Sondland told members of the Intelligence Committee on Wednesday that he “later came to believe” that the military assistance — which had been frozen at Trump’s direction over the summer — would not be delivered to Ukraine unless the country publicly committed to pursuing Trump’s desired investigations. When asked if the “only logical conclusion” is that the military aid was part of the quid pro quo Sondland was describing, he responded: “Yup.”

Sondland emphasized that he never heard those words from Trump, but that after multiple conversations with the president about Ukraine, Trump’s intentions were clear to him. “It was abundantly clear to everyone that there was a link” between military aid and investigations, he added.

The ambassador, who donated $1 million to Trump’s inaugural committee, also testified that he told Vice President Mike Pence on Sept. 1 that he was concerned that the delay in military assistance was tied to “the issue of investigations.” But Marc Short, Pence’s chief of staff, said such a conversation “never happened.”

Ukraine, lawmakers have noted, depends on military assistance from the U.S. to fight a war with Russia, which has invaded and attempted to annex Crimea. The legitimacy conferred by a White House visit would have also been extremely valuable to Zelensky as he sought to establish his bona fides in a country with a legacy of corruption.

Sondland attributed much of his concern to Trump's “directive” that his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani be involved in any Ukraine effort. Giuliani had been publicly calling for Ukraine to investigate Biden, as well as to probe a debunked conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, hacked a Democratic Party server in 2016.

But Giuliani wasn’t freelancing, Sondland emphasized.

“We all understood that these pre-requisites for the White House call and White House meeting reflected President Trump’s desires and requirements,” he said. “Mr. Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma.”

Burisma is a reference to the Ukrainian energy company for which Biden's son Hunter sat on the board, and several State Department officials have indicated they came to understand that Trump's demand for an Burisma investigation was code for going after the Bidens.

Sondland said he has no doubt Giuliani was “expressing the desires of the president of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the president.” He also said he had no desire to work with Giuliani but felt it was a requirement imposed by Trump and would be the only way to conceivably convince Trump to adopt a more productive posture toward Ukraine.

“We had no desire to set any conditions on the Ukrainians,” he said. “I believed then, as I do now, that the men and women of the State Department, not the president’s personal lawyer, should take responsibility for Ukraine matters.”

Wednesday’s hearing was Sondland’s third attempt at providing a complete account of his role in the unfolding Ukraine saga. His closed door testimony to lawmakers last month omitted crucial details that he later added in a written supplement. But his opening statement appears to be a more complete accounting of his activities — and it was quickly picked apart by Trump's defenders, who once counted him as a potential ally.

Sondland acknowledged that his memory “has not been perfect,” adding that he does not regularly take notes and that the State Department has not given him access to all of his phone records and emails. He said the process would have been “more transparent” if the State Department had provided the documents — though a department official pushed back late Wednesday night, saying Sondland “continues to retain full access” to his documents and emails.