A ‘star witness’ faces questions about credibility
Challenges and opportunities face each of the 10 presidential candidates who earned a spot
WASHINGTON — When Gordon Sondland enters the ornate House hearing room for televised testimony on Wednesday morning, he’ll be something of a jump ball in the contest between Republicans and Democrats to control narratives of the Ukraine case — a witness who could provide crucial testimony for either side, but whom both regard with suspicion.
A former big-dollar donor to Republicans rewarded with a plum ambassadorship, Sondland says he told the Ukrainians that U.S. foreign aid and a White House meeting with the president were contingent on conducting investigations into the Biden family.
And unlike other witnesses in the impeachment case, Sondland had direct conversations with President Trump about relations with Ukraine, making him a key witness.
But Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union, has already had to change the story he presented to impeachment investigators — the result of reading other witnesses’ opening statements, which he said had “refreshed [his] recollection.”
That has made Sondland potentially not only one of the most important witnesses, but also one of the least credible — a perilous combination. His testimony could bolster the Democratic case or give Republicans an opening to undercut it.
“This impeachment inquiry will come down to [Wednesday], regardless of
which side you’re on, pro-impeachment or not,” Republican Rep. Mark Meadows of North Carolina said Tuesday. “His interactions were probably the ones that were closest to the president.”
Neither party is ready in advance to declare Sondland untrustworthy: Both hope his testimony will help their side. That could change significantly based on what he says publicly. Lawmakers in both parties are prepping exacting questions.
A central issue in the impeachment inquiry is the extent to which Trump knowingly was involved in efforts to pressure the Ukrainians to investigate Joe Biden and other Democrats.
Sondland’s testimony is key on that point. If he strengthens the link to Trump and comes across as trustworthy, public support for the impeachment inquiry could increase. Conversely, if doubts linger around his truthfulness, Democrats will have a hard time resting their case upon his words.
“He is a first-person [witness], so he’s pretty important to us,” said Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.).
For undecided lawmakers — and members of the public — a first-person account could be decisive.
“The closer you get to firsthand knowledge of what happened, it removes any kind of discussion that there wasn’t [any] using [of] American power to extract something from the Ukraine,” said Rep. Francis Rooney (R-Fla.), who has emerged as one of the few Republicans who is open to the idea of supporting the impeachment effort.
Sondland will be testifying under oath, meaning he could be subject to perjury charges if he is found to be lying to Congress. And he won’t have to stretch too far back in history to find evidence that Congress — and prosecutors — take the offense seriously.
Former Trump advisor Roger Stone was found guilty last week of lying to Congress, among other charges, and will be sentenced in February. Former Trump personal lawyer Michael Cohen is serving three years in prison for lying to Congress and other offenses.
Sondland told lawmakers in a sworn statement after his closed-door deposition that in a Sept. 1 meeting with a top advisor to the Ukrainian president, he delivered a dire message: If President Volodymyr Zelensky didn’t publicly promise an inquiry, military aid and a pivotal White House meeting would not materialize. He called it an “anti-corruption statement.”
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a National Security Council official, told lawmakers in a public hearing Tuesday that Sondland had begun to deliver a similar warning more than a month earlier. At a July meeting at the White House, Sondland started to tell Ukrainian officials that they had to deliver on the investigations in order to get a White House meeting with Trump, Vindman said.
John Bolton, Trump’s national security advisor at the time, cut Sondland off by abruptly ending the meeting, Vindman testified.
After the meeting, “I stated to Ambassador Sondland that this was inappropriate and had nothing to do with national security,” Vindman said, referring to the effort to link a demand for investigations to Trump’s official conduct.
Sondland indicated during his closed-door deposition that he didn’t recall much from the July 10 meeting and didn’t recall saying much at all.
Sondland repeatedly told colleagues that in his meetings with the Ukrainians, he was directly representing the president’s views and was in contact with Trump. Many witnesses also place him as a direct and frequent link between Trump and a shadow foreign policy on Ukraine being pursued by the president’s lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani.
Sondland “related to me he was acting — he was discussing these matters with the president,” former National Security Council official Tim Morrison testified. Each time he checked to see whether Sondland actually had spoken with Trump, Morrison said, Sondland’s claim checked out.
Morrison recalled discussing concerns about Sondland with Fiona Hill, his predecessor at the National Security Council.
“Among the discussions I had with Dr. Hill were about Ambassador Sondland. And I think she might have coined it ‘the Gordon problem,’” Morrison said. “I decided to keep track of what Ambassador Sondland was doing. I didn’t always act on things Gordon suggested, that he believed were important.”
Democrats say it will be up to the public to determine Sondland’s trustworthiness.
“I’ll hold judgment on his credibility because this is a time to test evidence,” said Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin), a House Intelligence Committee member. It’s common for witnesses to adjust their testimony during an investigation, Swalwell said. “He has shown a willingness to evolve, and he gave one version of events in his deposition, and after other witnesses testified, amended his version.”
Some members of the committee defended Sondland, who often said during his closed-door deposition that he didn’t remember events described by others.
“It is interesting that Sondland’s testimony in the deposition was perhaps not complete. What we don’t have evidence of is of him outright lying, right?” Himes said. “The important thing here is there’s no reason to believe that when Gordon Sondland makes a statement he’s lying.”
Republicans are likewise holding off on attacking the credibility of the former hotel industry executive, but warn that he’ll face questions about the changes to his story.
Sondland made statements “in the addendum that he didn’t state during his deposition,” said Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.). “So he’s going to be facing questions off of that.”
He will also face significant questions about a July 26 cellphone call he placed to the president from a Kyiv restaurant. The call only became public last week when William B. Taylor Jr., the acting U.S. ambassador in Ukraine, told lawmakers that one of his staff members, David Holmes, overheard the call.
Holmes testified that he heard Trump ask Sondland about the status of the investigations.
That call, and Trump’s apparent reference to “investigations,” undercuts claims from Republicans that Trump was worried generally about corruption in Ukraine, not about any specific case, and that the president did not link the investigations to the hold on military aid.
Holmes “added some significant new facts that get it closer to a firsthand deal. That’s important,” Rooney said. “We’ll see what Sondland says for his side of that conversation.”
Trump said last week that he did not remember the July 26 call.
“No, not at all, not even a little bit,” he said.
Holmes testified he was shocked that Sondland could call Trump directly from a cellphone in Kyiv, a city that security experts say is loaded with Russian intelligence equipment. That sort of ready access to the president gives him added weight as a witness, Democrats say.
“Sondland is important,” said Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), a member of the House Intelligence Committee. “As you can tell, he talked to the president very frequently — he could even call him up on a cellphone apparently from a bar or restaurant in the middle of Kyiv.”
‘This impeachment inquiry will come down to [Wednesday], regardless of which side you’re on.’ — Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), on Gordon Sondland’s upcoming testimony
Ten Democratic presidential candidates will meet Wednesday night on the debate stage in Atlanta. Some are trying to retain their positions in the front of the pack, others hope to build on new momentum, and the most desperate are trying to break through the crowded field.
The fifth round takes place less than three months before the first nominating contests in Iowa and New Hampshire, and as candidates are increasingly attacking their rivals.
The Democratic National Committee raised polling and fundraising thresholds for candidates to qualify for the November debate; a handful of candidates were left off the stage.
The two-hour debate begins at 6 p.m. Pacific time and can be viewed on MSNBC or streamed online at msnbc.com and washingtonpost.com.
Here’s what’s at stake for each candidate.
New Jersey Sen. Cory
Booker is widely liked by voters, has wealthy backers on both coasts and has assembled a strong campaign team. Yet he hasn’t broken out of the low single digits in the polls and is in danger of not qualifying for the December debate in Los Angeles. Can he do anything Wednesday night to change his trajectory?
Hawaii Rep. Tulsi
Gabbard has been in the spotlight recently, feuding with 2016 Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton over whether Gabbard is a Republican “asset” who is being groomed for a thirdparty spoiler run. She has publicly rejected that idea. The debate offers Gabbard a large platform to continue blasting the former secretary of State.
Minnesota Sen. Amy
Klobuchar got a fundraising and polling bounce after a strong showing as a Midwestern moderate in last month’s debate. She recently argued that gender bias is playing a role in the race, and that South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg would not be receiving the same attention if he were a woman. Will she make this argument directly to Buttigieg, and can she deliver a strong performance like she did in October?
South Bend, Ind., Mayor
Pete Buttigieg is ascendant in the polls and comes into the debate with an enormous target on his back. Buttigieg’s Democratic rivals have attacked his youth, his resume and his relationship with black voters. Can he stand up to more scrutiny? Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren is fending off renewed attacks on her “Medicare for all” plan after releasing details about how she would pay for it and implement it. She will likely also face questions about former President Obama’s recent warning to 2020 Democratic candidates not to go too far to the left in their policy proposals. Though the former president didn’t name names, his comments were widely viewed as an implicit criticism of the progressive proposals of Warren and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Former Vice President
Joe Biden broke with the rest of the Democratic field this weekend by opposing the federal legalization of recreational marijuana. In the process, he reminded generations of schoolchildren of their DARE classes by calling pot a “gateway drug.” Will Biden’s rivals argue that his position on recreational marijuana is more evidence that he’s out of touch with many Democratic voters?
Vermont Sen. Bernie
Sanders has been highlighting support from progressive stars in recent weeks, notably Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), and campaigning in front of enormous crowds around the country. Will he use the three-year delay in Warren’s Medicare-for-all implementation plan to argue that he is the true progressive in the race and appeal to her supporters?
And how will he field likely questions about Obama’s comments?
California Sen. Kamala
Harris desperately needs to do something, anything, to change the trajectory of her campaign. Amidst single-digit poll numbers and reports of infighting among her campaign leaders, Harris is spending more money than she’s taking in. She successfully changed the momentum in a June debate by lacing into Biden about school busing, but the boost she received was temporary.
Businessman Andrew Yang will once again talk about his plan to give every American adult a universal basic income of $1,000 per month because widespread automation threatens jobs across the nation. Look to see if Yang announces any new gimmicks, as he did at the September debate, when he said he would use campaign funds to give 10 voters $1,000 per month for a year.
Billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer spent more than $47 million in the first three months of his presidential campaign, most of it to qualify for the October debate, where he wasn’t much of a factor. He almost certainly spent millions more in recent weeks to get on the debate stage Wednesday night. Has he crafted a more compelling message to deliver to voters?