Gordon Sondland, ambassador to the European Union, said some things Wednesday that the media have been wanting to hear, so reports on his congressional testimony will invariably describe it as “EXPLOSIVE.”
But actually, his testimony has thus far been nonsensical and has even contradicted previous witnesses who clearly don’t like President Trump.
Sondland testified that there was certainly a quid pro quo involved in Trump’s decision to delay military aid to Ukraine. But he also said that despite having a direct line of communication to the president, he was never told anything by Trump that explicitly linked the aid to any political favors from Ukraine. What he recalled Trump saying was that there was “no quid pro quo” and that he merely wanted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to “do the right thing.”
He also testified that “everyone” was “in the loop” with regards to what Trump was hoping to achieve in his dealings with Zelensky. Almost every previous witness, however, has testified that they were, at best, confused about what was happening with the aid and why Trump was so concerned with Ukraine and its interference in the 2016 election.
Sondland himself said that he didn’t understand what was happening along the way. He recalled never being able to get a “straight answer” about why aid for Ukraine was being held up by the White House. The only thing some of the witnesses said they understood was that Trump wanted Zelensky to investigate Biden, which would, in turn, politically wound the former vice president heading into the 2020 election.
Sondland also said it was his understanding that Trump wanted Zelensky to announce investigations into Biden and Ukraine’s role in 2016 but that it didn’t matter whether any such investigations took place. But Sondland further testified that Trump wanted the announcement to be made public because it would put Zelensky “in a public box,” thus making the commitment more “accountable.”
OK, if it didn’t matter to Trump whether the investigations actually happened, what is there to hold to account?
Sondland isn’t a good witness. But he’s willing to say “quid pro quo,” so the media will undoubtedly pretend that he is.
