Sondland Changes Testimony to Avoid Perjury

Ambassador Gordon Sondland, a close ally of Trump, reversed several critical aspects of his testimony from Oct. 17 by adding a sworn four page addendum to his initial testimony this week. The biggest revelation in Sondland’s revised testimony is that he confirmed Trump’s quid pro quo with Ukraine by acknowledging that he told Andre Yermak, a top Ukrainian official, that the “resumption” of military aid for Ukraine hinged upon Ukraine making a public pledge for investigations. House Committees in charge of the impeachment inquiry released both Sondland’s initial testimony, as well has his revised statements on Wednesday, along with the transcripts for Kurt Volker’s deposition and many more text messages between Volker and other relevant figures.

(Gordon Sondland, U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, arriving on Capitol Hill October 17, 2019.)

Four Pages of Amendments

Sondland began his clarifications by claiming that he had “reviewed” the opening statements of both Bill Taylor and Tim Morrison and that they had “refreshed his recollection about certain conversations in early September 2019.”

Sondland confirmed that both Taylor and Morrison testified that Sondland told Morrison that the resumption of U.S. aid to Ukraine was conditioned upon Ukraine agreeing to investigate Burisma publicly. Sondland restated Taylor’s testimony that Morrison told Taylor that there was a conversation between Sondland and Yermak where Sondland relayed the conditions for receiving aid. Sondland acknowledged that Morrison testified that Sondland told him that the Ukrainian aid “might” rely on Ukraine launching a public investigation into Burisma. Sondland recounted all of this testimony in his statement, but did not confirm that it was true, rather he alluded to this with his intro that these statements refreshed his own recollection.

“I now recall speaking individually with Mr. Yermak, where I said that resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement [that involved Biden] that we had been discussing for many weeks.” — Gordon Sondland, confirming the quid pro quo in his revised sworn statement

Sondland also changed his testimony to reflect that a White House meeting was tied to Zelensky agreeing to make a public statement about investigating anti-corruption. Although Sondland does not specify in his testimony that he understood investigating anti-corruption to involve Joe and Hunter Biden and Burisma, we know from other testimony and sources that this was indeed the case. Sondland went on to say that Rudy Giuliani had “communicated” this condition for the White House meeting and that Ambassador Volker, Secretary Perry and Sondland understood that “satisfying Giuliani was a condition for scheduling the White House visit.”

Sondland continued by saying that he “always believed that suspending aid to Ukraine was ill-advised,” but that he had no knowledge of who was responsible for the suspension and when. Sondland said he “presumed” that the aid was linked to the Ukrainians launching an investigation, because no other credible explanation had been given by September as to why it was being delayed. He likely made a point to include this in his new testimony to lessen his involvement and to deny that the quid pro quo was his idea. Sondland also confirmed that he voiced this presumption of a quid pro quo to “Ambassador Taylor, Senator Johnson, the Ukrainians and Mr. Morrison.”

(President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky (left) and U.S. Vice President Mike Pence in Warsaw, Poland, in September 2019.)

Another revelation of Sondland’s newly revised statement involved Vice President Mike Pence, who Sondland described as an accomplice of sorts. At the September meeting in Warsaw, Poland, where Pence and Zelensky were discussing the military aid funding, Sondland told Yermak directly that the “resumption of aid would not likely occur” without a public anti-corruption statement that they had been discussing for weeks. Sondland stated that Yermak wanted the statement to be issued from the newly appointed Ukrainian Prosecutor General rather than by President Zelensky.

Sondland stated he was then told by Giuliani or by Volker through Giuliani that Ukraine was not going to have Zelensky issue the statement himself, confirming that Taylor’s previous testimony on this matter was accurate. It is clear through Sondland’s revised testimony that anyone other than Zelensky making the public statement would not be acceptable to Giuliani, who was working at the behest of Trump.

Ramifications of Sondland’s Addendum

When Sondland initially testified before Congress in October, he was quick to claim he could not recall key events or details and he painted an image of his role in the State Department as a newly appointed outsider who was naive to the intricate inter-workings of U.S. diplomacy. His testimony left many in Congress wondering if he was pretending to be unaware of key meetings and interactions to intentionally mislead investigators as he walked a fine line with perjury.

The stark differences between Sondland’s October testimony and the additions he provided on Nov. 4 make it clear that he was attempting to pretend he didn’t recall critical exchanges that are at the center of this impeachment inquiry. Most importantly, his revised testimony now confirms something we already knew — Trump required a quid pro quo. Considering Sondland’s continued loyalty to Trump and his many instances of not recalling the most basic things that anyone in his position would remember, his veracity remains at issue even with a newly sworn statement.

(Trump with Gordon Sondland at Melsbroek Air Base in Brussels in July 2018.)

It’s perfectly clear that Sondland will only say as much as he is required to in order to insulate himself from charges of perjury while protecting his relationship with Trump. Sondland wouldn’t directly confirm that what Taylor and Morrison had testified to in their opening statements was accurate, deciding to only allude to their accuracy by not contradicting them or denying what was said.

Considering how Trump will likely blame Sondland for betraying him regardless of the ways in which Sondland has attempted to protect him, the attempts to remain loyal seem futile. Maybe this level of integrity is all we should expect from someone who bought their way into a position with a million dollar inauguration donation, knowing all the while how big the stakes were and how wholly unqualified he is. At least we seem to be getting some version of the truth out of Sondland now, even if his motivation was only to avoid felony perjury charges.

---

If you like this piece and you want to help support independent journalism from a female perspective, you can forward this article to others or send a gift a subscription to someone else today. 

Amee Vanderpool writes the “Shero” Newsletter and is an attorney, contributor to Playboy Magazine, analyst for BBC radio and Director of The Inanna Project. She can be reached at avanderpool@gmail.com or follow her on Twitter @girlsreallyrule.