d. So good.

Alright. Well, so if you've been watching Vindman's testimony today, here's what he said. Now remember, Vindman is sort of one of the most key witnesses, and he had reported that the Ukrainian phone call was quote inappropriate. Inappropriate. And why was it inappropriate? Well, he explained that a bipartisan or having any kind of a partisan investigation by Ukraine, in other words it would look partisan if they were looking into Trump's opponent in the election, he said that that would put them at risk for not being supported by Congress. And if Congress doesn't support Ukraine, and Ukraine is a bulwark against Russia, that could be bad.

So which part of that is impeachable? None of it. None of it. He's sort of their key witness, and it just turns out that inappropriate is a difference on policy and a different set of priorities.

Now let me ask you this. If your job is to make sure that Ukraine policy gets done right, if your job is to make sure that Ukraine stays a good bulwark against Russia, and by the way if you were born in Ukraine, gentleman who I believe was born in Ukraine so it was during the Soviet Union and his father left the Soviet Union with him, but so he's got a real dog in the fight here. He's sort of anti-Russia.

So here's the thing. How often in your experience has a subordinate said that the boss doesn't have his priorities right because the boss's priorities are not the same as the employee's priorities? How often does that happen? Probably if any of you are at work it's happening within ten feet of you. Probably every one of you has complained about your boss having his priorities wrong. And the nature of those complaints, they're always along the lines of you know I think the boss should put more priority on my project because if the boss puts more priority on somebody else's project, well that's inappropriate because mine is the good one.

Now the thing that Vindman, and let me say that all of this suggests that Vindman is good at his job. Alright, so if it sounds like I'm throwing Vindman under the bus I'm doing exactly the opposite. Vindman is a guy you want on your staff. He's fighting for his project. He's saying you know let's make my project a priority. You know I know you got some questions about Ukraine but let's keep my project the priority because it's the important one. Good employee. I would keep that guy. Wouldn't you?

I remember, I'm gonna tell you a story. True story. One day in my corporate career my boss's boss who was like vice president I guess who needed to go to a budget meeting in which all the different departments were arguing about who should get how much budget. And of course the nature of the budget conversation was that you were each fighting to get as much of the budget as you could because it was a limited pool. You just wanted to get your chunk.

So the boss's boss couldn't make it so he sent me to argue on his behalf for the importance of the budget for his department. They got in the meeting and whoever was running the meeting said well you've asked for this amount of money how important is this? And I'm sitting there and somebody asked me about this big budget item that I'm supposed to be defending and they say how important is this compared to these other things we're doing? And I sat there and I thought it's not. It's just not. Sorry I'm here to defend it but I wouldn't. You compare it to these other things they look more important to me.

How happy was my boss's boss when I left that meeting and he learned that I had given away his money because the thing he was asking for was less important objectively speaking than what the other departments said they needed the money for? Well let's just say it wasn't the happiest day of my career.

So here's the thing. Vindman's job is to fight for the priorities that he believes are true and they're in there about his project and he did. I think Vindman's an A+ employee. Vindman never said the president should be impeached. Vindman never said the president didn't do his job. Never said that. He basically complained about the priorities and the policy.

Now the president apologist, 101 that's a block word so I block people who use that because it's just such a low level of comment. You're an apologist, you're an apologist.

So here's the thing. So the president thinks or thought that Ukraine's involvement in the election 2016 and maybe a future involvement and Biden's connection over there were worth looking into. Now that's a different priority than what Vindman was thinking. He had a few moves. Who was right? Who was right? Was Vindman right that it was a risk we shouldn't do it because it could affect bipartisanship, bipartisan support in this country for Ukraine? Was he right or was the president right that we should put, it's okay to put a