THREAD
Interesting and telling @senrobportman update:
I submitted an op-ed to the Toledo Blade Friday explaining that Portman's extensive and direct involvement in the Ukraine scandal required him to recuse from voting in the impeachment trial.
1/
www4.toledoblade.com/opinion/column…
Interesting and telling @senrobportman update:
I submitted an op-ed to the Toledo Blade Friday explaining that Portman's extensive and direct involvement in the Ukraine scandal required him to recuse from voting in the impeachment trial.
1/
www4.toledoblade.com/opinion/column…
I explained how, in conjunction w the White House, he took part in a false "cover story" that hid the true motivations behind the hold up of the Ukraine aid, as well as the reason it was ultimately released.
And that activity alone required recusal
2/
www4.toledoblade.com/opinion/column…
And that activity alone required recusal
2/
www4.toledoblade.com/opinion/column…
But here's what's interesting.
The Portman Senate office called up the Blade and demanded that a correction be run for my op-ed.
I had made a false factual assertion that needed to be fixed immediately.
3/
The Portman Senate office called up the Blade and demanded that a correction be run for my op-ed.
I had made a false factual assertion that needed to be fixed immediately.
3/
The correction they demanded was about a sentence early on that said the following: "In that role, he was part of critical meetings, such as when he met with Energy Secretary Perry, Ambassadors Sondland and Volker (“two amigos”), Col Vindman w President Zelensky in Ukraine"
4/
4/
To be clear, for my article's purposes, this sentence was an aside, building toward the more problematic parts of Portman's involvement that took place later. But this was the sentence they demanded be corrected
Portman was not at that meeting, they insist. He was in the US
5/
Portman was not at that meeting, they insist. He was in the US
5/
Of course when the Blade called, I said, Portman was LISTED as a participant in that meeting. And I showed them the receipts (an oversight group had received documents from the Dept. of Energy as part of a FOIA request)
6/
6/
The memo lists plainly that the participants were to include Ron Johnson, Rob Portman, Kurt Volker, Gordon Sondland, Alexander Vindman, Zelensky and Perry.
7/
7/
Portman's demanded correction was essentially that while he may have been listed as a participant at the meeting, he did not actually attend it.
Ok.
The Blade ran the correction, and took out that sentence. Which doesn't change the point of my piece slightly.
BUT....
8/
Ok.
The Blade ran the correction, and took out that sentence. Which doesn't change the point of my piece slightly.
BUT....
8/
It does beg a number of questions of the Senator
1) Senator, you're the one who blocked hearing from witnesses or seeing any documents about that meeting and so many others. The only document about that meeting that has come out listed you as a participant. Perhaps if you..
9/
1) Senator, you're the one who blocked hearing from witnesses or seeing any documents about that meeting and so many others. The only document about that meeting that has come out listed you as a participant. Perhaps if you..
9/
..allowed all the other relevant documents to come forward, the public could figure out which meetings where you were listed as a participant you attended, and which ones you did not
Demanding corrections about facts you unethically hid from the public takes serious moxie
10/
Demanding corrections about facts you unethically hid from the public takes serious moxie
10/
2) Tell us more about this meeting, Senator.
Was it on your schedule?
Why did you cancel?
Did you find it odd that the EU Ambassador was to go, outside of his jurisdiction?
As Ukraine Caucus chair, did you follow up to see how it went? That was a big meeting you had to miss.
Was it on your schedule?
Why did you cancel?
Did you find it odd that the EU Ambassador was to go, outside of his jurisdiction?
As Ukraine Caucus chair, did you follow up to see how it went? That was a big meeting you had to miss.
Did you talk to Sondland? Volker? Vindman? Perry?
Were there documents that your office received following that meeting?
Were there any follow-up actions to the meeting?
Surely you were included in those, as someone who was supposed to be there.
11/
Were there documents that your office received following that meeting?
Were there any follow-up actions to the meeting?
Surely you were included in those, as someone who was supposed to be there.
11/
And it's hard not to notice that w/in months of the meeting, every person there knew what was happening. A number were pushing the illegal scheme. It's the "three amigos" in one room.
Yet you were supposed to be there and they never talked to you again? The caucus Chair?
12/
Yet you were supposed to be there and they never talked to you again? The caucus Chair?
12/
Of course, because you voted to hide all the documents and witnesses surrounding this and other meetings and events, we may never know the answer to any of these questions unless you simply come forward and tell the truth.
But maybe that was the point.
13/
But maybe that was the point.
13/
Bottom line: even demanding a correction to remove yourself from a pivotal meeting you were listed as being part of begs so many questions about what you knew and when.
And makes even more clear how ethically tainted your vote was to hide all the answers to those questions.
END
And makes even more clear how ethically tainted your vote was to hide all the answers to those questions.
END
