Sondland created a mess with his assumptions, but I must have missed actual wrongdoing on his part.
That said, he serves at the pleasure of the President as a representative of that President.
Sondland was trying to save his bacon. His initial testimony was favorable to POTUS. He was obviously threatened with financial ruin for himself and his wife’s business if he did not play ball for Team Impeachment.
Making a mess with his assumptions!
His wrong doing was to pass his assumptions on to others as factual information from the President. He obviously did not qualfy his “information” as his assumptions but indicated to those with whom he spoke that those were the wishes of the President. I call that wrong doing.
Sondland outright said....when asked was there a quid pro quo, in his summary......YES! He said..
I agree. Gordon D. Sondland was far from the worst. He was mostly confused, inept and out of his depth. He was from the private sector, a big donor.... IIRC to the Trump inauguration committee. His reward was this ambassadorship. IOW he was not a careerist in gov’t like snake Vindman who got the heave ho today.
I watched his testimony and his “assumptions” as you fairly characterized them indirectly formed the basis for his testimony based on nothing more this his supposition.
I was dumbfounded that such a person would be in that position to begin with - I guess he donated a lot of money. He did not come across as very bright to be charitable and I found his testimony to be “shady” (my own term). The most amusing thing about him was that when he was questioned by Schiff and Co. in private he must have been far more certain than he was in the open hearing facing cross-examination. Schiff looked very frustrated with him numerous times.
I had no confidence in him based on his own testimony and I am not surprised that Trump is letting him go - he serves at the pleasure of the President. Bye.