The. i m sorry, my lawyer was talking. can you say that again, please? you ve already said that, so we can go on. you re not a jag officer, you re not a lawyer. on page 153 of your testimony deposition in reference to that meeting with mr. eisen berg, you say, ifls not making a legal judgment, all i was doing was sharing my concerns with my chain of command. yet we ve established that your direct report is to mr. morrison. so let s establish your role and your title. in your deposition, lieutenant colonel vindman, on page 200 and 201 in the colloquy with mr. stewart, you say, i am directly for ukraine. are you the only one in the entire universe of our
Chief analyst. good to see both of you. thank you. they re trying to change the language and build the case for what they call bribery or at least alleged bribery, and it begins with this so-called testimony, but you re hearing from a number of republicans who are being critical of the closed door testimony. explain why democrats say they have to know what witnesses are going to say in an open testimony, and they do that by discovery in a closed door testimony. is there anything wrong with that? no, of course not. that s exactly what happened during the clinton investigation when the republicans, of course, had the majority. as you know during the starr report, ken starr accumulated all the depositions and then conducted that starr report in fruchbt whole house. ifls there when he did that. after that depositions were taken. depositions, by the way, president clinton s secretary,
Ifls specifically told this request is come from jim comey at the request of somebody. do not assume it was president obama. do not assume that. he gave him his say. we gave him his say, and then we had to do the reporting on it. we have new information. we also have maria puttina s lawyer here. we are going to bring the lawyer in. what do they know? what do they think? and the responses were relevant parties. next. but it is here. thanks, captain obvious. don t hate-like their trip,
absolutely. as a child plrly during by tanl yeteenage years, an ambivalent feeling about being an american. i grew up with the sense this wasn t really our country to chaim. and that we had never been treat ed as full citizens. so my dad flying this flag in our yard, our house was kind of perpetually in disrepair, but that flag was also pristine and as soon as it got any tatter, my dad would take it down. ifls really embarrassed that he would so outwardly show patriotism for a country that i felt didn t treat black people as citizens. i just came to understand that our history in this country, black people s role in truly believing in our founding ideals and being willing to die again and again to make those true for all americans. there s no greater patriotism. and it s actually disrespectful to our ancestors not to claim this country and that flag and to be able to claim our legacy here on these lands. it says beautifully in print,
Apologized. they ve issues retraction. one thing we ve never heard from this white house or this president is an apology. each as he has used hostile rhetoric. each as he has conspiracy theories, he has put out continue with us falsehoods. so his approach is what he has always done, which is double down and be more aggressive. i think that s what s guiding his response and contributed to this environment. what did you think of that contrast in. we re trying to apology eyes for what the president is saying in the midst of a crisis. every president in my generation dealt with a ifls ceo. president obama dealt with sandy hook. president obama with new york. there are crises and they re not difficult to hand him. the president wants us to feel sorry to hafor him. not so much he doesn t call his predecessors and same, i m