As far as I understood it, Lt. Col. Vindman was supposed to help Democrats, but he did the complete opposite.
Earlier today, we posted how Vindman agreed that Hunter Biden’s business dealings presented a conflict of interest, but that was only the tip of the iceberg.
That Whoops Moment
At the time of the mishap for Democrats, Vindman was being questioned by the majority’s counsel.
There is an adage out there that you should never ask a question when you don’t already know the answer, especially for your own witness, but that did not happen here.
Daniel Goldman, the counsel for the majority, basically made the case for getting this impeachment ended during his session.
Here is the back and forth between the two:
Goldman: Col. Vindman, you’ve said in your deposition that it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see the political benefits of the president’s demands. For those of us who are not rocket scientists, can you explain what you meant by that?
Vindman: So my understanding is that it was — the connection to investigating to a political opponent was inappropriate and improper. I made that connection as soon as the president brought up the Biden investigation.
Goldman: Col. Vindman, you testified that the president, President Trump’s request for a favor from President Zelensky would be considered as a demand to President Zelensky. After his call, did you ever hear from any Ukrainians, either in the United States or Ukraine about any pressure that they felt to do these investigations that President Trump demanded?
Vindman: Not that I can recall.
Goldman: Did you have any discussions with officials at the embassy here, the Ukrainian embassy here in Washington, DC?
Vindman: Yes, I did.
Goldman: Did you discuss at all the demand for investigations with them?
Vindman: I did not.
So, Trump was putting so much pressure on Ukraine that nobody in the government ever said a peep about that to anyone they worked with on an almost daily basis.
In essence, with Democrats continuing to push this narrative, they are accusing President Zelensky of lying.
Perception is NOT Reality
One area I also wanted to address was the use of the term “demand” that was made by Vindman.
Vindman perceived Trump asking Zelensky for a favor to be an order, citing his life in the military.
Trump has never served in the military, so for Vindman to make that assessment is completely wrong.
Democrats continue to ask these witnesses what they “think” or their “interpretation” of the situation, but as this example proves, their perception is not relevant because they could not possibly know what Trump or Zelensky was thinking in this situation.
At some point during these hearings, hopefully, we will actually get some facts rather than hearsay and perception.