What did Sondland "really" provide for Democrats?

For the next 24 hours or so we will watch both sides treat today's testimony as a total win, just as they have every other day of the testimony. The left will  demand that yesterday was full of "bombshells" while the right will suggest that like every other witness, Sondland was unable to provide any smoking gun evidence of the allegations being made by the Democrats.

As "I" (as well as many others) have argued, even if the Democrats could prove 100% of what they claim (that Trump used congressional aid to investigate his political opponents), it still wouldn't rise to the level of misconduct that will convince Republicans to vote to remove their duly elected President. Especially considering that Ukraine got their aid without announcing any investigations into Hunter or Joe Biden, rendering it impossible to actually prove any sort of deal actually ever existed. The best that Democrats could do is argue that Trump "meant" to bribe Zelensky, but that the quid pro quo arrangement never took place in spite of Trump's intention. But even that would be unlikely to sway many (if any) Republicans.

If they were temporarily swayed, they would just need to be reminded of this:

So what happened today to get the Democrats and their faithful followers up in arms? Well it was the opening statement that Gordon Sondland suggested that there was quid pro quo, that everyone knew about it, and that it was right out in the open. The problem is that the quid pro quo that Sondland was referencing had nothing to do with the aid, and it had nothing to do with Hunter or Joe Biden. To some degree it was a messy opening statement that was likely "meant" to provide Sondland with some good will from the Democrats (that never actually came).

Once that statement had been digested and the questioning began, it became clear that Sondland was referring to Trump wanting some sort of anti-corruption statement (regarding investigations) before Trump would invite Zelensky for a White House visit. Even this was something that Sondland had presumed, rather than actually hearing it from the President. But the idea that there needed to be some gesture by the new Ukrainian President was generally accepted by all Parties involved, and as Sondland pointed out... nobody thought there was anything wrong with this (because there really isn't).

What Sondland could not provide was any sort of evidence that the "aid" was being held up because of any investigations. Once again Sondland presumed that to be the case, but even at the time he never was given any impression (by anyone) that the aid being held up has anything to do with the Bidens or anything political in nature. In other words, he was not privy to any information that suggested that there was quid pro quo as it pertained to the aid (although he presumed as much). But even his presumption did not include the President specifically demanding investigations into the Bidens, much less having some corrupt intent.

So to the degree that the Democrats are claiming victory is an admission that they just may not ever be able to prove the corrupt idea of Trump using foreign aid to get a foreign power to investigate a political rival. What we have instead is a classic example of the bait and switch. Reel them in with a serious allegation and try to hook them with whatever lesser thing they can sort of prove and try to pretend that it's a difference without a distinction.