He voted no. Once the votes were counted there were 54 in favor. He then changed his vote.
He had mentioned in interviews that if they choose to go down the witness road he would insist on, and gave a few names. He only changed his vote to make a statement.
Not trying to defend Graham. Just posted for accuracy.
He had said all along no witnesses necessary. The outcome is a foregone conclusion.
Had threatened to call Pelosi first if there were witnesses. After 54 were in favor he changed his vote as a tactic. Then he went on twitter and explained and again stated Pelosi will be called and posed the questions that would be asked.
Will be a huge embarrassment for the DEMS is the calculus.
That is the logic. People can debate whether its a good move or not.
That is not what happened.
He voted no. Once the votes were counted there were 54 in favor. He then changed his vote.
He had mentioned in interviews that if they choose to go down the witness road he would insist on, and gave a few names. He only changed his vote to make a statement.
Not trying to defend Graham. Just posted for accuracy.
I DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW THIS IS LOGICAL THINKING. PLEASE ELABORATE.
He had said all along no witnesses necessary. The outcome is a foregone conclusion.
Had threatened to call Pelosi first if there were witnesses. After 54 were in favor he changed his vote as a tactic. Then he went on twitter and explained and again stated Pelosi will be called and posed the questions that would be asked.
Will be a huge embarrassment for the DEMS is the calculus.
That is the logic. People can debate whether its a good move or not.
Appropriate username pede