Biblical and Constitutional Politics

Books by the Director

Senator Johnson Destroys Dem Impeachment Arguments and Buttresses Repub Arguments

Part Two

By Gary F. Zeolla
 

      This two-part article is continued from Senator Johnson Destroys Dem Impeachment Arguments and Buttresses Repub Arguments - Part One. It picks up with excerpts from Gordon Sondland’ s deposition transcript which mention Senator Ron Johnson.

Sondland Deposition
(Continued)

      At this point, Sondland is being questioned by various members of the HIC.

Question: And stepping back to the May 23rd meeting, how did that come to get scheduled?

Answer: I think that either Rick Perry or I reached out to someone at the NSC saying: Doesn’t the President want a briefing about the inauguration? And I think I think it was Perry, if I recall correctly, that got it nailed down. …

Q: Okay. Who was in the room, to the best of your recollection?

A Volker, Perry, myself, Ron Johnson. And then I don’t recall if it was Bolton, Mulvaney. There were several people coming and going. The delegation was seated in front of the President’s desk, and people were sitting behind us on the couch and people kept coming in and out. …

       To comment, this meeting occurred in the Oval Office three days after Zelensky’s inauguration, after the US delegation returned from Ukraine. Note that Johnson was present, showing he was interacting with the President and all of the American diplomats that were involved with Ukraine.

Q: Senator Johnson attended the Zelensky inauguration.

A: I’m sorry?

Q: Senator Ron Johnson

A: Yes.

Q: -- attended the Zelensky inauguration. Was that the first time you had met the Senator?

A: No, I think I met him at my confirmation.

Q: Okay. After your confirmation but before the inauguration, did you have any particular relationship with him or --

A: We might have gotten together. I can’t remember if he was on one of the codels in Brussels or I may have seen him on the Hill. He was very friendly and helpful during my confirmation, so I stayed in touch.

Q: Did you ever have any discussion with Senator Johnson on any of these issues, such as investigating --

A Well, I --

Q: Burisma or 2016?

A: Yeah, I noticed in the media he had come out and said that he and I had a conversation on the phone about it. And he had said that I told him this is the media report, and I haven’t discussed this with him since that media report that I had said there was a quid pro quo. And I don’t remember telling him that, because I’m not sure I knew that at that point. I think what I might have done is I might have been speculating I hope there’s no, I hope this isn’t being held up for nefarious reasons. I think we were having sort of a freeform discussion about what was going on, because he was very frustrated that Zelensky still hadn’t been to the White House. I was referring to my conversation with Senator Johnson on the phone. I believe it was the end of August sometime.

A: Okay.

      To comment, throughout his private deposition, Sondland was saying there was no quid pro quo, and apparently, he had said that to Johnson, in response to a media report there was a quid pro quo. But then later, Sondland would “correct” his testimony by way of an addendum to his testimony and say there was a quid pro quo. The MSM went nuts over that addendum, but the Repubs on the HIC destroyed that “revised memory” during Sondland’ s public hearing, as I will be detailing in my book. But here, we will continue with the private deposition.

      Note also, Dems claim there were two parts to Trump’s “attempted bribery” of Zelensky, that of the military aid and of a promised White House meeting between the two of them. Trump had mentioned the latter in the July 25 phone call, and it was said such a meeting with the US President would help to legitimize Zelensky’s presidency and would be a signal to Russia that the US-Ukraine relationship was still strong as ever since Zelensky was elected. Thus, the meeting was a “thing of value” to Zelensky, so withholding it for investigations would be a quid pro quo.

Discussion off the record.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND: Oh, yes, thank you. The quid pro quo referring to the aid, not a press statement.

BY MR. CASTOR: And you had never thought there was a precondition to the aid. Is that correct?

A: Never, no. I mean, I was dismayed when it was held up, but I didn’t know why.

Q: To to the extent there were any preconditions to anything, it was perhaps with the White House meeting, but not the aid?

A: I wasn’t aware of it or I wasn’t, I don’t recal1 being aware of it.

Q: So your conversation with Senator Johnson was at the end of August, you think?

A: I believe it was the end of August. And then I believe he told me he was going to be calling the President to find out why things weren't moving forward.

      To comment, this was the lead up to Johnson calling the President and getting the answer that was already discussed. It can be seen that the phone call was not just ad hoc but came out of a longstanding connection Johnson had with Ukraine and the US diplomats thereto. That makes the President’s answer to Johnson’s question that much more powerful, as the President would know that Johnson was familiar with all that had happened so far, so it would make no sense for Trump to try to lie to Johnson about what was happening. In addition, Sondland says he did not think there were any “preconditions” Ukraine needed to meet to get either the aid released or to get the White House meeting.

      Note also, though Trump and Zelensky never met in the White House, they did meet on September 25 in New York City, during a United Nations summit. Thus, the promised meeting did happen, and again, as with the aid, Ukraine did nothing to get it. However, Dems continue to say the meeting never happened, but they always word it as “a White House meeting.” The words “White House” make that claim a half-truth and hence a half-lie, as the meeting did happen, just not in the White House.

Q: Are you familiar with the Wall Street Journal story that came out Friday, October 4th, where Senator Johnson raised this issue?

A: Yeah. I think that’s what flagged it for me. Someone brought it to my attention.

Q: And did you ever do anything about that article, such as call the reporter or --

A: No.

Q: -- call Senator Johnson, or did you just --

A: There’s so many stores out there about what I allegedly did or didn’t do. I can’t chase every newspaper. I mean, this has been a very bad experience for me.

Q: Fair enough. Did you put out a statement yourself?

A: No. I -- you know, there were implications that I was cooking all of this up with Rudy Giuliani throughout the year when I only met him for the first time in August. I don’t know how I could cook something up with someone I had never met.

Q: Have you talked to Senator Johnson since?

A: I have not. But our relationship was always very cordial and friendly.

Q: Okay. So you think Senator Johnson just misspoke?

A: I don’t know. I’m not accusing him of misspeaking. I’m saying I don’t know what basis I would have had to assert on that date that there was aid being held up in return for a White House meeting. I don’t know why I would know that at that point. I don’t reca1l having been told that by then.

      To comment, the WSJ had interviewed Johnson, and Johnson had told them Sondland told him there was a quid pro quo for the aid. But here, Sondland denies he said that, as he did not think there was a quid pro quo.

      The point of all of this is Senator Johnson was intimately involved in US-Ukraine relations. As a result, when he heard the aid was being held up, he took steps to find out why. For some reason, he thought Sondland had told him it was due to a quid pro quo over investigations. But when he called the President, Trump emphatically denied that was the case, all before the WB complaint was revealed.

New Reports

As mentioned, I had not seen the Senator Johnson call to President Trump mentioned in any of the news outlets I monitor. But that was before I subscribed to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ). But now that I have, I was able to go back and find the article that was referred to in the deposition. It states:

      A Republican senator said he was told by an American diplomat in August that the release of U.S. aid to Ukraine was contingent on an investigation desired by President Trump and his allies, but Mr. Trump denied pursuing any such proposal when the lawmaker pressed him on it….

      Sen. Ron Johnson said that Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, had described to him a quid pro quo involving a commitment by Kyiv to probe matters related to U.S. elections and the status of nearly $400 million in U.S. aid to Ukraine that the president had ordered to be held up in July.

      Alarmed by that information, Mr. Johnson, who supports aid to Ukraine and is the chairman of a Senate subcommittee with jurisdiction over the region, said he raised the issue with Mr. Trump the next day, Aug. 31, in a phone call, days before the senator was to meet with Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky. In the call, Mr. Trump flatly rejected the notion that he directed aides to make military aid to Ukraine contingent on a new probe by Kyiv, Mr. Johnson said.

      “He said, ‘Expletive deleted—No way. I would never do that. Who told you that?” the Wisconsin senator recalled in an interview Friday. Mr. Johnson said he told the president he had learned of the arrangement from Mr. Sondland (WSJ).

      The only other major news outlet I could find that reported this story was The Hill. But it got its information from the WSJ article:

      The senator said he spoke with Trump on Aug. 31 and that on the call, Trump denied that he told officials to connect military aid to the promise of investigations by Ukraine.

      “He said... ‘No way. I would never do that. Who told you that?'” Johnson told the [Wall Street] Journal.

      “Senator Johnson does not recall in any meeting or discussion with the president, or any member of the administration, that the term ‘quid pro quo’ was ever used,” said a Johnson spokesman in a statement.

      “Nor does he recall any discussion of any specific case of corruption in the 2016 election, such as Crowdstrike, the hack of the DNC servers, Hillary Clinton campaign involvement, or Hunter and Joe Biden, during general discussions of corruption, which is endemic throughout Ukraine” (The Hill).

      The Hill emphasizes that the President was empathic in that the aid to Ukraine was not tied to any investigations. Note also that The Hill indicates that in all of his dealings with Ukraine, Johnson never heard of the alleged investigations Trump was demanding. But he was aware of the systemic corruption in Ukraine.

      In addition to these major news outlets, I did find mention of this Johnson/ Trump phone call in several lesser known or local conservative news outlets, such as the following:  

      Aug. 31. Johnson spoke to Trump and asked him whether the aid was tied to an investigation. Trump denied it, and Johnson took him at his word.

      “I then brought up this rumor I’d heard, is there something in the works, is there, I mean, does Zelensky have to do something or does Ukraine show you something in order for this support to be released?” Johnson told Levin. “And that is where he made the adamant, vehement, angry denial. I described it as expletive deleted. ‘No way, no, no, I would never. Who told you that?’ At which point I felt a little guilty. ‘Well, it was Gordon.’”

      In that conversation, Johnson also asked Trump to give him the authority to tell Zelensky that the U.S. aid was coming. Trump wouldn’t give him that power but told him he thought Johnson would like the decision he would eventually make on the Ukraine aid, according to Johnson (Milwaukee).

      This local news outlets makes a vital point I already mentioned but is worth reiterating. Trump said in that August 31 call that Johnson would like the decision that would eventually be reached about the aid to Ukraine. Given Johnson’s dealings with Ukraine and his desire to have the hold on the aid released, it is clear that on August 31, nine days before the WB complaint was made known, Trump was already planning on releasing the aid.

      That puts to the lie the Dem claim that the aid was only released due to that WB complaint. It clearly would have been released anyway. As such, again, there was no quid pro quo. No bribery. No pushing for investigations using the aid as a bribe. That the aid would be released without Ukraine doing anything in regard to investigations was the President’s plan all along.

Conclusion

      As I write this article, there’s lots of debate about who should testify at a Senate trial, if anyone. But I think one person the Senate should call is Senator Ron Johnson. But sadly, I have not heard his name mentioned by either side as a possible witness. But if he were to testify, it would demolish Dem arguments and bolster Repub arguments.

      Congress started their Christmas break on Friday, December 20, 2019. They won’t return to Washington DC until Monday, January 6, 2020. That means, they will be taking two and a half weeks off for Christmas. Add to that the ten days they took off for Thanksgiving, and that gives them four weeks off over the holidays.

      That is quite ridiculous, as this writer, like the rest of America will be working over that time period. But in a way, I am glad for their break, as it will give me a chance to get caught up writing about all that has already transpired.

      There is so much to write and report about, one book might not be enough.  I might have to expand my planned book into a two or even three volume set. But even with that, it will still be a significant distillation of the vast amount of material I am reviewing for the book or books. As such, it will be far more accessible for the average American who got lost trying to keep up with all that happened during this entire impeachment fiasco.   

      As for the timing of when my book or books will be ready, that depends in part on what happens with the Senate trial. As I write this, Nancy Pelosi seems confused and thinks she is Speaker of the House and of the Senate, as she is trying to dictate the terms for the Senate trial by withholding the articles of impeachment. Her antics might delay or even cancel the Senate Trial. I will need to wait to see what happens there.

      But whatever the case, it will probably take me a few months to write up summaries and comment on all that I have recorded and downloaded. And if there is a Senate trial, that will be more to summarize and comment upon. But I hope to have my book or books available by late spring, still well in advance of the 2020 election.

References:

      CBS News. What to know about the mysterious whistleblower complaint involving Trump.

      CNN. Trump administration officially put hold on Ukraine aid same day as Trump call.

      Hill, The. GOP senator says he confronted Trump over Ukraine in August.

      Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Report: Ron Johnson discussed conspiracy theory with Ukrainian diplomat two weeks before Trump sought investigation.

      Wall Street Journal. Trump, in August Call With GOP Senator, Denied Official’s Claim on Ukraine Aid.

Senator Johnson Destroys Dem Impeachment Arguments and Buttresses Repub Arguments. Copyright © 2019 by Gary F. Zeolla (www.Zeolla.org).

The above article was posted on this website December 21, 2019.

Articles     2019 Articles

Alphabetical List of Pages     Contact Information

Text Search     Biblical and Constitutional Politics

Books by the Director