Sondland spins a differing tale

Trump’s impeachment hearing heats up as ambassador’s account contradicts other people’s testimonies, writes Eric Tucker

The witnesses who have testified publicly and privately in the House impeachment inquiry so far have generally told a consistent tale. Then there’s Gordon Sondland. The US ambassador to the European Union has said he cannot recall many of the episodes involving him that other witnesses have recounted in vivid and colourful detail. And the conversations he said he does recall, he sometimes remembers in materially different ways.

Those discrepancies matter because they concern some of the most pivotal meetings and conversations in the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump’s dealings with Ukraine.

Mr Sondland will almost certainly be pressed on those inconsistencies, as well as a newly revealed conversation he is said to have had last July with Mr Trump, when he testifies before impeachment investigators.

A look at how Mr Sondland’s account differs from that of other witnesses:

ON RELATIONS WITH MULVANEY THEM: Multiple witnesses describe a cosy relationship between Mr Sondland and the White House acting chief of staff.

Lt Col Alexander Vindman, a National Security Council official, says Mr Sondland cited a discussion with Mr Mulvaney when pushing Ukrainian officials to open the investigations that Mr Trump wanted into the 2016 US presidential election and into political rival Joe Biden.

Fiona Hill, another White House national security official, says Mr Sondland repeatedly talked of meetings with Mr Mulvaney.

In a further link between the two men, she quoted the then-national security adviser, John Bolton, as saying he didn’t want to be part of “whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up”.

HIM: Mr Sondland suggests he knows Mr Mulvaney well enough to wave and say hello — and that’s about it.

He says he may have spoken to him once or twice on the phone, but not about Ukraine. He doesn’t recall any sit-down meeting with him on Ukraine or any other subject. Mr Mulvaney, he says, was “almost impossible to get a hold of”, rarely responding to messages.

ABOUT THAT QUID PRO QUO THEM: William Taylor, the acting ambassador in Ukraine, told lawmakers that Mr Sondland said that “everything” — a White House visit for Ukraine’s new leader and the release of military aid to the former Soviet republic — was contingent on a public announcement of investigations into the 2016 election and into Burisma, the Ukraine gas company on whose board Hunter Biden sat.

HIM: This is where things get complicated.

In his closed-door testimony, Mr Sondland stated that he wouldn’t have withheld military aid for any reason.

Not only that, he said he didn’t recall any conversations with the White House about withholding military assistance in return for Ukraine helping with Mr Trump’s political campaign.

Even then, though, he left himself some wiggle room, saying a text message he sent to Taylor reassuring him that there was no quid pro was simply what he had heard from Mr Trump.

Weeks later, after testimony from Mr Taylor and National Security Council official Tim Morrison placed him at the centre of key discussions, Mr Sondland revised his account in an extraordinary way. He said he now could recall a September conversation in which he told an aide to Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelenskiy that military aid likely would not occur until Ukraine made public announcements about corruption investigations.

ON HIS ROLE IN UKRAINE POLICY THEM: Ms Hill describes a “blowup” with Mr Sondland in June when he asserted he was in charge of the administration’s Ukraine policy. Irritated and shocked, she said she responded,

“You’re not. And I said, ‘Who has said you’re in charge of Ukraine, Gordon?’” Ms Hill said. “And he said, ‘the President’. Well, that shut me up, because you can’t really argue with that.” HIM: Mr Sondland says he doesn’t telling any State Department or national security official that he was acting on the president’s authority, or that the president had placed him in charge of Ukraine.

“I don’t recall. I may have; I may not have. Again, I don’t recall,” Mr Sondland says.

Besides, he says now that he viewed his role as one of support rather than leadership.

ON PIVOTAL JULY 10 MEETINGS THEM: Testimony from multiple witnesses centred on a pair of pivotal, sometimes tense, meetings at the White House on July 10 involving combinations of US and Ukrainian leaders.

Several of those present say Mr Sondland, on that day, explicitly connected a coveted White House visit to the country’s public announcement of corruption investigations. It was something he just “blurted out”, Ms Hill said, recalling him saying: “Well, we have an agreement with the chief of staff for a meeting if these investigations in the energy sector start.’’

Lt Col Vindman, too, remembers Mr Sondland saying that day that the Ukrainians would have to deliver an investigation into the Bidens.

HIM: Mr Sondland tells a different version of the day. He said he doesn’t recall mentioning Ukraine investigations or Burisma. The only conflict he describes from that day is a disagreement on whether to promptly schedule a call between Mr Trump and Mr Zelenskiy. He was in favour.

ON RELATIONS WITH HIS PEERS THEM: Ms Hill recalls scolding Mr Sondland face-to-face after the July 10 meetings, reminding him of the need for proper procedures and the role of the National Security Council. She says Mr Bolton “stiffened” when Mr Sondland brought up investigations in front of the Ukrainian officials and immediately ended the meeting.

Lt Col Vindman, too, said he made clear to Mr Sondland his comments were inappropriate “and that we were not going to get involved in investigations’.’

HIM: Mr Sondland doesn’t recall a cross word from Ms Hill, Mr Bolton or anyone else about his Ukraine work.

In fact, he says, Mr Bolton signed off on the whole Ukraine strategy. “Indeed, over the spring and summer of 2019, I received nothing but cordial responses from Ambassador Bolton and Dr Hill. Nothing was ever raised to me about any concerns regarding our Ukrainian policy.’’ As Ms Hill was leaving her post in government, he recalled, she gave him a big hug and told him to keep in touch.

ON ADVICE HE MAY HAVE GIVEN THEM: Marie Yovanovitch, who was recalled last spring as the US ambassador to Ukraine, told lawmakers both in a closed-door deposition and again at a hearing last week that she went to Mr Sondland for advice when she faced public attacks from the president’s oldest son and conservative media figures.

She said Mr Sondland encouraged her to tweet in support of Mr Trump, thinking that might help the problem.

“He suggested that I needed to go big or go home, and he said that the best thing to do would be to, you know, send out a tweet, praise the president, that sort of thing,” Ms Yovanovitch said on Friday.

She said she assumed he meant well but that doing so would be too partisan and political.

HIM: Mr Sondland said “I honestly don’t recall” when asked about that exchange and couldn’t recall any conversation he’d ever had with Yovanovitch about her career.

When asked if he’d be surprised if someone else had said that he did that, Mr Sondland replied, “Probably, yeah.”

‘‘ I don’t recall. I may have; I may not have. GORDON SONDLAND

US AMBASSADOR TO THE EU