Sorry, did not mean to say you said CT is an asshole – not my intent – intended as a generally response to commentary from up above. Did not mean to overstate your opinion. Apologies.
As to my point – say what you will about vacations and what not – I think that stuff is sketch and CT ought not have taken these vacations – but Christmas party reimbursements certainly aren’t corruption, so forgive me if I find this article so much overegg in the custard.
That said, no, I don’t think CT has changed a vote based on any of these more recent revelations. If anyone can point to a case where CT voted in a way he wouldn’t have other than for the patronage of his supposed sponsors, I’d love to hear it. CT’s views are sincere and well-baked in. You may not like it, but I can’t see where there’s any quid pro quo when the quid was a mortal lock long before there was any quo in the offing.
