.
In other words, he's putting himself
above the entire country.
Now, no one argues that Hunter Biden's status
as a board member of Burisma doesn't smack of nepotism,
but strong-arming a sovereign nation into investigating
a conspiracy theory about Ukrainian computer servers
and ginning up a defunct investigation into Burisma
appears to serve President Trump only,
and not US national interest.
It appears motivated primarily if not solely
to help President Trump get reelected
and not to help America.
Rudy Giuliani tweets the quiet part out loud
when he tweeted "with all the fake news,
"let me make it clear that everything I did
"was to discover evidence to defend my client
"against false charges.
"Dems would be horrified by the attacks on me,
"if my client was a terrorist, but they don't believe
"real Donald Trump has rights."
The problem here is that at the request of the president,
Rudy Giuliani was running his own shadow
foreign policy operation, and he's admitting that
in this context, he wasn't acting on behalf of America,
but acting on behalf of his client, Donald Trump,
in trying to get dirt against a political rival.
If this had been in America's interest, President Trump
would have used the usual diplomatic channels,
gone through the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty
and avoided using an entirely separate
clandestine shadow foreign policy team led by Rudy Giuliani.
This kind of arrangement pressuring Ukraine
to do something to benefit President Trump personally
in exchange for $400 million in US aid and assistance
is what appears to be an abuse of power
and an attempt to use one's official capacity as president
(bell dings) for personal gain.
Now some, including former acting Attorney General
Matthew Whitaker have argued that
an abuse of power is not a crime.
- What evidence of a crime do you have?
I mean, the constitution, you know, sort of,
abuse of power is not a crime.
The constitution is very clear that this has to be
some pretty egregious behavior.
- However, such an abuse of power is a crucial inquiry
as far as impeachment is concerned.
That's because impeachment was designed
to dismantle this kind of abuse of power.
Ironically, Bill Taylor came out of retirement
at the request of Mike Pompeo to help Ukraine.
Now he'll probably want to go back into retirement,
and now that he has more time on his hands,
maybe he'll finally listen to his grandkids
and join Instagram after taking Brandon Woelfel's class
Instagram-Worthy Photography, Shoot, Edit, and Share.
Or maybe he will finally tackle all those chores
around the house his wife asked him to do,
like redesigning his family room.
He could really use Emily Henderson's
Skillshare class Style Your Space,
Creative Tips and Techniques for Interior Design.
Skillshare is an online learning community
that has tens of thousands of classes on everything,
like music, design, lifestyle, and technology.
It's great for former top diplomats who suddenly
find themselves with a lot more time on their hands.
A yearly membership is less than $10 per month,
but Legal Eagles will get two free months
of Skillshare when you click on the link below.
Plus it really helps out this channel.
The free premium membership gives you
unlimited access to must-know topics
so you can improve your skills and learn new things
all free for two months.
So improve yourself now while you are waiting
to give your own congressional testimony
before the House impeachment inquiry.
Do you agree with my analysis?
Leave your objections in the comments,
and check out my other real law reviews over here
when I talk about the whistleblower,
hearsay objections to the impeachment inquiry,
and tons of other breaking news,
and as always, I will see you in court.