I've seen multiple rightoids within the last few days make the claim Sondland testified he had no proof the pressuring of Ukraine came from the president, and focusing on the "premsumption" part.

This is of course, absurd, because the president directed them to work with Giuliani.

If you work for the president of the united states and he tells you to "work with my lawyer" it is correct to presume that the things you are doing came directly from the president himself. Which is exactly what Sondland testified:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/20/us/politics/sondland-says-he-followed-trumps-orders-to-pressure-ukraine.html

WASHINGTON — An ambassador at the center of the House impeachment inquiry testified on Wednesday that he was following President Trump’s orders, with the full knowledge of other top administration officials, when he pressured the Ukrainians to conduct investigations into Mr. Trump’s political rivals in what he called a clear “quid pro quo.”

Gordon D. Sondland, Mr. Trump’s envoy to the European Union, told the House Intelligence Committee that he reluctantly followed Mr. Trump’s directive. He testified that the president instructed him to work with Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, as he pressured Ukraine to publicly commit to investigating former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and an unsubstantiated theory that Democrats conspired with Kyiv to interfere in the 2016 election.

So constantly harping on the term "premsumption" is not a valid defense of the president.

This brings us to DDF defense #2.

• "he released the aid and said he wanted no quid pro quo during a phone call!!"

He did both of these things after learning of the whistleblower.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/26/us/politics/trump-whistle-blower-complaint-ukraine.html

The revelation could shed light on Mr. Trump’s thinking at two critical points under scrutiny by impeachment investigators: his decision in early September to release $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine and his denial to a key ambassador around the same time that there was a “quid pro quo” with Kyiv. Mr. Trump used the phrase before it had entered the public lexicon in the Ukraine affair.

Mr. Trump faced bipartisan pressure from Congress when he released the aid. But the new timing detail shows that he was also aware at the time that the whistle-blower had accused him of wrongdoing in withholding the aid and in his broader campaign to pressure Ukraine’s new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to conduct investigations that could benefit Mr. Trump’s re-election chances.

You don't get points for releasing the aid and saying "no quid pro quo" after you get caught in the act. Attempted crime is still crime.

Be smarter DDF, you aren't even challenging anymore.