Republicans are getting scared about Gordon Sondland's impeachment testimony: report

Republicans are getting scared about Gordon Sondland's impeachment testimony: report
U.S. Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo is greeted by U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland upon arrival to Brussels, Belgium on February 15, 2019. [State Department photo Ron Przysucha/ Public Domain]

Ambassador Gordon Sondland may be the most dangerous witness for President Donald Trump in the impeachment hearings so far, and that's in part because he has a lot to lose.

And according to CNN's Shimon Prokuecz, his scheduled testimony for Wednesday morning is making Republicans nervous:

There are at least two reasons they're right to be nervous. First, there's good reason to suspect the hasn't been entirely honest with the House Intelligence Community up to this point, and it's possible he lied, which raises the specter of criminal charges that would be damaging to the president's case. And second, he's at the center of Trump's scheme to get Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenksy to investigate the presidents's political enemies — the action that prompted the ongoing impeachment inquiry — and Sondland appears to be the key nexus between the United States and Ukraine in the relevant time period.

As I've documented before, Sondland's testimony has already shown clear tensions with the accounts of other witnesses — raising the possibility that he has exposed himself to legal jeopardy. He's also changed his testimony to more closely match those of other witnesses, which is never a good sign for an individual's credibility. For example, though he initially denied that there was a quid pro quo — an essential element of bribery — surrounding the requests for Ukrainian investigations and withheld military aid, he later said that he had, in fact, explicitly set up such an ultimatum. Since then, more information has emerged that raises serious questions about the fullness of his testimony.

So that forces the question: What will Sondland say when he appears before Congress on Wednesday?

Will he clam up? He might cite the Fifth Amendment or executive privilege to refrain from answering some questions, depending on the circumstances. For example, the evidence indicates that he had many conversations with Trump while working as an emissary to Ukraine. He may try to say that he doesn't have to talk about his conversations with the president, citing executive privilege. But this could just make him look even more guilty, especially given the fact that he has not been particularly forthcoming about other issues.

Claiming the Fifth to avoid incriminating himself — for example, because he could reveal he made false statements to Congress — would similarly look bad for both him and the president.

It's not clear how much these claims would cover, and Sondland has already testified extensively about other topics in a way that may have effectively waived his privileges. But it's possible that, if he stays silent about enough key facts, Republicans will declare victory.

But he might also decide that, since he appears to have already dipped his toe into legal jeopardy and skirted around the truth in an apparent effort to protect Trump, his best course of action from here on out is full disclosure. If this is right, his testimony really could be devastating for the president — even if he doesn't want it to be.

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. AlterNet’s journalists work tirelessly to counter the traditional corporate media narrative. We’re here seven days a week, 365 days a year. And we’re proud to say that we’ve been bringing you the real, unfiltered news for 20 years—longer than any other progressive news site on the Internet.

It’s through the generosity of our supporters that we’re able to share with you all the underreported news you need to know. Independent journalism is increasingly imperiled; ads alone can’t pay our bills. AlterNet counts on readers like you to support our coverage. Did you enjoy content from David Cay Johnston, Common Dreams, Raw Story and Robert Reich? Opinion from Salon and Jim Hightower? Analysis by The Conversation? Then join the hundreds of readers who have supported AlterNet this year.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure AlterNet remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to AlterNet, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.