The Daily - The Latest: ‘Everyone Was in the Loop’

Episode Date: November 20, 2019

In explosive testimony, Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union, directly implicated President Trump, Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and other top administration officials in what he said was a push for a “clear quid pro quo” with the president of Ukraine. But during questioning, things got complicated.“The Latest” is a new series on the impeachment inquiry, from the team behind “The Daily.” You can find more information about it here.

It started with a whistleblower's complaint about President Trump's contact with a foreign leader. I had a perfect phone call with the president of Ukraine. Like, I mean perfect. Today, I'm announcing the House of Representatives moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry. We are joined this afternoon by Ambassador Gordon Sondland. I'm sorry, this morning. It was a long day yesterday. Hey, it's Julie Davis in the Washington Bureau of the New York Times. So today we saw the most complicated witness

in these impeachment hearings to date, Gordon Sondland. I expect that few Americans have heard my name before these events. This is the Trump donor turned diplomat. The highest honor in my public life came when President Trump asked me to serve as the United States ambassador to the European Union. So right out of the gate in his opening statements. Was there a quid pro quo?

Sondland is dropping bombs. With regard to the requested White House call and the White House meeting, the answer is yes. He says yes, there was clearly a quid pro quo. I emailed Secretary Pompeo directly. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo knew what was going on. I mentioned to Vice President Pence before the meetings. Vice President Mike Pence knew what was going on. The suggestion that we were engaged in some irregular or rogue diplomacy is absolutely false. And there's really no back channel because everyone was in the loop. Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret to anyone what was going on. And he had the full buy-in of the whole government on this. Everyone was informed via email on July 19th. But the latest is it's complicated.

So far in these hearings, we've been getting testimony from career diplomats, former military types who are very formal in their testimony. They're trained to keep notes. They have extemporaneous notes. They have memos. They have methodical accounts of what happened and documents in some cases to back it up. They've got the receipts, as you might say. Sondland is a totally different type of character. You confirmed to President Trump that President Zelensky, quote,

loves your ass, unquote. Do you recall saying that? Yeah, it sounds like something I would say. Here he is. This guy is a wealthy hotel magnate from Oregon. He's a political donor. He's new to being a diplomat. And he doesn't have any of those things. The Democrats' lawyer, Dan Goldman, points this out right away. You are not a note-taker, right? I'm not a note-taker. Never have been.

He doesn't take notes. He doesn't have this all written down. He can't really remember some of the conversations that he's being asked about. But certainly based on the additional memory that you have gained over the past few weeks from reading the testimony of others based on their notes and reviewing your own documents, you have remembered a lot more than you did when you were deposed. Is that right? That's correct. Oh, and also he's contradicted his original closed-door testimony

on multiple occasions in the weeks since he first talked to the House Intelligence Committee. He started out saying there was no quid pro quo in all of this, but it turns out when someone else testifies that they heard him describe one, all of a sudden he remembers, yeah, there was one. He did describe that at one point. In short, he's got a credibility problem. It's messy. You freely admit that you, you know, when I asked you your deposition, we put together a list of all the times you said you don't recall. It's like two pages long. So is that all? So naturally, the Republican lawyer on the Intelligence Committee, Steve Castor,

wants to focus on this messiness. And when he gets a chance to question Sondland, he does just that. On a lot of these questions, I mean, there's nuance, there are ambiguities, and we don't have records, we don't have notes, and we don't have recollections, correct? Right. I mean, it's situational things that sort of trigger memory. All of these calls, these meetings with very important people tend to sort of blend together until I have someone that can show me what we discussed, what the subject was. Then all of a sudden it comes back. I mean, we're trying to get to the facts here.

We're trying to find out what actually happened, what's reliable, what's accurate. You don't have records. You don't have your notes because you didn't take notes. You don't have a lot of recollections. I mean, this is like the trifecta of unreliability. Isn't that true? Well, what I'm trying to do today is to use the limited information I have to be as forthcoming as possible with you and the rest of the committee. And as these recollections have been refreshed

by subsequent testimony, by some texts and emails that I've now had access to, I think I've filled in a lot of blanks. But a lot of it's speculation. A lot of it is your guess. And we're talking about, you know, an impeachment of the president of the United States. So the evidence here ought to be pretty darn good.

So outwardly, Ambassador Sondland may seem like a terrible witness for the Democrats. He's imprecise. He's unreliable. He either doesn't remember things or he doesn't have any proof. But the question in my mind is, might he actually be the most damning witness of all for the Democrats? He's someone who was friendly with the president. He was talking to the Ukrainians on a fairly regular basis. He had an up-close view of all of this. And he's willing to make these definitive statements, reach these big conclusions. Yes, there was a quid pro quo. No, there was no back channel.

Everybody knew about this. So he may not have notes, but does it actually matter? So he may not have notes, but does it actually matter? You know, the other thing that was striking about Sondland's testimony was how comfortable he seemed. He seems kind of at ease with the role he's playing in all of this. He knows who he is. He's not a career politician. He's not versed in the complicated geopolitics of all of this. He's just landed in the middle of this situation and he says he's playing the hand he was dealt. And that may seem like someone trying to protect himself,

or it could be someone basically trying to come clean. Maybe he's not reliable, but he may be the most important witness Democrats have. Like I said, it's complicated. Like I said, it's complicated. So that's the latest. Tomorrow on The Daily, more on how the Democrats and Republicans handled this unusual witness.