It did no such thing. Sondland's opening statement was emphatic that, with regards to a White House meeting, there was a quid pro quo. Trump's statement to Sondland about 'no quid pro quo' only came after he was caught, which does not make it very convincing, much less a refutation.
You're being disingenuous here. Sondlands actual testimony countered his opening statement. He admitted his statement was not based on fact, but based on pressumption. When he tried to make sure he understood correctly he got the actual.answer. it's irrelevant when Trump told him as there has been ZERO evidence to counter that.
Upvote
0