WASHINGTON — U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland delivered what may be the most damaging blow so far to American President Donald J. Trump’s defense in the impeachment inquiry.
The procedure initiated by the Democratic-led House of Representatives against Trump is gathering evidence to determine if the American leader improperly pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to provide dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden, Trump’s potential rival in the 2020 U.S. presidential race.
Sondland confirmed there indeed had been such a scheme, dubbed a “quid pro quo.” His evidence has caused an immense stir because, unlike previous witnesses, he is the first who had regular, direct communications with Trump and who was seen as loyal to the president.
His record as a staunch Republican who made a $1-million contribution to Trump’s campaign makes his testimony harder for the president to dismiss than earlier witnesses, who Trump derided as political enemies or “never-Trumpers.”
Democrats hailed Sondland’s testimony as a stunning breakthrough in the inquiry that immensely strengthens the case for Trump’s impeachment and removal from office.
Yet some Republicans, including the president, are claiming that Scondland’s testimony makes clear that there was no quid pro quo – despite the fact that Scondland said the opposite in his testimony.
It was ‘quid pro quo’
On the fourth day of televised hearings held in a congressional building near the U.S. Capitol, Sondland said that Trump instructed him and other officials dealing with Ukraine to take their orders from the president’s controversial personal lawyer, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
Sondland said Giuliani made clear that their purpose was to persuade newly-elected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to publicly announce the opening of investigations into Ukrainian energy company Burisma, and a discredited theory that the previous Ukrainian government had tried to undermine Trump’s 2016 election campaign.
In return, Zelensky would receive a working phone call with Trump to be followed by a White House visit. American officials testified that Zelensky was eager — some said “desperate” — for a White House meeting with Trump in order to send a powerful signal of Washington’s support for Ukraine amid Russian aggression and to provide a prestigious boost to his new administration.
Sondland said several times in his testimony that the Ukrainian side was made to understand that the visit would only happen if they agreed to their side of the bargain.
Sondland declared: “Was there a quid pro quo? As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes.”
He said the main actors in Ukraine carrying out Trump’s bidding via Giuliani were himself, U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations Kurt Volker and Energy Secretary Rick Perry, dubbed the “three amigos.”
Sondland, whose sense of humor occasionally lightened an otherwise somber, sometimes tense atmosphere in the packed committee room, admitted he reveled in the three amigos nickname.
Nobody liked Rudy
Sondland said the trio was unhappy with having to deal with Giuliani but felt they had no choice as it seemed the only way to engage Trump in their efforts in Ukraine.
“Secretary Perry, Ambassador Volker and I worked with Mr. Rudy Giuliani on Ukraine matters at the express direction of the President of the United States. We did not want to work with Mr. Giuliani. Simply put, we played the hand we were dealt,” said Sondland.
Whenever he mentioned Giuliani, he spoke about him with evident distaste. Wariness about Giuliani only grew as it emerged that he had his own opaque business dealings in Ukraine and that two of his Soviet-born, American “fixers” in Ukraine, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, were arrested on campaign finance violations as they tried to flee the U.S.
While testifying the previous day, Volker also said that he saw Giuliani as problematic but decided to work with him as the most viable channel to influence Trump to take a less negative stance toward Ukraine.
The current acting U.S. ambassador to Kyiv, William Taylor, who testified in the inquiry last week, called the three amigos an “irregular channel” conducting shadow foreign policy that caused problems for his embassy’s proper diplomatic operations.
But Sondland told the committee that the three amigos actually constituted the “proper channel” because they had been appointed by the U.S. president, who ultimately oversees and leads American foreign policy.
Sondland also claimed that, apart from the three amigos, many senior figures at the White House, the National Security Council (NSC) and the State Department knew about and were involved in the scheme to trade the Washington visit for Kyiv launching the investigations.
He named White House acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, then-National Security Advisor John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo as among those aware of the three amigos’ Ukrainian mission.
“Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret,” said Sondland. He said Pompeo was often referred to as “S” in messages. Pompeo and his top aides “knew what we were doing and why,” Sondland added.
Against the State Department’s wishes, Sondland listed and showed images of some of the emails he had exchanged with Pompeo, which included the names of other administration recipients “in the loop” about the three amigos’ efforts.
One showed that Sondland told Pompeo about a statement the Ukrainians were considering putting out that would commit them to the investigations.
He wrote to Pompeo: “The contents will hopefully make the boss happy enough to authorize an invitation.” “The boss,” said Sondland, was Trump.
Sondland said that he became very impressed with Zelensky and the Ukrainian officials he met and believed they were genuine about trying to implement the reformist policies they advocated for during the presidential and parliamentary elections.
He wanted America to provide help with the reform agenda, and he spoke emphatically about the need to help Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression, saying, “Our efforts to counterbalance an aggressive Russia depend on a strong, free Ukraine.”
Sondland said he was aware Trump had a negative attitude toward Ukraine because he was convinced Ukrainians had tried to “take him down” during his 2016 election bid.
But Sondland said that as he continued to have meetings and exchanges with Zelensky and figures in the new government, he came to feel that there was some additional, important element in the “log-jam” of issues that seemed to prevent the Ukrainian side from agreeing to terms that would satisfy Trump and pave the way for the White House visit.
He said that by simple “two plus two equals four” logic, he understood that Trump was also linking almost $400 million in military aid already approved by Congress to the public commitment to investigations he wanted from Zelensky.
Two plus two equals pressure
Sondland said that, while he believed military aid was held up to pressure Ukraine, “President Trump never told me directly that the aid was conditioned on the meetings. The only thing we got directly from Giuliani was that the investigations into Burisma and the 2016 elections were conditioned on the White House meeting.
“The aid was my own personal, you know, guess, based again on… two plus two equals four.”
He was in fact correct, and Trump blocked the military aid for 55 days.
Sondland said he informed Vice President Mike Pence of his concern during a Sept. 1 meeting in Warsaw and testified that he became so frustrated with delays to the Trump-Zelensky phone call and official Washington visit that he called Trump directly and asked him what he wanted.
He said Trump was in a “cranky” mood and tersely said he wanted nothing. “No quid pro quo.”
It emerged that, unknown to Sondland, he had called on the day that Trump discovered a White House whistleblower had registered a complaint about improper behavior by Trump on the July 25 call with Zelensky, which led to the current impeachment inquiry.
Republicans say that Sondland’s conclusion about the link between the military aid and Kyiv’s willingness to open the investigation Trump wanted is erroneous.
Republicans emphasized that Sondland said Trump never explicitly stated that a White House meeting or security assistance depended on Zelensky announcing the investigations.
Republican Representative Michael R. Turner was abrasive in his questioning of Sondland, almost shouting as he said, “No one told you? Not just the president — Giuliani didn’t tell you, Mulvaney didn’t tell you, nobody? Pompeo didn’t tell you? No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations. Yes or no?”
Sondland said no.
Soon after, Democratic Representative Sean Patrick Maloney subjected Sondland to strident questioning, teasing out a reluctant admission that the investigations demanded by Trump would benefit the president politically.
“See? It didn’t hurt a bit,” Maloney said.
Deciphering code word ‘Burisma’
Like Volker the previous day, Sondland made the startling admission that he did not make the connection that when Trump and Giuliani spoke about “Burisma,” they were not just referring to the company but to the fake narrative being peddled that Biden had abused his authority when he pushed for Ukraine to have Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin fired.
The false story claimed that Biden removed Shokin because he wanted to protect his son, Hunter, who had a high paying job on Burisma’s board, from a corruption probe Shokin was going to launch against the company.
Sondland, like Volker, said he only realized that “Burisma” was code for an attempt to discredit Biden after he saw a full transcript of the July 25 phone call when it was publicly released in September.
The chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Democratic Representative Adam Schiff, called Sondland’s testimony “deeply significant and troubling” and said, “This is a seminal moment in our investigation.”
However Schiff expressed skepticism that Sondland and others intimately involved in Trump’s shadow policy in Ukraine were not aware of Burisma’s significance.
Sondland? Who’s that?
While Sondland was still testifying, Trump emerged before reporters at the White House to claim Sondland’s evidence cleared him. Trump accidentally displayed a sheet of paper with large letters scrawled on it indicating the he wanted “nothing” from Zelensky and there was “no quid pro quo.”
At the same time, Trump followed the now familiar process of distancing himself from those that he deemed disloyal to him. Although Sondland said, until recently, he regularly called the president directly on his cellphone, Trump said, “I don’t know him very well — I have not spoken to him much.”
The White House press secretary repeated Trump’s claims that Sondland’s testimony “completely exonerates President Trump of any wrongdoing.”
Vice President Pence said he had not discussed any link between U.S. military aid and Ukraine opening investigations with Sondland.
Giuliani also countered some of Sondland’s testimony and tweeted, “Never met him and had very few calls with him.”
Pompeo’s press secretary issued a statement saying, “Gordon Sondland never told Secretary Pompeo that he believed the president was linking aid to investigations of political opponents.”
Pompeo spoke to journalists directly from Brussels and said, “I know precisely what American policy was with respect to Ukraine. I was working on it, and I’m very proud of what we’ve accomplished.”
Toward the end of his testimony, Sondland responded to Trump’s statement that he did not know him very well. The ambassador smiled and said, “Easy come, easy go.”
