Is today the day the impeachment charade not only collapsed but backfired to take down two key players?
Those players would be Adam Schiff and the “Lt. Col.” Alexander Vindman.
Many on the Internet think so, and after watching the video I wonder if you’ll be one of them.
Here’s what happened….
Both Schiff and Vindman have testified that they DO NOT KNOW the identity of the whistleblower.
No one really believes that, but so far they’ve been allowed to say that and taken at face value.
Then something odd happened today.
Jim Jordan was questioning Vindman and asked him about two people on the “readout” of the call.
Suddenly Vindman says the name of the first person and then tenses up and say “and one other individual”.
It was clear he didn’t want to say the name.
Then Schifty-Schiff jumps in and tries to stop the testimony, saying he will not allow Vindman to say the name of the whistleblower.
Many of you have already connected the dots, but for those who haven’t yet here’s the problem….
If both Vindman and Schiff have testified (Vindman under oath) that they don’t know the identity of the whistleblower, then why the big issue about saying the second name?
Why say the first name no problem and then panic when you get to the second name?
If you don’t know who the whistleblower is, then you have no idea which name you’re not supposed to say, right?
I think we just witnessed Jim Jordan catch these criminals in a lie.
Watch it for yourself here:
My favorite part is when Jim Jordan points this out to him and his eyes bug out even more than usual and you can just picture the small little wheels in his brain spinning as he tries to figure out something to say.
Our friends over at the Western Journal had more:
The organized farce that is the “impeachment inquiry” in the House of Representatives descended even further Tuesday when Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff interrupted questioning of a star Democratic witness out of an alleged fear that the “whistleblower” behind the latest attack on President Donald Trump was about to be identified.
The problem with Schiff’s objection, though, is that both he and the witness, Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, have said they don’t know the identity of the “whistleblower.”
So, how could Vindman out the “whistleblower” even if he did use his name? And how would Schiff know it if he did?
For Schiff, the moment could pass — since his word isn’t worth much to Republicans anyway. But for Vindman, a slip like that indicates the potential for perjury.
The issue arose when Vindman was questioned by both California Rep. Devin Nunes, the ranking Republican on the committee, and Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, who was named to the Intelligence Committee specifically to help Republicans defend Trump.
The Nunes questioning, with its moments of sardonic humor, was an educational experience alone. (Breitbart has a partial transcript here.)
But for a moment to laugh out loud at the sheer lunacy of the proceedings, check out Jordan’s questioning of Vindman here, just as Schiff and Vindman’s attorney stepped in to interrupt:
“This committee will not be used to out the whistleblower,” Schiff said.
“Mr. Chairman, I don’t see how this is outing the whistleblower,” Jordan replied. “The witness has testified in his deposition that he doesn’t know who the whistleblower is.”
“You have said — even though no one believes you — you have said you don’t know who the whistleblower is. So how is this outing the whistleblower to find out who this individual is?”
Schiff, who denied knowing the identity of the “whistleblower” last week, put on a display of dignity, but never answered Jordan’s question.
The logic of the points raised by Nunes and Jordan is unassailable. Neither Vindman nor Schiff would have any idea whether Vindman had used the name of the “whistleblower” if, in fact, they weren’t aware of his identity.
People on the Internet quickly understood the catch-22: