Impeachment Inquiry 2: Now It's Official!

[fraurosena]

Castor is now attacking Sondland's credibility. Of course. What else is left than to say he's a liar?

[GreyhoundFan]

"4 takeaways from Gordon Sondland’s blockbuster testimony"

Spoiler

The most anticipated — and potentially most important — witness in the House’s impeachment inquiry is testifying Wednesday. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland is the closest figure to President Trump to take the stand, and in his opening statement, he directly connected Trump to the Ukraine quid pro quo.

Below are some key takeaways from his opening statement. We’ll add more throughout the hearing.

1. Connecting this to the president

Pretty much every witness to date has said there was something unholy going on with regard to asking Ukraine to launch specific investigations, including one involving former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden. But none of them have been able to testify to the idea that Trump actually ordered that U.S. aid or a White House meeting would be conditioned upon those investigations.

In his opening statement, though, Sondland walked right up to the line, if he didn’t cross it.

“Fourth, as I testified previously, [Trump attorney Rudolph W.] Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky,” he said. “Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the president of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the president.”

Sondland said that he testified to this previously, but it’s more plainly stated here that Giuliani “was expressing the desires of the president of the United States” when he conveyed the quid pro quo.

At another point, Sondland said that in his July 26 call with Trump — the day after Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky — he would have been surprised if Trump hadn’t mentioned the investigations, “particularly given what we were hearing from Mr. Giuliani about the president’s concerns.”

Sondland also repeatedly said “everyone knew it” when asked about the quid pro quo — as if to emphasize that Trump also knew it.

It’s tempting to say Sondland is implicating Trump. That’s not completely the case; he seems to still be walking a fine line. But he seems to be saying this was all something that Trump blessed, which is significant.

2. Pointing fingers and naming names — including Mulvaney, Pompeo and Pence

Whether Sondland is directly fingering Trump is up for debate — and will become clearer as the hearing progresses. But he’s clearly ready to point fingers.

Sondland said repeatedly in his opening statement that the State Department and the White House didn’t allow him access to the things he needed to provide accurate previous testimony. Hence the inconsistencies and the clarifications, apparently.

He also named Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, saying Pompeo had instructed him to work with Giuliani as late as Sept. 24 — which is notably after the whistleblower situation exploded into public view.

He added later that Pompeo directed him about how to ease what Sondland described as a logjam with Ukraine. “Secretary Pompeo essentially gave me the green light to brief President Zelensky about making those announcements," Sondland said.

He noted acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney’s involvement, passing along this text exchange from July 19, six days before Trump’s call with Zelensky:

[Sondland said:] “I Talked to Zelensky just now … He is prepared to receive Potus’ call. Will assure him that he intends to run a fully transparent investigation and will ‘turn over every stone’. He would greatly appreciate a call before Sunday so that he can put out some media about a ‘friendly and productive call’ (no details) before Ukraine election on Sunday.” Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney responded: “I asked NSC to set it up for tomorrow.”

That implicates Mulvaney in these efforts even more. Witnesses had previously said Sondland indicated to Ukrainian officials that he had coordinated the quid pro quo with Mulvaney, who is Trump’s top White House aide.

Lastly, he indicates that he conveyed “concerns” about a quid pro quo to Vice President Pence before Sept. 1 meetings in Warsaw.

“I mentioned to Vice President Pence before the meetings with the Ukrainians that I had concerns that the delay in aid had become tied to the issue of investigations,” Sondland said. He added later in his testimony that Pence “nodded that he heard what I said.”

Pence’s office denied Sondland’s account. Chief of staff Marc Short said, "This alleged discussion recalled by Ambassador Sondland never happened.

Sondland doesn’t sound at all happy that he’s in this spot and seems to believe the administration and Giuliani put him in it. We’ll see how that manifests itself in the rest of the hearing.

3. They didn’t care about actual investigations, just announcements

Sondland further undermined the idea that Trump truly cared about corruption in Ukraine, saying that he wasn’t under the impression that there was ever actually a desire for investigations — just announcements of them.

“He had to announce the investigations,” Sondland said of Zelensky. “He didn’t actually have to do them, as I understood it.”

That indicates this was all about the headlines created by the announcement, and not the actual substance of the evidence.

He was pressed on this later, but was a bit cagey. He said he never heard “anyone say that the investigations had to start or had to be completed. The only thing I heard from Mr. Giuliani or otherwise was that they had to be announced in some form. And that form kept changing."

Sondland added: “The way it was expressed to me was that the Ukrainians had a long history of committing to things privately and then never following through.”

This is merely the latest piece of evidence contradicting the idea that Trump was worried about corruption in Ukraine. Giuliani’s own public comments indicated this was a political effort aimed at helping Trump. Second, Trump himself hasn’t shown an interest in any investigations besides ones that involve the United States and his political interests. And third, an aide in Ukraine, David Holmes, testified last week that Sondland had told him Trump didn’t “give a s---” about Ukraine and only wanted the investigations.

Despite this extensive evidence, the idea that this was actually about corruption has remained a GOP talking point.

4. ‘Talk to Rudy’ was an order

Related to Takeaway No. 1 is this: He believed Trump urging them to talk to Giuliani was an order -- which isn’t how Volker testified about it.

In his testimony Tuesday, Volker was asked about Trump’s May 23 order that he, Sondland and Energy Secretary Rick Perry were to “talk to Rudy,” and he suggested it wasn’t a direct order.

“I didn’t take it as an instruction, I want to be clear about that,” Volker said, adding: “You know, when we were giving him our assessment about President Zelensky and where Ukraine is headed, he said, ‘That’s not what I hear. I hear terrible things; he’s got terrible people around him. Talk to Rudy.' And I understood in that context, him just saying, that’s where he hears it from. I didn’t take it as an instruction.

Volker said it was just “part of the dialogue.”

But Sondland is clear on this point: that it was an order.

“In response to our persistent efforts to change his views, President Trump directed us to ‘talk with Rudy,’ ” Sondland said. “We understood that ‘talk with Rudy’ meant talk with Mr. Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer.”

“Directed us” is an order. It’s an instruction. And it again connects this whole effort to Trump — in a way Volker declined to.

 

LOL

 

[Smash!]

Sondland seemed near tears after Schiff took over from the counsel [emoji1]Now the cow is on again.

Sondland seemed near tears after Schiff took over from the counsel [emoji1]Now the cow is on again.

[fraurosena]

Nunes is floundering in his attacks, flitting from this to that and rambling.

[GreyhoundFan]

Milk Dud with his "2+2=4" crap again. I guess he's demonstrating his advanced math skills.

Also, the hand-wringing over whether "go talk to Rudy" means something different than "talk to Rudy." My eyes are going to get stuck thanks to all the rolling they're doing.

Castor (R counsel) looks massively constipated.

[Smash!]

Castor isn't better [emoji849]
I agree with Elizabeth de la Vega on this tough

[fraurosena]

Oh shit on a stick! Nunes interupts to bring up the whistleblower again. 

 

From Ken Starr...

 

[fraurosena]

Pompeo is saying that he's not going to recuse himself from Ukraine policy; he hasn't seen the testimony but sees no reason to recuse. He says that he's proud of what they've achieved in Ukraine. He has a deer in the headlights look about him though. He knows time's up.

I don't have a link for you yet, but I'll try and get one and post it here.

[fraurosena]

Oh dear.

 

Of course, Trump hardly knows Sondland.

 

[fraurosena]

Nunes doesn't want to ask questions and yields his 5 minutes. He knows he has nothing.

Trumplican Ratcliffe is attempting to downplay what Sondland has testified to. It didn't amount to much, it was all presumptions. 

I wonder what the contents of Gymmie's yelled monologue is going to be. More of the same?

Oh, I like Himes questioning, telling Sondland that they'll get the transcript of his July 26th call with Trump, because he's sure it was hacked.

Also his asking Sondland if Sondland believes Trump doesn't give a shit about Ukraine is masterful. Sondland's squirming, trying to not answer.

Oh, here's Gym. He's going the route that the aid was given, there was not press conference by Zelensky. They got the call, the got the money, they got the meeting (they didn't). and now he's heavily implying Sondland is a liar. Ugh, gotta turn down the volume, the yelling is quite extreme, even for Gym.

[nvmbr02]

Rufus bless. Jim Jordan and Devin Nunes are competing for the title of biggest idiot today. 

[fraurosena]

Wow, Gym's stumbling over his own words now. He's clearly floundering, and now he yields back before his time is up! 

[Howl]

Dear God, please PULEEZE strike down Gym Jordan. He's ranting uncontrollably,  hemorrhaging words.   Sondland is smirking; he thinks Gym Jordan is a fucking idiot. 

I think everyone, including me, thought Sondland would sweat bullets, please the 5th and fold like a bad hand in poker.  Whatever his numerous flaws, he's not a stupid man.  

He's also intent on saving his own ass.  

Edited November 20, 2019 by Howl

[nvmbr02]

I find this interesting. Edit.. I know this happened earlier, but still interesting they left. Presumably they came back after recess. 

 

Edited November 20, 2019 by nvmbr02

[Smash!]

If I could donate money this was the moment I would support the opponent of Gym Jordan. This asshole is screaming and I can't stand his voice[emoji2961][emoji2961][emoji2961]And I would support every opponent of those Repugs who yield time to Gym Jordan. He has to go.

[fraurosena]

Turner is also implying that Sondland is lying. He's saying that he's contradicting himself. 

I like that Sondland is pointing out that he doesn't have his notes/documents/texts any time he can.

Turner is now literally saying that Sondland's testimony is 'made up'. He says Sondland has no evidence that Trump tied aid to his demand for investigations.

[nvmbr02]

Really, trying to pin everything on Rudy or saying Sondland is making it up is the only real defense the Republican's have right now. Aside from just coming out and saying "we don't care that Trump is breaking the law".

Edited November 20, 2019 by nvmbr02

[fraurosena]

Carson's turn. He's asking about Giuliani, and Giuliani's status. Sondland says he doesn't know what Giuliani was doing in Ukraine, but that Trump told him to work with him -- now I'm confused... He didn't know what Giuliani was doing, but he was working with him? Uhhhh....

Schiff is now lecturing the trumplicans about their assertions that unless Trump admitted to Sondland that he was bribing Ukraine it wasn't bribery, which is nonsense.

[GreyhoundFan]

"No, Devin Nunes, Trump in 2019 is not like George Washington in 1794"

Spoiler

In his opening statement at Wednesday’s pivotal impeachment hearing, Rep. Devin Nunes, the House Intelligence Committee’s top Republican, defended the nation’s 45th president by invoking the country’s first president. Here’s what the California congressman said:

"The Democrats fake outrage that President Trump used his own channel to communicate with Ukraine. I remind my friends on the other side of the aisle that our first president, George Washington, directed his own diplomatic channels to secure a treaty with Great Britain. If my Democratic colleagues were around in 1794, they’d probably want to impeach him, too.”

Within minutes, “Nunes” and “George Washington” were trending together on Twitter.

Then, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) touted the clip.

So, what happened in 1794? Did President George Washington use “irregular” or secret back channels to negotiate a treaty with Great Britain? Was it comparable to the Ukraine scandal today?

In 1794, Washington was about halfway through his second term as president. Although the Revolutionary War against the British Empire had ended more than a decade earlier, tensions between the two countries festered, threatening to spill over into another war.

First, the British continued to occupy forts in northwest territories that they had agreed to leave at the end of the Revolutionary War. Plus, the British had placed strict trade rules and high tariffs on American goods, while at the same time flooding the U.S. market with British goods.

Most critically, the British navy was engaging in something called “impressment,” which means they were capturing American ships, stealing the supplies and forcing the sailors to join the British navy. At the time, the British were at war with France, a conflict in which the United States was trying to remain neutral. The British justified their actions by saying the neutral vessels were going to help their enemies.

These actions threatened to spill over into a new war. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, who had spent five years in France, sided with the French. But Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton was sympathetic to the British, and he convinced Washington that negotiating a treaty with them would be better for U.S. economic interests.

Washington sent Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay, who was also pro-British. Jay had few bargaining chips, and Hamilton didn’t exactly help. Jay threatened that the U.S. could join in a neutrality pact with Denmark and Sweden; Hamilton secretly told British officials the administration wasn’t actually serious about that.

Unsurprisingly, the resulting treaty was not great. Great Britain agreed to vacate the forts they had already agreed to vacate previously; granted the United States “most-favored nation” status; and agreed to compensate the United States for goods bound for France but not to stop seizing ships.

The treaty was “immensely unpopular with the American public,” according to the State Department’s Office of the Historian. In 1795, the Senate passed it 20-10, and Washington signed the treaty. Jay resigned from the court.

So what does this have to do with the Ukraine scandal? Good question!

Washington sent Jay to negotiate a deal on behalf of U.S. interests — the interest being not getting into a war. Nunes failed to mention that the current impeachment inquiry is looking into whether Trump was trying to negotiate a deal not for U.S. interests but for his own political gain.

While it would be highly irregular for a president to send a Supreme Court justice to negotiate a treaty today, it is critical to remember that during Washington’s presidency, there was no “regular.” Everything he did was the first time a president had done something. Sometimes that worked out well, and sometimes it did not. In fact, at the time, the Supreme Court had heard only a few cases and had yet to establish the concept of judicial review.

Of course, shoehorning history, and specifically Washington, into current political debates is not an activity confined to the Republican Party.

In 2018, many progressives quoted Washington calling the United States “an asylum to the persecuted” to attack Trump’s crackdown on Latin American asylum seekers. At the time, historian Jill Lepore told The Washington Post it was not an apt use of Washington, because his understanding of “asylum” was utterly different from how we understand it today as a formalized process.

Lastly, Washington and the United States paid a price for the treaty. The controversy was so bitter that it solidified the nascent political parties, one against the other. Washington saw the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans as a threat to the unity of the young country, which he warned about in his Farewell Address of 1796:

“One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection.”

As an example, he cited the Jay treaty.

 

[nvmbr02]

Rep. Conaway is providing the distraction, attempting to shift focus to the boycott of Sondland's hotels. 

[fraurosena]

Wenstrup is attacking Schiff. Of course, if the facts are against you, you attack the chairman...

No questions, just monologuing, and now yielding to Conaway. 

Conaway wants to enter a WaPo article about Schiff and whistleblower into the record. I'm not sure what he's about. He's asking if Sondland is under attack, threats etc. Sondland says yes. Conaway is saying that there are calls for boycotting Sondland's hotels.

Is he attempting to garner sympathy for Sondland, whilst his colleagues are saying he's a liar, doesn't have any evidence and generally attacking him? He's going on about that Sondland is 'being bullied', whilst his own bleeping colleagues are bullying him as he's testifying. 

Speier is masterful. (paraphrasing) "Don't start about three pinocchio 's, the president has five pinocchio's on a daily basis."

[nvmbr02]

16 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

Speier is masterful. (paraphrasing) "Don't start about three pinocchio 's, the president has five pinocchio's on a daily basis."

Congresswoman Jackie Speier: "The president of the United States has 5 pinocchios everyday so let's not go there." And there was applause. That could easily be one of the best comebacks today. Rep. Conway even chuckled a bit and he was the one she was shutting down. 

Edited November 20, 2019 by nvmbr02
typo

[fraurosena]

Stewart is going on a woe is Trump rant. Poor Trumpie, they're out to get him...It's not fair! 

Quigly taking on the attacks on the whistleblower: (again paraphrasing, he spoke more broadly)

 "If this was an investigation into arson, you would be attacking the guy who pulled the alarm."

[GreyhoundFan]

LOL: "Trump’s sweeping rebuttal to Sondland’s testimony? Quoting his own denials of quid pro quo."

Spoiler

For about a week at the beginning of September, with aid to Ukraine on hold and a deadline for its release approaching, the Trump administration’s diplomatic team in that country was scrambling. It wasn’t clear why the aid was being held back or how it would be released.

On Sept. 1, William B. Taylor Jr., the acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, heard through the grapevine that Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, had explicitly linked the release of aid to the need for Ukraine to announce investigations that would benefit President Trump politically, a link that Sondland himself later admitted.

Taylor texted Sondland to ask if it was the case that aid was predicated on the investigations Trump was seeking. Sondland asked him to call, then telling Taylor (according to Taylor) that, in essence, it was.

On Sept. 9, Taylor texted again.

“As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign,” he wrote, referencing the utility of the investigations to Trump’s 2020 bid.

This time, Sondland didn’t reply immediately but, instead, called Trump. During his testimony before the House impeachment inquiry on Wednesday, Sondland explained that his connection of aid to the investigations was his own assumption, the product of his adding two and two to get four.

“Pretty much the only logical conclusion to you that given all of these factors, that the aid was also a part of this quid pro quo?” House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) asked Sondland.

“Yup,” Sondland replied.

It was in that context that Sondland described calling Trump after Taylor had messaged him.

“I finally called the president. I believe it was on the 9th of September; I can’t find the records and they won’t provide them to me,” Sondland told the House committee. “But I believe I just asked him an open-ended question, Mr. Chairman. What do you want from Ukraine? I keep hearing all these different ideas and theories and this and that. What do you want?”

“And it was a very short, abrupt conversation,” he continued. “He was not in a good mood. And he just said, I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky” — that is, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky — “to do the right thing. Something to that effect.”

Speaking to reporters outside the White House on Wednesday, Trump seized upon that testimony as exculpatory. Reading form handwritten notes, he reiterated what Sondland had said and declared the testimony the final word on the matter.

“Just a quick comment on what’s going on in terms of testimony with Ambassador Sondland,” Trump said. “And I just noticed one thing and I would say: that means all over.”

“What do you want from Ukraine he asks me, screaming,” Trump said, offering his characterization of the testimony. “What do you want from Ukraine? I keep hearing all these different ideas and theories. This is Ambassador Sondland speaking to me; just happened. To which I turned off the television.”

He repeated the “what do you want” question several more times, interrupting it briefly to assert that, contrary to Sondland’s testimony about his demeanor during the call, he is “always in a good mood.”

“And now, here’s my response that he gave. Just gave,” Trump said. “Ready? You have the cameras rolling?”

“I want nothing. That’s what I want from Ukraine. That’s what I said. I want nothing. I said it twice. So he goes, he asked me the question, what do you want? I keep hearing all these things. What do you want? He finally gets me,” Trump continued.

Another aside, this time about how he barely knows Sondland and how Sondland supported someone else in the 2016 Republican primary.

“But here’s my response. Now, if you weren’t fake news, you’d cover it properly,” Trump continued. “I say to the ambassador, in response, I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky, President Zelensky, to do the right thing. So here’s my answer: I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing. Then he says this is the final word from the president of the United States. I want nothing.”

“Thank you, folks,” Trump concluded. “Have a good time.” He then walked to the waiting helicopter.

White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham offered a statement distilling Trump’s argument.

“Ambassador Sondland’s testimony made clear that in one of the few brief phone calls he had with President Trump, the President clearly stated that he ‘wanted nothing’ from Ukraine and repeated ‘no quid pro quo over and over again,’” the statement said. “In fact, no quid pro quo ever occurred. The U.S. aid to Ukraine flowed, no investigation was launched, and President Trump has met and spoken with President Zelensky. Democrats keep chasing ghosts.”

Far from exculpatory, that line of argument from Trump and Grisham is almost meaningless.

For one thing, Sondland’s testimony explicitly and in detail outlined what he described without reservation as a quid pro quo — one focused on an effort to leverage an official White House meeting to pressure Ukraine to announce new investigations. The claim that “no quid pro quo” ever occurred is the opposite of what Sondland testified. It’s just that the quid pro quo that Sondland expressly articulated isn’t the one that was the subject of that call.

Also, notice who is originally denying the quid pro quo. This isn’t Sondland telling House investigators that there was no quid pro quo for Ukrainian aid, it’s Sondland saying that Trump said there was no quid pro quo. It’s like a man on trial for arson standing up at his trial and insisting that he must be innocent because one of the witnesses described how the accused arsonist himself had denied setting the fire. Sondland is conveying Trump’s own insistence of innocence. Trump doesn’t get to then claim that this proves his innocence.

Especially since Sondland made clear in his testimony that he didn’t necessarily buy Trump’s assertions. After describing the call with Trump, he went on to explain the message he sent back to Taylor.

“So I typed out a text to Ambassador Taylor. My reason for telling him this was not to defend what the president was saying, not to opine on whether the president was being truthful or untruthful, but simply to relay, I’ve gone as far as I can go,” Sondland said. “This is the final word that I heard from the president of the United States. If you’re still concerned — you, Ambassador Taylor, are still concerned — please get a hold of [Secretary of State Mike Pompeo]. Maybe he can help.”

This part of the testimony — not mentioned by Trump — makes clear that Sondland is making no representations about the accuracy of Trump’s comments. In fact, he’s explicitly saying that he wasn’t asserting that Trump’s denials were true. To extend the analogy above, it’s like the accused arsonist failing to mention that the witness described his denial but then added “which may or may not be true.”

It’s worth noting the timing here. The whistleblower complaint that kicked off the Ukraine investigation was filed on Aug. 12. The White House became aware of it at some point after that. On Sept. 9, the House and Senate intelligence committees were informed about the complaint. That same day, House Democrats announced an investigation into the withholding of aid to Ukraine, perhaps in part because of a Sept. 5 Post editorial in which the aid halt was tied to Trump’s desire for investigations.

Again, even if Sondland were saying that Trump hadn’t engaged in quid pro quo on the aid, he explicitly elsewhere in his testimony said there was a quid pro quo related to a White House meeting. That, in itself, raises questions about how Trump leveraged his position to generate something of benefit to himself.

Remember that we have Trump on record elsewhere in his own words describing what he wanted from Zelensky. In the rough transcript of the July 25 call between Trump and Zelensky, Trump asks Zelensky to dig into former vice president Joe Biden, a political opponent of Trump’s. If this is the “right thing” that Trump was describing when he spoke with Sondland, it’s not exactly helping his case.

 

[fraurosena]

Here's Jackie Speier's burn:

 

Stefanik is also someone who needs the volume turned down... 

I've noticed a tactic she has in her five minute questionings: she gets the witnesses to always answer a question with yes, or that is correct. That is a psychological trick. If you get people to agree with you on the innocuous things, they will more easily agree with something you suddenly say that is not innocuous. This time, it's Hunter Biden's potential conflict of interests. 

And of course, she's complaining about not being allowed to call Hunter Biden. 

It's so beside the point, it's embarrassing.