November 20, 2019

Impeachment Circus - Today's Bombshell Is Another Dud

The impeachment circus continued today with a refreshingly candid opening statement from Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the EU. Sondland was involved in diplomatic efforts in Ukraine. Instead of stonewalling Sondland just let it all out:

Gordon D. Sondland testified that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo signed off on the pressure campaign, and that he told Vice President Mike Pence about an apparent link between military aid for Ukraine and investigations of Democrats. Mr. Sondland confirmed there was a “clear quid pro quo” for a White House meeting between President Trump and Ukraine’s president.

The anti-Trump media see this as another "bombshell" that will hurt him.

But it is more likely that Sondland's testimony will help President Trump and those involved on his side.

The President of the United States thought it to be in the interest of the United States to press Ukraine's government into publicly announcing investigations into two issues:

The successful meddling by Ukrainian officials in the 2016 U.S. election.

The evident intervention by then Vice President Biden into Ukrainian politics to the benefit of the owner of a company that paid his son more than $50,000 per month.

Sondland and other U.S. officials were negotiating with the Ukrainians about these demands. There were two potential points that they could use to pressure the Ukrainians into announcing investigations:

The Ukrainian request for a visit by President Zelensky to the White House.

The Ukrainian desire to receive military aid that Congress had allocated for that purpose.

It is not clear at all that Trump wanted those issues to be used to pressure Ukraine. Trump never told Sondland that these issues were connected:

Aaron Maté @aaronjmate - 15:58 UTC · Nov 20, 2019 Sondland's testimony is not as damning as it's being portrayed. He says Trump never told him that money for US weapons ("security assistance") was conditioned on investigations. Sondland says that such a condition is what he came to believe based on his own inference.

His interpretation may well be correct (I'd bet it was). But his own interpretation is not direct evidence -- it's an interpretation. Given he's the star witness who spoke to Trump -- & he says Trump never even mentioned "security assistance" -- it's actually an evidentiary hole.

Sondland: "I've never heard from Trump that the aid was conditioned on the investigations." Also says Trump never mentioned “security assistance.” This is the star witness who spoke to Trump, & who relayed conditions to Ukraine — which he now says was based on his interpretation.

Sondland: “President Trump never told me directly that the aid was conditioned on the meetings. The only thing we got directly from Guiliani was that the Burisma and 2016 elections were conditioned on the White House meeting. The aid was my own personal, you know, guess.”

The negotiators, including Sondland, presumed that the demands and pressure points were linked. But Trump had never said so.

The negotiations around the Ukraine issues were going slow. It was not clear to the negotiators what Trump actually wanted. Sondland said that at one point he called up Trump and asked an open questions: "What do you want from Ukraine?".

According to Sondland Trump responded: "I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing."

Trump is a crook. It is fair to presume that he wanted his aides to use all potential pressure points to deliver the desired results from the Ukrainians. But Trump is also a smart enough crook to never say that.

Today he read the above quote from Sondland's testimony to the press. Some photographer took a picture of his notes.

Zelensky got the meeting with Trump, though it was in New York not in the White House. The Ukraine received the military aid. The Ukrainians never announced an investigation into the election interference or into the Biden affair.

It will be difficult for the Democrats to claim that Trump wanted a quid pro quo or wanted to bribe the Ukrainians when, according to one of there main witnesses, Trump said the opposite. Not only that - Trump did not get what it is claimed what he wanted while the Ukraine got everything that it had asked for.

And this was not even the last line of Trump's defenses.

For two years the Democrats insisted on investigating alleged Russian interference in the U.S. election. What is wrong with Trump requesting an investigation into well documented Ukrainian interference?

Ukrainian corruption has been a concern of several administrations. What is wrong with Trump asking the Ukrainians to investigate a well known case that may have involved U.S. officials?

The U.S. is not a welfare organization. Official political White House meetings with the president are only granted if the U.S. hopes that it is to its advantage. Aid or loans are only granted by the U.S. when it is to its own advantage. The granting or withholding of such items are part of most international deals, as are threats. They are part of political deals between nations, not personal bribery.

It is beyond me why the Democrats think they can bring Trump down over this.

Posted by b on November 20, 2019 at 20:08 UTC | Permalink

Comments

next page »