Daniel John Sobieski
The networks coverage of the testimony of National Security Council staffer Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman sought as a “bombshell” and “damning” was laughable and dishonest, implying that his service to his country wearing its uniform made him a credible and unbiased witness without a political agenda. Particularly egregious were the comments of NBC News anchor Lester Holt, who equted wartime courage with peacetime candor. As Newsbusters noted:
After a report on the California wildfires, NBC Nightly News anchor Lester Holt told viewers “[t]here was dramatic testimony in the House impeachment investigation by a decorated war hero who works on the National Security Council and was among those who heard that phone call between President Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart.”
Except that others on the call between President Trump and Ukrainian President, including those who were charged with producing a transcript, don’t quite remember the call the way Vindman does. Certainly both participants on the call both said there was no pressure for Ukraine to “dig up dirt” on former Vice President Joe Biden. As for the quid pro quo, we now know the Ukrainians didn’t learn until August military aid had been delayed. The phone call was in July. Its hard to have a quid pro quo when the party being extorted is not tol adbout the alleged quo. So just what was Vindman’s problem with the call?
In his opening statement, Vindman says he came forward “did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen.” Yet when pressed to explain where in the phone call transcript any demand was made, he could bot, lapsing into psycho-babble about Ukrainian President Zelensky inferring a demand because of Trump’s more powerful position in the world. As Fox News reported:
Vindman voiced concerns about the investigation request during his interview Tuesday, but was also questioned over his statement that it was not “proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen.”
A source told Fox News that Vindman struggled for several minutes when asked to point to Trump’s language in the transcript that backed up the claim that it was a demand. Vindman later stated that Trump was the party with the most power, or "superior," so the "whole thing [call] was a demand asking for a favor."