The associate, in the first comments from Sondland’s camp since Taylor’s damaging testimony, told POLITICO that Sondland and Taylor had speculated together about Trump’s potential motivations but had not reached any definitive conclusion. The associate also said Sondland and Taylor did not grasp that a reference to the gas company Burisma was in fact a reference to Hunter Biden.

The comments underscore Sondland’s eagerness to draw a line between himself and the president in the rapidly-unfolding scandal.

“It appears that Sondland … and Taylor disagree only on whether Sondland knew that there was a linkage in aid,” said the associate. “On all other points (that they wanted the aid restored, wanted a WH visit for [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelensky, didn’t want to have to deal with Rudy [Giuliani], etc.) they are aligned.”

“I think Sondland would say that, like everyone, they speculated about the aid linkage, but never knew,” the associate continued. “No one, least of all Taylor, suggests that Sondland had any role in the aid cutoff; the only question is whether Sondland had heard that from Trump (or Volker or Giuliani).”

Kurt Volker is the president's former special envoy to Ukraine who was a key player early on in the Ukraine scandal. He was one of Democrats’ first witnesses in their ongoing impeachment inquiry.

Sondland’s associate noted that Sondland himself acknowledged one component of the alleged quid pro quo Trump hung over Zelensky: that a White House meeting for Zelensky was put on hold pending a public statement from the Ukrainian president that he would launch two investigations demanded by Trump.

Those investigations included a probe into a debunked conspiracy theory that Ukraine -- not Russia -- hacked a Democratic server during the 2016 election, as well as an investigation of Burisma, the Ukrainian energy company for whom Joe Biden’s son Hunter sat on the board.

Sondland told lawmakers that he didn’t understand Burisma to be “code for Biden” when he spoke to Trump and that he and Taylor worked together on the statement Trump wanted Zelensky to make.

Regardless of the discrepancy between Sondland and Taylor over aid, Sondland’s associate said even if the E.U. ambassador had known of Trump’s full intentions he would have been just “a witness” -- not an active participant in the decision to withhold aid, which he opposed.

“No one is suggesting that he was anything other than opposed to the aid cutoff, and he told the committee that he thought linking the two would be wrong,” the associate said. “Less here than meets the eye, is my only point.”

“The points in common between Taylor and Sondland (and also Volker) are far more important than the points of difference,” he added.

Taylor raised a slew of questions about Sondland in his Tuesday testimony, which seemed to jolt Democrats into a sense of renewed urgency in their impeachment probe. Taylor indicated that he pressed Sondland in text messages about whether Ukrainian military aid was conditioned on Trump’s demand for investigations into Burisma and 2016. And Sondland replied by asking for a phone call.

“During that phone call, Ambassador Sondland told me that President Trump had told him that he wants President Zelensky to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U. S. election,” Taylor testified.

In a set of text messages provided to House investigators, Sondland on Sept. 9 assured Taylor that there were in fact “no quid pro quos” of any kind authorized by the president. Rather, Trump’s goal in Ukraine, he said, was about transparency and fighting corruption. He also urged Taylor and Volker to refrain from communicating via text.

Sondland told lawmakers in testimony last week that his assertion of “no quid pro quos” was not based on actual knowledge but on an assurance he received from Trump in a phone call that same night.

POLITICO NEWSLETTERS POLITICO Playbook Sign up today to receive the #1-rated newsletter in politics. Sign Up Loading By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Sondland, a political appointee who was a major donor to Trump’s 2016 campaign, sought to circumvent normal diplomatic channels to pressure Zelensky. He sought to align himself with the career State Department officials who have raised significant concerns about Trump’s posture toward Ukraine, as well as the president’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, who was leading a shadow operation to circumvent normal diplomatic channels to pressure Zelensky.

After Sondland testified, several Democratic lawmakers panned his performance as underwhelming, claiming he often used the phrase “I cannot recall” and could not remember specific details. And some lawmakers even suggested that Sondland perjured himself.

Taylor testified that Sondland told him that “everything” — including critical military aid and a meeting between Trump and Zelensky — was contingent on the Ukrainians publicly announcing investigations targeting Trump’s political rivals.

Sondland also said, according to Taylor, that Trump personally told him that he wanted Ukrainian officials to “state publicly” that they would open such investigations in order for the military aid to flow to the besieged eastern European nation.

“Ambassador Sondland tried to explain to me that President Trump is a businessman. When a businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something, he said, the businessman asks that person to pay up before signing the check,” Taylor said, according to his opening statement.

Andrew Desiderio contributed reporting to this story.

