Ten Reasons Vindman’s Testimony Was Bad for Democrats

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.

This is a very revealing moment.

Adam Schiff's lackey Daniel Goldman suggests that unelected bureaucrats determine U.S. foreign policy and the President must follow their talking points.

Ridiculous! pic.twitter.com/49MeOxqXY6

— Trump War Room – Text WOKE to 88022 (@TrumpWarRoom) November 19, 2019

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.

DEMOCRAT: "Would it ever be U.S. policy in your experience to ask a foreign leader to open a political investigation?"

VINDMAN: "There are proper procedures in which to do that. Certainly the President is well within his right to do that." pic.twitter.com/fsn5ioiaZh

— Trump War Room – Text WOKE to 88022 (@TrumpWarRoom) November 19, 2019

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!

Alexander Vindman admits it was "definitely not unprecedented" for the transcript of President Trump's phone call to be stored on a separate, secure computer system.

Vindman previously testified this was because calls with foreign leaders had previously been leaked to the media. pic.twitter.com/qcMxx8GLyW

— Trump War Room – Text WOKE to 88022 (@TrumpWarRoom) November 19, 2019

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

Alexander Vindman: "Concerns about leaks" of the phone call transcript "seemed valid" pic.twitter.com/vhaoysWTUI

— Trump War Room – Text WOKE to 88022 (@TrumpWarRoom) November 19, 2019

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.

Watch a Democrat/media conspiracy theory get totally destroyed by two of Adam Schiff's own witnesses.

Jennifer Williams says the call transcript is "substantively correct," and Alexander Vindman said it is "very accurate." pic.twitter.com/HHm9YarKRL

— Trump War Room – Text WOKE to 88022 (@TrumpWarRoom) November 19, 2019

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.

WATCH: Williams & Vindman admit they never used the word bribery to describe President Trump's call with President Zelensky.

"In an impeachment… where bribery is the impeachable offense, no witness has used the word bribery to describe President Trump’s conduct." pic.twitter.com/eBf4f2R5zZ

— Trump War Room – Text WOKE to 88022 (@TrumpWarRoom) November 19, 2019

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