Ten Reasons Vindman’s Testimony Was Bad for Democrats

National Security Council aide Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman is sworn in to testify before the House Intelligence Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Nov. 19, 2019, during a public impeachment hearing of President Donald Trump's efforts to tie U.S. aid for Ukraine to investigations of his political opponents. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

Forget the Democrats’ talking points. Forget the media spin. If you watched Lt. Col. Vindman’s testimony today it was a total dud for the Democrats and their impeachment witch hunt. Need proof? I’ve compiled ten reasons that the show today did not advance the Democrats’ narrative one bit.


10. Vindman admitted that the president, not unelected bureaucrats, sets U.S. policy

It’s hard to imagine why pointing this out is even necessary, but Democrat counsel Daniel Goldman seemed to be under the impression that unelected bureaucrats set U.S. policy, not the president.

9. Vindman admitted he never had contact with President Trump

This would be kind of important for such an important witness, don’t you think?

8. Vindman admitted having no firsthand knowledge of aid or an investigation and was just “following news accounts”

Once again, this looks really bad for the Democrats. If he doesn’t have firsthand knowledge of the alleged quid pro quo, why are we even talking to him?

7. Vindman admitted Trump was “well within his rights” to ask Ukraine for help in an investigation

Which pretty much negates the entire need for this impeachment inquiry, doesn’t it? If Trump was within his rights to seek assistance in an investigation, then he did nothing wrong.


6. Vindman admitted that putting the transcript of the Ukraine call on a secure server was “definitely not unprecedented” 

Oh, but Democrats claimed that was part of a cover-up!

Further to this point, Vindman admitted the concern about leaks was legitimate.

5. Vindman admitted the Trump-Zelenksy transcript was “very accurate”


Remember how Democrats made a big stink that the Trump-Zelenksy transcript wasn’t a transcript at all, but a memo? Apparently they wanted us to believe that the call could have been more sinister than we actually know about… well, so much for that theory.

4. Vindman admitted he has never used the term “bribery” to describe the president’s actions

Back then, “bribery” hadn’t been the focus-group-tested term of choice.

3. Vindman said he couldn’t recall Ukrainians feeling pressured to do investigations


It’s kind of hard to claim that they were pressured when there’s no evidence they felt pressured.

2. Vindman said, “As far as I can tell,” Hunter Biden was not qualified to serve on Burisma’s board

But, you know, Biden’s running for president now, so we can’t investigate why he was there.

1. Vindman said there was an appearance of a conflict of interest with Hunter Biden being on the Burisma board

Every single witness who has testified has been asked this question and has said yes.


Matt Margolis is the author of Trumping Obama: How President Trump Saved Us From Barack Obama’s Legacy and the bestselling book The Worst President in History: The Legacy of Barack Obama. You can follow Matt on Twitter @MattMargolis


Trending on PJ Media Videos

Join the conversation as a VIP Member