WASHINGTON — A critical witness in the impeachment inquiry offered Congress substantial new testimony this week, revealing that he told a top Ukrainian official that the country likely would not receive American military aid unless it publicly committed to investigations President Trump wanted. The disclosure from Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union, in four new pages of sworn testimony released on Tuesday, confirmed his involvement in laying out a quid pro quo to Ukraine that he had previously not acknowledged. The issue is at the heart of the impeachment investigation into Mr. Trump, which turns on the allegation the president abused his power to extract political favors from a foreign power. Mr. Trump has consistently maintained that he did nothing wrong and that there was no quid pro quo with Ukraine. Mr. Sondland’s testimony offered several major new details beyond the account he gave the inquiry in a 10-hour interview last month. He provided a more robust description of his own role in alerting the Ukrainians that they needed to go along with investigative requests being demanded by the president’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani. By early September, Mr. Sondland said, he had become convinced that military aid and a White House meeting were conditioned on Ukraine committing to those investigations. The additions Mr. Sondland made to his testimony were significant because they were the first admission by a senior figure who had direct contact with Mr. Trump that the military aid for Ukraine was being held hostage to the president’s demands for investigations into his political rivals. A wealthy Oregon hotelier who donated to the president’s campaign and was rewarded with the plum diplomatic post, Mr. Sondland can hardly be dismissed as a “Never Trumper,” a charge that Mr. Trump has leveled against many other officials who have offered damaging testimony about his conduct with regard to Ukraine. As such, Mr. Sondland’s new, fuller account is likely to complicate Republicans’ task in defending the president against the impeachment push, effectively leaving them with no argument other than that demanding a political quid pro quo from a foreign leader may be concerning, but — in the words of Mr. Trump himself — is not “an impeachable event.” 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 former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., his son and other Democrats. 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 upon the investigations. The additions Mr. Sondland made to his testimony were significant because they were the first admission by a senior figure who had direct contact with Mr. Trump that the military aid for Ukraine was being held hostage to the president’s demands for investigations into his political rivals. A wealthy Oregon hotelier who donated to the president’s campaign and was rewarded with the plum diplomatic post, Mr. Sondland can hardly be dismissed as a “Never Trumper,” a charge that Mr. Trump has leveled against many other officials who have offered damaging testimony about his conduct with regard to Ukraine. As such, Mr. Sondland’s new, fuller account is likely to complicate Republicans’ task in defending the president against the impeachment push, effectively leaving them with no argument other than that demanding a political quid pro quo from a foreign leader may be concerning, but — in the words of Mr. Trump himself — is not “an impeachable event.” 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 former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., his son and other Democrats. 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 upon the investigations. In his updated testimony, Mr. Sondland recounted how he had discussed the link 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. “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 document, which was released by the House committees leading the inquiry, along with the transcript of his original testimony from last month. 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. And two more administration witnesses who had been scheduled to testify on Tuesday — Michael Duffey, a top official at the White House budget office, and Wells Griffith, a senior aide to the energy secretary, Rick Perry — failed to appear. In his new testimony, Mr. Sondland said he believed that withholding the aid — a package of $391 million in security assistance that had been approved by Congress — 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 Mr. Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s lawyer, repeatedly inserted himself at the behest of the president. He also said repeatedly that he could not recall the events under scrutiny, including details about the Sept. 1 meeting, according to the 375-page transcript of his testimony. But some Democrats painted him 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. And 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. 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. Morrison, the National Security Council official, testified last week that it was Mr. Sondland who first indicated in a conversation with him and Mr. Taylor on Sept. 1 that the release of the military aid for Ukraine might be contingent on the announcement of the investigations, and that he hoped “that Ambassador Sondland’s strategy was exclusively his own.” Mr. Sondland’s new testimony contradicted the notion that he was a lone wolf pushing the quid pro quo idea himself, and portrayed him instead as just the messenger who had discovered there was a linkage between the aid and the investigations and articulated it to others. He said it “would have been natural for me to have voiced what I presumed” about what was standing in the way of releasing the military assistance. Mr. Sondland originally testified that Mr. Trump had essentially delegated American foreign policy on Ukraine to Mr. Giuliani, a directive he disagreed with but still followed. He said that it was Mr. Giuliani who demanded the new Ukrainian president commit to the investigations, and that he did not understand until later that the overarching goal may have been to bolster the president’s 2020 election chances. Mr. Sondland said that he went along with what Mr. Giuliani wanted in the hope of pacifying him and restoring normal relations between the two countries. Under questioning, he acknowledged believing the statement was linked to a White House visit the new president of Ukraine sought with Mr. Trump. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/05/us/politics/impeachment-trump.html
Amazing how his memory improved once others testified showing that he perjured himself. Corruption at its finest.
Inaccurate (FAKE) interpretation of his statement. 1. Nowhere in it does he mention President Trump mentioning any quid pro quo. 2. Nowhere in either statement.
Trump to Ukrainian President. I noticed a DC swamp leach hanging on the teat Burisma! It looks like a Biden! Perhaps you should investigate this leach, it could suck up many aid dollars.
And it appears the supposed whistleblower is really a suspect in an investigation into who leaked classified info to the press numerous times while spying on the POTUSand in the on and off again investigation of criminal acts by the Bidens, some former State Department employees (some have testified in secret in attempts to cover their asses) and former Ukranian officials. It also appears Adam Schiff actually bribed a witness by hiring him onto his staff in a do-nothing position much like Hunter Biden was bribed by Burisma. “Whistleblower” and West Wing Mole the Same Guy?? November 5, 2019 Are the “Whistleblower” and the West Wing Spy the SAME PERSON? Mike Huckabee: When Paul Sperry put a name to the “whistleblower” last week, it was already quite well known in Washington circles who that person was, and a lot was known about his connections to the DNC, John Brennan, Joe Biden and the top tier of FBI officials who had targeted Trump and his campaign. Nevertheless, one of the attorneys for this person, Mark Zaid of Whistleblower Aid, put out a statement saying that the release of Eric Ciaramella’s name “is at the pinnacle of irresponsibility and is intentionally reckless.” That’s right, he was speaking about the irresponsibility and recklessness of suggesting that the so-called “whistleblower” is Eric Ciaramella…that’s Eric Ciaramella…C-I-A-R-A-M-E-L-L-A. The name is an open secret all around Washington, DC, yet many in the media are pretending they don’t know. In stark contrast, Dan Bongino may have taken this new revelation even further, having possibly connected another dot, tying this individual to the effort to spy on newly-elected President Trump in the White House. Bongino picked up on something unusual in the Sperry piece — something I didn’t when I linked to it last week. Sperry had taken the trouble in his piece to provide a phonetic pronunciation of “Ciaramella.” It’s not what many would assume, which is “see-ah-rah-MEL-ah.” Sperry gave it as “char-a-MEL-ah.” Why should this matter? Not to go all tin-foil hat on you, but Sperry may have been trying to clue us in on something. Recall the text messages between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page that talked about sending someone named “Charlie” to the White House. They also use the term “CI,” which may stand for “Confidential Informant,” or SPY. If “CHAR-lie” was “Ciaramella (CHAR-a-mel-ah),” then the so-called “whistleblower” was actually a mole, planted inside the White House to spy on the President. We know that Ciaramella had been assigned to work in the West Wing. As investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson has noted, the timing of the “whistleblower” report suggests that he was worried that Trump was getting close to uncovering Democrat links to Ukrainian efforts to interfere with our election in 2016. On April 25, Sens. Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson sent a letter to Attorney General William Barr asking about these text messages. You can be sure he’s on the case. I had planned to link to Dan Bongino’s podcast about “Charlie,” but the following article beat me to the punch and also lays out more information (much of which we’ve covered but is good to review), so I linked to that instead. https://www.zerohedge.com/political...ries-emerge-about-trump-ukraine-whistleblower On Sunday, Mark Zaid went on CBS’s FACE THE NATION to say that his “anonymous” client would be willing to answer written questions. THE DAILY BEAST tweeted that had offered the GOP “a direct opportunity to ask written questions of the whistleblower” without compromising his or her identity. (Never mind that his identity has already been compromised.) But according to the “rules” (ha) being followed in Adam Schiff’s House Intelligence Committee, he has the option to allow Republicans’ questions but can stop witnesses from answering questions he doesn’t want asked, which he has done. Also, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said on the same show that he was not aware of the offer to ranking member Devin Nunes to have the “whistleblower” answer Republicans’ questions. “I have never received that offer, and I am the lead Republican,” he said. According to FOX News, Zaid tweeted that his client would answer questions posed directly by Republican members “in writing, under oath & under penalty of perjury.” He continued, “We will ensure timly answers. We stand ready to cooperate and ensure facts – rather than partisanship…” Let’s just say I would be very surprised if this person answered all the questions Republicans might want to ask, whether in person or submitted in writing, as they would definitely choose to ask all about his relationship with Strzok, Page and others, who might in much bigger trouble than they already are. If the FBI/CIA spied on the White House, which seems increasingly likely, and the “whistleblower” who sparked the impeachment “inquiry” turned out to be THE SPY, this might be the most incredible government scandal ever, certainly in my lifetime. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...lling-to-answer-questions-from-gop-lawmakers/ Both of the “whistleblower’s” attorneys, from the law firm “Whistleblower Aid,” are strongly objecting to efforts being made to uncover their client’s identity. Well, they certainly have good reasons for trying to keep it a secret, and these have less to do with protecting their own client than they do with furthering the Democrats’ false narrative and keeping a larger plot from being exposed. Here’s a more comprehensive update on the whole “whistleblower” story from FOX News… https://www.foxnews.com/politics/whistleblower-gop-questions-lawyer-nunes-schiff And, in an update on that story, late Sunday House Oversight Committee ranking member Jim Jordan issued a statement: “Written answers will not provide a sufficient opportunity to probe all the relevant facts and cross-examine the so-called whistleblower. You don’t get to ignite an impeachment effort and never account for your actions and role in orchestrating it. We have serious questions about this person’s political bias and partisan motivations and it seems Mark Zaid and Adam Schiff are attempting to hide these facts from public scrutiny. Last week’s testimony raised even more concerns about the anonymous whistleblower and our need to hear from them, in person.” I would add that we might also want to find out if he answers to the name of “Charlie.” https://www.foxnews.com/politics/whistleblower-gop-questions-lawyer-nunes-schiff Also, President Trump is insisting that the whistleblower give up his anonymity, as he has made false claims. Finally, if you would like just a taste of Zaid’s condescending attitude towards President Trump — and also to his supporters — here it is: Whistleblower lawyer acknowledges client had ‘contact’ with presidential candidate That’s right — in his mind, he’s “non-partisan,” and if we out “in the heartland” don’t understand this, we are just “narrow-minded.” Perhaps he’s not totally anti-Republican, but he’s as anti-Trump as they come, and against any Republican who doesn’t share his dislike for Trump. He put out a tweet saying, “Help us legally challenge this President. We’ve been litigating claims against him for 2 years FOR FREE…” This attorney even pitched to Michael Avenatti. I think that speaks for itself.
https://c-vine.com/blog/2019/11/04/...ruption-investigation-involving-hunter-biden/ John Solomon: Memos Reveal Burisma Holdings Pressed Obama State Department to Help End Corruption Investigation Involving Hunter Biden November 4, 2019 New memos reveal Burisma Holdings, Hunter Biden’s Ukrainian natural gas company pressured the Obama State Department to help end the corruption investigation during the 2016 election cycle just one month before then-Vice President Joe Biden forced Ukraine to fire Viktor Shokin, the prosecutor probing his son Hunter. Joe Biden bragged about getting Viktor Shokin fired during a 2018 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations. The media immediately covered for Biden and said his targeting of Mr. Shokin was totally unrelated to the prosecutor’s corruption investigation into Hunter and Burisma Holdings. New memos released because of a FOIA lawsuit filed by award-winning investigative reporter John Solomon show Burisma Holdings contacted the Obama State Department several times during the 2016 election to discuss ending the probe. In fact, Burisma Holdings actually name-dropped Hunter Biden when requesting help from the State Department. John Solomon reported: During that February 2016 contact, a U.S. representative for Burisma Holdings sought a meeting with Undersecretary of State Catherine A. Novelli to discuss ending the corruption allegations against the Ukrainian firm where Hunter Biden worked as a board member, according to memos obtained under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. (I filed that suit this summer with the help of the public interest law firm the Southeastern Legal Foundation.) Just three weeks before Burisma’s overture to State, Ukrainian authorities raided the home of the oligarch who owned the gas firm and employed Hunter Biden, a signal the long-running corruption probe was escalating in the middle of the U.S. presidential election. Hunter Biden’s name, in fact, was specifically invoked by the Burisma representative as a reason the State Department should help, according to a series of email exchanges among U.S. officials trying to arrange the meeting. The subject line for the email exchanges read simply “Burisma.” “Per our conversation, Karen Tramontano of Blue Star Strategies requested a meeting to discuss with U/S Novelli USG remarks alleging Burisma (Ukrainian energy company) of corruption,” a Feb. 24, 2016, email between State officials read. “She noted that two high profile U.S. citizens are affiliated with the company (including Hunter Biden as a board member). “Tramontano would like to talk with U/S Novelli about getting a better understanding of how the U.S. came to the determination that the company is corrupt,” the email added. “According to Tramontano there is no evidence of corruption, has been no hearing or process, and evidence to the contrary has not been considered.” The emails show Tramontano was scheduled to meet Novelli on March 1, 2016, and that State Department officials were scrambling to get answers ahead of time from the U.S. embassy in Kiev. The records don’t show whether the meeting actually took place. The FOIA lawsuit is ongoing and State officials are slated to produce additional records in the months ahead. Hunter Biden by some accounts was being paid over $200,000 a month sitting on the board of Burisma Holdings despite the fact that he had no experience in the field. As soon as a corruption probe was opened, daddy VP Biden came to the rescue and got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired. According to the newly released records, Hunter Biden’s fellow American board member on Burisma, Devon Archer successfully secured a meeting with then-Secretary of State John Kerry on March 2,2016. Recall, Devon Archer was also Hunter Biden’s partner-in-crime in an American firm named Rosemont Seneca. “Devon Archer coming to see S today at 3pm – need someone to meet/greet him at C Street,” an email from Kerry’s office manager reads. Hunter Biden maintains that he did nothing wrong but conceded in an interview with Good Morning America that working at Burisma was “poor judgment.” Meanwhile, Joe Biden denies there was any corruption and dismisses the handful of reporters who have confronted him about his son’s foreign dealings as ‘conspiracy theorists.’
The Guy Trump Cited as Proof There Wasn’t a Quid Pro Quo Just Said There Was a Quid Pro Quo One of the president’s biggest allies just threw him under the bus Few figures have been more entangled in the Trump administration’s plot to extort Ukraine into investigating the Bidens than Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union who was deposed by the House Intelligence Committee last month. On Tuesday, Congress released Sondland’s full testimony, along with an addendum he submitted to investigators this week. Apparently, Sondland forgot to tell Congress last month that a quid pro quo was in effect, and that the U.S. sending military aid to Ukraine was contingent upon Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky making a public declaration that the nation planned to investigate the 2016 election and the Bidens. “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,” Sondland says in his new testimony, referring to a conversation he had with Andriy Yermak, a top adviser to Zelensky. The admission is the latest piece of evidence that the Trump administration held up Congress-approved military aid to Ukraine, as well as a White House invitation for Zelensky, in an effort to convince the vulnerable nation to interfere in the 2020 election by investigating Joe Biden. Trump and his allies have falsely claimed that while Biden was vice president he sought to oust Ukraine’s former prosecutor general to stymie an investigation into a Ukrainian company on which Biden’s son Hunter sat on the board. Though no evidence of any corrupt intent exists, Trump and his allies have pushed the nation to make a public spectacle of investigating Biden’s involvement. The impeachment inquiry launched by Democrats last month is based on a whistleblower complaint that Trump may have been “using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 US election,” citing the president’s now-infamous July 25th call with Zelenksy. Trump has repeatedly claimed the call with Zelensky was “perfect” while categorically denying that any quid pro quo was in place. One of the ways Trump has done so is by citing an early-September WhatsApp exchange between Sondland and Acting Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor. After Taylor, who also testified last month as part of the impeachment inquiry, wrote to Sondland that it would be “crazy” to link the release of military aid to Ukraine’s willingness to investigate the Bidens, Sondland replied that there was “no quid pro quo of any kind.” Trump has referenced the exchange on multiple occasions to reporters and on Twitter as proof that no quid pro quo was in effect. Sondland later testified that his insistence to Taylor that no quid pro quo was in place came after a phone call with Trump, who relayed to the “no quid pro quo” messaging. It’s now clear he was only relaying the president’s messaging, not his own belief. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/gordon-sondland-testifies-quid-pro-quo-908454/
And that is irrelevant. This is relevant. Trump to Ukrainian President. I noticed a DC swamp leach hanging on the teat Burisma! It looks like a Biden! Perhaps you should investigate this leach, it could suck up many aid dollars.
Very bad day/night for Trump and the GOP. ..and even more to come. https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/469172-democrats-score-suburban-wins-in-warning-sign-for-gop
"Lock him up"! I think that I will get just as sick of hearing this chant as I am of "Lock her up". Enough talk... just do it already!
