5 things to keep in mind during the Gordon Sondland hearing

5 things to keep in mind during the Gordon Sondland hearing

0 November 21, 2019 3:29 pm

The public testimony of Gordon Sondland is the most anticipated audience so far in the political trial investigation against President Donald Trump.

The testimony of the US ambassador to the European Union could invariably change the investigation of the Democrats and challenge the key Republican discussion points that there was no quid pro quo between US military aid and a Ukrainian investigation into the Biden and the 2016 elections, because Sondland could be the first witness who can testify that there was a direct connection between the two.

Here are five things to see during your public hearing:

1. What did Trump say to Sondland?

Unlike other witnesses that Democrats have brought for questioning, Sondland held direct talks with the president.

His ability to call Trump on the phone became legendary, according to the testimony of others as the reason why Sondland assumed a huge role in foreign policy in Ukraine, a country that was not even in the European Union. Democrats will surely ask Sondland how much of his effort to get Ukrainians to announce investigations about 2016 or Burisma was improvised and how much he went at the request and direction of the president.

Tim Morrison, a former National Security Council official, told investigators he came to understand that Sondland was not acting of his own accord, but in Trump’s direction. Morrison said he knows about five times in which Sondland had spoken directly with Trump between July 25 and September 11, when the nearly $ 400 million in US military aid was finally released.

“He told me he was acting, he was discussing these issues with the president,” Morrison said of Sondland.

He hopes today that Democrats and Republicans will concentrate on a particular conversation between Sondland and Trump. According to the testimony of counselor David Holmes, Sondland called Trump on July 26 while in a restaurant. The call was so loud that Holmes could hear the president by phone asking about the future of the investigations.

Holmes testified that he had never seen anything similar before.

“This was an extremely distinctive experience in my career in foreign service,” Holmes said in his statement behind closed doors. “I had never seen anything like that, someone calling the president from a mobile phone in a restaurant and then chatting with this level of openness and colorful language. There are so many things about the call that were so remarkable that I remember them vividly. ”

In the call, Sondland told Trump that the president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, “love your ass,” and said that the Ukrainians were willing to move forward with the announcement of the investigations.

In his statement, Holmes said Sondland later told him that Trump “doesn’t care about Ukraine”, and that his main focus was on “important things” like “Biden’s investigation on which Giuliani is pushing.”

2. Which side is Sondland on?

Part of why Sondland’s testimony is one of the most anticipated by both Democrats and Republicans is because they are not sure what he is going to say or which side he is going to put.

Sondland at first seemed to be an ally of Trump. He was appointed to his position as the United States ambassador to the European Union after making a substantial donation to the Trump campaign in 2016. He arrived at the post with no political experience, working as a hotel mogul for years. In his statement behind closed doors, and according to the testimony of other witnesses in the House’s political trial investigation, Sondland believed he had a good relationship with Trump.

But when he presented an addition to his original testimony and added that he believed there was a link between the military aid that the United States sent to Ukraine and the investigation of Ukraine to the Biden and the 2016 elections, Republicans began to wonder if Sondland would prove to be Trump’s defender in the House Removal Consultation.

In his short time as ambassador to the United States, he has earned a reputation as a diplomatic risk among other White House officials and the State Department, according to witness statements and conversations with sources.

In one case, the main expert in Ukraine of the National Security Council, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, said there was a presidential delegation in Ukraine and that Sondland’s name was removed from the list because there was concern that he would be independent.

“It was out of his wallet, and he used to get out of the script, so there was some risk,” Vindman said.

For that reason, Democrats and Republicans are cautious about what Sondland’s testimony will reveal, and how truthful it will be.

3. How does Sondland handle member questions?

Sondland has been criticized by members of both parties. Immediately after their declaration, the Democrats argued that Sondland had not been communicative enough and that there were too many cases in which he could not remember key moments.

But the tables seemed to change after his statement was released with a three-page appendix showing that Sondland really remembered a quid pro quo.

“Now I remember talking to Mr. (Andriy) Yermak individually, I told him that the resumption of US aid would probably not happen until Ukraine provided the anti-corruption public declaration we had been discussing for many weeks,” Sondland said in his amended testimony.

Republicans have attacked Sondland as an unreliable witness. They argue that if Sondland changed his testimony once, what would prevent him from adapting the story in the future? How can you trust him?

Sondland may not turn out to be the star witness of any of the parties, but the Democrats seem to be preparing for him to reinforce his case, focusing less on the fact that he could initially have omitted key details in his decision behind closed doors and more on what that he can provide now.

The way you respond to both Democratic members and committee Republicans will contribute to the way your testimony is received.

4. About that modified testimony

Lawmakers on both sides of the hall will focus on a key aspect in Sondland’s original testimony to the House investigators when they interrogate him in public: the three additional pages he submitted to the Intelligence Commission after his statement behind closed doors.

The day before the commission published the transcript of the Sondland declaration, he sent them an annex to their original statements, admitting that there was a quid pro quo between US and Ukrainian military aid announcing investigations into Hunter Biden, Burisma and 2016 elections.

In the additional testimony, Sondland said he had recalled a September 1 conversation in which he told an important Zelensky assistant that security assistance was linked to investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden and the 2016 elections.

“Now I remember talking to Mr. (Andriy) Yermak individually, I told him that the resumption of US aid would probably not happen until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption declaration we had been discussing for many weeks,” Sondland said.

Democrats and Republicans will focus on this aspect of Sondland’s testimony for different reasons. The Democrats will highlight it because it is at the center of its political trial investigation: did the president withhold military aid until Ukraine agreed to investigate matters for his own benefit and political interest? Sondland, a key player in the investigation, thinks so, according to his additional statements.

Republicans will argue that Sondland’s additional testimony, which contradicts his original statements, makes him less credible. They will probably ask Sondland why his testimony changed, and if there were outside influences or influential people who asked him to do so.

5. Sondland, the libre free radical ’
The best diplomats have described Sondland, a career hotelier, as problematic when dealing with Ukraine.

Sometimes, Sondland frustrated career officials when he used his personal cell phone and discussed foreign policy about insecure channels like WhatsApp and email.

Fiona Hill, Russia’s former chief advisor, testified that Sondland had given her and others’ personal cell phone numbers to foreign officials who would appear without prior notice at the White House requesting meetings.

A source who works closely with Sondland told CNN that he is “a security nightmare.”

Tim Morrison, a former National Security Council official, referred to Sondland as a “free radical.”

And, several of the top advisors said Sondland used to get out of the script.

During a meeting on July 10, Sondland was the one who, according to Vindman’s testimony, told Ukrainians that a meeting at the White House was subject to the announcement of the investigations. Sondland’s comment surprised several people at the meeting, including former national security advisor John Bolton, as inappropriate.

“When the Ukrainians raised this issue of trying to figure out what the date for the presidential meeting would be, Ambassador Sondland proceeded to discuss the product needed to achieve the meeting, and alluded to the investigations,” Vindman said in a report in a statement to door closed.

 

Newer Post
Older Post

COMMENTS

Comments are closed