Why the William Taylor testimony is bound to fall apart...

The "shocking" and "explosive" testimony by Taylor surrounded supposed conversations between US Ambassador Gordon Sondland and Zelensky aide Andrey Yermak where Sondland issues some sort of threat to withhold military aid if Ukraine did not investigate Burisma Holdings. Taylor is not a direct first hand witness to any of  these threats, but suggests that he knows that Sondland had made such threats on at least two different occasions. In fact, he insists that some of his information come directly from his own conversations with Sondland.

The problem upfront was that Sondland had previously testified pretty much the opposite. According to Sondland, we was never personally aware of or involved in any supposed quid pro quo regarding investigations. Sondland further testified that when he heard rumors of aid being held back over investigations that when he called the President to ask about it, Trump assured him that there was no such quid pro quo regarding the investigations.

So what both men appear to agree upon is that there was at least some "rumors" that the aid was being held back over some quid pro quo regarding investigations, but they obviously disagree as to whether those threats were actually ever given to the Ukrainians. Ironically Taylor suggests those threats were made (and that they were actually made by Sondland) while Sondland denies knowing about any direct threats.

Immediately, Democrats seized on the Taylor testimony to insists that Sondland must be lying and that he should be brought back for more questioning. In my general opinion, the opposite is true. If Taylor is making the allegation and Sondland continues to deny it, then the burden of proof is on Taylor to prove it, not Sondland to prove the negative.

Apparently Sondland issued a statement last night (or today) to the media via his attorney that reinforced his earlier testimony. Sondland insisted that not only did he not issue any threats, but that he personally was not in favor of any sort of quid pro quo. This was the reasons for his phone call with the President (who reassured him that there was no quid pro quo associated).

______

Meanwhile, it is also being reported that William Taylor has been part of a "think tank" for years that is actually funded by Burisma Holdings. If it actually turns out that Taylor has some ties to Burisma holdings himself, then one has to wonder out loud if his testimony isn't some sort of offense is the best defense  means to obstruct this investigation.

_______

Lastly, given the fact that the aid was provide without any actual requirement from Ukraine to investigate or without any public statement from Zelinsky, the tangible evidence falls in favor of Sondland. It doesn't "disprove" what Taylor says, it just requires a lot more assumptions, a lot more explanation, and a lot more stretching of the imagination to believe his story. 

If I understand correctly from what I read, Taylor's best explanation was that the threat was issued by Sondland. Zelinsky agreed to go on American Television and tell everyone that he was going to investigate Burisma Holdings (explaining how the Bidens were tied). This promise got Trump to agree to provide the Aid. Then once the aid was provided Zelinsky backed out when another American diplomat told a Ukrainian diplomat that Zelinsky shouldn't follow through. 

Seems like a hard story to swallow.