E.U. ambassador to testify in impeachment inquiry, defying Trump administration

NBC News ^ | October 11, 2019 | Adam Edelman, Josh Lederman, Geoff Bennett and Peter Alexander

[Coronal]

WASHINGTON — Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, will testify to House committees leading the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, defying the State Department's direction not to cooperate.

“Notwithstanding the State Department’s current direction to not testify, Ambassador Sondland will honor the Committees’ subpoena, and he looks forward to testifying on Thursday,” Sondland's attorneys, Robert Luskin and Kwame Manley, said in a statement Friday.

Sondland's joint deposition before the House Foreign Affairs, Intelligence and Oversight committees is scheduled for Oct. 17.

[gcparent]

Doesn’t he have to resign or be fired first?

[Buckeye McFrog]

If he proceeds, and Trump does not want him to, he WILL be fired.

That will be just one more log on the Democrats’ fantasy obstruction fire.

[billyboy15]

i really don”t know.

[Pollard]

Sondland was a member of the transition team for Oregon Democratic Governor Ted Kulongoski’s administration and was appointed by Kulongoski to serve on the board of the Governor’s Office of Film & Television.

Sondland also served as Oregon liaison to the White House.

During the 2016 United States presidential election, Sondland initially supported Donald Trump, but cancelled a fundraiser and repudiated Trump for his attacks on Khizr and Ghazala Khan.[1] In April 2017, it was revealed that 4 companies registered to Sondland donated $1 million to the Donald Trump inaugural committee.[42][43][44]

As a result of his political involvement, Sondland and his businesses have been the subject of increased press coverage, especially among local media outlets. However, recent attempts to criticize his business practices in publications like Willamette Week and Eater Portland were later corrected.[45][46]

He was a bundler for Mit Romney’s 2012 Presidential campaign, and in 2012, Sondland was selected to serve as a member of Mitt Romney’s presidential transition team.[1]

Not liking this play for both teams guy. Can’t seem to make up his mind who he supports and will change his stripes if you make him mad. Hope POTUS hasn’t offended him lately.

[dblshot]

Nicely done! Sondland gets to sit in front of the committee and give testimony supporting Trump while ostensibly not breaking the Trump administrations ban on cooperating. Trump is playing 3D chess while the Dems play Go Fish.

[Lurkinanloomin]

Despite representing President Bush’s top political advisor Karl Rove, Luskin is a proud Democrat and has donated to numerous Democratic causes
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I smell a Bush League Republican

[semaj]

You’re fired!

[BuffaloJack]

He’s not in government any longer. This amounts to interference.

[milagro]

Sondland defended Trump in a tweet published a few days ago, so maybe his willingness to appear before the committee is a good thing.
Trump, wisely, refused to let Schitt FORCE Sondland to testify.
But, perhaps, Sondland wants to testify in order to confront some of the B.S. emanating from the House’s “Incandescent Ignoramus” Committee.

[Mouton]

But, perhaps, Sondland wants to testify in order to confront some of the B.S. emanating from the House’s “Incandescent Ignoramus” Committee.

If so, Diogenes’ lamp found the one ethical man in all of DC besides DJT.

[Savage Beast]

The Light of Truth reveals tentacles of corruption far deeper and far more extensive than any honest person would ever have suspected and many honest people can imagine much less believe!

[Robert DeLong]

Next Thursday, the 17th. Today is the 11th.

[lastchance]

Someone has negatives.

[gibsonguy]

Possible but he did for that idiot Mitt so it may not be good at all.

[silverleaf]

A Trump political appointee and diplomatic novice who will be testifying on gossip and hearsay from 2016..He will get pwnt.

Apparently with an oversized ego

Trump can’t fire him but certainly Pompeo can find him a whole stack of interesting tasks
Like counting sheep in Scotland

[treetopsandroofs]

“Nicely done! Sondland gets to sit in front of the committee and give testimony supporting Trump while ostensibly not breaking the Trump administrations ban on cooperating.”

Since it’s behind closed doors, our domestic enemies can tell America whatever it is they want to allege he said.

[Nifster]

The Coup Cabal is emboldened. They don’t realize they are putting a spotlight on themselves

[ctdonath2]

Hence my (limited) prediction that Trump may sue them for libel. The whole process is only explainable as a smear campaign, which is libel.

The whole Russia thing was also a smear campaign, but lacked the “color of law” being deliberately abused in this case.

[nathanbedford]

Since it’s behind closed doors, our domestic enemies can tell America whatever it is they want to allege he said.

I have been arguing here for some time that it is the wrong strategy to argue that there is (1) no quid pro quo or (2) no actual solicitation of "something of value" relating to the 2020 election.

That starts the argument at the fallback position, that there was no quid pro quo in the transcript of the conversation and no solicitation of information concerning Biden in exchange for the delivery or sale of armaments. The Democrats by these scattershot subpoenas are attempting to fill in those gaps with testimony. In this atmosphere, whatever hearsay testimony, conjecture, or outright lies they can introduce into the public consciousness simply means they win, especially do they win if one considers their limited goal.

The proper position for the defense of Donald Trump is that the president is not just innocent because there was no quid pro quo the president is innocent even if there was a quid pro quo so long as the president was plausibly otherwise acting in pursuit of his duties, and even though his action might benefit his political campaign, providing there was no intrinsic crime in the action complained of, he is immune. In other words, if the president was pursuing his constitutional duty to see that corruption was investigated, and even if he withheld sought after military aid in order to compel the investigation of that alleged corruption, and further even if that solicitation of an investigation conceivably aided his 2020 campaign against Joe Biden, the president was not guilty of any crime because he had immunity and he had immunity because he was acting otherwise lawfully in the pursuit of his constitutional duties.

With immunity, the otherwise innocent and lawful solicitation does not become a crime merely because it aids a campaign. If no crime, no constitutional basis for impeachment. But note, so long as the defense concedes that a solicitation combined with a quid pro quo equals a crime because it might conceivably benefit an election, the Republicans are doomed to constant retreats in rearguard actions as the Democrats bring on new "whistleblowers" or disgruntled diplomats to allege a "motive" or a "state of mind" in the president which implies guilt, or implies a quid pro quo. In this atmosphere they don't really have to prove these kinds of allegations, merely throw the ball downfield and the media will carry it across the finish line.

At this point it becomes necessary to understand what the parties are fighting for. Most observers do not believe the Democrats are unrealistic enough to believe they can win impeachment in the Senate, rather this entire travesty is designed to win the election in 2020 and otherwise cripple the president's ability to govern until January 2021. Look back at the Clinton impeachment trial. Clinton was clearly guilty of numerous felonies, many of which I have often recounted here, but he was acquitted by the Senate because the opinion polls gave Democrats and rinos enough running room to acquit. Those who voted to acquit could do so confident in the knowledge that the media would support their decision. Today, the Democrats can engage in a travesty of injustice utterly violative of the Constitution, the president's due process rights, and equally in violation of all constitutional norms for separation of powers, supremely confident that they will be supported in the media. They have all the running room to commit all the atrocities their hearts desire confident that the media will protect them. Consider how their claims have progressed so far: first we were told that the president conversation contained an explicit quid pro quo. After the release of the transcript when a fair reader must that there was no explicit quid pro quo, the Democrats began to argue that the statute in question did not require a quid pro quo, the mere solicitation of a thing of value which might aid a political campaign was a crime. Now, the Democrats are arguing both sides of the need for a quid pro quo. The whole idea of these subpoenas is to produce plausible evidence of either a guilty state of mind or a quid pro quo.

For weapons, the Republicans have only truth on their side but that might well be a losing hand in the media battle for 2020. The first line of defense is that there is no crime even with a quid pro quo even if the president wanted to benefit his campaign because he was lawfully acting in his constitutional duty to see that the laws are faithfully executed, including the laws against corruption in office committed by former vice presidents. Let's start with the first line of defense before we go to fallback positions. If the Democrats can contrive, as they almost certainly will, some sort of fanciful connection between solicitation for investigation and the delivery of arms, the Republicans then must argue on the facts over which they might have no control or argue as I have here that there is no crime anyway. Do you think the media will let Republicans get away with arguing immunity after they have argued the merits based on facts? I for one doubt it.