By many accounts, Gordon Sondland delivered the most consequential testimony of the House Democrats' brief, rushed public impeachment inquiry. Sondland, U.S. ambassador to the European Union, testified before the impeachment hearings Wednesday.
He grabbed headlines with a carefully-worded opening statement which said:
“I know that members of this committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a "quid pro quo?"
“I know that members of this committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a "quid pro quo?"
As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes.”
Media reaction was instantaneous. Here was a key participant confirming a quid pro quo in the Ukraine affair -- something President Trump has long denied. Sondland's statement, many reports said, was a "bombshell." A "blockbuster."
Now, with a little hindsight, Sondland's words appear to be something very different: an attention-grabbing and enormously clever gambit to get Sondland out of a jam in which he might have been accused of lying to Congress.
Sondland had given a deposition to the committee on October 17 and had not said a word about that conversation with the president. On top of that, Sondland had already had to amend his deposition in light of other testimony.
At his deposition, Sondland said he "never" thought Trump had attached any precondition to US aid to Ukraine. Then, after others testified that Sondland had in fact told Ukrainian officials that there was such a precondition, Sondland submitted a long written revision of his depo
"Was there a quid pro quo?" he asked. "Yes."
There was more. "Everyone was in the loop," Sondland said. "It was no secret." Vice President Pence, Secretary of State Pompeo, Chief of Staff Mulvaney -- they were all involved.
There was more. "Everyone was in the loop," Sondland said. "It was no secret." Vice President Pence, Secretary of State Pompeo, Chief of Staff Mulvaney -- they were all involved.
It was great stuff. A bombshell! In an instant, the talk about Sondland lying to Congress vanished. Democrats were absolutely delighted that Sondland, once thought to be a witness friendly to the president, had given them so much good material. The media coverage went along.
Sondland's testimony was damning, it was devastating, and -- of course -- it was a "turning point" in the impeachment proceedings.
Except it wasn't. Less than an hour after Sondland delivered his opening statement, the whole thing began to fall apart.
Except it wasn't. Less than an hour after Sondland delivered his opening statement, the whole thing began to fall apart.
It started with questioning from Intel Committee chairman and impeachment leader Adam Schiff.
"You've testified that your understanding, it became a clear understanding, that the military assistance was also being withheld pending Zelensky announcing these investigations, correct?" Schiff said to Sondland.
"That was my presumption," Sondland said. "My personal presumption based on the facts at the time. Nothing was moving."
"And in fact, you had a discussion, a communication with the Secretary of State in which you said that logjam over aid could be lifted if Zelensky announced these investigations, right?" Schiff said.
"That's what you meant, right, ambassador?" Schiff said.
"That's what you meant, right, ambassador?" Schiff said.
"I -- I -- I meant that whatever was holding up the meeting, whatever was holding up our deal with Ukraine, I was trying to break," Sondland said. "Again, I was presuming."
As the hearing dragged on, Sondland's admissions of presumption multiplied.
"I made the presumption..."
"I presumed it..."
"Again, that was my presumption..."
“I've been very clear as to when I was presuming, and I was presuming..."
"I made the presumption..."
"I presumed it..."
"Again, that was my presumption..."
“I've been very clear as to when I was presuming, and I was presuming..."
"Ambassador Sondland, you honestly have used the words 'presumed,' 'presumption,' 'presuming,' some form of the verb 'to presume' repeatedly today," said GOP Rep. Brad Wenstrup.
Referring to an earlier moment when Sondland agreed that he had reached a "two plus two equals four" conclusion, Wenstrup continued: "You see, in mathematics, two plus two does equal four. But in reality, two presumptions plus two presumptions does not equal even one fact."
Mike Turner, hammered the message home. "Is that your testimony today ... that you have evidence that Donald Trump tied the investigation to aid?" Turner said. "Because I don't think you're saying that."
"I've said repeatedly, congressman, I was presuming," Sondland said.
"I've said repeatedly, congressman, I was presuming," Sondland said.
"So, you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations?"
"Other than my own presumption," said Sondland.
"Other than my own presumption," said Sondland.
By that point, Sondland's quid pro quo offering was in tatters. But it didn't really matter, at least from a media standpoint. The notion that Sondland's testimony was a bombshell quickly hardened into conventional wisdom.
"There's no question that Gordon Sondland's blockbuster testimony is still sending shock waves through Washington," @ABCNews reported. Amid all the talk of damning testimony, Democrats seemed to forget their doubts about Sondland's credibility. Sondland had delivered, big time.
