The battle between President Trump and the House just got a lot more interesting.
While most former and current administration officials have honored the request of the President to defy congressional subpoenas, one former and one current ambassador are taking a different tack.
Former Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch and Gordon Sondland, the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, have both agreed to testify before Congress.
Defying Orders
Of interest here is Sondland, who was specifically ordered by the State Department to ignore his subpoena.
After the initial order was given, House Intelligence Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) stated, “The failure to produce this witness, the failure to produce these documents, we consider yet additional strong evidence of obstruction of the constitutional function of Congress.”
President Trump would later respond to the comments…
Everything Has Changed
Obviously, things have changed dramatically over the last few days on this front.
Trump has openly criticized Yovanovitch for her comments and criticism about asking Ukraine to investigate the possible corruption of the Bidens.
That surely played a part in her decision to honor the request by the House.
She is reportedly in Washington D.C. today to give a deposition.
Sondland, however, is a different matter. He is still a State Department employee, but he is clearly disobeying the directive he was given.
This may not necessarily be a bad thing for the Trump administration, though.
Sondland was clearly on the same page as Trump in regard to the tone of the conversation.
When allegations of quid pro quo were first mentioned, Sondland defended Trump, stating, “The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo’s of any kind.”
As it stands now, Sondland will testify next Thursday before the House committees.
Sondland’s testimony may end up clarifying the actual ask by Trump, which is of vital importance considering the tone the media and Democrats have set here.
Everyone, and I mean everyone, is ignoring the possible corruption or blatant abuse of influence by Joe Biden merely because he is a presidential candidate and because there was on “direct” benefit to him.
If that same measuring stick were put to Trump, the Russian collusion investigation would have never even been started let alone allowed to drag on for two years of his presidency.
If Americans had the right to know about Trump, do we not now deserve the same clarity when it comes to Joe Biden?
The fact that he is a presidential candidate is secondary to the fact he may have used his influence to make a family member extremely wealthy.
Joe Biden may not have directly benefited from what he did, but his son is surely far better off than if daddy had let him go about his business on his own, and in most people’s eyes, that is just as bad, if not worse, than Biden himself getting the benefit.
The media is using semantics to protect Biden when they should be tearing his past apart to find out once and for all if this man is worthy of running for the office of the president of the United States of America.