Republicans stall when facing diplomats rather than Democratic rivals

It was only day one of public hearings but what did Americans – and the rest of us – learn from the impeachment inquiry?

There was evidence of a new telephone call. In it, President Donald Trump spoke to his ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, about whether Ukraine was going to investigate Joe Biden. They would fall in line, the US president was told, according to the testimony of William Taylor, the acting ambassador to Ukraine. Mr Trump is said to have “cared more” about damaging Mr Biden than he did about providing $391 million (Dh1.43 billion) for Ukraine’s defence against Russian tanks.

Mr Sondland will next week be questioned about the telephone call. A hotelier by trade, his appointment as an ambassador was payback for $1m given to Mr Trump’s presidential campaign.

Having already changed his evidence once, his reliability is under the microscope. If he does not corroborate the phone call we can expect one or more people who heard the discussion, at dinner in a restaurant of all places, to arrive on Capitol Hill. Unlike Mr Sondland, no one – not even Mr Trump’s strongest defenders – has questioned Mr Taylor’s evidence.

But if Mr Sondland is an important figure in establishing if Mr Trump wanted an investigation into the Bidens, he is a bit-part player compared with Rudy Giuliani.

The freewheeling former mayor of New York was frequently mentioned on Wednesday.

Acting as Mr Trump’s personal lawyer he has reportedly been assembling dirt on Mr Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, since January. On Friday the main casualty of his “irregular” and “unhelpful” diplomacy, as Mr Taylor and George Kent, the State Department’s top official on Ukraine called it, will be giving evidence.

Marie Yovanovitch was abruptly recalled from her post as ambassador to Ukraine in May. Evidence for the reasons why points to Mr Giuliani. He pushed for Ms Yovanovitch’s removal such was the likelihood that she, another State Department veteran, would be a barrier to the shadow diplomacy being carried out to benefit Mr Trump politically. She had been doing a good job. Mr Taylor and Mr Kent spoke of their admiration of her efforts to combat corruption, despite opposition from within Ukraine.

“You can’t promote principled anti-corruption action without [expletive] off corrupt people,” Mr Kent said.

Such a candid answer revealed the fury that lingers over the politicisation of diplomacy under the Trump administration. But it also showed that testimony under oath has greater value as evidence than tweets that are never put to the test.