You know, Bill, what I didn’t hear was the follow-up. “Okay, with total certitude, you say President Trump knew what you were doing. Convince us of that. Give us the evidence.” Remember, he also said that Bill Barr was in the loop and then when cited for evidence, he said, “Well, he’s friends with diGenova and Toensing, and his name was mentioned in [the] transcript.” If that’s the only evidence you have that Bill Barr is part of a conspiracy to defraud the United States and get a foreign government to investigate a political opponent, if the only evidence you have is who he’s friends with and his name was mentioned in the transcript, that ain’t much evidence … so, I need to hear the follow-up questions.
…the way lawyers interview people, when you cross-examine them, Parnas gave three different answers to the same question about Mike Pence. His first answer is, “I’m absolutely certain Pence knew about it,” and then about three seconds later he said, “Well, he had to have, right?” and then the last answer was, “Well, it was possible.” Those three answers don’t do you well in the courtroom. They do great if you’re writing headlines; they do not do well in the courtroom.
