No. Like I said. Did you see Vindman admit his presumption? If not, why not? I know the complicit MSM downplayed anything that exonerated Trump - but Vindman's total and complete exoneration of Trump was out there for all to see. If you didn't see it, explain your blindness.
wmLambert, I think you mean Gordan Sondland. He's the DNC's "star" witness for the claim that Trump was seeking a quid pro quo, notwithstanding Trump personally told him there was no quid pro quo. He's the one that admitted he "presumed" it on cross examination after he testified about it on direct.
Vindman is the Lt. Colonel who was totally smarmy and misstated the role of mid-level bureaucrats. He seemed to think that Vindman's committee was responsible for setting US foreign policy and that the President was not entitled to disagree with it's judgments. It was a stunning bit of testimony that reflected such a basic lack of understanding of the Constitution that it should have made one question how he got promoted that far. He's also almost certainly the source for the "whistleblower."
I think you inadvertantly confirmed something that I have suspected for a while about the active posters on the other side of this debate. They never took the time to read any of the transcripts, only the snippets dumped on the public by the media.
Crunch, I have no idea what you're referring to on Vindman. All I can recall is that he wanted to add the name Burisma to the call transcript, and the other listeners did not agree that the name was used and therefore did not put it in. Are you suggesting that they found evidence in other circumstances that he tried to insert agenda items into calls whether or not they were actually discussed? That he took a position that the actual call was less important than a record of what was supposed to be included in the call? That would certainly undermine his testimony by giving an alternative reason for his claim. Honestly, if that was his practice he should be held accountable for falsifying government records.
Fen, you might as well not bother. There's no room there for understanding the difference between what you actually say and what he wants you to have said for argument purposes.