Gordon Sondland Is a Smug Plutocrat Who Was OK With All of It Until He Wasn't
ATLANTA—On Tuesday afternoon, as Gordon Sondland was winding things up in his eventful meeting with the House Intelligence Committee, I was starting to despair that no one would point out that he’s still a smug plutocrat who bought himself an ambassadorship for which he was not qualified. And that, had the whistleblower not blown the whistle, Sondland would still be a willing participant in the Ukraine shakedown. And, in fact, had other witnesses not completely shredded his previous testimony, Sondland would be blissfully walking the streets of Brussels, pretending to be a man of international influence, and waiting to be served with a warrant for perjury.
Not that his testimony wasn’t a lethal broadside below the waterlines of every presidential alibi in the current scandal. Not that he didn’t leave the current administration in a pile of smoking meat by the side of the road. Not that he wasn’t pivotal, or that today’s hearing wasn’t an important marker on the road to whatever comes next. I mean, when Ken Starr gets on Fox News and suggests that, maybe, in the light of Sondland’s testimony, some Republican senators should Go To The White House, something important has kicked in.
But, Lord above, that fatcat grin of his was enough, as the late Molly Ivins would put it, to gag a maggot. And, finally, Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, Democrat of New York, dropped a megaton of receipts on his head.
MALONEY: We can probably from today until the end of time set aside any confusion that when somebody is asking for an investigation over the summer what they really meant was the Bidens.
SONDLAND: With hindsight, yes.
MALONEY: The day after the president's famous call, you're having lunch with David Holmes. We have covered this. He overhears your conversation. You have no reason to dispute what Mr. Holmes said, I think you said you wouldn't have reason to think he didn't speak about the investigations with the president. The president raised investigations with you, right?
SONDLAND: Correct.
MALONEY: Let's pick up right there. You would have preferred if they just had the meeting with the President of Ukraine without these conditions. Is that what you're saying?
SONDLAND: Yes.
MALONEY: But there were these conditions. And it involved an investigation—
SONDLAND: Remember the initial invitation that the president sent to President Zelensky had no conditions.
It was about here where Maloney began to get fed up with Sondland’s little wire-walk over the actual truth.
MALONEY: That didn't last very long. Then there were conditions. This is not controversial at this point, I dove don't believe. The president wanted investigations. You thought it was the 2016 election. We now know it was the Bidens.
SONDLAND: Today we do.
And puffs of steam begin to emerge from Maloney’s ears.
MALONEY: Mr. Holmes said you said Bidens, but you don't recall that? Do you dispute it?
SONDLAND: I do.
MALONEY: But you don't recall it. But that's what the president said. You do confirm he wanted to talk about investigations.
SONDLAND: Now with the complete picture what he said 24 hours before, yes, it makes sense.
At this point, Maloney began to take on the demeanor of a Irish NYPD detective—Mike Logan from Law and Order, maybe, or Andy Sipowicz. And, as Sondland continued to try and stay on the wire, Maloney got progressively fed up, until...
MALONEY: Who would benefit from an investigation of the president's political opponent?
SONDLAND: Presumably the person who asked for the investigation.
MALONEY: Who is that?
SONDLAND: If the president asked for the investigation, it would be he.
And, yes, that is the very loud steam whistle of an oncoming freight train that you hear.
MALONEY: it's not a hypothetical. We just went around this track. The president asked you about investigations. It was talking about the Bidens. When he asked you about the Biden investigation, who was he seeking to benefit?
SONDLAND: He did not ask me about the Biden investigation. I said that about 19 times.
Uh, oh.
MALONEY: Sir, we we just went through this. When we went through the investigations, we just did this about 30 seconds ago, right? It's pretty simple question, isn't it?
SONDLAND: When he asked about investigations, I assumed he meant [unintelligible].
MALONEY: Who would benefit from an investigation of the Bidens?
SONDLAND: They are two different questions.
We are reaching the end of our moving bullshit. Please use caution while leaving.
MALONEY: I'm just asking you one. Who would benefit from an investigation of the Bidens?
SONDLAND: I assume President Trump.
MALONEY: There we have it. It didn't hurt a bit, did it? It didn't hurt a bit. Let me ask you something.
This drew some laughter and applause from the crowd, which apparently unnerved Sondland to the point where he decided to get all huffy.
SONDLAND: I have been very forthright. I really resent what you're trying to do.
And, finally, the train arrived. And there’s a mess at the level crossing.
MALONEY: You have been very forthright. This is your fourth try to do so so. It didn't work so well the first time. We had a declaration. Remember that? Now we're here a a third time. We have a doozy of a statement this morning. There's a bunch of stuff you didn't recall. We appreciate your candor, but let's be really clear on what it took to get it out of you.
Thank the Lord for Maloney, who reminded us at the end that Sondland was merely one of a pack of crooks, regardless of what damage his testimony on Tuesday may eventually do to El Caudillo del Mar-a-Lago. There are no innocents on that side of things. There are no heroes left. John Dean did the nation a great good service when he turned on Richard Nixon. John Dean also went to jail. And deserved to.
Respond to this post on the Esquire Politics Facebook page here.
You Might Also Like
