Posted on 11/20/2019 7:27:46 AM PST by pilgrim
“At all times, I was acting in good faith,” Ambassador to the E.U. Gordon Sondland told Congress in his opening statement at Wednesday’s hearing of the House intelligence committee:
“As a presidential appointee, I followed the directions of the president. We worked with Mr. Giuliani because the President directed us to do so. We had no desire to set any conditions on the Ukrainians.”
But Giuliani did set conditions, Sondland said in his statement.
On the question, was there a quid pro quo? Sondland answered, “yes.”
“As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes.”
Sondland said Giuliani told Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Ambassador Kurt Volker and others “that President Trump wanted a public statement from President Zelensky committing to investigations of Burisma and the 2016 election.
“Mr. Giuliani expressed those requests directly to the Ukrainians. Mr. Giuliani also expressed those requests directly to us. We all understood that these prerequisites for the White House call and White House meeting reflected President Trump’s desires and requirements.”
Sondland said his personal view, which he “shared repeatedly with others,” was that the White House meeting and military assistance should have proceeded without preconditions.
“Our only interest was to advance longstanding U.S. policy and to support Ukraine’s fragile democracy.” Sondland said he learned “in July and August” that the White House had suspended security aid to Ukraine:
“I was adamantly opposed to any suspension of aid,” he said. “I tried diligently to ask why the aid was suspended, but I never received a clear answer. In the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I later came to believe that the resumption of security aid would not occur until there was a public statement from Ukraine committing to the investigations of the 2016 election and Burisma, as Mr. Giuliani had demanded.
“I shared concerns of the potential quid pro quo regarding the security aid with Senator Ron Johnson. And I also shared my concerns with the Ukrainians,” Sondland said.
Sondland also described President Trump’s skepticism toward Ukraine: “He expressed concerns that the Ukrainian government was not serious about reform. He even mentioned that Ukraine tried to take him down in the last election.”
Sondland confirmed he made a call to President Trump from a Kiev restaurant on July 26.
“I remember I was at a restaurant in Kiev, and I have no reason to doubt that this conversation included the subject of investigations.”
Sondland said he knew that investigations were “important to President Trump.”
However, Sondland said he has no recollection of discussing the Bidens on that phone call. He did not dispute other witness accounts of the call, which Trump said he does not remember.
“I know nothing about that,” Trump told a news conference on Nov. 13.
But, but, but it was against a potential political opponent, ‘doncha know’! LOL!
Nothing wrong!!!!!!!!!
Kabuki theater!
Sondland swings both ways———ya never know with this guy.
Sondland was known for telling others “he was in charge of Ukraine” despite being the U.S. envoy in Brussels, Hill testified.
“And I asked him, on whose authority?” said Hill. “And he said, the president.” (hat tip Fox News)
NOTE: Trump campaign officials have noted that several Democrat witnesses appeared to suggest that they were in charge of Ukraine policy, not the president.
lol
I don’t even own pearls :)
OK OK I’ll take an extra xanax and i’ll be good for the day.
You have COMPLETELY BLIND FAITH in Rs.
The truth falls somewhere between the both of us.
Closing your eyes to reality doesn’t help either.
And Epstein didn’t kill himself.
But then, a murder of the most important witness in FOREVER in the COUNTRY could NEVER happen.
ciao!
lol
I don’t even own pearls :)
OK OK I’ll take an extra xanax and i’ll be good for the day.
You have COMPLETELY BLIND FAITH in Rs.
The truth falls somewhere between the both of us.
Closing your eyes to reality doesn’t help either.
And Epstein didn’t kill himself.
But then, a murder of the most important witness in FOREVER in the COUNTRY could NEVER happen.
ciao!
WHAT?!?!?!?!
So let me get this straight: They want Trump impeached for doing what Biden did - which Trump didn’t do - yet they are OK with Biden becoming POTUS
Bingo.
And if that overt act of using dollars is deemed acceptable, and in this case its all about checking out whether the guy will carry out a signed agreement between the countries ( Clinton era) still in effect its a crime....
Trump was simply vetting the guy to see if he could be trusted to follow through, like he does, on campaign promises....
Wow what a stretch even the MSM will have a hard time covering up the illogical scenario they are setting up
I get the feeling that if one of these ambASSadors was in Mexico and they wanted Texas back, they would say well, it was our in our interest to support Mexico’s desire to extend back into Texas so they would begin the process of converting the country to democracy.
Prove it. Just saying it isn’t enough.
Oh no, he wasn’t in charge! Little pom-pass vindman was, just ask. In fact you need not ask. He will just tell you!
Senate rules. After the conviction vote, there is a separate vote on barring the accused from holding future office. It was always meant to be implemented after a conviction, but nothing says they cannot twist it to apply now.
I hope you are right. The other thing that might help is Trump did not directly state he wanted a quid pro quo to Sondland. But, it sure seems that Sondland is making this a difficult morning.
Have at it! You seem to enjoy this type of sh*t!
The Dems and Fake News play you and others like a fiddle!
Another Nothing Burger!
Wow.
No, President Trump.8>)
Why, mr never trumper, is this HEARSAY and opinion based rhetoric so damning?
i sure hope there WAS a ‘quid pro quo’
getting the Ukrainians to help investigate the Biden bribery crimes was exactly what a USA president should have done
and perfectly legal, too, indeed one could easily argue that failing to do this would have been deriliction of duty
(except of course that it was not necessary and so PDJT did not do it, in fact...but if he had he would be worthy of praise for doing his job well)
https://twitter.com/realsaavedra/status/1197181953218248706?s=21
I guess I don’t understand the language this guy is speaking.
As I said weeks ago, quid pro quo obviously occurred, it’s easy to prove and I’m surprised Trump and allies ever denied it.
The real issue is motive for the quid pro quo.
Was it done in pursuit of criminal justice, or to dig political dirt? That is the battlefield.
Trump had reasonable belief a US crime had been committed in Ukraine by a US citizen. That meets the threshold under US law to open an investigation. And makes the request to Ukraine not only legal, but required by treaty.
He did not want ‘quid pro quo’
before or after
he wanted ‘quid pro quo’?
Or vice versa or versa vice?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.