UPDATE: Facebook admits sponsoring Kavanaugh speech was "a mistake"
Welcome to a bonus edition of Popular Information. — Judd
Last Thursday, Popular Information reported that Facebook was a "Gold Circle" sponsor for a Federalist Society dinner honoring Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. It was Kavanaugh's first major public appearance since he was narrowly confirmed amidst serious allegations of sexual assault.
Last week, Facebook told Popular Information there was nothing problematic about the company's sponsorship of the dinner. In a statement, Facebook dismissed Popular Information's reporting as an effort to "distract from our lengthy track record of supporting groups from across the political spectrum."
Numerous Facebook employees did not agree.
A source tells Popular Information that Facebook employees objected to the company sponsoring the Kavanaugh dinner on an internal Facebook message board. In response, a member of Facebook's public policy team admitted the sponsorship was "a mistake" and promised to take steps to rectify the situation.
A Facebook spokesperson declined to comment on Facebook's communications to its employees and why the company now believed the sponsoring the Kavanaugh dinner was a "mistake." The spokesperson did say the company would continue to support the Federalist Society in some capacity.
The incident highlights a fundamental tension that Facebook is struggling to address. On the one hand, to attract talented employees, Facebook needs to present itself as a forward-looking company with progressive values. On the other hand, to avoid antitrust scrutiny, Facebook believes it needs to cozy up to the right-wing.
At the moment, Facebook is trying to have it both ways.
Independent accountability journalism can have an impact — even inside Facebook, a $500 billion company. You can support this work by becoming a paid subscriber. It's just $50 for an entire year.
There are no advertisers or wealthy donors behind this work. It’s only possible because of readers like you.
The result is truly independent media that uncovers critical information you won't find anywhere else. Paid subscribers get original reporting and analysis four days per week for less than $5 per month.
Please contact me with any questions at judd@popular.info.
Game over
On September 24, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced an impeachment inquiry into President Trump. 58 days later, there are no questions left to be answered. It is indisputable that Trump committed multiple impeachable acts in an effort to pressure the government of Ukraine to announce an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and the Democratic Party.
Any ambiguity ended on Wednesday, with the testimony of Trump's Ambassador to the European Union, Gordan Sondland. While Republicans were quick to dismiss other witnesses as "Never Trumpers," Sondland is the opposite. He donated $1 million to Trump's inauguration.
Trump himself, just last month, described Sondland as "a really good man and great American." But Sondland's testimony to the House Intelligence Committee was absolutely devastating.
The call summary released by the White House established that Trump asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival. That, in itself, is impeachable. But Republicans insisted that a "quid pro quo" was necessary for Trump to be truly culpable. On that question, Sondland left no ambiguity. Here's an excerpt from Sondland's opening statement:
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.
Sondland testified that he personally pressured the Ukranian government to announce an investigation of Bursima, the company that employed Hunter Biden, and the DNC, "at the express direction of the president." Sondland advised the Ukrainians that making such a statement was the way to get the things they wanted from Trump, including a White House meeting and hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid.
Sondland detailed this in a statement he provided to the committee after his closed-door deposition:
Also, I now do recall a conversation on September 1, 2019, in Warsaw with [Zelensky aide Andriy] Yermak. This brief pull-aside conversation followed the larger meeting involving Vice President Pence and President Zelensky, in which President Zelensky had raised the issue of the suspension of U.S. aid to Ukraine directly with Vice President Pence. After that large meeting, I now recall speaking individually with Mr. Yermak, where I said that resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks.
Sondland's testimony holds particular weight not only because he is a Trump supporter but also because he was in frequent direct contact with Trump and Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Guiliani.
Trump's brief defense
Trump appeared in front of the White House and delivered a short statement. Trump focused on a September 9 phone call with Sondland. In the phone call, Sondland asked what Trump wanted from Ukraine in exchange for releasing military aid.
Trump quoted himself, according to Sondland's testimony. “I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing.”
But Trump left out a critical point. After saying he wanted nothing, Trump also demanded that Zelensky make a public statement announcing the investigations to "clear things up." In other words, after denying there was a quid pro quo, Trump described a quid pro quo.
Trump also tried to distance himself from Sondland. "I don’t know him very well. I have not spoken to him much. This is not a man I know well. He seems like a nice guy though," Trump said.
Trouble for Pence
Sondland implicated not only Trump, but also Vice President Mike Pence. Sondland testified that, before a meeting with Zelensky in Warsaw on September 1, he "mentioned to Vice President Pence before the meetings with the Ukrainians that I had concerns that the delay in aid had become tied to the issue of investigations." In response, Sondland said Pence, "nodded like you know he heard what I said and that was pretty much it as I recall."
That means Pence knew about the scheme.
In response, Pence's office released a carefully worded non-denial:
The Vice President never had a conversation with Gordon Sondland about investigating the Bidens, Burisma, or the conditional release of financial aid to Ukraine based upon potential investigations.
Multiple witnesses have testified under oath that Vice President Pence never raised Hunter Biden, former Vice President Joe Biden, Crowdstrike, Burisma, or investigations in any conversation with Ukrainians or President Zelensky before, during, or after the September 1 meeting in Poland.
This alleged discussion recalled by Ambassador Sondland never happened.
Of course, Sondland never alleged he had a "conversation" or "discussion" with Pence. Nor did Sondland allege Pence raised the issue of investigations with Zelensky. Sondland said he told Pence about his concerns about a quid pro quo.
Previously, Pence has claimed his knowledge of the issue was limited to the call summary released by the White House. "I can only tell you what I know, and what I know is that the transcript of the President's call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky shows that there was no quid pro quo," Pence told CBS News last month.
Also implicated by Sondland's testimony were White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former Energy Secretary Rick Perry.
Thanks for reading!
