Jump to content

So the story changes...


DBP66

Recommended Posts

Sondland Updates Impeachment Testimony, Describing Ukraine Quid Pro Quo

Gordon D. Sondland recounted how he told Ukrainian officials that military aid was tied to their commitment to investigations President Trump wanted.

 
The new testimony from Gordon D. Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union, confirmed his involvement in essentially laying out a quid pro quo to Ukraine that he had not acknowledged.
The new testimony from Gordon D. Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union, confirmed his involvement in essentially laying out a quid pro quo to Ukraine that he had not acknowledged. Credit...Erin Schaff/The New York Times
  • Nov. 5, 2019

WASHINGTON — A crucial witness in the impeachment inquiry reversed himself this week and acknowledged to investigators that he had told a top Ukrainian official that the country would most likely have to give President Trump what he wanted — a public pledge for investigations — in order to unlock military aid.

The disclosure from Gordon D. Sondland, an ally of Mr. Trump who is the United States ambassador to the European Union, confirmed his role in laying out a quid pro quo to Ukraine that conditioned the release of security assistance from the United States on the country’s willingness to say it was investigating former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and other Democrats.

That admission, included in a four-page sworn statement released on Tuesday, directly contradicted his testimony to investigators last month, when he said he “never” thought there was any precondition on the aid.

“I said that resumption of the U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anticorruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks,” Mr. Sondland said in the new statement, which was made public by the House committees leading the inquiry, along with the transcript of his original testimony.

 

Mr. Sondland’s disclosure appeared intended to insulate him from accusations that he intentionally misled Congress during his earlier testimony, in which he frequently said he could not recall key details and events under scrutiny by impeachment investigators.

It also provided Democrats with a valuable piece of evidence from a critical witness to fill out the picture of their abuse-of-power case against the president. Unlike other officials who have offered damaging testimony about Mr. Trump, Mr. Sondland is a political supporter of the president who has interacted directly with him.

The question of a quid pro quo is at the heart of the impeachment investigation into Mr. Trump, which turns on whether the president abused his power when he asked a foreign power to target his political rivals.

Mr. Trump initially strongly denied there was any quid pro quo involving Ukraine, and numerous Republicans took up that refrain. But as the inquiry has unfolded, he and Republican lawmakers have gradually begun to move away from that position. Instead they have adopted the argument that a president insisting on a quid pro quo from a foreign government to benefit himself politically may be of concern, but it is not — in the words of Mr. Trump himself — “an impeachable event.”

 
 

A wealthy Oregon hotelier who donated to the president’s campaign and was rewarded with his plum diplomatic post, Mr. Sondland can hardly be dismissed as a “Never Trumper,” a charge the president has leveled against many other officials who have offered damning accounts of his conduct with regard to Ukraine. As such, Mr. Sondland’s new, fuller account complicates Republicans’ task in defending the president against the impeachment push.

 

On Tuesday, the White House rejected Mr. Sondland’s new account, saying he failed to cite a “solid source” for his “assumption” that there was a link between the aid and the investigations.

“No amount of salacious media-biased headlines, which are clearly designed to influence the narrative, change the fact that the president has done nothing wrong,” Stephanie Grisham, the White House press secretary, said in a statement.

The new information surfaced as the House committees also released a transcript of their interview last month with Kurt D. Volker, the former special envoy to Ukraine.

Rushing to complete their final round of requests for key witnesses before they commence public impeachment hearings, the panels also scheduled testimony on Friday by Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, who quickly said he would not comply. And two more administration witnesses who had been scheduled to testify on Tuesday — Michael Duffey, a top official in the White House budget office, and Wells Griffith, a senior aide to Energy Secretary Rick Perry — failed to appear.

Mr. Sondland had said in a text message exchange in early September with William B. Taylor Jr., the top American diplomat in Ukraine, that the president had been clear there was no quid pro quo between the aid and investigations of the Bidens. But Mr. Sondland testified last month that he was only repeating what Mr. Trump had told him, leaving open the question of whether he believed the president.

His addendum suggested that Mr. Sondland was not completely forthcoming with Mr. Taylor, and that he was, in fact, aware that the aid was contingent on the investigations. In his updated testimony, Mr. Sondland recounted how he had discussed the linkage with Andriy Yermak, a top adviser to President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, on the sidelines of a Sept. 1 meeting between Vice President Mike Pence and Mr. Zelensky in Warsaw. Mr. Zelensky had discussed the suspension of aid with Mr. Pence, Mr. Sondland said.

 

In the addendum, Mr. Sondland said he had “refreshed my recollection” after reading the testimony given by Mr. Taylor and Timothy Morrison, the senior director for Europe and Russia at the National Security Council.

Mr. Sondland said he believed that withholding the aid — a package of $391 million in security assistance that had been approved by Congress and was intended to help Ukraine combat Russian aggression — was “ill advised,” although he did not know “when, why or by whom the aid was suspended.” But he said he came to believe that the aid was tied to the investigations.

“I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anticorruption statement,” Mr. Sondland said.

In his closed-door interview last month, Mr. Sondland portrayed himself as a well-meaning and at times unwitting player who was trying to conduct American foreign policy with Ukraine with the full backing of the State Department while Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s lawyer, repeatedly inserted himself at the behest of the president. He also said repeatedly that he could not remember things, including details about the Sept. 1 meeting, according to the 375-page transcript of his testimony.

“And you had never thought there was a precondition to the aid?” one of the Republican investigators asked Mr. Sondland. “Is that correct?”

“Never,” Mr. Sondland said, adding that he “was dismayed when it was held up, but I didn’t know why.”

In the aftermath of the testimony last month, several Democrats painted Mr. Sondland as a lackey of Mr. Trump’s who had been an agent of the shadow foreign policy on Ukraine, eager to go along with what the president wanted. They contended that Mr. Sondland had deliberately evaded crucial questions during his testimony. Other witnesses have pointed to him as a central player in the irregular channel of Ukraine policymaking being run by Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani, and the instigator of the quid pro quo strategy.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought taylor was going to get him but nope. Never even spoke to the president and wasnt even on the July 25th call

A key Democratic witness against Trump admitted in congressional testimony last month that he was not part of the July 25 phone call between the U.S. and Ukrainian presidents, that he didn’t see a transcript or readout of it until late September when it was declassified and released, and that he has never even spoken to President Donald Trump.

William Taylor, the charge d’affairs of the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine, told lawmakers in secret testimony two weeks ago that his opinions about an alleged quid pro quo demanded by Trump were formed largely from conversations with anti-Trump staffers within the diplomatic bureaucracy.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/06/testimony-transcript-shows-william-taylor-never-talked-to-trump-wasnt-even-on-july-25-phone-call/#.XcNviy7fTgI.twitter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, I AM IRONMAN said:

Changed his testimony? So he lied to begin with.  Wow you are grasping at straws...you have no clue.  Did Lemon spoon feed this to you?

WTF is that baffoon babbling about?! This is a great strategy: babble like an idiot and act like you're "getting one over" on us.  What a effing moron. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/7/2019 at 6:44 AM, DBP66 said:

what did you clowns miss??..

"The new testimony from Gordon D. Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union, confirmed his involvement in essentially laying out a quid pro quo to Ukraine that he had not acknowledged."....🤡

"Axios on HBO" poll: Politics are driving Democrats mad

Illustration of a frowning donkey with a red face
 
 

Illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios

More than 70% of Democrats say politics is making them increasingly angry about America, leaving them feeling like “strangers in their own land,” according to an "Axios on HBO" poll conducted by SurveyMonkey.  

Why it matters: Democrats say nearly everything they watch, read or listen to triggers their anger, even the soothing voices of NPR. 

The big picture: Americans, as a whole, are just plain mad and feeling like strangers in their own land, though a lower percentage of Republicans describe themselves as angry (57% compared to 74% of Democrats) or feeling like a stranger (52% compared to 71% of Democrats).

  • Other people are getting angrier too: 58% report their friends, family and co-workers seem angrier than five years ago.

Between the lines: Those who talk about politics the most are also the angriest.

  • 83% of Americans who discuss politics several times a day report feeling angry at least once a day over something they heard or read in the news.
  • That falls to 56% among those who discuss it once a week, and 39% for those who discuss it about once a month.

The bottom line: The Republican anger that animated the Trump rise and presidency gets most of the media attention.

  • Turns out, this is the bipartisan era of rage and estrangement, fueled by rising interest in American politics. 
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Troll said:

"Axios on HBO" poll: Politics are driving Democrats mad

Illustration of a frowning donkey with a red face
 
 

Illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios

More than 70% of Democrats say politics is making them increasingly angry about America, leaving them feeling like “strangers in their own land,” according to an "Axios on HBO" poll conducted by SurveyMonkey.  

Why it matters: Democrats say nearly everything they watch, read or listen to triggers their anger, even the soothing voices of NPR. 

The big picture: Americans, as a whole, are just plain mad and feeling like strangers in their own land, though a lower percentage of Republicans describe themselves as angry (57% compared to 74% of Democrats) or feeling like a stranger (52% compared to 71% of Democrats).

  • Other people are getting angrier too: 58% report their friends, family and co-workers seem angrier than five years ago.

Between the lines: Those who talk about politics the most are also the angriest.

  • 83% of Americans who discuss politics several times a day report feeling angry at least once a day over something they heard or read in the news.
  • That falls to 56% among those who discuss it once a week, and 39% for those who discuss it about once a month.

The bottom line: The Republican anger that animated the Trump rise and presidency gets most of the media attention.

  • Turns out, this is the bipartisan era of rage and estrangement, fueled by rising interest in American politics. 

This just pisses me off!!!  I am so mad I can't even think straight.  

Lol

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, World Citizen said:

This just pisses me off!!!  I am so mad I can't even think straight.  

Lol

giphy.gif

LOL

I hope you noted the last line.....

It's still a bipartisan effort...……🙄

"Turns out, this is the bipartisan era of rage and estrangement, fueled by rising interest in American politics."

 

 

 

 

Rage is an equal opportunity employer shall we say....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/7/2019 at 3:44 AM, DBP66 said:

what did you clowns miss??..

"The new testimony from Gordon D. Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union, confirmed his involvement in essentially laying out a quid pro quo to Ukraine that he had not acknowledged."....🤡

Is it comparable to Biden withholding military funding if Ukraine didn’t fire the prosecutor investigating how his seaman son, who was unceremoniously discharged for drug use four months prior, made it on to the board of a huge Ukraine gas company? Asking for a friend...asshole!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NotBigdaddybloom said:

Is it comparable to Biden withholding military funding if Ukraine didn’t fire the prosecutor investigating how his seaman son, who was unceremoniously discharged for drug use four months prior, made it on to the board of a huge Ukraine gas company? Asking for a friend...asshole!

^^more "fake news" asshole...😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Troll said:

giphy.gif

LOL

I hope you noted the last line.....

It's still a bipartisan effort...……🙄

"Turns out, this is the bipartisan era of rage and estrangement, fueled by rising interest in American politics."

 

 

 

 

Rage is an equal opportunity employer shall we say....

 

It does seem that we are an emotionally and ego driven mess that not even reason can be any help.  

That is one thing I refuse to give any time and energy to is to have hate in me.  I may still be a damn mess but at least I don't have that going against me.  :)

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/6/2019 at 5:40 PM, HSFBfan said:

I thought taylor was going to get him but nope. Never even spoke to the president and wasnt even on the July 25th call

A key Democratic witness against Trump admitted in congressional testimony last month that he was not part of the July 25 phone call between the U.S. and Ukrainian presidents, that he didn’t see a transcript or readout of it until late September when it was declassified and released, and that he has never even spoken to President Donald Trump.

William Taylor, the charge d’affairs of the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine, told lawmakers in secret testimony two weeks ago that his opinions about an alleged quid pro quo demanded by Trump were formed largely from conversations with anti-Trump staffers within the diplomatic bureaucracy.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/06/testimony-transcript-shows-william-taylor-never-talked-to-trump-wasnt-even-on-july-25-phone-call/#.XcNviy7fTgI.twitter

This is a much better rendering of the importance of William Taylor's testimony.  The Federalist article implies that the Ukrainians were not aware that the funding for the military aid was contingent upon Zelensky publicly announcing a Biden investigation, which isn't true.  The Ukrainians were well aware of the conditions and it was extortion and bribery.  This is another example of the "look...squirrel" tactics from those on the right.  We've seen it before.  We recognize it when we see it.  We expect it to happen before it does. 

.....And the Federalist.com?  C'mon, you can do better than that trashy site.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/summary-amb-william-taylors-deposition-testimony

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, stanscript said:

This is a much better rendering of the importance of William Taylor's testimony.  

.....And the Federalist.com?  C'mon, you can do better than that trashy site.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/summary-amb-william-taylors-deposition-testimony

See if you can tell me what is blatantly wrong with the ENTIRE concept of your headline, and premise of your "article".....

The Ukraine Connection

We Read All 2,677 Pages of Ukraine Testimony So You Don't Have To

You do realize that one can simply read the 2 page transcript themselves right?

2,677 pages of opinions on what the 3rd, 4th, and 5th hand gossip 'really means' ...

is quite the exercise in futility....

 

Wouldn't you say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Troll said:

See if you can tell me what is blatantly wrong with the ENTIRE concept of your headline, and premise of your "article".....

The Ukraine Connection

We Read All 2,677 Pages of Ukraine Testimony So You Don't Have To

You do realize that one can simply read the 2 page transcript themselves right?

2,677 pages of opinions on what the 3rd, 4th, and 5th hand gossip 'really means' ...

is quite the exercise in futility....

 

Wouldn't you say?

No I'd say that reading the William Taylor's entire testimony (over 300 pages) is much better than just his opening statement and he'd probably agree.  the fact that he wasn't on the phone call is important but the corroborating evidence he provided is more important.  

I did read all of Dr. Fiona Hill's testimony of almost 450 pages and her comments are pretty damning.  One thing of particular interest that came out in her testimony (pg. 197-198) was that Ukraine makes the critical parts for large Russian aircraft.  My take is that if Russia takes over Ukraine, Russian ability to project power is enhanced dramatically.  That's another mostly unknown point of how critical a free Ukraine is and why we shouldn't be jerking them off.

I would expect William Taylor's complete testimony to be equally striking.

I look forward to watching his testimony.  I hope you watch it too and don't rely on brief opinions from your typical slanted/questionable sources.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

EXCLUSIVE: A newly filed complaint to the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) alleges that the whistleblower whose allegations touched off House Democrats' impeachment inquiry may have violated federal law by indirectly soliciting more than a quarter-million dollars from mostly anonymous sources via a GoFundMe page.

The complaint, which was filed last week and obtained by Fox News, alleged the donations from roughly 6,000 individuals "clearly constitute" gifts to a current intelligence official that may be restricted because of the employee's official position pursuant to 5 CFR 2635.203 and other statutes. To date, the GoFundMe has raised over $227,000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...