michael barbaro

From The New York Times, I’m Michael Barbaro. This is “The Daily.” Today — he was brought into the Trump administration as a loyal donor to the president. Now, his testimony in the impeachment inquiry is so damning that Republicans are accusing him of betrayal. Mike Schmidt, on the saga of Gordon Sondland. It’s Friday, November 8th. Mike, over the past week, what has been the story of the impeachment inquiry?

archived recording The first transcripts from closed door depositions at the heart of the Ukraine impeachment inquiry are out.

michael schmidt

Every day —

archived recording Next this evening, the impeachment showdown tonight — investigators releasing the first wave of transcripts.

michael schmidt

New transcripts of depositions.

archived recording Former Ukrainian ambassador Marie Yovanovitch describing a shadow campaign to oust —

michael schmidt

That were conducted with witnesses.

archived recording The transcripts from State Department official George Kent —

michael schmidt

— behind closed doors in the basement of the Capitol have been released.

archived recording At the Capitol, the impeachment battle, for now, is on paper. But no less intense, as today, committees released transcripts of two key witnesses.

michael schmidt

These are the State Department and National Security Council officials who have been interviewed by the members of Congress in the impeachment investigation.

archived recording The room that the recent parade of witnesses has been testifying in is called a SCIF — for sensitive, compartmented information facility.

michael schmidt

The interviews were done in a SCIF, this special secured room where classified information can be discussed.

archived recording It should be a sanctuary where politics stops at the door.

michael schmidt

And we’ve only known some of what’s gone on in there. Some of the witnesses released short statements before they went in, and we got some dribs and drabs afterwards about what was said. But these transcripts provide the entire dialogue of what went on behind closed doors.

archived recording Republican lawmakers are demanding to see the transcripts of interviews conducted by House investigators. The impeachment —

michael schmidt

Right. And this is what Republicans said all along that they wanted to be released. Republicans had complained that this process had no transparency, and they wanted the transcripts out there.

archived recording Now, the public will get to read their testimony.

michael schmidt

So almost all the transcripts were verbatim logs of what had gone on in these interviews.

archived recording House Democrats have released two more transcripts from closed door testimony in the impeachment inquiry into President Trump.

michael schmidt

Telling the back and forth that went on between the members of Congress and the witnesses.

archived recording U.S. ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, and former U.S. special envoy to Ukraine, Kurt Volker, are considered some of the most crucial witnesses to testify so far.

michael schmidt

But when the transcripts were released, one of them had something different attached to it.

archived recording In the 739 pages released today, Sondland revised a critical piece of his testimony.

michael schmidt

Tacked on to the testimony of the ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland.

archived recording This is the full of Sondland’s testimony — That’s your day today. This is our day today — part of it. But of this, it’s really these few pages that we’re talking about — his revision.

michael schmidt

Was a letter, and a three page addendum that revised what he had said in his interview — things that he wished he had initially laid out. And they turned out to include new evidence about how the Trump administration was directly pressuring the Ukrainians.

michael barbaro

So Mike, I want to get to Sondland’s testimony, but I want to start with Sondland himself — whose name we have heard a lot over the past few weeks, but who we’ve never really gotten to know all that well. What is his story exactly? And how does he fit in to the story of the Trump administration and Ukraine?

archived recording But for now, let’s bring Gordon up and welcome him to the stage! Thanks, Gordon.

michael schmidt

Gordon Sondland is a middle of the road Republican.

^archived recording^ (gordon sondland)

Well, I started in Seattle as a commercial real estate broker. I know there are quite a few out here this morning that I recognize.

michael schmidt

Who built massive hotel management and commercial real estate businesses in the upper Northwest.

archived recording Well, what do you love about it?

^archived recording^ (gordon sondland)

A hotel has so many moving parts. You have food, you have wine, you have intrigue. You have sex, you have everything you can — you have everything you can think of in the hotel business.

michael schmidt

His company ran and bought and refurbished boutique hotels in cities like Portland, and Seattle, and Denver.

^archived recording^ (gordon sondland)

It’s sort of show business and real estate and theater all combined. And that’s what makes it so interesting.

archived recording Well, jeez, when you talk about it like that, it does sound really exciting.

michael schmidt

So as he becomes this successful businessman, he becomes more and more interested in politics, and begins dabbling as a fundraiser. He helps raise money for George W. Bush, for Mitt Romney, and is following a familiar path of wealthy donors who ingratiate themselves with politicians in the hopes of getting plum jobs if they’re elected. But because of circumstances in his own life, and his involvement in his business, he doesn’t have a chance to do that until Donald Trump is elected president.

michael barbaro

And what is his relationship with President Trump?

michael schmidt

They had no relationship. Sondland had not even been a big champion of Trump’s during the campaign, but after Trump was elected, Sondland gave $1 million to his inaugural fund.

michael barbaro

That’s a very significant sum of money.

michael schmidt

And a very good way to get on Donald Trump’s radar. And by March of 2018, he’s appointed —

^archived recording^ (gordon sondland)

Hi, I’m Gordon Sondland, the new ambassador to the European Union.

michael schmidt

— and that June, with bipartisan support, he’s confirmed as the ambassador and heads off to Brussels.

^archived recording^ (gordon sondland)

I’m very excited about being President Trump’s election to be the United States Ambassador to the European Union.

michael schmidt

Being ambassador to the European Union, while sounding lofty, is often a job that doesn’t get a lot of attention. It’s a plum assignment.

^archived recording^ (gordon sondland)

One of my most favorite hobbies is flying.

michael schmidt

You’re living in Brussels —

^archived recording^ (gordon sondland)

I’m also a lover of art.

michael schmidt

You’re meeting with heads of state, but in terms of American foreign policy, you’re certainly not the face of it.

michael barbaro

Right.

michael schmidt

Think more dinner parties than signing national trade agreements.

^archived recording^ (gordon sondland)

President Trump has asked us to accomplish a great deal in the coming years. I hope to get to meet many of you in person.

michael schmidt

In normal circumstances, he would have faded into the background of the State Department, and been just another donor who became a top diplomat.

^archived recording^ (gordon sondland)

And I look forward to it.

michael schmidt

But then, something else happened.

michael barbaro

Which is what?

michael schmidt

He gets roped in to the administration’s policy towards Ukraine. When Sondland sat down for his first briefing in Brussels, the career State Department officials started talking about Ukraine. And he says, why are you talking about Ukraine? It’s not even in the European Union. And they said, no, no, no. You don’t understand. Ukraine is where the fight for Europe is going on. Russia has moved in and we need to be there to support them, because if we’re not, there could be impact throughout the rest of the continent. So with that, he finds himself involved and becoming schooled in the politics of a country outside the European Union.

michael barbaro

So what happens?

michael schmidt

So he’s heading along as the ambassador, with Ukraine in his portfolio, and —

archived recording Good morning, Ukraine. Today, on the 20th of May —

michael schmidt

He’s dispatched in May.

archived recording Ukraine is having a very important day.

michael schmidt

To go to the inauguration of the new Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky.

archived recording Distinguished MPs and guests of the Parliament —

michael schmidt

He and the special envoy to Ukraine, Kurt Volker, and the energy secretary, Rick Perry —

archived recording Please welcome the president-elect, Volodymyr Zelensky.

michael schmidt

— come back super pumped about Zelensky. They think he’s a reformer who’s willing to fight corruption. And the United States should be there to help him, to help repel the Russians. And make sure that he doesn’t turn to Russia for help. And Sondland and these two other diplomats go in to meet with Trump in June to tell the president about how great this new president is, and how the United States needs to do everything it can to help.

michael barbaro

And what happens in that meeting?

michael schmidt

Trump goes nuts.

michael barbaro

Why?

michael schmidt

He blames the Ukrainians for the problems he’s had coming out of the 2016 election. He starts talking about conspiracy theories, that they were actually the ones behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee. And he tells the officials, whatever you want to do with Ukraine, you’ve gotta go talk to my personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani.

michael barbaro

And how does he respond to that suggestion, that Giuliani should guide him on this?

michael schmidt

Sondland’s thrown off by this. He’s bothered. Why is it that American foreign policy should be run through the President’s personal lawyer? And we know this, because Sondland went into details on it during his testimony. He said, our view was that the men and women of the State Department, not the president’s personal lawyer, should take responsibility for all aspects of U.S. foreign policy towards Ukraine. However, based on the president’s direction, we were faced with a choice. Sondland’s essentially saying, we had to make a decision. We could either try and stop doing business with Ukraine, and leave this new president to fend for himself as Russia bears down, or we could do as President Trump directed and talk to Mr. Giuliani to address the president’s concerns. And Sondland says they chose the path of working with Giuliani.

michael barbaro

And what does that end up meaning for Sondland, to have to accede to this directive to work with Giuliani on Ukraine?

michael schmidt

At first, it seems unusual to Sondland. And it progressively gets worse. Giuliani initially wants to have the Ukrainians put out a statement committing to anti-corruption investigations. OK, Sondland says. That makes sense. The United States has long fought corruption in Ukraine. But then Giuliani starts coming up with specifics that he wants in the statement. Giuliani wants the Ukrainians to commit to investigating a company that Sondland has never really heard of, and whether the Ukrainians had a role in pushing the theory that Russia was behind the hacking of the 2016 election.

michael barbaro

So these are requests that we’ve now come to understand, are for Ukraine to do two investigations that the president and Giuliani want. The first is into this company that Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, sits on the board of. And the second involves the role that Ukraine may or may not have played in 2016 election meddling.

michael schmidt

Correct. So again, Sondland faces a choice. He can walk away, or work around these weird barriers that have emerged from the president and his personal lawyer, who he believes are standing in the way of good U.S.-Ukranian relations. And once again, he tries to pacify Giuliani and get the Ukrainians to do what he wants.

michael barbaro

And what, in Sondland’s mind, would be an explanation for why it’s worth making all of these compromises, and to do what Giuliani wants? It sounds like he understands this is a pretty funky scenario.

michael schmidt

It’s a situation that many Trump officials have found themselves in. If I’m not here, who will be here to stop even worse behavior? And Sondland has a case of that in his own head. If I don’t stand in the way and sort of help get this to a decent place, then Giuliani will have free reign to do whatever he wants with the United States in Ukraine.

michael barbaro

And so what does working within the system starts to look like for Sondland?

michael schmidt

Sondland and Volker go to work trying to get the Ukrainians to put out the statement Giuliani wants. It bothers Sondland, but he continues to do it. The summer goes on, Trump has his now infamous call with Zelensky. Trump orders military aid to Ukraine to be held up. Sondland becomes aware that the military aid is frozen. Some of his colleagues at the State Department reach out directly to Sondland to ask, hey, what’s going on here. Sondland picks up the phone and calls Trump. And Trump tells him, in an angry tone, there’s no quid pro quo on the aid.

michael barbaro

And by all accounts, does it sound like Sondland believes President Trump?

michael schmidt

In his initial testimony, yes. A Republican investigator for the committee asked him, to the best of your knowledge, do you know about any preconditions on the aid? No, Sondland said. And you have never thought there was a precondition to the aid, is that correct? Never — no, Sondland said. I mean, I was dismayed when it was held up, but I didn’t know why. So Sondland is being crystal clear here that he did not think the aid and the investigations were linked.

michael barbaro

So Mike, the story that Gordon Sondland tells the impression investigators in his original testimony is, look, I don’t like a lot of what I see and hear. But let me be entirely unambiguous. When it comes to the central question of whether the U.S. withheld military aid to Ukraine in order to get these investigations done by Ukraine, I didn’t know anything about that. As far as I’m concerned, that didn’t happen.

michael schmidt

Correct. And that testimony was in complete contradiction with all the other witnesses who had been questioned.

michael barbaro

Which makes Gordon Sondland a very powerful counterargument to everything else that’s being said to impeachment investigators, and an incredibly important figure to Republicans in Congress.

michael schmidt

The biggest question about the entire Ukraine scandal has been whether there was a quid pro quo on the military aid.

^archived recording^ (donald trump)

Quid pro quo. Quid pro quo. Quid pro quo.

michael schmidt

The president seems to talk about it every day.

^archived recording^ (donald trump)

Now, all of a sudden, quid pro quo doesn’t matter — because now they see, in the call, there was no quid pro quo.

michael schmidt

He says there was no quid pro quo.

^archived recording^ (donald trump)

So that was a perfectly fine call. There was no pressure. There was no anything.

michael schmidt

Said it was a perfect call.

^archived recording^ (donald trump)

The whistleblower said quid pro quo eight times. It was a little off — no times.

michael schmidt

It is his top talking point on why he should not be impeached and removed from office. And here’s someone directly involved in it backing up that notion, and saying that he talked to Trump in the middle of all of this. And he said there was no quid pro quo.

michael barbaro

Right.

michael schmidt

So how are you going to convict Trump if he said that? And that is the story that starts to unravel when Gordon Sondland adds three new pages to his testimony this week.

michael barbaro

We’ll be right back. Mike, what does Gordon Sondland reveal in these three new pages of testimony?

michael schmidt

He lays out how, in early September, when Trump was holding up the aid, Sondland went to a top Ukrainian official and told him that if they wanted the aid unfrozen, they would likely need to put out the statement committing to the investigations Trump wanted. What he’s saying is, the question of the quid pro quo, that thing in my testimony that I said I didn’t think happened — actually, I was the guy who communicated it to the Ukrainians.

michael barbaro

That is as big a revision to testimony as I think I’ve ever heard. He’s now saying that the thing I told you I had no knowledge of, actually, I did have knowledge of it — so much knowledge of it that I was the person who communicated it to the Ukrainian government.

michael schmidt

Correct.

michael barbaro

I mean, what could possibly be his explanation for somehow not remembering that during the first testimony?

michael schmidt

What he says is that in reading the statements that other witnesses have provided, it’s freshened up his memory of what occurred.

michael barbaro

He’s saying, I’m re-remembering things that I had previously forgotten.

michael schmidt

Correct. I mean, look, he’s basically saying on one day, I said the color was blue, and now I’m saying the color was red. I mean, they’re directly in conflict with each other.

michael barbaro

Mike, how can a witness who delivers sworn testimony before the United States Congress say one thing — and then to suddenly add on a new bit of testimony that completely alters, undermines, contradicts the previous thing he said, still under oath?

michael schmidt

Well, who knows what will happen out of this, but what Sondland is doing is giving the Democrats testimony that they need. They want to have a witness who is not just a career diplomat, but someone who was interacting with the president, testifying to the quid pro quo. So the Democrats were more than happy to take that statement.

michael barbaro

And the fact that he is so senior, that he has a relationship with the president, that he speaks with the president and was appointed by the president — it seems like that is important as a factor.

michael schmidt

Yes. One of the weaknesses of the Democrats’ impeachment case is that they do not have a lot of witnesses who directly spoke with the president. Sondland is one of them. They now have his testimony. They do not have Sondland saying Trump explicitly said this was a quid pro quo. In fact, they have the opposite. But they do have Sondland laying out his own role in it. And being someone that was so close to the president, that’s a compelling piece of evidence.

michael barbaro

I guess there’s one element of this that is a bit confusing. Sondland testifies that he spoke with President Trump, and that the president said to him there was no quid pro quo. And that’s a very powerful exchange. Now, he’s testifying that he understood there was a quid pro quo, and that he communicated it to Ukraine. It’s as if he’s saying, I was told by the president that something wasn’t, but I understood it to be anyway. So how exactly does that work?

michael schmidt

Well, what Sondland is essentially saying is that he didn’t believe the president, that the president lied to him.

michael barbaro

Mike, this would seem to be, correct me if I’m wrong, the most damning testimony so far. So I wonder what you made of it when you read this addendum to Sondland testimony?

michael schmidt

What did I make of i?

michael barbaro

Mhm.

michael schmidt

I thought, OK, this is interesting new stuff it gives us a fuller picture. You now have a witness implicating themselves in this problem. It’s damning, and it comes from someone close to the president. But I thought it comes with some warts on it. If enough Republicans are going to turn on the president, the Democrats are probably going to need more. They’re going to need more evidence that directly ties Trump to the quid pro quo.

michael barbaro

What exactly do you mean? Because here is a Trump appointee saying I delivered a message of a quid pro quo at the direction of the president’s personal lawyer, and of the administration.

michael schmidt

But Trump can still blame it on Giuliani. Giuliani was freelancing. Sondland was just doing what Giuliani told him. I didn’t tell him to do that. I, in fact, told Sondland there was no quid pro quo. Let’s put Sondland up on to testify, and let’s have him say, yeah, the president told me explicitly, I don’t think there’s a quid pro quo. So how you going to prove that? The second thing is that Sondland has changed his story. And if and when he’s called at a public hearing, how does this undermine his credibility? The Republicans will be able to say to him, hey, on one day you said this thing, on the next day you said that. Why should we believe you? You’re just saying this because you don’t want the Democrats to send a referral to the Department of Justice to investigate you for perjury .

michael barbaro

So you’re saying you do not think that for Republicans in the House — or crucially, in the Senate, where the presidency itself will be debated in a trial, if he’s impeached in the House — that this and everything else around it is going to be sufficient.

michael schmidt

I think the impeachment story is fairly simple. It all comes down to a few dozen Republicans in the Senate, and will there be enough public pressure or evidence to move them against Trump? When I looked at this statement, I said, that’s not good for the president. This gives us a fuller understanding of what occurred. But I’m not sure that it turns those Republicans.

michael barbaro

Because of those warts — so-called warts that you just described.

michael schmidt

Because of those warts and because it only gets you so far on Trump.

michael barbaro

You mean, for some Republicans in the Congress, the only thing that will make a difference, that could change their minds on this question of impeachment, is whether the president himself directly sought and communicated this quid pro quo.

michael schmidt

Possibly, but I don’t think that Gordon Sondland gets you there. I don’t think Gordon Sondland is powerful enough himself to change the minds of Republican Senators who come from red states where the president is more popular than they are.

michael barbaro

Mike, I’m curious. What’s happening right now to Gordon Sondland? Is he still the E.U. ambassador, and what is his status?

michael schmidt

He’s now felt the wrath of the right and the president’s supporters.

archived recording No quid pro quo is proven in that statement. I actually thought the transcript releases, and even what he thought he was supplementing there, proved nothing yesterday.

michael schmidt

The White House has attacked his own credibility.

^archived recording^ (lindsey graham)

That statement is full of crap. Now, here’s a question. Why did Sondland change his testimony? Was there a connection between Sondland and Democratic operatives on the committee?

michael schmidt

Lindsey Graham, the senator from South Carolina, went on Fox News last night to attack him.

^archived recording^ (donald trump)

Did he talk to Schiff? Did he talk it to Schiff’s staffers? I’ve been a lawyer for a very long time. And when somebody changes their testimony, they suddenly recall something they didn’t know before, it makes me incredibly, incredibly suspicious.

michael schmidt

So Sondland finds himself in this pretty unpleasant position of still working for Trump, still being his top person dealing with Europe, but also being attacked by the president’s party, and his allies, and the White House, and having to do his day job amid all of this. You kind of have to wonder whether he regrets giving that million dollars.

michael barbaro

Thank you, Mike.

michael schmidt

Thanks for having me.

michael barbaro