EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland has provided an update to his testimony. He now says his recollection has been refreshed, and he remembers now that he communicated to Ukrainian officials that release of military aid was conditioned on President Zelensky announcing an investigation into Burisma, the company whose board Hunter Biden sat on. Is it possible that Sondland’s recollection on the quid pro quo is a good legal strategy? And will the rest of his testimony stand as others (including Sondland) testify in public? Speaking of: are all the witnesses now on the same about this quid pro quo and whether it was to squeeze Ukraine? Is any of this illegal? Impeachable? Wouldn’t it be smarter for Democrats to call this extortion or bribery, or something more in line with criminal statutes?

Republicans are saying President Trump has a right to confront the whistleblower as his accuser and that the whistleblower should be cross-examined. Ken says that’s absolute nonsense, and not based in reality at all. 

Plus: The fight for President Trump’s tax returns gets closer to the Supreme Court. Is it likely the court will grant cert? Lev Parnas has lawyered up with a non-Trump lawyer and he says he’ll be complying with Congressional subpoenas. Does that mean he’s “flipped”? It looks like Michael Flynn is more formally angling for a presidential pardon. E. Jean Carroll is suing President Trump for defamation.