I have not seen any clown shows since watching. Trump with Kim of North Korea in Singapore. Therefore you will need to define what you are talking about regarding a "clown show".
He did. He cited the deposition denial, and then asked him in open session about who he communicated with, and Schiff shut the door because, as Schiff instructed, it would expose the name of the whistleblower. so, Vindman, by not answering is admitting in open session that he supplied the information to the whistleblower. hence, he lied i his deposition. If he didn't supply the information, the admonition from Schiff shouldn't have been heeded as it wouldn't have exposed the whistleblower. Simple stuff here. As an officer, and gentleman, his lying to congress is grounds for his imprisonment. He should spend real time in Leavenworth.
I did. The evidence is now on the congressional record. If congress doesn't act, the Army certainly can convene an Art 13 hearing on the matter.
Schiff for brains would not allow Vindman to testify who he talked to using the whistleblower protection rule of the dem clown shows committee rules yet both claim they don’t know who the whistleblower is. Stanky for sure.
You can try to ignore it all you want, but the evidence is, as they say, on the tape. If you think you have actual evidence that Vindman didn't pass the info to the Schiff acolyte Eric Ciaramella, feel free...
If you want to suss out an anonymous person, the more surrounding info you can get the easier it is to triangulate the individual. He gives up the intel person. Now that person's entire life is turned upside down and everyone he's ever know and talked to becomes suspect. And down the list you go. I mean, that's a pretty basic investigative technique.
Laughable. The evidence is now public record. Vindman, by not declaring who he disclosed the information to, and heeding Schiff's instruction, clearly was the source for Ciaramella. I suppose we can ask the FBI to verify that. Schiff wouldn't be able to stop or otherwise obstruct that...
?? How is a basic Investigative technique on sussing out unknown associates an assumption on my part?
You can hope this all you want, but I can't think of a single reason that it couldn't , or for that matter, wouldn't. So, dance around it all you want, the fact that Vindman is actively working against his chain of command, has not lied publicly, under oath in the deposition, should suffer the Art 13 hearing and face court marshal for conduct both criminal and unbecoming.
You are making up excuses for not allowing Vindman to name one person yet named all the others. Schiff for brains used his ban on naming the whistleblower. How would Schiff for brains know to use that if he does not know who the whistleblower is?
War hero slams Vindman. https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...-lt-col-alexander-vindman-operative-disgrace/
It appears that is all you have. I have the evidence of the tape, demonstrating my point. Ignoring the obvious seems a lot like you wearing your invisible clothes...
I wondered how long before the ultra partisan Breitbart would make an appearance. FYI asking another country to investigate a political rival is NOT US policy. Except it doesn’t say what you think it does.
I just watched five minutes of this crap and I can’t find the “gotcha” moment anywhere. Where’s the lie?