Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) defended President Donald Trump&#8217;s decision to fire two brothers at the National Security Council (NSC) and an ambassador on Friday in an interview on Fox News.
Late on Friday, news broke that the Trump administration removed Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and attorney Yevgeny Vindman from the NSC, and also recalled U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland.
&#8220;You know, the president yesterday, as you probably know, Congresswoman, fired Gordon Sondland, our Ambassador to Ukraine, and Alexander Vindman, top security official,&#8221; host Neil Cavuto said. &#8220;A lot of people were likening it to another, you know, Friday night massacre akin to what Richard Nixon did back in the ‘70s. Do you agree with that?&#8221;
&#8220;Ultimately, whether people like or not, there are consequences to elections,&#8221; Gabbard responded. &#8220;And the president has, within his purview, to make the decisions about who he’d like serving in his cabinet.&#8221;
At an earlier point in the interview, Gabbard took aim at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg when asked what she thought about the DNC making the rules easier for Bloomberg to qualify for the debates.
&#8220;It’s wrong. It’s wrong,&#8221; Gabbard responded. &#8220;The fact that a billionaire can come in and have that kind of influence to change the rules of the DNC all of a sudden, not coincidently, to be able to benefit Michael Bloomberg while voters here in New Hampshire and across the country are saying, hey, we want to be able to make the best informed decision possible before we go in and cast our vote, understanding the seriousness of this election.&#8221;
&#8220;But they’re not able to do so so long as both the DNC and some of the corporate media partners are enacting these rules where they are playing favorites,&#8221; Gabbard responded. &#8220;They are picking winners and losers before voters have the opportunity to do so.&#8221;
WATCH:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Tulsi Gabbard on Iowa Caucuses, importance of New Hampshire primary" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/D6k091R1NEg?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
TRANSCRIPT:
<blockquote>NEIL CAVUTO, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: So poking around the state here, we’re seeing a lot of the candidates show up at various rallies and events, including Joe Biden who is busy crisscrossing the state as well. A lot of the candidates will be doing that, including my next guest, the Hawaii Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard who joins us right now in the flesh.
Good to see you.
REP. TULSI GABBARD (D-HI), 2020 DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Good to see you. Thanks for having me.
CAVUTO: You saw this debate over what happened in Iowa.
GABBARD: Yes.
CAVUTO: A lot of people think even Tom Perez, the head of the Democratic National Committee, he should go. What do you think?
GABBARD: I think first, they should actually solve some of the problems. I think the more we learn about all of the things that went wrong really are a disservice to the voters in Iowa who went and they spent their time to let their voices be heard. And yet, their voices have not been heard in a resounding and very clear way.
I would think that, whether it’s the Iowa caucus chair working in concert with the DNC chair, they would proactively, themselves, want to go and make sure that those results are accurately counted to best serve the residents of Iowa.
CAVUTO: You know &#8212; as you know, Iowa holds a unique position as the first in the nation contest. Do you think it should have that four years from now?
GABBARD: That’s up to the states to decide. The states determine when they hold their primary elections. What I’ve been advocating for now for years are some very key reforms to our Democratic primaries. I think they should be open primaries.
I think they should allow same-day registration so you don’t have people in New York, for example, who if they didn’t register, I don’t know, something like five months before election day, they can’t go and vote. And I think we need to get rid of superdelegates.
Once again, this is continuing to be an issue of concern to voters here in New Hampshire who are worried about their vote actually being counted and how they don’t want it to be overruled by a small group of individuals who can come in and say, you know what, I don’t &#8212; I don’t think you guys know what you’re doing. We’re going to come in and decide &#8212;
(CROSSTALK)
CAVUTO: Well, you know they’re talking that way again &#8212;
(CROSSTALK)
GABBARD: &#8212; this election &#8212;
CAVUTO: &#8212; Congresswoman, right?
GABBARD: That’s the concern &#8212;
CAVUTO: I mean, since the emergence of Bernie Sanders as a possible nominee, they’re revisiting this rule in place now &#8212;
GABBARD: Yes.
CAVUTO: &#8212; that superdelegates can’t vote on the first ballot. If they do that &#8212; change that, what do you think?
GABBARD: Well, the issue is &#8212; you know, I think, moving it back from the first ballot to the second ballot was a very small step in the right direction. But I want to be clear, we’ve got to get rid of superdelegates all together. And that change was not anywhere near enough, once again, to make sure that we as Democrats are standing by the decision that voters make on who our Democratic nominee should be.
CAVUTO: And you like the idea of an open primary where this way &#8212; you know, not just anyone in any party &#8212; any stream (ph) would be able to vote. If that were the math, I mean, you would poll a lot better because Conservatives are drawn to you, Independents are drawn to you. But in some of these rules, you’re kind of between a rock and a hard place.
GABBARD: Well, this is bigger than &#8212; this is not about me or my campaign. This is something I’ve been calling for for years, since the 2016 primary elections where I saw and I heard and met with people who are Democrat, who are Independents &#8212; who are here in New Hampshire &#8212; who are undeclared and who want to make sure that their voice is heard. We need to make it as easy and as accessible as possible for people to go in and participate in our democracy.
CAVUTO: How do you feel &#8212; and let’s say, you weren’t able to participate in the debate last night and yet they recently made rules in the party to all but grease the skids for Michael Bloomberg being able to debate. What do you think of that?
GABBARD: It’s wrong. It’s wrong. The fact that a billionaire can come in and have that kind of influence to change the rules of the DNC all of a sudden, not coincidently, to be able to benefit Michael Bloomberg while voters here in New Hampshire and across the country are saying, hey, we want to be able to make the best informed decision possible before we go in and cast our vote, understanding the seriousness of this election. But they’re not able to do so so long as both the DNC and some of the corporate media partners are enacting these rules where they are playing favorites. They are picking winners and losers before voters have the opportunity to do so.
CAVUTO: Do you think you’re just the odd-woman-out in this environment, though, that going after Hillary Clinton, now suing Hillary Clinton out, for saying you’re an agent of the Russians and all that &#8212; challenging the way they go about establishing a nominee and the process they use, that it’s an uphill battle for you &#8212;
GABBARD: Of course.
CAVUTO: &#8212; that you’re going against the tide &#8212;
GABBARD: We’re &#8212; I think it’s how you determine what the tide is. If you’re looking at the powerful elite in Washington, absolutely. I and so many people across the country are challenging the powerful elite who have shown they are not working for the best interests of the people.
So we’re calling for the truth, we’re calling for a straight-forward process for voters to make sure that their voices are heard in this democracy and so that we can actually have a government that’s of, by, and for the people &#8212; not of, by, and for the powerful elite in Washington.
CAVUTO: All right. You’re up against, you know, a fundraising disadvantage. I was noticing, Congresswoman, in this state Tom Steyer has already spent north of $15.5 billion if you include New Hampshire and surrounding media markets.
GABBARD: Yes.
CAVUTO: Michael Bloomberg, who essentially is getting &#8212; you know, not focusing on this state. He’s spent $6.2 million, Bernie Sanders $3.7 million, Mayor Pete, at recently $1.4 million. You are at about $390,000.
GABBARD: We are at a disadvantage. I’ll take the opportunity now to ask your viewers if you’d like to contribute to my campaign &#8212; go to tulsi2020.com because we really are &#8212; I’m focused on really delivering my message directly to voters here in New Hampshire and across the country, understand what &#8212;
CAVUTO: Could you accept any of those other candidates, though &#8212; if any one of them became the nominee, could you support them?
GABBARD: I’m focused &#8212; I’m focused on &#8212; on winning.
CAVUTO: No, I’m sure you are but &#8212;
GABBARD: And here’s why &#8212; and here’s why &#8212;
CAVUTO: You don’t join the camp that says a socialist in Bernie Sanders is the nominee is political suicide?
GABBARD: No, I don’t. I don’t believe that.
CAVUTO: OK.
GABBARD: What I believe and what I hear from voters here is that they want a new generation of leadership. But they also want someone who has experience &#8212; experience to walk in on day one prepared to lead and to serve as Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces and experience to be able to work with Congress to be &#8212; to actually be able to get things done, to solve problems.
And what I bring to the table is experience in both of those areas, having served at the federal, state, and local levels of government, serving in Congress now for seven, going on eight, years, and having served in the military for 17 years and deploying twice to the Middle East, able to bring people together, heal these divides in our country where while we can agree to disagree on certain issues, even strongly, we stand together motivated by this love for our country and an understanding that when we stand and work side-by-side as Americans, we can accomplish anything.
CAVUTO: You know, the president yesterday, as you probably know, Congresswoman, fired Gordon Sondland, our Ambassador to Ukraine, and Alexander Vindman, top security official. A lot of people were likening it to another, you know, Friday night massacre akin to what Richard Nixon did back in the ‘70s. Do you agree with that?
GABBARD: Look, I disagree with so many of Trump’s decisions, especially as it relates to foreign policy. I’ve been very outspoken in that area. Ultimately, whether people like or not, there are consequences to elections. And the president has, within his purview, to make the decisions about who he’d like serving in his cabinet.
CAVUTO: All right. Congresswoman, thank you very much.
GABBARD: Thank you very much.
(CROSSTALK)
CAVUTO: And you have a long day &#8212;
GABBARD: Good to see you, Neil.
CAVUTO: &#8212; days of campaigning &#8212;
GABBARD: Yes, we do. Seventy-two hours.
CAVUTO: All right. Tulsi Gabbard, thank you very, very much.</blockquote>

Democratic Presidential Candidates Participate In Fourth Debate In Ohio

Tulsi Gabbard Defends Trump Firing Vindman Brothers, Sondland. Rips DNC, Bloomberg.

Alexander Vindman

Democratic National Committee

Donald Trump

Gordon Sondland

Michael Bloomberg

Tulsi Gabbard

President Donald Trump continued to clean house late on Friday after removing two brothers from the National Security Council, notifying Gordon D. Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union that he was fired.
&#8220;I was advised today that the president intends to recall me effective immediately as United States ambassador to the European Union,&#8221; Sondland <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gordon-sondland-recalled-as-ambassador-to-eu-after-impeachment-testimony">said</a> in a statement. &#8220;I am grateful to President Trump for having given me the opportunity to serve, to Secretary Pompeo for his consistent support, and to the exceptional and dedicated professionals at the U.S. Mission to the European Union. I am proud of our accomplishments. Our work here has been the highlight of my career.&#8221;
Sonland, who testified in Democrats&#8217; impeachment inquiry, initially said during his testimony that there was a quid pro quo involving withholding aid to Ukraine for the announcement of an investigation into Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden.
Later, Sondland later <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/11/20/transcript-sondlands-nov-public-testimony-front-house-intelligence-committee/">admitted</a> that what he had stated was just his assumption.
<blockquote>HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN ADAM SCHIFF: And you&#8217;ve also testified that your understanding &#8212; it became your clear understanding that the military assistance was also being withheld, pending Zelensky announcing these investigations. Correct?
SONDLAND: That was my presumption, my personal presumption, based on the facts at the time. Nothing was moving.</blockquote>
Sondland later continued:
<blockquote>GOP COUNSEL STEVE CASTOR: I want to turn back to your &#8211; your opener on Page 5, under &#8211; when &#8211; when you talk about in the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I later came to believe that the resumption of security aid would not occur until there was a public statement from Ukraine committing to the investigations. Correct?
SONDLAND: Correct.
CASTOR: And you acknowledged that this is speculation, right?
SONDLAND: It was a presumption.</blockquote>
Sondland later admitted that he had no evidence to prove his initial claim.
Sonland late confirmed again during his testimony that what he had initially claimed was just his presumption:
<blockquote>REP. MIKE TURNER (R-OH): OK. Well, you know, after you testified Chairman Schiff ran out and gave a press conference and said, he gets to impeach the president of the United States because of your testimony. And if you pull up CNN today right now their banner says &#8220;Sondland ties Trump to withholding aid,&#8221; is that your testimony today, Mr. &#8212; Ambassador Sondland, that you have evidence that Donald Trump tied the investigations to the aid? Because I don&#8217;t think you&#8217;re saying that.
SONDLAND: I&#8217;ve said repeatedly, Congressman, I was presuming. I also said that President Trump &#8212;
TURNER: So no one told you. Not just the president &#8212; Giuliani didn&#8217;t tell you, Mulvaney didn&#8217;t tell you &#8212; nobody &#8212; Pompeo didn&#8217;t tell you? Nobody else on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying aid to these investigations, is that correct?
SONDLAND: I think I already testified to that &#8212;
TURNER: No, answer the question. Is it correct, no one on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying this aid to the investigations? Because if your answer is yes, then the Chairman&#8217;s wrong and the headline on CNN is wrong. No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations, yes or no?
SONDLAND: Yes.
TURNER: So, you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations?
SONDLAND: Other than my own presumption.
TURNER: Which is nothing. I mean, that&#8217;s what I don&#8217;t understand. So you know what hearsay evidence is, Ambassador? Hearsay is when I testify what someone else told me. Do you know what made up testimony is? Made up testimony is when I just presume it.
I mean, you&#8217;re just assuming all of these things and then you&#8217;re giving them the evidence that they&#8217;re running out and doing press conferences and CNN&#8217;s headline is saying that you&#8217;re saying the president of the United States should be impeached because he tied to investigations and you don&#8217;t know that, correct?
SONDLAND: I never said the president of the United States should be impeached.
TURNER: Nope, but you did &#8212; you have left people with the confusing impression that you were giving testimony that you did not. You do not have any evidence that the president of the United States was tied to withholding aid from Ukraine in exchange for investigations. I yield back.</blockquote>
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Democrats reference Gordon Sondland EVERYWHERE in their case. Spread this clip far and wide:
“No one on this planet told you POTUS was tying aid/political investigations?”
Sondland: “Yes”
“So you have no evidence”
Sondland: “Other than my presumption” <a href="https://t.co/rdqmJ9eka9">pic.twitter.com/rdqmJ9eka9</a>
&mdash; Mark Meadows (@RepMarkMeadows) <a href="https://twitter.com/RepMarkMeadows/status/1220732514890846209?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 24, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
This is a breaking news story, refresh the page for updates.

House Intelligence Committee Continues Open Impeachment Hearings

Trump Continues To Clean House, Fires Ambassador Gordon Sondland

The media are once against using sexual misconduct claims to tarnish the reputation of a man connected to the Trump administration.
Just as they did with Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the media now report that three women have accused Gordon Sondland, the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, of sexual misconduct. Their allegations relate to encounters with Sondland more than a decade ago, yet they are just now making their claims, as Sondland’s name is in the news as part of the Democrats’ impeachment hearings against President Donald Trump.
Sondland had previously undergone a public confirmation hearing to become an ambassador, yet none of these allegations surfaced at that time. It is only now, when Sondland is involved in the impeachment hearings, that these women have come forward – and each have an ulterior motive for doing so.
Further, the media outlets that worked together to report the women’s allegations – ProPublica and Portland Monthly – acted irresponsibly and unethically during the reporting process, and are expected to face a defamation lawsuit from Sondland. In a letter from Sondland’s attorney, Jim McDermott, the ambassador denied the allegations and explained that each woman had a motive to malign Sondland. “Notably, what each of these three women share in common is that they pursued Ambassador Sondland for financial and personal gain — an investment, a job, and insurance brokerage work — and he declined their proposals,” McDermott wrote.
Sondland’s team has exclusively provided emails to The Daily Wire sent between Sondland’s personal attorney, spokesman, and ProPublica Deputy Managing Editor Eric Umansky. The emails show that ProPublica and Portland Monthly refused to provide Sondland with the specifics of the allegations from the three women until November 23, even though they had been working on the article for weeks prior (one may recall a similar tactic was used by former Rolling Stone author Sabrina Rubin Erdely when attempting to contact the named fraternity accused of gang-raping her source, who turned out to be lying). Once ProPublica finally provided the specifics, they gave Sondland a deadline of 3 p.m. November 25 to respond, which is not enough time to obtain documents and information to refute the allegations. As such, Sondland’s team could only categorically deny the allegations without providing evidence to support those denials.
Sondland’s team asked for more time to respond, as the detailed allegations were sent to them late in the evening on November 23, a Saturday. Sondland’s team asked to move the deadline back to Wednesday, since his attorney was traveling and Sondland himself was in Europe. Umansky only agreed to push the deadline back to 9 a.m. Tuesday morning, November 26. Umansky also said at the time that they may provide additional questions during that time. Umansky had also alluded to unnamed sources that were allegedly told about the allegations at the time they allegedly occurred, but refused to give Sondland’s team the details of those claims. Umansky responded to Sondland’s teams questions about these details by saying: “The question here is whether Ambassador Sondland recalls these incidents occurred as described, denies them in whole or in part, or does not recall. The identity of people with whom the accusers shared their stories has no bearing on the Ambassador’s recollection.”
Sondland’s team responded by saying it was unfair to give them so little time when the reporting had been ongoing for several weeks, as they needed to find and review decade-old emails and documents to see what actually occurred at the times the women claimed.
It was November 7 when Sondland’s team first learned that ProPublica and Portland Monthly were working on a story alleging sexual misconduct on the part of the ambassador. They did not learn of the story from the reporters, but from employees at Provenance Hotels, which are owned by Sondland. These employees said they had been contacted randomly by reporters Maryam Jameel of ProPublica and Julia Silverman of Portland Monthly who said they had information regarding sexual harassment claims involving senior personnel at Provenance Hotels. The reporters asked these employees if they had any such experiences. Essentially, the reporters were blindly contacting employees to dig up dirt on Sondland.
Some of these employees contacted Sondland’s spokespeople. Sondland’s team then reached out to Jameel regarding the cold calls and asked what the basis was for her reporting. Jameel, according to a Sondland spokesperson, just laughed. The spokespeople then contacted Umansky for information on the investigation. In a phone call in mid-November, Umansky refused to give Sondland’s team the details of the allegations against them. According to a transcript provided to The Daily Wire based on contemporaneous notes of the call from Sondland’s public relations firm, Umansky said that they did have detailed allegations but would not share them with Sondland’s team at that time. It would be two weeks before those details would be shared. In response to the transcript, Umansky told Sondland’s spokesman that the “reporters are doing the job of journalism: asking questions and gathering information with an open mind.” He added: should we decide that the information we gather merits publication, we will give the subjects of the story an opportunity to respond in full. That means, we will tell the subjects of our story both the specifics involving them as well as any broader conclusions about them. In sum, we are committed to fair, accurate, and no surprises journalism.”
During an interview on CNN Tuesday night, Portland Monthly Editor-in-Chief Marty Patail and Silverman said they had been working on the story since October.
In response to a Daily Wire inquiry about the ethics involved in withholding the specific details from Sondland, ProPublica President Dick Tofel said, “we approached the subject of this story when we had completed the reporting and I think it’s very clear from the detailed response we received with respect to each of the accusers that Ambassador Sondland had ample time to respond.”
He added that “Ambassador Sondland admits to being in the time and place that each of these women say they were with them and he says that what they said occurred did not occur and that’s what we reported.”
It is true that Sondland’s denials appear throughout the article, along with some editor’s notes. Of course, that is not what sticks in the minds of readers presented with the story from the angle that there are sexual misconduct allegations against a member of the Trump administration. Those editor’s notes, however, should give readers pause. The accuser who appears to have prompted the story, Nicole Vogel, first told her story at an event in Seattle, after she had allegedly been moved to tears after hearing Sondland’s name mentioned in a segment on NPR. Sondland’s confirmation in 2018 was all over the news, especially in Portland, yet this did not apparently bring Vogel to tears.
An editor’s note on the ProPublica <a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/multiple-women-recall-sexual-misconduct-and-retaliation-by-gordon-sondland">article</a> mentions that Vogel just so happens to own Portland Monthly, one of the outlets that investigated the claims. This editor’s note says Vogel “cooperated with the story as a source” and “was not involved in editorial decisions.”
Vogel claimed to ProPublica that the story would not benefit her magazine, a dubious claim given the amount of media attention the local outlet. Vogel also told ProPublica that Portland Monthly had been placed in rooms in Sondland’s hotels, but that she withdrew the magazines “last week.”
Vogel claimed that she met with Sondland in 2003 to discuss him investing in her magazine concept. She claimed Sondland indicated to her over dinner that he was going to invest in her idea. He then invited her to view the art in one of the rooms of the Hotel Lucia and once there, Sondland requested a hug and then grabbed her face and tried to kiss her. Vogel then met with Sondland a few weeks later and that he picked her up in a vintage convertible and drove her to a restaurant. She said during the ride Sondland placed his hand on her thigh for about 10 minutes and that she placed her hand on his to keep him from moving further up her leg.
Sondland later declined to invest in Vogel’s magazine.
McDermott, Sondland’s attorney, wrote in his letter to ProPublica that Vogel did seek an investment from Sondland, but after due diligence, decided not to take her up on the proposal. On Thursday morning, Sondland’s team sent The Daily Wire an email from Sondland, which said he had initially been interested in investing in Vogel’s magazine and brought her to meet the publisher of a local media outlet in Vancouver, Washington due to his expertise. Sondland said that the publisher “declined to invest for several business reasons once he evaluated her prospectus and recommended that I not do so either.” In a follow-up email, this publisher said Sondland’s account of how Vogel’s proposal was declined “is correct.”
Sondland’s attorney also notes that Vogel “is a close associate of Rep. Earl Blumenauer,” a Democrat who has implored constituents to boycott Sondland’s businesses. Vogel also donates to Democrat politicians.
The second accuser, Jana Solis, initially said she met Sondland in 2003 or 2004, but then “reviewed her records after Sondland’s lawyer” was able to prove she didn’t meet Sondland until 2008. Sondland’s team was not informed that Solis then changed her story until hours before the deadline, a spokesperson for the ambassador told The Daily Wire.
Solis said she met with Sondland to discuss insurance, as she worked for Marsh &amp; McLennan at the time. She claimed Sondland flirted with her during their lunch and said she was hired and that she was his “new hotel chick.” She claimed Sondland slapped her on the butt as they left the restaurant and said, “I look forward to working with you.”
Solis then claimed she visited Sondland at his home to appraise his personal art collection and that after she left the bathroom and met him in his pool house, he was naked from the waist down. Solis also said she met Sondland yet again, and this time he forcefully kissed her. Sondland denied all of Solis’ allegations and noted that records pertaining to Provenance Hotels’ dealings with Marsh gave no indication of concern. The insurance company began brokerage work for Provenance in 2008.
The third accuser, Natalie Sept, had been Portland City Council member Nick Fish’s campaign manager and sought Sondland’s help in getting a job in the Oregon Governor’s Office of Film &amp; Television in 2010. She claimed that during a dinner to discuss a potential job, Sondland sat on the booth side of a table and asked her to sit next to him, which she found uncomfortable. She claimed Sondland insisted on walking her to her car and then forcibly kissed her.
Sondland denied Sept’s allegations as well, and his attorney noted that Sept had been active in Democratic politics including as an aide to Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR).
On Sondland’s personal <a href="https://www.gordonsondland.com/underhanded-journalism-by-portland-monthly-and-propublica">website</a>, a note states that he “intends to bring a lawsuit against those publications, their management, and others involved as swiftly as possible.”
In the letter from Sondland’s attorney to Propublica, McDermott points out that the misconduct allegedly took place at a time when Sondland could not be considered a public figure, meaning ProPublica and Portland Monthly would “not be able to claim that the ‘actual malice’ standard applies” in order to protect themselves from a defamation lawsuit.
“Should you proceed to publish, there will likely be eight-to-nine figures in damages suffered by Ambassador Sondland and his companies. And a court of law will evaluate your reporting &#8211; and Portland Monthly&#8217;s reporting &#8211; under a much less deferential negligence standard,” McDermott wrote.
Multiple media outlets have already republished the allegations against Sondland. The mere publication of the allegations are enough to tarnish his reputation. In today’s #MeToo environment, it is likely these allegations will hang over his head for some time, even though the timing and underlying information makes them suspicious.
&#8220;This is garbage journalism, obviously calculated to tamper with Amb. Sondland’s efforts as a witness in ongoing congressional proceedings,” a spokesperson for Sondland told The Daily Wire. “Throughout the reporting, ProPublica concealed and changed key details, denied us opportunity to review and verify the allegations, even as their key source actually owns the very magazine they are teaming up with. It stinks to high heaven and I expect readers will see right through it.&#8221;
In October, it was assumed Sondland would refuse to testify regarding his involvement in the alleged quid pro quo Trump offered to Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky. Sondland, however, agreed to testify, and what he said was not entirely helpful to Trump. As Sondland&#8217;s team has pointed out, the timing of the allegations against Sondland appear to be an attempt to intimidate and influence his involvement in the impeachment proceedings.
Correction: An earlier version of this article said ProPublica gave Sondland just 24 hours to respond to details of the allegations. ProPublica sent the details just before 10 p.m. on November 23 and gave Sondland&#8217;s team until 3 p.m. November 25 to respond, which is more than 24 hours.

EXCLUSIVE: The Sexual Harassment Allegations Against Gordon Sondland Are Extremely Dubious

Sexual Misconduct

Three women claim that they experienced sexual misconduct from U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland in the years prior to him becoming a U.S. ambassador.
&#8220;In one case, a potential business partner recalls that Sondland took her to tour a room in a hotel he owns, only to then grab her face and try to kiss her. After she rejected him, Sondland backtracked on investing in her business,&#8221; ProPublica reported. &#8220;Another woman, a work associate at the time, says Sondland exposed himself to her during a business interaction. She also recalls falling over the back of a couch trying to get away from him. After she made her lack of interest clear, she says Sondland called her, screaming about her job performance.&#8221;
ProPublica added, &#8220;A third woman, 27 years Sondland’s junior, met him to discuss a potential job. She says he pushed himself against her and kissed her. She shoved him away. She says his job help stopped.&#8221;
Sondland testified before the House Intelligence Committee last week as part of the Democrasts&#8217; impeachment inquiry hearings. In the hearing he made statements that both political parties used to bolster their cases on impeachment.
In a statement, Sondland denied the accusations against him, <a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6561833/STATEMENT-FROM-AMBASSADOR-GORDON-SONDLAND.pdf">writing</a>, &#8220;In decades of my career in business and civic affairs, my conduct can be affirmed by hundreds of employees and colleagues with whom I have worked in countless circumstances. These untrue claims of unwanted touching and kissing are concocted and, I believe, coordinated for political purposes. They have no basis in fact, and I categorically deny them. There has never been mention of them in any form during the 10 to 16 years since they supposedly occurred, although such a complaint could easily have been aired through multiple channels. These false incidents are at odds with my character. It is distressing that this underhanded journalism was initiated by a source angry that I long ago declined to invest in her magazine, the same magazine now presenting its owner&#8217;s outlandish claims as if the reporting is somehow objective.&#8221;
Sondland lawyer Jim McDermott <a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/multiple-women-recall-sexual-misconduct-and-retaliation-by-gordon-sondland">said</a> in a letter: “Notably, what each of these three women share in common is that they pursued Ambassador Sondland for financial and personal gain — an investment, a job, and insurance brokerage work — and he declined their proposals.”
“Given the timing of your intended story, a reasonable conclusion to be drawn is that you are attempting to affect Ambassador Sondland’s credibility as a fact witness in the pending impeachment inquiry,” McDermott continued. “Given the politically charged climate in which current events are unfolding, some might consider this to be veiled witness tampering.”
It is worth noting that ProPublica, which is <a href="https://www.mrc.org/commentary/over-30-major-news-organizations-linked-george-soros">funded</a> in part by Democrat megadonor George Soros, has falsely reported on the Trump administration in the past.
&#8220;ProPublica has issued a correction for mistakenly saying in an article that Gina Haspel, President Trump’s nominee to head the CIA, was involved with the treatment a terror suspect and falsely stated she mocked the suspect,&#8221; The Washington Examiner reported last year. &#8220;Although Haspel, who has been with the CIA since 1985, was in charge of a covert CIA prison in Thailand where detainees were subject to waterboarding and other interrogation methods in 2002, the ProPublica story falsely stated she was directly involved with the torture of a prisoner by the name of Abu Zubaydah. Zubaydah was waterboarded at the CIA prison on 83 occasions.&#8221;
ProPublica&#8217;s report, which was released as Haspel was undergoing the confirmation process to become the Director of the CIA, was instantly aggregated by numerous mainstream publications.

New Scandal Hits U.S. Ambassador Involved In Impeachment Hearings, Report Says

On Saturday, former Mayor of New York City and President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani appeared on Fox News with anchor Ed Henry to discuss the ongoing impeachment process.
At one point during the nearly 15-minute interview, Henry asked Giuliani about his professional relationship with the president:
<blockquote>HENRY: Have you talked to President Trump in the last week or two? Have you met with him? Are you still his counsel?
GIULIANI: I do not discuss my conversations with my client. You can assume that I talk to him early and often.</blockquote>
Giuliani continued, saying that he and the president “have a very, very good relationship,” and that the comments he’s seen suggesting that he might be made into a fall guy are “ridiculous.”
<blockquote>I mean, I’ve seen things written like, he’s gonna throw me under the bus. When they say that, I say, “He isn’t, but I have insurance.” [It’s] ridiculous. We are very good friends. He knows what I did was in order to defend him, not to dig up dirt on Biden.</blockquote>
The president’s attorney added that he started his investigation “a year ago” when Biden hadn’t yet “decided to run for president,” and that the “evidence” he has has allegedly gathered will ultimately reveal a “conspiracy” in which some elected Democrats participated.
<iframe loading="lazy" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/u8WJtT3vINE?start=596" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
Rudy Giuliani has used the “insurance” line before, according to <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/471792-giuliani-threatens-he-has-insurance-if-trump-turns-on-him-in">The Hill</a>.
Speaking with <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/14/rudy-giuliani-donald-trump-insurance-loyal">The Guardian</a> earlier this month, the former mayor was asked about the possibility that President Trump might attempt to “throw him under a bus.” Giuliani reportedly replied with a similar “insurance” comment, adding that if such a thing were to happen, “all my hospital bills will be paid.”
Giuliani’s personal attorney made sure to note that his client was just “joking,” according to The Guardian.
During the impeachment hearings this week, EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/sondland-yes-there-was-a-quid-pro-quo-for-white-house-meeting">claimed</a> to have received direct orders from Giuliani about a “quid pro quo” pertaining to Ukraine and Burisma:
<blockquote>Mr. Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the President.</blockquote>
Under questioning from Republican counsel Steve Castor, Sondland noted that President Trump never personally told him that a visit to the White House by Ukrainian president Zelensky was tied to the announcement of an investigation:
<blockquote>CASTOR: Did the president ever tell you personally about any preconditions for anything?
SONDLAND: No&#8230;
CASTOR: The president never told about any preconditions for a White House meeting?
SONDLAND: Personally, no.
CASTOR: You said you didn’t have your records or your documents from the State Department, but if you did, there wouldn’t be any documental record that ties President Trump personally to any of this, correct?
SONDLAND: Boy, I don’t want to speculate what would be on –
CASTOR: No, your documents or records.
SONDLAND: I don’t recall anything like that.</blockquote>
Castor then asked Sondland about his testimony regarding Giuliani allegedly requesting a White House visit “quid pro quo.”
<blockquote>CASTOR: You indicated that you believe that was – he was evincing President Trump’s interests, correct?
SONDLAND: My contact with Mr. Giuliani began, as I said, very late in the process, after August 1, when I was first introduced to him by a text from Ambassador Volker. So, we had already begun those discussions, I believe, with the Ukrainians prior to August 1, so everything was being funneled through others, including Mr. Volker.
CASTOR: You testified that Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the president, correct?
SONDLAND: That’s our understanding, yes.
CASTOR: But how did you know that? Who told you?
SONDLAND: Well, when the president says, “Talk to my personal attorney,” and then Mr. Giuliani, as his personal attorney, makes certain requests or demands, we assume it’s coming from the president. I’m not testifying that I heard the president tell Mr. Giuliani to tell us, so if that’s your question.</blockquote>
<iframe loading="lazy" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0XDCKRpLk4E" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
Giuliani <a href="https://nypost.com/2019/11/20/giuliani-slams-gop-impeachment-lawyer-demands-apology/">responded</a> to Sondland’s testimony with the following: “I came into this at Volker’s request. Sondland is speculating based on VERY little contact. I never met him and had very few calls with him, mostly with Volker. Volker testified I answered their questions and described them as my opinions, NOT demands. I.E., no quid pro quo!”

Rudy Giuliani.

Giuliani Responds To Those Who Say Trump Might Scapegoat Him: ‘I Have Insurance’

Impeachment

Rudy Giuliani

Ukraine

The following is satirical.
Many of you may have noticed an annoying grinding sound going on and on in the background and yes, the impeachment hearings are still underway. According to CBS News, the latest testimony was a bombshell, although according to ABC it was really more of a bombshell, though on NBC they felt it was either a bombshell or possibly the shell of a bomb.
The bombshell testimony that was a bombshell came from Gordon Sondland who used to do something or other before he did something else. Sondland’s explosive bombshell was that he kind of assumed everyone thought that it was pretty much suspected that President Donald Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate corruption that might have involved Joe Biden and that someone heard a lot of people were saying that Rudy Giuliani told a guy that the president wanted a quid pro quo which is Latin for something.
The amazing bombshell continued when Sondland testified that he called the president on the phone and asked him if he really did want a quid pro quo from Ukraine and Trump said no. So that was a very explosive bombshell that exploded bombshell-like during the hearings which were bombshellian in the extreme.
There were several casualties when the bombshell exploded, including the idea that Trump was asking Ukraine for a quid pro quo. Also the idea Trump committed an impeachable offense was killed, likewise the notion that these hearings were anything besides a corrupt waste of the public’s time and money. The bombshell also destroyed that weirdly effeminate smirk on the face of Adam Schiff, which is probably just as well.
According to Norah O’Donnell at CBS, the bombshell was so explosive it was devastating, while according to NBC Anchorman Lester Holt it was so devastating it was explosive, while according to ABC Anchorman George Stephanopoulos anything was better than finding out who killed the Jeffrey Epstein story not to mention Jeffrey Epstein.
The impeachment hearings will continue with more devastating bombshells that won’t mean anything either.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/impeachment-is-now-over-trump-highlights-key-testimony-that-strikes-at-heart-of-dems-case">Impeachment ‘Is Now Over’: Trump Highlights Key Testimony That Strikes At Heart Of Dems’ Case</a>

Explosion

Bombshell Impeachment Testimony Blows Effeminate Smirk Off Adam Schiff [Satire]

Adam Schiff

On Wednesday’s episode of “The Ben Shapiro Show,” the Daily Wire editor-in-chief discusses the testimony highlights of E.U. ambassador Gordon Sondland, and also outlines the only credible impeachment defense of the Trump administration. Video and partial transcript below: 
My suggestion for months at this point has been that President Trump basically wrapped up all this stuff in a ball on Ukraine, decided he didn&#8217;t really want to give aid to Ukraine anyway — because he was always a little bit split on giving more aid to Ukraine, he always felt that Europeans weren&#8217;t doing their fair share, he always wondered why the United States was spending so much time and effort in Ukraine — and he finally allowed that to cloud his judgment to the point where he said, “Okay, I’m going to withhold the military aid until I get these investigations, and investigations are everything that bothers me about Ukraine up to and including Burisma and Joe Biden.” 
Now, the way that you would establish an impeachable offense is if what you found was — the Democrats basically said this, it&#8217;s not just me saying this, this is the Democrats setting the standard — [if] they suggest that this was to get Biden. This was all about Biden, all the rest of this stuff, the CrowdStrike stuff, the 2016 election stuff, all that stuff is a ruse [and] really what Trump wanted was to go get Joe Biden. And all the rest of the stuff he’s mentioned, these other investigations having to do with corruption, these other investigations about the Ukrainian embassy coordinating with the DNC in 2016, all of that was merely a pretext for Trump to force Ukraine to go get Joe Biden — that’s the case. 
So Gordon Sondland is the person who, theoretically, could speak to that, right? Gordon Sondland is the guy who could get up before Congress [Wednesday] and he could say, “I talked to Trump. Trump said, ‘Go get the Bidens,’” and the rest of all this was a charade. [But] that isn&#8217;t exactly what Gordon Sondland said.
So people are honing in on the fact that Gordon Sondland had changed his testimony. In his original closed door testimony, he said he didn&#8217;t understand there was a quid pro quo with Trump and Ukraine. Now, of course, he changed his testimony, and he suggested that there was, in fact, a quid pro quo with Trump and Ukraine. [However] it is not clear exactly whether that quid-pro-quo was wrong, whether that quid pro quo was a problem &#8230;
[Sondland began his testimony] by explaining that everybody was in the loop on this, like everybody knew that Trump was basically withholding military aid in order to get investigations, whatever &#8220;investigations&#8221; means &#8230; He says everybody was in the loop, it&#8217;s not like this was a giant secret with regard to Ukraine policy. 
<blockquote>SONDLAND: He would greatly appreciate a call prior to Sunday so that he can put out some media about a friendly and productive call, no details, prior to Ukraine election on Sunday. Chief of Staff Mulvaney responded, “I asked the NSC to set it up for tomorrow”&#8230; Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret, everyone was informed via email on July 19, days before the presidential call.</blockquote>
Okay, so not only did everybody know, says Gordon Sondland, but everybody at the State Department knew, up to and including Mike Pompeo, that President Trump was manipulating Ukraine policy in order to achieve investigations. So everyone was in the loop, Sondland is trying to say [paraphrasing]: “It wasn&#8217;t just me, it wasn&#8217;t me making up this foreign policy. Don&#8217;t try to throw me under the bus. If you’ve got a problem with the foreign policy — I was not the originator of the foreign policy, I&#8217;m not going to be the man who gets caught in the crossfire here, I was doing the will of the president of the United States.” 
Here&#8217;s Sondland explaining that everybody at the State Department knew:
<blockquote>SONDLAND: We kept the leadership of the State Department and the NSC informed of our activities, and that included communications with Secretary of State Pompeo, his counselor, Ulrich Brechbul, his executive secretary, Lisa Kenna, and also communications with Ambassador Bolton, Dr. Hill, Mr. Morrison, and their staff at the NSC. They knew what we were doing, and why. </blockquote>
Everybody knew, right? In other words, this was not a giant secret, which you would assume at this point since half the people on the call, the July 25 phone call, made complaints. And then Sondland continues along these lines and he says, [paraphrasing] “Listen, the only reason we are even working with Rudy Giuliani was at Trump&#8217;s behalf. So if you think that I was coordinating with Giuliani&#8217;s side, some sort of side relationship with Giuliani, not going to happen.” 
Sondland is trying to achieve a couple of things with this testimony. One: He can&#8217;t say anything that overtly contradicts his closed-door testimony because then he would be charged with perjury — Republicans would charge him with perjury. Two: Gordon Sondland does not want to be the guy who is basically put out there as he was freelancing the foreign policy. 
Now listen, I don&#8217;t think that that was a credible accusation in the first place. I think that if anybody had claimed that Gordon Sondland was making up Ukrainian foreign policy on his own — the giant donor to Trump who ended up as E.U. ambassador, suddenly an expert on Ukraine and negotiating with Rudy Giuliani — that was never a credible defense for the Trump administration. Again, the only credible defense was the one that I have presented for Trump, which was an “intent-based defense.”
The “no quid-pro-quo,” [and] “it was a perfect phone call” defense was obviously crap. It was obviously crap from from very nearly the beginning. As soon as it came out that the Ukrainians had found out pretty soon after the July 25 phone call that military aid was being withheld, to say that there was no quid pro quo at all was obviously untenable. To suggest that President Trump had engaged in a perfect phone call on July 25 — obviously, it was also untenable. 
The only tenable defense is that President Trump did not have intent to go after Joe Biden specifically in advance of 2020. It was not about getting Biden, it was about all of his thoughts on Ukraine — mashed up together, thrown out there — and Ukraine was supposed to fulfill all of these concerns that Trump had, some of which were legitimate, [and] some of which were were based on bad information being provided by Rudy Giuliani. But Sondland is trying to avoid the “it&#8217;s my fault” routine. I think many in the Trump administration wanted Sondland to take a bullet here and Sondland ain’t going to do it.
<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-ben-shapiro-show/id1047335260">Listen to full episodes of “The Ben Shapiro Show” on iTunes. 
</a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-ben-shapiro-show">Watch “The Ben Shapiro Show” on-demand!</a>

President Trump Departs White House For Texas

SHAPIRO: The Trump Administration’s Only Credible Defense

Ben Shapiro

President Trump kicked off Thursday with an early morning tweet celebrating the &#8220;GREAT day&#8221; he and the Republican Party enjoyed on Wednesday as a result of the impeachment inquiry — though by the mainstream media coverage, he added, you probably couldn&#8217;t tell it.
&#8220;The Republican Party, and me, had a GREAT day yesterday with respect to the phony Impeachment Hoax, &amp; yet, when I got home to the White House &amp; checked out the news coverage on much of television, you would have no idea they were reporting on the same event,&#8221; Trump tweeted early Thursday. &#8220;FAKE &amp; CORRUPT NEWS!&#8221;
While Trump didn&#8217;t elaborate on what he meant by a &#8220;great day&#8221; in the impeachment inquiry, a series of posts by the president on Wednesday provide some context for his declaration. In various tweets and retweets on Wednesday, Trump highlighted responses from Ambassador Gordon Sondland — one of the only witnesses who had direct contact with Trump on Ukraine — who asserted that Trump told him unequivocally that he wants &#8220;no quid pro quo,&#8221; &#8220;nothing&#8221; from Ukrainian President Zelensky, only that he &#8220;do the right thing.&#8221;
&#8220;Impeachment Witch Hunt is now OVER!&#8221; Trump tweeted Wednesday along with a quote of Sondland&#8217;s statement.
“It was a very short abrupt conversation, he was not in a good mood, and he just said, ‘I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing,’ something to that effect,” said Sondland. “So I typed out a text to Ambassador Taylor and my reason for telling him this was not to defend what the president was saying, not to opine on whether the president was being truthful or untruthful, but simply to relay I’ve gone as far as I can go. This is the final word that I heard from the president of the United States.”
&#8220;Later, Ambassador Sondland said that I told him, &#8216;Good, go tell the truth!'&#8221; Trump wrote after quoting Sondland&#8217;s testimony. &#8220;This Witch Hunt must end NOW. So bad for our Country!&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
&#8230;.”I WANT NOTHING! I WANT NOTHING! I WANT NO QUID PRO QUO! TELL PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO DO THE RIGHT THING!” Later, Ambassador Sondland said that I told him, “Good, go tell the truth!” This Witch Hunt must end NOW. So bad for our Country!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1197227388683206656?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 20, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The president also highlighted another unequivocal assertion from Sondland about any conditions imposed on Ukraine related to the investigations into the Bidens-connected Ukrainian-based energy company Burisma or the 2016 election.
&#8220;You testified, &#8216;President Trump never told me directly that the aid was conditioned on the investigations?'&#8221; Rep. Elise Stefanick (R-NY) asked the ambassador.
&#8220;That&#8217;s correct,&#8221; he replied.
The moment was tweeted out by Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and retweeted by Trump:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
With every question that <a href="https://twitter.com/RepStefanik?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@RepStefanik</a> asks, Democrats&#8217; sham impeachment gets weaker and weaker.
Q: &#8220;You testified, &#8216;President Trump never told me directly that the aid was conditioned on the investigations?'&#8221;
Ambassador Sondland: &#8220;That&#8217;s correct.&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/ZnKsoBp6PD">pic.twitter.com/ZnKsoBp6PD</a>
— Kevin McCarthy (@GOPLeader) <a href="https://twitter.com/GOPLeader/status/1197244652040138753?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 20, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Another response from Sondland pointed out by Trump via a retweet of a post by Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) was Sondland agreeing with Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH) that &#8220;no one on this planet — not Donald Trump, Rudy Guiliani, Mick Mulvaney, Mike Pompeo — no one told you aid was tied to political investigations.&#8221;
&#8220;Mr. Sondland, let&#8217;s be clear: no one on this planet — not Donald Trump, Rudy Guiliani, Mick Mulvaney, Mike Pompeo — no one told you aid was tied to political investigations, is that correct,&#8221; asked Turner.
&#8220;That&#8217;s correct,&#8221; said Sondland.
&#8220;Game over,&#8221; concluded Meadows.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Wow.<a href="https://twitter.com/RepMikeTurner?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@RepMikeTurner</a>: &#8220;Mr. Sondland, let&#8217;s be clear: no one on this planet—not Donald Trump, Rudy Guiliani, Mick Mulvaney, Mike Pompeo—no one told you aid was tied to political investigations, is that correct.&#8221;
Gordon Sondland: &#8220;That&#8217;s correct.&#8221;
Game over.
— Mark Meadows (@RepMarkMeadows) <a href="https://twitter.com/RepMarkMeadows/status/1197231629279924225?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 20, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
When Sondland first began his testimony, the mainstream media portrayed it as severely damaging to Trump due to Sondland&#8217;s opening remarks in which he said there was a &#8220;quid pro quo&#8221; imposed related to Ukraine. But that alleged quid pro quo, he explained, was pushed by Trump&#8217;s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and for a meeting and call with the White House, not military aid.
As Trump highlighted, when Republicans had a chance to ask Sondland questions, the ambassador made clear that neither Trump or anyone in the administration ever told him that the military aid was tied to the investigations. Sondland repeatedly stated that he came to &#8220;presume&#8221; that to be the case on his own, while Trump himself told him explicitly that there were no conditions.
“I know that members of this committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a ‘quid pro quo?&#8217;” Sondland <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/sondland-yes-there-was-a-quid-pro-quo-for-white-house-meeting">said</a>. “With regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes.” That “quid pro quo,” he explained, came from Giuliani. “I’ve never heard from President Trump that the aid (to Ukraine) was conditioned on the investigations,” he told committee members.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/rep-mike-turner-gets-witness-to-admit-bombshell-debunks-cnn-headline-in-real-time">Rep Mike Turner Gets Witness To Admit Bombshell, Debunks CNN Headline In Real Time</a>

Impeachment ‘Is Now Over’: Trump Highlights Key Testimony That Strikes At Heart Of Dems’ Case

For weeks now, I have been pushing the message on my weekly Election Wire newsletter (sign up <a href="http://lp.dailywire.com/getelectionwire/">here</a>!) that the White House&#8217;s current impeachment defense strategy is misguided. Rather than focus on the procedural and semantical debate over whether a &#8220;quid pro quo&#8221; took place on the impeachment inquiry&#8217;s underlying Jury 25th phone call between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, I have argued that it would be far preferable for the White House to <a href="https://twitter.com/josh_hammer/status/1197163856482713603?s=12">defend the underlying substance</a> of the phone call as failing to rise to the Constitution&#8217;s impeachment criteria.
Following U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland&#8217;s testimony today in front of the House Intelligence Committee, I feel vindicated. After all, Sondland&#8217;s testimony today focused <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/sondland-yes-there-was-a-quid-pro-quo-for-white-house-meeting">disproportionately</a> — perhaps nearly <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/ambassador-sondland-strikes-at-democrats-impeachment-narrative-trump-told-me-he-wanted-no-quid-pro-quo">exclusively</a> — on the question of whether a &#8220;quid pro quo&#8221; took place when Trump broached the subject of investigating the corrupt nexus of the Bidens and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-hammer-on-tipping-point-with-liz-wheeler-the-hunter-biden-foia-bombshell">troubled Ukrainian energy company Burisma</a> in the context of doling out fresh U.S. foreign aid to Ukraine.
The debate over whether a &#8220;quid pro quo&#8221; transpired has been at the very heart of Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff&#8217;s (D-CA) impeachment inquiry, and it seems to be the consensus Democratic Party stance that such a &#8220;quid pro quo&#8221; would be ipso facto (hey, the English language has other Latin loanwords, too) <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-stop-calling-everything-impeachable-offense-josh-hammer">impeachable</a>. Accordingly, President Trump and his defenders in both the Republican elected official ranks and conservative punditry have centered their defense of Trump&#8217;s actions around the argument that no &#8220;quid pro quo&#8221; took place on the July 25th phone call.
This is a tactical error that ought to be remedied. But the good news is that it is not too late to change course.
Let&#8217;s start with first principles. <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii">Article II, Section 4</a> of the U.S. Constitution defines the jurisdiction of impeachable offenses as being &#8220;treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.&#8221; In using the phrase &#8220;high crimes and misdemeanors,&#8221; the Constitution&#8217;s Framers employed a well-known phrase with a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors#Britain">rich history</a> in the English common law tradition.
In <a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed65.asp">The Federalist No. 65</a>, Alexander Hamilton helpfully defines &#8220;high crimes and misdemeanors&#8221; as being &#8220;those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.&#8221; By contrast, the men at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 expressly considered the much lower impeachment threshold of mere <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/09/27/how-founding-fathers-saw-impeachment-high-crimes-misdemeanors/">&#8220;maladministration&#8221;</a> before deciding against it. Put another way, the Framers specifically deliberated the possibility of constitutionally permitting impeachment for something as trivial as a mere policy disagreement or partisan squabble before rejecting that possibility outright.
The White House, congressional Republicans, and Trump-friendly conservative media alike should reorient their impeachment defense toward arguing that Trump&#8217;s conduct on the July 25th phone call with Zelensky simply does not rise to this elevated &#8220;high crimes and misdemeanors&#8221; constitutional criterion. The White House and its defenders should make the point that the absolute worst-case interpretation of the phone call is that of an <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-at-the-new-york-post-alexander-vindman-condemned-himself-in-his-impeachment-testimony">ethical disagreement</a> over how — or how not — presidents ought to attach strings to the doling out of U.S. taxpayer-funded foreign aid. In no world, the White House should argue, does Trump&#8217;s conduct in attaching <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/the-two-theories-of-trumps-actions-in-the-ukraine-affair/">legitimate, corruption crackdown-tied strings</a> to the U.S.&#8217;s doling out substantial foreign aid to Ukraine constitute, using the Hamiltonian language of The Federalist No. 65, an &#8220;abuse or violation of some public trust.&#8221; This argument would be politically popular, to boot: Americans <a href="https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2016/03/11/foreign-aid">routinely poll against foreign aid</a>, and agreeing with the premise that <a href="https://www.facebook.com/GlennBeck/videos/3094994400515040/">strings should be attached to foreign aid</a> is therefore a winning message for Republicans as we head into the heart of election season.
It is not yet too late for the GOP to change tactical course. But Sondland&#8217;s testimony today really ought to serve as a wakeup call for the White House and its congressional allies that they should do so sooner rather than later.

Gordon Sondland testifying

HAMMER: Sondland’s Testimony Reveals The Error Of The White House’s Impeachment Defense Strategy

Constitution

Democratic Party

Hunter Biden

Joe Biden

Volodymyr Zelensky

White House

U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland told the House Intelligence Committe on Wednesday that President Donald Trump told him that he wanted &#8220;nothing&#8221; from Ukraine and explicitly stated that Trump wanted &#8220;no quid pro quo.&#8221;
&#8220;I finally called the president, I believe it was on the 9th of September, I can&#8217;t find the records and [the State Department] won&#8217;t provide them to me, but I believe I just asked him an open-ended question, Mr. Chairman,&#8221; Sondland told House Intelligence Committe Chairman Adam Schiff.
Sondland told Schiff that he asked Trump: &#8220;What do you want from Ukraine? I keep hearing all these different ideas and theories and this and that. What do you want?&#8221;
&#8220;It was a very short abrupt conversation, he was not in a good mood, and he just said, &#8216;I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing,&#8217; something to that effect,&#8221; Sondland continued. &#8220;So I typed out a text to ambassador Taylor and my reason for telling him this was not to defend what the president was saying, not to opine on whether the president was being truthful or untruthful, but simply to relay I&#8217;ve gone as far as I can go. This is the final word that I heard from the president the United States.&#8221;
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Doesn’t get much clearer than this.
Ambassador Sondland says, of President Trump:
“I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo.” 
<a href="https://t.co/eHu8DxBhs4">pic.twitter.com/eHu8DxBhs4</a>
— Tim Murtaugh (@TimMurtaugh) <a href="https://twitter.com/TimMurtaugh/status/1197183725991333888?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 20, 2019</a></blockquote>
Later in the hearing, Sondland again confirmed to Schiff that Trump said &#8220;no quid pro quo,&#8221; saying, &#8220;President Trump, when I asked him the open ended question, as I testified previously, &#8216;What do you want from Ukraine,&#8221; his answer was, &#8220;I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing. That&#8217;s all I got from President Trump.&#8221;
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Sondland again confirms Trump told him “no quid pro quo”<a href="https://t.co/jnzugebeT1">https://t.co/jnzugebeT1</a> <a href="https://t.co/UkgTd7aFOZ">pic.twitter.com/UkgTd7aFOZ</a>
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) <a href="https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1197213049243013120?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 20, 2019</a></blockquote>
At another point in the hearing, Sondland told the Democrat counsel, “I don’t recall President Trump ever talking to me about any security assistance. Ever.”
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
🚨 BREAKING → Ambassador Sondland: “I don’t recall President Trump ever talking to me about any security assistance. Ever.”
End this sham. <a href="https://t.co/tsmQTO1fMX">pic.twitter.com/tsmQTO1fMX</a>
— Steve Scalise (@SteveScalise) <a href="https://twitter.com/SteveScalise/status/1197187001075871745?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 20, 2019</a></blockquote>
Sondland continued, &#8220;I did not hear directly from President Trump that the aid would be held up until the statement was made. I did not hear those words.&#8221;
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
WATCH:
Ambassador Sondland: &#8220;I did not hear from President Trump that the aid would be held up until the statement was made. I did not hear those words.&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/7j5ssQjqoK">pic.twitter.com/7j5ssQjqoK</a>
— Mark Bednar (@MarkBednar) <a href="https://twitter.com/MarkBednar/status/1197208418911752192?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 20, 2019</a></blockquote>
&#8220;Did the president ever tell you personally about any preconditions for anything?&#8221; Republican counsel Steve Castor asked.
&#8220;No,&#8221; Sondland responded.
&#8220;The president never you told about any preconditions for the aid to be released?&#8221; Castor continued.
&#8220;No,&#8221; Sondland responded.
&#8220;The president never told about any preconditions for a White House meeting?&#8221; Castor asked.
&#8220;Personally, no,&#8221; Sondland responded.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
WATCH:
Did the President ever tell you personally about any preconditions for anything?
Sondland: &#8220;No&#8221;
The President never you told about any preconditions for the aid to be released?
&#8220;No&#8221;
The President never told about any preconditions for a WH meeting?
&#8220;Personally no&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/uWtQMFkw8G">pic.twitter.com/uWtQMFkw8G</a>
— Mark Bednar (@MarkBednar) <a href="https://twitter.com/MarkBednar/status/1197193534283157505?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 20, 2019</a></blockquote>
Later in the hearing, Sondland told the Democratic counsel, “No one told me directly that the aid was tied to anything. I was presuming it was.”
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Ambassador Gordon Sondland: “No one told me directly that the aid was tied to anything. I was presuming it was” <a href="https://t.co/BjjKHqoReq">pic.twitter.com/BjjKHqoReq</a>
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) <a href="https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1197211603986288640?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 20, 2019</a></blockquote>

Ambassador Sondland Strikes At Democrats’ Impeachment Narrative: Trump Told Me He Wanted ‘No Quid Pro Quo’

Quid pro quo.
It&#8217;s all anyone in Washington, D.C. is talking about. Did President Trump demand Ukrainian leaders investigate the business dealings of the son of a potential 2020 presidential opponent in exchange for hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. aid? That is at the heart of the impeachment inquiry now underway on Capitol Hill.
You&#8217;ll get a different answer from the two political camps — and sometimes, from a single witness testifying before the House Intelligence Committee.
Gordon Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union (EU), testified on Wednesday that there was a quid pro quo as it relates to &#8220;the requested White House call and White House meeting.&#8221; Sondland also said it came from former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Trump&#8217;s personal lawyer, at the &#8220;express direction&#8221; of the president.
“Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the president of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the president,” Sondland said.
But the White House on Wednesday refuted Sondland’s testimony that there was a quid pro quo involving the White House and Ukraine.
“Ambassador Sondland previously testified that the president told him directly that he was not interested in a quid pro quo,” the White House said in a statement, referring to his private testimony last month. “He testified that President Trump repeatedly made it clear he wanted no quid pro quo.”
In those close-door hearings, Sondland — a political novice and hotel executive who was named EU ambassador after contributing $1 million to the 2016 Trump campaign — asserted that Trump had not sought a quid pro quo by withholding U.S. aid to force Ukraine to perform political favors.
On November 5th, Sondland revised his earlier testimony, <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/house/469155-sondland-changes-quid-pro-quo-story">The Hill</a> reported.
<blockquote>Sondland says “I now recall” a Sept. 1 meeting with top U.S. and Ukrainian officials in Warsaw, where he told an adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that nearly $400 million in U.S. financial aid was contingent on Zelensky committing to investigations into the 2016 election and Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company that employed the son of former Vice President Joe Biden, a leading 2020 presidential contender.
“After a large meeting, 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 we had been discussing for many weeks,” Sondland said, referring to the aide, Andriy Yermak.</blockquote>
“By the beginning of September 2019, and in the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anti-corruption statement,” his revised declaration said.
On Tuesday, the White House pointed out the conflicting accounts.
&#8220;Ambassador Sondland squarely states that he ‘did not know, (and still does not know) when, why or by whom the aid was suspended.’ He also said he ‘presumed’ there was a link to the aid — but cannot identify any solid source for that assumption,” White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said.
Sondland said he spoke with Trump on his cell phone on July 26th, the day after the president had a phone call with Zelensky.
Asked about that call, Trump said: &#8220;I know nothing about that. First time I&#8217;ve heard it. The one thing I&#8217;ve seen that Sondland said was that he did speak to me with for a brief moment and I said &#8216;no quid pro quo under any circumstances.'&#8221;
&#8220;And that&#8217;s true. But I&#8217;ve never heard this. In any event, it is more secondhand information, but I&#8217;ve never heard it,&#8221; Trump told reporters last week.

White House Pushes Back On Ambassador’s Claim Of ‘Quid Pro Quo’

<div class="teaser-content">
<section>
On Wednesday, Ambassador Gordon Sondland &#8212; a pivotal witness in the impeachment inquiry because of his close contact with President Trump on Ukraine &#8212; testified in front of congressional committee members. In his opening statement, Sondland stated in unequivocal terms that &#8220;yes&#8221; there was a &#8220;quid pro quo&#8221; presented by Trump&#8217;s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine involving a White House meeting and call. He also repeated that he &#8220;came to believe&#8221; the release of U.S. military aide to Ukraine was connected to the investigations, indicating that he was not told so by the president. Sondland later made clear that he &#8220;never heard from President Trump that the aid was conditioned on the investigations.&#8221;
&#8220;I know that members of this committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a &#8216;quid pro quo?'&#8221; Sondland said Wednesday. &#8220;With regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes.&#8221; That &#8220;quid pro quo,&#8221; he explained, came from Giuliani. &#8220;I&#8217;ve never heard from President Trump that the aid (to Ukraine) was conditioned on the investigations,&#8221; he told committee members.
In his <a href="https://www.axios.com/gordon-sondland-trump-impeachment-opening-statement-25c69f9d-cd4c-4f6f-b831-92aa9c72adf7.html?utm_source=twitter&amp;utm_medium=social&amp;utm_campaign=organic&amp;utm_content=1100">opening statement</a> Wednesday, Sondland underscored six key points, beginning with the role of Giuliani, with whom he said was directed by the president to work.
&#8220;First, Secretary [Rick] Perry, Ambassador [Kurt] Volker and I worked with Mr. Rudy Giuliani on Ukraine matters at the express direction of the President of the United States,&#8221; said Sondland. &#8220;We did not want to work with Mr. Giuliani. Simply put, we played the hand we were dealt. We all understood that if we refused to work with Mr. Giuliani, we would lose an important opportunity to cement relations between the United States and Ukraine. So we followed the President’s orders.&#8221;
Though he made clear that he and the other officials were reluctant to work with Giuliani, they &#8220;did not believe that his role was improper at the time.&#8221;
&#8220;Second, although we disagreed with the need to involve Mr. Giuliani, we did not believe that his role was improper at the time,&#8221; said Sondland. &#8220;As I previously testified, if I had known of all of Mr. Giuliani’s dealings or of his associations with individuals now under criminal indictment, I would not have acquiesced to his participation. Still, given what we knew at the time, what we were asked to do did not appear to be wrong.&#8221;
The ambassador then stressed that accusations that he and the other officials were &#8220;engaged in some irregular or rogue diplomacy&#8221; is &#8220;absolutely false.&#8221;
&#8220;Third, let me say: precisely because we did not think that we were engaging in improper behavior, we made every effort to ensure that the relevant decisionmakers at the National Security Council and State Department knew the important details of our efforts. The suggestion that we were engaged in some irregular or rogue diplomacy is absolutely false,&#8221; said the ambassador. &#8220;I have now identified certain State Department emails and messages that provide contemporaneous support for my view. These emails show that the leadership of State, NSC, and the White House were all informed about the Ukraine efforts from May 23, 2019, until the security aid was released on September 11, 2019. I will quote from some of those messages with you shortly.&#8221;
In his fourth point, Sondland addressed the &#8220;quid pro quo&#8221; arrangement pushed by Giuliani.
&#8220;Fourth, as I testified previously, Mr. Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky,&#8221; he said. &#8220;Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the President.&#8221;
Sondland then summarized his own understanding of the connection between the $391 million in U.S. military aid and the requested investigations into Burisma and the Bidens and alleged Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election. As he has stated before, he &#8220;came to believe&#8221; the aide and investigations were connected, but suggests that he was not told that expressly.
&#8220;Fifth, in July and August 2019, we learned that the White House had also suspended security aid to Ukraine,&#8221; said the ambassador. &#8220;I was adamantly opposed to any suspension of aid, as the Ukrainians needed those funds to fight against Russian aggression. I tried diligently to ask why the aid was suspended, but I never received a clear answer. In the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I later came to believe that the resumption of security aid would not occur until there was a public statement from Ukraine committing to the investigations of the 2016 election and Burisma, as Mr. Giuliani had demanded. I shared concerns of the potential quid pro quo regarding the security aid with Senator Ron Johnson. And I also shared my concerns with the Ukrainians.&#8221;
&#8220;Finally, at all times, I was acting in good faith,&#8221; he concluded. &#8220;As a presidential appointee, I followed the directions of the President. We worked with Mr. Giuliani because the President directed us to do so. We had no desire to set any conditions on the Ukrainians. Indeed, my personal view &#8212; which I shared repeatedly with others &#8212; was that the White House meeting and security assistance should have proceeded without pre-conditions of any kind. We were working to overcome the problems, given the facts as they existed. Our only interest was to advance longstanding U.S. policy and to support Ukraine’s fragile democracy.&#8221;
Later in the hearing, Sondland emphasized that Trump &#8220;never&#8221; imposed a quid pro quo. &#8220;I&#8217;ve never heard from President Trump that the aid (to Ukraine) was conditioned on the investigations,&#8221; he said, explaining that in one of his calls with Trump in which he asked for clarification about what he wanted out of Ukraine, Trump said something to the effect of, &#8220;I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing.&#8221;
&#8220;It was a very short abrupt conversation, he was not in a good mood, and he just said, ‘I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing,’ something to that effect,&#8221; said Sondland. &#8220;So I typed out a text to Ambassador Taylor and my reason for telling him this was not to defend what the president was saying, not to opine on whether the president was being truthful or untruthful, but simply to relay I’ve gone as far as I can go. This is the final word that I heard from the president of the United States.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Gordon Sondland was clear: &#8220;I&#8217;ve never heard from President Trump that the aid (to Ukraine) was conditioned on the investigations.&#8221;
So what did <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@realDonaldTrump</a> say when Sondland DID talk to him?
Sondland, quoting POTUS: &#8220;I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo.&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/ZuaCybXJj1">pic.twitter.com/ZuaCybXJj1</a>
— Mark Meadows (@RepMarkMeadows) <a href="https://twitter.com/RepMarkMeadows/status/1197189227462713345?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 20, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
</section>
</div>
<div class="remainder-content">
<section>
<div class="cb bg-offwhite mt-xxs pad-top-md pad-bottom-md mb-lg ml-neg-gutter mr-neg-gutter mr-auto-ns ml-auto-ns dn db-ns relative" data-qa="article-body-ad">
<div class="relative z-1">
<div class=" ">
<div class="teads-inread sm-screen">
This article has been updated to include more comments from Sondland in the inquiry.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</section>
</div>

Menu