So TP...how removed is English from your first language??? Let's dissect your stupidity shall we?
He explains 3 paragraphs later when he describes communications with Ambs. Volker and Sondland.
Not good at following the flow of English either are ya? So he stated the finding, "what he had come to understand" first and the proceeds over the following pages to explain why he came to the conclusion. It's really not as difficult to follow the flow as you had with it.
"...they gave me an account of the July 10 meeting...
Sondland had connected 'investigations' with an Oval Office meeting for President Zelenskyy…" (middle of page 7, second-hand information, superseded by the actual transcript of the call that shows no such connection)
So you consider the NSC' Senior Director for European/Russian Affairs and the NSCs Director for European Affairs as impeachable, unbelievable sources who have no credibility? Note that the NSC Director Hill had testified before Mr. Taylor.
And you are wrong about the call transcript...the WH visit is clearly tied to the "investigations".
Opinions based on 50 years of govt service from a man who spent a good portion of his career in Ukraine are just conjecture to you??? I'd buy your point if this was some data entry clerk. But it wasn't. You are REALLY reaching.
Um...to this point he has been talking about WH visit being tied to the "investigations". Missed that too?? I went back up and bolded the point for you. BTW...you neglected to include the sentence that follows the one you quoted. Why don't you go back and read it?
Um...just to point out the stunningly obvious...the money had been appropriated by Congress. So your point is irrelevant.
Um again you don't seem to be able to follow along...the "First Guy" is the new NSC Senior Director of European/Russian Affairs. These aren't drug dealers caught in a sting operation ratting on another. This is one highly educated, highly experienced, highly qualified professional speaking to another highly educated, highly experienced, highly qualified professional about a conversation the first person was a direct part of. BTW...it is rather safe to assume that both of these men have exceedingly high levels of security clearances.
So, again, your point is rather irrelevant.
Wow...ok..so he simply says "we discussed"....he doesn't say as you infer, the he (Mr. Taylor) brought it up or that he (Mr. Taylor) suggested someone other than Zelensky make an announcement.
So...again you don't seem to grasp the people who are in the conversation. Second, it is stated that Trump said he doesn't want a quid pro quo
Trump is not directly involved at any point anywhere. Mr. Taylor at no point says he spoke to the President. And the very next sentence describes a quid pro quo. Mr Morrison also is said to have described the conversation with Sondland to Amb Bolton and NSC lawyers. You don't suppose the House will call Ambassador Bolton to testify do you? Or the NSC lawyers?
Um...your not really paying attention to this are you? Go look to see
why it took Sondland 5 hours to reply. If you were actually paying attention you wouldn't have made such a blatantly stupid stupid as I italicized. Here try this:
The money was released 2 days after the House announced its investigation int Gulliani's efforts in Ukraine and 1 day after Bolton quit/was fired.
Mmm...yeah....maybe try removing your head from your ass and looking around.