Thanks to the ongoing leaking strategy meant to help Adam Schiff shape an impeachment narrative with the help of the propaganda media, we now know that Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman told “impeachment investigators” that at least two portions of the July phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky were omitted from the transcript of the conversation released by the White House.
Republican Rep. Scott Perry (PA) confirmed the latest report, remarking, “Yeah, he testified that in two occasions the ellipses, the dot-dot-dot, should have been some words. We annotated those on our copies of the call. I will tell you that some people may see them as significant. I don’t see them as significant.”
Vindman, who listened in on Trump’s call with Zelensky, told investigators that the president undermined U.S. national security when he pressured his foreign counterpart to investigate Hidin’ Joe Biden and his crack enthusiast son, according to a copy of Vindman’s opening statement, which you can read here.
Schiff’s favorite leaking partners, the New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, reported that Vindman also testified that the White House’s readout of the call had missing words and phrases, and that he was unsuccessful in attempting to restore all the omissions to the rough transcript.
Rep. Perry says he was also not impressed with Vindman’s supposed attempts to “correct the record” on the transcript.
“The words, generally speaking, that were replaced have already been kind of noted elsewhere, either in the call or in conjecture,” Perry said. “So it might be significant in some people’s mind. It might be just inartful, and just a clerical discrepancy.”
Perry wouldn’t divulge what was allegedly discussed during the parts of the call left out of the official White House summary. He refused to confirm reports that Vindman said that Trump referred to recordings of Biden talking about corruption in Ukraine and that Zelensky mentioned Burisma Holdings, the Ukrainian energy board who so greatly valued Hunter Biden’s expertise.
“I’m not allowed to divulge what was said in the hearings for — because of a potential ethics violation,” Perry said, adding: “I don’t think that that part was part of his opening statement, so I got to be careful what I talk about the particulars there. So I just can’t get into that.”
Militant RINO Lindsey Graham said that while he did not doubt that Vindman is “doing what he thinks is right,” his addendums to Trump’s call with Zelensky did not change the conversation in any substantive way.
“I have read the transcript, and if you add his corrections in, it doesn’t change anything for me,” Graham said.
Meanwhile, hysterical woman and Senate Minority Leader Cryin’ Chuck Schumer wrote to Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy to request a briefing on how Vindman is being protected, the reason being that conservative media, the president and Rudy Giuliani attacked him publicly over his testimony.
Schumer warned that “this vitriol … may result in professional reprisals and threats to his personal safety and that of his family,” adding: “It is incumbent on the Army to ensure that he is afforded the same protections as whistleblowers and protected from reprisal for testifying before Congress.”
He’s surely more concerned about Vindman than he ever was about Trump supporters when Mensa Maxine Waters openly called for us to be confronted in public.
So who is this Vindman guy, anyway?
Lt. Col. Vindman came to our shores as a very young boy in 1979, when he and his two brothers, father and grandmother fled Ukraine, then a Soviet republic, for the U.S. His mother died in Ukraine before they were able to escape.
Armed with a master’s degree from Harvard in Russian, Eastern Europe and Central Asian studies, he joined the Army as an infantry officer and did tours in South Korea, Germany and Iraq. In October 2004, not long into his yearlong tour in Iraq, he was wounded by a roadside bomb and awarded the Purple Heart. He also earned a Ranger tab and Combat Infantry Badge, which the Democrats want to highlight now that they have the utmost reverence for our brave veterans.
**Offer not valid for Mike Flynn, Tulsi Gabbard or anyone else who ventures from leftist dogma.
These days, Vindman is director of European Affairs at the National Security Council. Since 2008, he has served as a foreign area officer specializing in Eurasia, leading him to stints in Kiev and Moscow. He also served as a political-military affairs officer for Russia for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He moved to the Trump White House in July 2018 after being tapped to serve on the NSC.
His job consists of “developing, coordinating, and executing plans and policies to manage the full range of diplomatic, informational, military and economic national security” for various countries in his portfolio, but primarily Ukraine and Russia.
And from reading his opening statement to the House Intel Committee, it’s clear that his connection to Ukraine is so strong within him that it’s caused him to forget his role. After giving a quick biography in which Vindman touts his own patriotism and “sacred duty and honor to advance and defend OUR country,” he goes on to mention that he was bothered by an “alternate narrative” that, in his eyes, would have undermined the future of Ukraine and our policy towards them, although the exact narrative is not described.
None of that should have been in his opening statement, nor should it have been on his mind when he decided to testify in an impeachment inquiry against the President of the United States. His personal feelings on policies or “narratives” is absolutely irrelevant, but the fact that he puts them up front shows that he is clearly influenced by his own agenda. People like him should not be working on the National Security Counsel. He shouldn’t even be assigned to that part of the world, as he is clearly incapable of separating his personal feelings from his duty as an 0-5 in the Army.
There is one section of his opening statement that is relevant. It deals with a July 10 meeting between Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council for Ukraine Oleksandr Danylyuk, then-National Security Advisor John Bolton, Ambassador Kurt Volker, Ambassador Gordon Sondland and Energy Secretary Rick Perry.
He describes the meeting thusly:
The meeting proceeded well until the Ukrainians broached the subject of a meeting between the two presidents. The Ukrainians saw this meeting as critically important in order to solidify the support of their most important international partner. Amb. 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.
Following this meeting, there was a scheduled debriefing during which Amb. Sondland emphasized the importance that Ukraine deliver the investigations into the 2016 election, the Bidens, and Burisma. I stated to Amb. Sondland that his statements were inappropriate, that the request to investigate Biden and his son had nothing to do with national security, and that such investigations were not something the NSC was going to get involved in or push. Dr. Hill then entered the room and asserted to Amb. Sondland that his statements were inappropriate.
Dr. Fiona Hill, the top Trump advisor on Russia, told essentially the same story when she testified two weeks ago. She reportedly said the mention of investigations into the 2016 election, Burisma and the Bidens made John Bolton go “ballistic” after the meeting..
Hill reportedly said after the meeting, Bolton instructed her to go raise their concerns about Rudy Giuliani and his alleged shadow Ukraine operations with White House lawyers. Bolton reportedly said he did not want to be part of any “drug deal” that was being cooked up on Ukraine, and that Giuliani was a “grenade that’s going to get us all killed.” Hill allegedly then met with NSC lawyer John Eisenberg to express her concerns about Giuliani’s activities and how they were being carried out by Sondland and Volker.
For his part, Ambassador Sondland seems to have testified to being aware of a desire for investigations into the Ukraine, but that he had no inkling that it could be part of a quid pro quo and certainly had no conversations with the Ukrainian government intimating as much. President Zelensky must not have been too aware of it, either, seeing as how he received the aid without having to hold press conferences about investigating Burisma or anything else.
As of now, we seem to have a lot of conjecture regarding what was “expected” from Ukraine, and most all of it seems to be coming from people who were wary of the president’s efforts to shift our foreign policy to a more Russia-friendly—or at least Russia-cooperative—approach. Lt. Col. Vindman seems to be the latest to continue that trend.
Whether Vindman was genuinely concerned or simply a political hack trying to do his part to help a presidential coup, I don’t care about his feelings about President’s Trump call to Ukraine. If you’ll remember, this whole thing started from a “whistleblower complaint,” and said complaint was centered on the accusation of a quid pro quo.
Yet despite all the backroom maneuvering, coordinated leaks and testimony from those with questionable motives, four key facts still remain:
-President Trump and President Zelensky both say there was no pressure
-The transcript shows no conditionality
-Ukraine didn’t know aid was held back at time of the call
-Ukraine never took any of the actions they were supposedly being pressured to take
So the truth is, no quid pro quo actually took place. What is being alleged is an attempted quid pro quo, at best. Even, given the four facts I just laid out, there is no smoking gun of that intent. The Senate trial, should it come to that, will not be based on Democrats’ feelings of what Trump meant to do or what was in his evil boogeyman heart. It will be about facts. And as of now, there is no high crime for which to convict the president, regardless of how bad some Army 0-5 thinks his presidency is for Ukraine.
The Sham Continues
Monday, Nancy Pelosi issued a letter implicitly acknowledging that more transparency and fairness is needed in the process. Today, it’s clear that letter was disingenuous at best. The vote promised by Pelosi is not a vote to authorize impeachment but a vote to validate and continue this sham.
The resolution permits the Majority to continue holding proceedings in secret whenever the Majority arbitrarily decides to do so. Are things going bad for Schifty Schiff? No problem! Just slam down the gavel and declare the hearings to be for the committee’s ears only.
And, unlike previous impeachment proceedings, the Democrats’ assurance to offer Republicans the right to issue subpoenas is also sham. In fact, Republicans are only authorized to issue subpoenas if Schiff and the Democrats on his committee agree with them – the exact same situation in which committee Republicans find themselves.
Furthermore, it gives President Trump no explicit right of due process and instead instructs the Chair of the Rules Committee to determine down the road what the procedures will be for participation of the president and his counsel. So when they need to address the president, they’ll let him know if and how he may defend himself. What an absolute joke.
The president is given no right to see all evidence, present evidence, call witnesses, have counsel present at all hearings and depositions, cross-examine all witnesses, make objections relating to the examination of witnesses or the admissibility of testimony and evidence, or respond to evidence and testimony.
How can President Trump defend himself if he cannot see the evidence against him? And just as importantly, how can the American people make an informed judgment? Under this resolution, the House would deputize Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler to be prosecutor, judge and jury.
The good news is, Dims have given Republicans more ammo for their “secrecy/unfairness” narrative, and if this thing actually does make it to the Senate for a trial, they won’t have these advantages. Rather, there will be an actual trial wherein the majority of the jury will be under intense pressure from their constituents to give the president a fair shake, if not kill the trial on arrival. So for all the shady moves Dims make, there will come a time when the party will be over.
Their hope is to strongly shape public opinion by the time that happens, the Senate goes along with their charade. Given the basic facts of the case as I understand them so far, that is not going to happen. Deep State operatives can show up and cry on camera all they like about their “feelings,” but the fact still remains that a quid pro quo never actually happened in reality. And reality is going to be a very unwelcome guest once he arrives at the Democrats’ doorstep, both now and next November.
If you feel that I’ve earned a donation, please click the box below. If you would like to pay more than $1, simply increase the number of donations in the area provided. I’m profoundly grateful for any support you can offer. Thank you so much and keep fighting the good fight! Venmo: @trey-vaught