Natasha’s right; we did know a lot of these details already. But it’s hard to overstate the importance of these statements being on the record, and how helpful they could be for Democrats to tout over the next few weeks.

Marianne LeVine, congressional reporter: Sondland’s revised testimony stood out the most to me, and seemed to help solidify House Democrats’ case for a quid pro quo. As my colleagues have noted, we already knew many of the key details in the testimony released. One theme that emerged was the damning portrayal witnesses provided of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s State Department. Former Ambassador to Ukraine Maria Yovanovitch told impeachment investigators that she felt threatened by the president, while Michael McKinley, a former adviser to Pompeo, said he resigned over the politicization of the State Department. Will this have any effect on Pompeo’s political future?

Another takeaway from this week is that the depositions so far do not appear to be swaying Senate Republicans, who will decide Trump’s fate in an impeachment trial. Many told us they had not read the depositions and when asked about Sondland’s testimony, several said the White House’s release of its summary of Trump’s July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was enough for them.

As Democrats approach next week's first public hearings, what changes in strategy do you expect?

Sarah Ferris: Lawmakers and aides are more convinced than ever that the House will vote on impeachment before Christmas. It’s brought a somber mood to the caucus, with Democrats feeling immense pressure to get the process right. One thing on their minds: How can they handle the public phase of their investigation better than the Mueller probe?

Democratic leaders are working hard to avoid what they saw as the Mueller investigation’s shortcomings: too bogged down in process and easily swallowed by Trump, with the public unconvinced of wrongdoing. This time, Democrats are trying to equip their members with a much clearer focus and a deeper sense of unity as they approach this historic vote. Top Democrats are holding many more caucuswide briefings and conference calls, as well as individual meetings where Pelosi can hear directly from certain groups, like endangered Dems.

Natasha Bertrand: The impeachment resolution passed in the House late last month set up a structure that departs from the House’s usual practice. The new rules allow for the chair and ranking member of the Intelligence Committee to take as long as 45 minutes each at the beginning of each hearing to question witnesses or direct their staff to. After that, the structure goes back to the regular five-minute, Democrat-Republican back-and-forth. The changes were presumably made in an effort to avoid the kind of disjointed hearings the House Judiciary Committee held earlier this summer, with members interrupting each other every five minutes to begin a new line of questioning and breaking the momentum. Now, Adam Schiff and Devin Nunes will have longer periods of uninterrupted questioning. Also, Nunes will only be able to call witnesses that have Schiff’s sign-off.

Nancy Cook: Democrats are making next week’s hearings public and live on TV. That will kill the key Republican talking point that these proceedings have been conducted in secret in some alleged nefarious way. (More than 45 House Republican members have had access to the closed door testimonies. Now everyone can read the transcripts!) The challenge for Democrats now is to keep the storyline simple and the public engaged.

They also have to contend with President Trump’s huge megaphone — that prolific Twitter feed — as he narrates his own version of the impeachment proceedings.

Marianne LeVine: Nancy makes a good point that the public impeachment will hurt a key Republican talking point. It will be interesting to see how Senate Democrats handle the latest impeachment revelations. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has largely deferred to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and has emphasized the importance of not reaching a predetermined conclusion before the Senate takes up impeachment. He is, like many Senate Democrats, trying to avoid seeming overtly political.

The White House has seemed quiet this week on the impeachment front, apart from the president’s Twitter feed. What can we expect from Republicans next week as Democrats start the public portion of impeachment?

Natasha Bertrand: A lot of Trump tweets, and perhaps a fresh round of pleas to GOP lawmakers to go on the offensive on behalf of the president. But there hasn’t been a unified, cohesive messaging strategy so far — the Republican defense from the GOP has ranged from “Trump was too incompetent to pull off a quid pro quo,” to “quid pro quos are not impeachable” — so it remains to be seen whether anything will emerge before Wednesday.

Nancy Cook: Trump will live tweet them — or at least, that is the bet of several White House advisers and allies. Otherwise, it’s hard to tell what West Wing aides will do. They have had a hard time constructing a single narrative to fight back against impeachment. This week, they just hired two advisers and communications specialists to bolster their response, so we’ll have to see if that presence makes a difference. So far, Trump is largely dictating the strategy day to day and carrying it out by himself, and he is frustrated that more Republicans are not out there defending him. That includes his White House staff, lawmakers, and Republican members of the legal community.

Marianne LeVine: I would expect continued White House outreach to Senate Republicans. The public portion of the impeachment inquiry will be a new test for Republicans, who have attacked House Democrats for holding closed-door hearings. Public hearings are harder to ignore than depositions. Expect Trump’s loudest defenders in the Senate, like Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), to keep attacking the process and to ignore the hearings. I’ll be curious to see if public hearings affect any members of the GOP caucus who may feel pressure to distance themselves from the White House. Or will Republicans continue to use the line that they need to remain impartial jurors and decline to comment?

How are Senate leaders preparing for a potential impeachment trial? McConnell and Schumer have yet to hammer out how the Senate will deal with an impeachment inquiry. In a partisan setting, is it going to be a problem to even agree on basic procedure? How is McConnell and Trump's relationship right now?

Natasha Bertrand: I’ll leave the procedural questions to my Hill colleagues, but will just note that McConnell appears to have already made up his mind on how he’d vote, telling reporters this week that if a trial were held “today,” it would undoubtedly not lead to Trump’s removal. The biggest thing to watch after the public hearings will obviously be whether the diplomats’ and officials’ testimonies move the dial at all on impeachment and removal among the broader public, which could ultimately put pressure on Senate Republicans.

Marianne LeVine: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has made it clear the Senate will hold an impeachment trial. But both he and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) have yet to sit down and hash out what the process surrounding a trial will look like. How long will the trial last? Which witnesses will be called in? What type of evidence can be used? This could get complicated given that the rules proposal can be amended on the Senate floor. Schumer told POLITICO he didn’t see any reason why he and McConnell wouldn’t come to an agreement. But already we know that partisanship is inevitable. McConnell said this week that there’s no question that if the impeachment trial were held today, the Senate would acquit Trump — a remark Schumer described as “over the line.”

Trump knows he’s going to need goodwill from McConnell and Senate Republicans as the impeachment trial moves forward. So far, the relationship between the majority leader and Trump seems solid. Despite some disagreement on foreign policy issues, McConnell and Trump this week celebrated reaching a milestone for both of them — confirming a record number of judges to the federal judiciary.