Trump impeachment: Key witness Sondland says president ‘directed’ quid pro quo, in explosive testimony to congress

'Was there a quid pro quo? The answer is yes'

Donald Trump’s ambassador to the EU has delivered an explosive public testimony linking top White House officials and the president’s personal attorney to a “quid pro quo” involving Ukraine.

Gordon Sondland said in his opening remarks that the highest-level officials working on US-Ukraine policy at the White House and US State Department “knew what we were doing and why” by encouraging Ukraine to launch investigations.

“Was there a quid pro quo?” Mr Sondland asked in his opening statement. “The answer is yes.”

The US president, who has previously described the ambassador he appointed as a “great American” and “highly respected”, responded to the revelations claiming that he did not know the witness “very well”.

“I have not spoken to him very much,” the president added. ”He seems like a nice guy though.” Mr Trump was pictured clutching handwritten notes reading: “I want nothing. I want no pro quid quo.”

Mr Sondland had arrived on Capitol Hill to give evidence during the fourth day of public impeachment hearings into the president.

“(Rudy) Giuliani was expressing the desires of the president of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the president,” Mr Sondland said.

The ambassador went on to say he and others “followed the president’s orders” in working with Mr Giuliani, Mr Trump’s personal lawyer.

Mr Sondland was a political appointee with no diplomatic experience, but donated $1m (£774,365) to Mr Trump’s inaugural committee. He has become a central figure in the impeachment inquiry — which seeks to understand whether Mr Trump was demanding political investigations in exchange for crucial military assistance — despite serving as an ambassador to the EU, of which Ukraine is not a member.

Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican who has played a key role in defending the president throughout the impeachment hearings, told The Independent that he was not concerned about the latest testimony.

“It’ll be fine,” the congressman said during a break in the proceedings. He said the House Republican counsel Steve Castor “did a great job” pointing out how Mr Sondland ”never had any direct communication from the president that ... suggests that there was anything linked to making an announcement about an investigation”.

The impeachment inquiry was sparked after a whistleblower complaint alleged that the president was demanding political investigations into one of his 2020 opponents, former Vice President Joe Biden, and his son Hunter Biden, who previously served on the board of Ukrainian energy firm Burisma.

Mr Trump has been accused of withholding nearly $400m (£309.7m) in military aid approved by Congress and the Pentagon while demanding that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announce the investigations in a public statement.

In his opening statement, the ambassador said Mr Giuliani “conveyed” to Kurt Volker — another key impeachment witness — and US Energy Secretary Rick Perry that “President Trump wanted a public statement” from Mr Zelensky ”committing to investigations of Burisma and the 2016 election”.

He also said Mr Trump’s personal attorney “expressed those requests directly to the Ukrainians”.

Mr Sondland also said he now recalled the phone call other impeachment witnesses revealed the ambassador had with Mr Trump in front of them while dining at a restaurant in Kiev. One of them, diplomat David Holmes, has testified that he could overhear Mr Trump at the other end asking about “investigations”.

“It’s true that the president speaks loudly at times,” Mr Sondland said. “It’s true that the president likes to use colourful language.”

He said the White House had not allowed him to read any readouts of the phone call, but that he now remembered the president asking about the investigations.

Democrats described Mr Sondland’s testimony as credible, while adding to the evidence that key members of Mr Trump’s inner circle — and even the president himself — were seeking political investigations while withholding the crucial military aid to Ukraine.

“I don’t think [Sondland] has any reason not to be truthful,” Tom Malinowski, a New Jersey Democrat, told The Independent. “All the evidence I’ve seen suggests he was carrying out the wishes of the president and fully transparent with the White House and State Department about everything that he was doing.”

The congressman added: “I think he, as all of the characters in this drama, was put in an impossible position by the president’s desire for these investigations.”

Denny Heck, a Washington Democrat, also said the testimony provided further evidence “and explicit affirmation of the existence of a quid pro quo”.

Previous impeachment witnesses have detailed their concerns with the White House demands for political investigations, including Lt Col Alexander Vindman, who spoke on Tuesday about his first-hand knowledge of the president’s phone call with Ukraine.

Throughout the hearings, Mr Sondland said he was making his best efforts to cooperate with House investigators by defying orders from the White House not to comply with subpoenas related to the impeachment inquiry. He also revealed that the White House had repeatedly blocked him from accessing records that he said would help him construct an accurate timeline and provide concrete evidence.

Democrats and Republicans alike also slammed the issue of Mr Sondland’s lack of records. However, while Republicans used the absence of such evidence to support the notion that Mr Sondland was not a credible witness, the Democrats said it was a clear example of the White House obstructing their probe.

“I think it’s pretty interesting that a US ambassador cannot get access to his own records,” Val Demmings, a Florida Democrat, told The Independent. “It’s been a major frustration during this investigation that neither the state department nor the White House will release any of the documents that would certainly add to the completion of this investigation.

“There is no doubt that Sondland enjoyed a good relationship with the president, and I don’t think he’s here to say anything that would hurt the president. I think he’s just here to give his testimony and be cooperative in this investigation, and we appreciate that.”