Sondland's testimony did no such thing.
Of course not. A President is entitled to set his foreign policy agenda, no matter that the career bureaucrats would prefer otherwise. Trump didn't trust Ukraine, and for good reason - it conspired to deny him the Presidency. Given that reality - the Republicans were specifically denied the right to call witnesses that could establish that - there is nothing unreasonable about asking for tangible signs that the new Ukrainian leadership was going to address that country's cesspool of corruption, beginning with the corruption that affected the 2016 election.
The missing information in the Dems' kangaroo-court narrative is exculpatory evidence that Trump's hostility to Ukraine was based on legitimate concerns. Meanwhile, the Dems seek not to remove him but to dirty his reputation in an obviously one-sided proceeding lauded by a fawning media. At this point, I think the Senate needs to conduct a serious trial that permits the President to defend himself.
