WASHINGTON, D.C.—Be careful what you wish for.

Gordon Sondland wanted an ambassadorship in the worst way. A hotel magnate and a Republican in deep-Democrat Oregon, he reportedly made no secret of his ambitions to a diplomatic post. After decades of service as a Republican rainmaker, he wrote a million-dollar cheque to President Donald Trump’s inaugural committee, and he got his glamorous appointment as ambassador to the European Union.

I’ve heard from people in the diplomatic community that such political patronage appointments are not generally objectionable, because the leader of the country usually answers the phone calls of political ambassadors. The leader trusts them. They usually have the leader’s agenda at the top of their mind.

It was Sondland’s direct line to Trump — his ability to communicate with him directly and call him on his cellphone when other senior diplomats have testified they have never even met the president — that made him the central co-ordinating figure in efforts arrange relations with Volodymyr Zelenskiy, the new president of Ukraine.

It was in that role that he directly informed Ukrainians that both a meeting with the president and hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid was contingent on announcing politically motivated investigations the president wanted.

It’s hard to imagine that when Sondland sought this role, he imagined it landing him before impeachment hearings. But here he was on Capitol Hill on Wednesday morning, testifying before the House intelligence committee.

What he said torpedoed virtually everything so-far offered by Republicans in defence of the president. Sondland said he and the other diplomats collaborated with Rudolph Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, at “the express direction of the president of the United States.” He said that what they worked on with Giuliani — demanding investigations he claimed not to initially understand were politically motivated — was “a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelenskiy.” He said that direct exchange of favours came to include, he believed, the release of almost $400 million in security aid, and that he expressed that belief to the Ukrainians. And he testified that his superiors in the State Department, the National Security Council and the White House knew what he was doing because he kept them informed of the details along the way.

Sondland said he offered this testimony over the objections of the White House and the State Department because “I respect the gravity of the moment and I believe I have an obligation to account fully for my role in these events.”

And though he lamented that the State Department has not allowed him to access records from the time to refresh or support his memory, he brought a bunch of WhatsApp messages and emails showing him directly communicating with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, as well as officials in the White House and at the NSC. “Everyone was in the loop,” he said. “It was no secret.”

And he appeared to confirm that this was all for political appearances, rather than a sincere attempt to root out corruption. The Ukrainian president merely “had to announce the investigations,” Sondland testified. “He didn’t actually have to do them, as I understood it.”

This could turn out to be the most important testimony of the entire impeachment inquiry — and possibly among the most consequential events in recent American history, if Trump is removed from office. Other witnesses, in dribs and drabs, have pieced together parts of a puzzle that suggested a disturbing image of what Trump was talking about in his phone call with Zelenskiy. Sondland presented pretty much the entire picture — and said he had painted much of it himself — as a commission directly from the president, with the consent and advice of almost every senior executive in the administration.

Of course, it might not turn out as history-defining as all that, or at least not in that way. Republicans, who have so far remained supportive of the president, still control the Senate, and at least 20 of them would have to vote to convict before he would be removed from office.

Although most of the explanations Republicans have been offering — that there was no direct exchange of this for that; that if there was, the president and those around him didn’t know about it; that the Ukrainians didn’t know about it; that those accusing the president of wrongdoing are all Democratic party operatives and “Never Trump” Republicans — have been derailed, it is entirely possible, maybe even likely, that the old train keeps on chugging.

But the number of remaining rationales for excusing the president is slim.

There is the possibility that Sondland misunderstood the situation when he told the Ukrainians military aid was dependent on them publicly announcing investigations that would help Trump politically. Indeed, this theory was pushed by Republicans — and, outside the committee room, by the president himself — as the testimony was ongoing.

But while Sondland acknowledged that he “never heard from President Trump that aid was conditioned on announcing investigations,” he added that the connection was “abundantly clear to everyone.”

Then there is Republican Rep. Devin Nunes’s suggestion, that these anti-corruption investigations were legitimate policy goals. That idea has found no support from any of the Trump appointees and lifetime civil servants who have testified.

The Republicans have also speculated about the whistle blower’s identity and motivations, even though virtually every allegation in the whistle blower’s complaint has now been confirmed by officials who were actually involved.

They might even suggest that all these Trump appointees — including many who are still serving in the White House and in senior diplomatic posts on behalf of Trump — are lying, and have fabricated all of this self-incriminating information.

But perhaps the most likely remaining defence is simply, “Who cares?”

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

The standard for impeachment is vaguely defined and determined by Congress. Republicans could simply say this is not the sort of thing over which you impeach a president, that using the power of the presidency to direct politically motivated interventions by foreign powers in domestic politics is no big deal.

There are signs that many Republicans will adopt exactly that position. No doubt some of them are betting that voters won’t care.

If they turn out to be right, what precedent will have been set?

Be careful what you wish for. As the old proverb says, and as Sondland learned, you just might get it.

Read more about: