direct evidence, things that he conversation that he participated in. but a certain amount of his testimony was hearsay. a certain amount of most of the whistleblower s complaint is what you would call hearsay. many republicans like lindsey graham have been dismissing that kind of evidence as hearsay. but colonel vindman is not a hearsay witness. he literally was on the phone call, and he also had his own direct conversations with gordon sondland. i want to emphasize this passage because gordon sondland is now the person in most jeopardy in terms of what s happening in the investigation so far. he is the one person who may be close to a perjury charge. and colonel vindman s opening statement says, ambassador sondland started to speak about ukraine, delivering specific investigations in order to secure the meeting with the president, at which time ambassador bolton cut the meeting short. that was a meeting with ukrainian officials. following this meeting, there
the president is as clear on this charge completely and the reality is that joe biden did everything that the stupid fools accuse the president of doing wt she didn t do and now they are doubling down on a whistle-blower complaint that is falling apart. he s not even a whistle-blower. the inspector general decided the hearsay witness was credible. how could he possibly decided that unless he had some kind of severe bias? you know the definition of hearsay. hearsay is inherently unreliable as as a source. laura: the acting tni director said that as far as he could tell, the whistle-blower l representing the whistle-blower did everything by the book and did it because they thought it was right so that s what mcguire said today on capitol hill. i think you missed the 16 areas in which the
i m the president s lawyer. the president is clear on this charge completely, and the reality is that joe biden did everything that the stupid fools accuse the president of doing, which he didn t do, and now they are doubling down on an whistle-blower complaint that is falling apart. he s not even a whistle-blower.he ir the law. the inspector general decided the hearsay witness was credible. how could he possibly decided that unless he had some kind of severe bias? you know the definition of hearsay. hearsay is inherently unreliable evidence. laura: the acting dni director said that as far as he could tell, the whistle-blower and the counselul representing e whistle-blower, did everything by the book and did it because they thought it was right so that s what mcguire said today on capitol hill.
what? oh, it turns out he didn t do it, joe biden did it. and it s kind of funny. i think that when they did that, they were thinking that theyha d this gossip witness, this hearsay witness who didn t even wasn t even privy to any of the conversations, just said something he heard like at the table. and he went to the ig and reported all that and i think that what they were thinking is that the ig he would take this information, handle it the way he should handle it, send the guy back to his cubicle and tell him to shut up and then of course never tell congress about it. then it would leak and all anybody would know is that the intelligence community is investigating this improper phone call between trump and the ukrainian leader and that would sound so terrible. but what happens? trump hears about it and he lays it all out there. he completely calls their bluff and as you said, it turns into a boomerang that they throw and it hits them in the back of the head.