Comment: Then all the posts saying he did were wrong?

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: He attached the amendment, (see in situ)

Then all the posts saying he did were wrong?

There were many posts at the time saying he had voted for the sanctions. As to making assumptions I would rather say that I am drawing a reasonable inference. Do you have the roll call for those sanctions? That would settle the matter for me.

At the moment all I have is your assertion against the testimonies of many others who said he did support the original bill. I accept that he attached the amendment and that means to me that he supported the amended bill. He is also quite happy to be the lone vote against these new sanctions so maybe he had some "blowback" on his original support for them and changed his mind. Again not an assumption but a reasonable inference. An assumption tends to precede evidence while a inference is based upon evidence. The evidence in this case would be the other posts I read at the time plus the fact that he attached an amendment to the bill and that it also passed.

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)