re: #142 lawhawk

Well, he was hoping that his testimony would be sufficient to keep the House at bay, but when all the other folks started testifying about specific acts of wrongdoing by Sondland, he had to revise/extend his remarks.

And in any other circumstances, his conduct could be considered perjury (lying under oath). You could weasel word your way out of those charges, because he used a lot of modifiers in his original testimony so he could later claim that he’s not lying under oath either now or then (aka a perjury trap). The GOP knows this too. But the GOP will continue to not care about the facts or the logic involved.

Again, I know 30% of the populace is a total lost cause, but for the somehow undecideds, Meadows’ spin doesn’t pass the gut/smell/laugh test. The mere fact that Sondland felt compelled to revise his testimony, and phrase things very carefully in order to avoid a perjury charge (probably) says everything.