Thinking about the angry “no quid pro quo!” phone call with Trump that Sondland testified to in connection with Michael Cohen’s testimony about “how Mr. Trump operates” & think it highlights a throughline in his approach: You’re not supposed to make him say it.
It's a pretty savvy management style for a crime boss. Servile displays of loyalty are demanded constantly. If you’re not willing to lie or break the law for him, you’re disloyal & will be gone soon. But true loyalty is protecting him from having to make the demand explicit.
The subtext of that call is pretty clearly: “Look, I held up the aid for no other reason anyone can discern; I demanded these investigations and have kept the pressure up through Rudy. It’s the one thing I’m asking for constantly, OF COURSE that’s what gets the hold lifted…"
“…but YOU’RE NOT SUPPOSED TO MAKE ME SAY IT. Is it clear enough if I say he should ‘do the right thing’ and do ‘what he ran on’? You understand what I’m demanding; asking for it more explicitly is trying to put me on the hook, which is disloyal."
It’s like the mob enforcer asking: “Just to be clear, by ‘take care of him’ you mean to instruct us to commit felony homicide against a potential racketeering witness?” WTF is wrong with you? Are you a cop? You know what I meant, do your job!
I mean, it’s still pretty explicit. “I want him to do what he ran on.” He ran on fighting corruption. These are the only investigations of supposed “corruption” Trump has ever shown the slightest bit of interest in. There’s no other way to parse it.
But even if it’s a game of connect-the-dots with just two dots, you’re not supposed to ask him to draw the line himself. And Sondland’s testimony implies he was pissed about having to spell it out that overtly.
