Sondland’s testimony went much further than many had anticipated. He did not need to use the term “quid pro quo” or implicate Pompeo and other senior State Department officials in the scheme as he deliberately did by saying “everyone was in the loop.” He also went out of his way to make clear that Trump wanted only an announcement of investigations into 2016 and Burisma not actual probes, betraying just how political the request was.

Sondland could have said as little as possible, but it was clear that unlike some Trump administration officials, he cared about his own reputation more than loyalty to the president. That made him a significant threat to the Trump presidency, and the result was testimony that capped off several witnesses who established an aid-for-dirt quid pro quo.

But while Sondland went out of his way to show that he was following orders, he also showed he was not particularly interested in taking down the president. He testified that he liked Trump, was not advocating for his impeachment and had a friendly working relationship with him.

At no point was that more evident than Sondland’s account of a brief conversation he had with Trump on Sept. 9. During that conversation, Sondland claims a “cranky” Trump told him, “I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo.” Though this was in effect a repetition of Sondland’s previously released text to Taylor, the effect of his saying out loud that Trump told him that directly was immediate.

Republicans deftly seized on Sondland’s account, claiming that Trump’s words during this conversation exonerated the president. The hearsay defense went out the window, replaced with a defense that the key witness with first-hand knowledge testified that Trump told him there was “no quid pro quo.” Trump himself quickly turned it into black Sharpie talking points on the White House lawn.

This was a notable shift by Republicans, who until that point had not settled on a single line of defense and initially appeared unsure how to react when Sondland took aim at the president. Ranking member Devin Nunes initially praised Sondland and told him Democrats would smear him, clearly reading from prepared remarks rather than responding to the moment.

The new line of attack by Republicans was effective because it was focused and simple. Instead of a panoply of disjointed attacks, Republicans finally settled on a single defense that had something to do with the merits with the case. The measure of its effectiveness was how, toward the end of the day, some Democrats turned on Sondland for his evasiveness and his contradictory statements.

Still, the Republican defense makes no sense when viewed in the context of the entirety of the evidence. On his July 25 call with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, Trump asked for a “favor,” mentioning the Bidens and urging Zelensky to reach out to Giuliani.

One day later, according to Sondland, Trump told him that he wanted the “investigations,” and Sondland assured Trump that the Ukrainians loved him and would do whatever he wanted.

The call that Republicans now point to as exonerating did not occur until September 9, the same day that the House launched its investigation, which the White House was reportedly aware of. Two days later the aid was released. In other words, by the time Trump blurted out “no quid pro quo,” he was aware that Democrats were investigating whether there was a “quid pro quo.” Citing that in Trump’s defense is like citing one of Trump’s “no collusion, no obstruction” tweets after the Mueller investigation began.

But telling that complete story and putting it in context takes time, which means that Democrats will need to sharpen their response to the new Republican defense tomorrow, when diplomat David Holmes testifies.

Holmes gives Democrats an opportunity to shift the narrative back. Instead of telling the whole story, Democrats should focus attention on Trump’s expletive-laden call with Sondland on July 26 (the day after the call with Zelensky) in which Trump made clear that he wanted the investigations. Holmes overheard that call and says that after the call he and Sondland discussed the Bidens, a fact Sondland disputes. Nevertheless, Holmes can refocus attention on that conversation and what it revealed about Trump’s priorities.

The response of Republicans to Sondland’s devastating testimony suggests that absent some major shift, Trump’s presidency will survive impeachment. But Democrats still have an opportunity to move public opinion if they can respond to the new Republican line of defense by keying on other damning things the president said.

