Unsurprisingly, Ambassador Gordon Sondland’s House testimony is showing the puncture durability and cornering traction of damp toilet paper. Like most good public servants, he smirked and grinned, throwing everyone else under the bus. And yet Sondland insisted he had no idea — NO IDEA! — that strong-arming Ukraine about “the Burisma investigation” was code for smearing the Bidens. Who could know such a thing? And, yes, Sondland implicated Trump, but he backed off of one of the strongest accusations. In particular, Sondland described a Sept. phone call where Trump insisted “No quid pro quo.”
I find Ambassador Sondland as fascinating as Dr. Fiona Hill, at least in some abstract measure. They both draw my attention. Dr. Hill was fantastically impressive to watch during her House testimony. I watched her entire session, front to back, even though it took me several days. She is such an honorable, intelligent, forthright woman. And it helped that she shredded every bit of Republican nonsense, all while keeping her nonpartisan, career foreign chops. I was dazzled, impressed, overwhelmed, intimidated, and so gobsmacked at her casual competence I wanted to have her baby.
Ambassador Sondland was a smug, condescending, slimy, hyper-intelligent scumbag of a human being who smiles as he hamstrings the men and women who served with him. Obviously, I’m making an assumption or two. I don’t know the gentleman personally. I can’t swear to his motives, and I haven’t looked into his soul. Still, Sondland seemed to arrive for the House hearing covered in his very own layer of slime.
I couldn’t look away from either of them during their testimony. I mean, those two fascinations are kind of equivalent, right?
Sondland’s excuses came out of his mouth looking so translucent you could clearly see Sondland slouching behind them. His recollections were reliably self-serving, tying as many other people to the scandal as he could. And, like so many modern Republicans, Sondland suffered late-stage dementia any time a memory might glue a crime to his own butt. Sondland kept his personal interest in sight masterfully the entire time. I’ve already written about my grudging admiration.
Sondland had a tough row to hoe. Everyone testified that Sondland was one of the Three Amigos, a direct conduit for Trump’s extortion threats to Ukraine. He testified that, yes, there was a quid pro quo for a Ukrainian trade deal and a White House visit. But not for the withheld military aid. In particular, Sondland talked about a Sept. 11th conversation:
Sondland testified that he asked Trump for clarification on what he wanted from Ukraine on Sept. 9, the same day three House committees announced they were opening an investigation into an allegation Trump had pressured Ukraine for political gain.
“He said, ‘I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. I just want Zelensky to do the right thing, to do what he ran on,'” Sondland testified.
Sondland also said Trump never directly told him that aid was conditioned on Ukraine announcing that the investigations had been opened.
USA Today, Nov. 20, 2019, Key lines from Gordan Sondland’s impeachment inquiry testimony
Trump has landed on that one specific bit of Sondland’s testimony like it was his personal happy place.
Sondland’s recollection of a phone conversation that he said took place on Sept. 9 has emerged as a centerpiece of Trump’s defense as House Democrats argue in an impeachment inquiry that he abused his office to pressure Ukraine to investigate Democrats.
Washington Post, Nov 27, 2019, Witness testimony and records raise questions about account of Trump’s “No quid pro quo” call
And then the Post raised some questions about that call:
However, no other witness testimony or documents have emerged that corroborate Sondland’s description of a call that day.
Trump himself, in describing the conversation, has referred only to the ambassador’s account of the call, which — based on Sondland’s activities — would have occurred before dawn in Washington. And the White House has not located a record in its switchboard logs of a call between Trump and Sondland on Sept. 9, according to an administration official who, like others in this report, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.
The conflicting information raises serious questions about the accuracy of Sondland’s account, one that Trump has embraced to counter a growing body of evidence that he and his allies pressured Ukraine for his own political benefit.
Washington Post, Nov 27, 2019, Witness testimony and records raise questions about account of Trump’s “No quid pro quo” call
So, oopsie? Maybe fictional?
But there is evidence of another call between Trump and Sondland that occurred a few days earlier — one with a very different thrust, in which the president made clear that he wanted his Ukrainian counterpart to personally announce investigations into Trump’s political opponents.
The conflicting information raises serious questions about the accuracy of Sondland’s account, one that Trump has embraced to counter a growing body of evidence that he and his allies pressured Ukraine for his own political benefit.
Washington Post, Nov 27, 2019, Witness testimony and records raise questions about account of Trump’s “No quid pro quo” call
So, if the call happened, Trump already knew he’d been caught. Honestly, I’m guessing it’s closer to fiction. I think Sondland’s trying to keep his future political employment options open. And I’m not changing my ‘scumbag’ conclusion any time soon, though.
