No, Sondland's presumption is actually one of the weaker pieces of supporting evidence, but, and I'm sure this is coincidental, it happens to be the one point that Republicans keep glomming onto and repeating ad nauseum.
Probably because if you actually read the depositions, Sondland was the "source" for Taylor and Morrison, and derivatively for the others of the idea there was a quid pro quo. If he made it up, then it wasn't Trump's or the admins position, no matter how many state department flunkies got confused.
There was a months' (plural) long process of withholding a commitment to a meeting....
Why do you think that is evidence? By all accounts, Trump's
initial reaction was to not have a meeting, and the entire State Department was trying to change his mind. That's exactly how the process should work if the State Department disagrees with the President, but it doesn't change the fact that the meeting NEVER happens if the President doesn't want it.
So it's kind of "fudgy accounting" to claim that a "month's long" withholding is evidence of anything nefarious.
...and of threatening to withhold aid,...
That's an interesting claim, can you prove there was a "threat" of withholding aid? Seems like exactly the evidence that the Dems wanted and NEVER FOUND. Again, every one of the witnesses (that even had knowledge discounting the multiple witnesses that left months earlier) stated that THEY DID NOT KNOW WHY AID WAS WITHHELD. The only way to take a "lack of knowledge" and convert into proof of a threat is to make it up in your own head (or provide actual evidence).
...and that one waffle word by Sondland doesn't make the other witness' statements, nor the rest of Sondland's statements, disappear.
True, but what makes the "disappear" is the fact that they are almost completely just statements of their opinion. In court, and possibly in the Senate, you'd hear "move to strike calls for speculation" and "move to strike hearsay" before or after just about every statement that you are relying on. Just about the only thing Sondland said (at least until the lastest "reveal") that was relevant and actually admissable is from his direct conversation with Trump, where he got the 'I want nothing, no quid pro quo line.'
I understand it's confusing, when you watch a show trial it causes confusing, that's exactly why what Schiff and the Democrats have done is no part of the actual American judicial system or any part of a system that is seeking justice.
What was Rudy's role in all this?
Given who you heard from as far as witnesses, shouldn't that have been obvious? The fact that it wasn't tells you a lot about how useless these witnesses actually were.
Best I can tell, only Volcker had more than passing contact with Rudy, and he said he never saw and wasn't aware of any efforts to tie Biden to the process. I think he related one conversation about Biden, where Rudy had asked him about it and he conveyed he didn't think there was a there there.
Seriously - the president sending out his personal lawyer to conduct or coordinate foreign policy or get concessions isn't okay.
Why do you think that? Seriously, what's the basis for that belief. Would you really think it was bizarre if Obama had sent a lawyer that had subject matter experience on some issue that was important to his policy to be part of the process? We all know that you wouldn't, I guaranty - even now - you have no idea and have never looked into how common or not it was to send non-governmental persons as part of delegations. From the witnesses you can tell that G was not directing their activities, most of them had no interactions with him.
And the fact that Pompeo, Rudy, and Mick Molveney won't walk down there and testify to what happened and how okay it all is should tell you something - and not just that Trump is defending executive privilege (because Rudy has none).
Actually, I think he's defending the separation of powers more than executive privilege, but really it's both. This investigation is illegitimate, it's based on lies that at their heart are about policy. Trump wasn't pursuing the Ukrainian policy in the way career guys at State wanted it to happen, and they were resisting and now "fighting back." They are literally exceeding their legal and constitutional authority in doing so. The House is exceeding its authority and stepping on the exclusive authority of the executive branch by dressing up a foreign policy disagreement as an impeachable offense to pretend it's in their mandate.
Even on the "worst" set of facts its a real stretch to get to wrong doing. Especially, since the "favor" was connected to an active investigation. On Burisma, I don't really know how anyone can look at it and see it as above boards. Hunter clearly traded on his father's position, and I seriously doubt Joe was completely oblivious to that (no one else was, including Obama), but that doesn't mean that getting the prosecutor fired was done for a corrupt purpose. That would take evidence (see there's that word again), and it's fascinating to me that you guys find asking for that information, if it exists, corrupt in the same thread you seem to believe that Congress has an absolute right to conduct an actual politically motivated investigation that ignores all bounds and encroaches on the executive branch.