Direct quote from this morning:
Sondland: "I've never heard from President Trump that the aid was conditioned on the investigations."

I am listening to this now and Sondand is repeatedly saying I think I perceive this is what I understood the message to be etc. etc.

When asked directly was he told a quid pro quo was in place, his answer is no.

Ambassador Taylor from a text message to Sondland: “as I said on the phone I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign”
Sondland’s response: “Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intention. The president has been crystal clear no quid pro quos of any kind. The president is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zalensky promised during his campaign.”
I have not watched Taylor’s testimony so I don’t know where he got the idea that security assistance was being with held for help with a political campaign. My belief is he inferred that after the fact.

Sondland seems like a decent and honest guy but the Republican counsel is making excellent points about the gaps in his testimony. And Sunland has no choice but to agree. It’s a friendly exchange.

I wasn't talking about Sondland, Mark.

"He said she tripped and fell down the stairs- case closed."

-Mark

At the end of the day, all evidence, testimony, witnesses point to trump withholding aid in order to smear the Bidens.

No, it does not. All evidence? All testimony? I’ve given you exact quotes from witnesses today that clearly call that into question.

Absolutely no one has testified Trump looked them in the eye, sent them a message etc and said “withhold the aid until I have dirt on Joe Biden.”
In fact, I’ve given you exact quotes where Trump said the exact opposite of that. How can you say all evidence, all witnesses point to a fact that none of the witnesses have testified to directly?