Had already stopped the Trip Planning by that point. And when did that happen . Stopping the Trip Planning . Yeah. On may 13th. Okay. And how did you hear about that . I was called by a colleague in the the Vice President s chief of staffs office and told to stop the Trip Planning. Okay. And as i understand it, it was the assistant to the chief of staff . Thats correct. Okay. And so you didnt hear about it from general kellogg or the chief of staff or the president or the Vice President , you heard about it from mr. Shorts assistant . Thats right. And did you have any knowledge of the reasoning for stopping the trip . I asked my colleague why we should stop Trip Planning and why the Vice President would not be attending, and i was informed that the president had decided the Vice President would not attend the inauguration. Okay. And do you know why the president decided no, she did not have that information. Okay. And ultimately the Vice President went to canada for a usmca event . Tha
the number of times that witnesses have been asked any question about whether or not president trump s conduct constituted bribery before ambassador yovanovitch was asked by my colleague congressman stewart last thursday is zero. the number of times witnesses have used the word bribery or bribe to describe president trump s conduct in the last six weeks of this inquiry is zero. in fact in these 3,500 pages of sworn deposition testimony, in just these ten transcripts released thus far, the word bribery appears in these 3,500 pages exactly one time. and ironically, it appears not in a description of president trump s alleged conduct. it appears in the description of vice president biden s alleged conduct. this is important because as early as next week, my democratic colleagues are going
hundreds of hours of testimony. thousands of questions asked. thousands of answers given. the number of times that witnesses have been asked any question about whether or not president trump s conduct constituted bribery before ambassador yovanovitch was asked by congressman stewart last thursday is zero. zero. now that s really interesting. it s kind of a lawyer s trick. let s discuss. he had two visual aids. one, that dramatic stack of transcripts saying they weren t discussing legal term bribery and two, full disclosure over his shoulder at times view uers might see, he had a visual aid that referred to actual msnbc reporting about bribery and the constitution. what is he doing there? he s trying to make it sound suspicious that these fact witnesses weren t discussing law. of course the reason why you have fact and legal witnesses is the fact witnesses discuss what they saw. they don t issue, they re not supposed to issue legal