Let's devote a few moments to the testimony of Gordon Sondland, the wealthy Oregon hotelier whose name has probably cropped up more often during the House impeachment inquiry than anyone else's, with the possible exception of Donald Trump's.
During the nearly 60 hours of testimony so far, Sondland delivered the most dramatic, definitive line. Here's what he told the House Intelligence Committee on Nov. 20:
"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'? As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes."
A few paragraphs later, Sondland said, "Everyone was in the loop." Sondland is clearly avowing under oath that an important White House meeting between President Trump and Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskiy was contingent upon Zelenskiy's public announcement of the opening of an investigation into Trump's most prominent political rival, a Democratic candidate for the presidency, Joe Biden.
What do we make of this extraordinary statement in the midst of the hundreds of thousands of words of sworn evidence that we've heard in the last few weeks?
First, it's worth noting that Sondland's assertion of a quid pro quo depends on another quid pro quo, the one struck between Sondland and the president after Trump was elected. Sondland donated a million dollars to Trump's inauguration committee and in return Sondland was awarded with the much-prized ambassadorship to the European Union.
This sort of quid pro quo _ like most quid pro quos _ is never specifically articulated. But it implies a third unspoken quid pro quo, the loyalty that a president might expect from an ambassador appointed for political reasons.
In this, Trump must have been disappointed. Sondland's loyalty to Trump was tested by the awesome implications of testifying under oath, as well as, perhaps, the conviction only five days earlier of longtime Trump associate Roger Stone for lying to Congress. And Sondland is not the sort of man who would throw himself on his sword for Donald Trump, any more than Trump would reciprocate.
In short, there is considerable reason to believe that Sondland is telling the truth. Further, he was in an excellent position to actually know the truth. He was apparently the Amigo who, among the infamous Three, had the best access to Trump _ few people in the world can call the White House and get the president on the line. And even though his post was technically in Brussels, he was all over Ukraine, talking, texting and emailing all of the principals.
For their part, Republicans are ambivalent about Sondland: On one hand, when he testified that Trump told him that he wanted "nothing" from Ukraine, Sondland was the most credible witness in the world. On the other, when Sondland says clearly that there was a quid pro quo, Republicans have tried to undermine his testimony, arguing that he did not have first-hand knowledge _ even though Sondland talked directly with the president _ and noting that he used the word "presume" to describe his understanding about the existence of the quid pro quo.
But maybe Sondland just used the wrong word. He said "presume" when he probably should have said "deduce."
In practical terms, the two words mean more or less the same thing. But "presume" can also imply the assumption of a position unwarranted by sufficient facts, and thus the word's unfortunate connection to "presumption," which has a negative connotation that "deduction" does not.
All Sondland was doing is the same thing that every American should do: He looked at the facts before him and he used reason to reach a conclusion.
Of course, Sondland had access to more first-hand facts than we do, which probably accounts for his emphatic assertion about the quid pro quo. After all, the powerful, unscrupulous and blatantly transactional president who told Sondland that he wanted nothing from Ukraine was delighted to hear back from Sondland that he could have anything he wanted.
Now, what do you deduce from that?
