Sondland has become even more important to the Democrats’ impeachment case because of the defense strategy the Republicans deployed today

Sondland’s testimony about many of the things Trump said is first-hand, and he had more interactions with Ukrainians than either Bolton or Mulvaney.

The R defense today (to the extent there was a defense) was that the two witnesses (Taylor and Kent) were second-hand. They could not report directly on anything Trump said or did.

But of course, the R defense is irreconcilable with the fact that the WH has refused to allow first-hand witnesses (like Bolton and Mulvaney) to testify.

Furthermore, there is one person who will be testifying shortly (this coming Wednesday, in another open hearing) who did have numerous conversations with Trump himself about Ukraine.

Gordon Sondland will be testifying that there was a quid pro quo (extortion). We know that this is how he will testify because we have Sondland’s deposition and his appendix to it, both of which have been released.

So when Sondland testifies, even the one pillar for the defense they tried to use today will not be available.

What will Rs do then? Ask the House and Senate — and American voters — to believe Sondland is lying under oath?

That it’s Sondland’s word against Trump’s, and that we should believe Trump (a serial pathological liar), and not Sondland? (who by the way has absolutely NO reason to testify AGAINST Trump?)

This just keeps getting better and better.

Sondland will be asked on Wednesday to confirm Taylor’s testimony today that, according to Taylor’s aide, Sondland said that Trump cared about Biden, not Ukraine.

(That’s called selective prosecution, of course, not a legitimate concern with corruption generally.)

Sondland needs to be asked next Wednesday why (according to the appendix to his deposition) he thinks there was a quid quo pro even though Trump told him in a phone call that there wasn’t one.

It seems that Sondland can only reply: either (1) that Trump is confused and doesn’t know what a quid pro quo is (which seems quite possible),

or (2) that Trump is *lying*, and that Trump wanted Sondland (and everyone else) to *say* that there wasn’t a quid pro quo, even though Zelensky was to clearly understand that there was one.

Both Ds and Rs (albeit for very different reasons) are likely to want answers from Sondland about this on Wednesday.

And since I cannot see any possible answer to this question that will not outrage Trump, Sondland’s job is going to be at high risk on Wednesday.